[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H790-H794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 772, COMMON SENSE NUTRITION
DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1153,
MORTGAGE CHOICE ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4771,
SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY RELIEF ACT OF 2018; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 725
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 772) to
amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve and
clarify certain disclosure requirements for restaurants and
similar retail food establishments, and to amend the
authority to bring proceedings under section 403A. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1153) to amend
the Truth in Lending Act to improve upon the definitions
provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage
transaction. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4771) to raise
the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank
holding company policy statement, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-57 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of February 9, 2018.
Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of February 8, 2018, or February 9, 2018, for
the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the
rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
{time} 1015
General Leave
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
[[Page H791]]
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. This rule makes in order two bills reported
favorably by the Committee on Financial Services and one bill reported
favorably by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I just want to take
a moment at the beginning to point out that there are no amendments
made in order by this rule because there were no amendments offered to
any of these bills.
Both of the Financial Services bills were the subject of hearings in
the committee last year. Both bills were reported out of committee with
bipartisan support of 75 percent or more of the committee members.
The Energy and Commerce bill was reported favorably by the committee
with a large bipartisan vote of 39-14.
The rule also provides us with the necessary tools to ensure that we
can bring government funding measures to the floor quickly to prevent a
government shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, we have three bills before us today. Each of these bills
deals with one underlying problem: Washington overregulation. That is
it. These are not bills protecting Americans from some foreign hostile
force. These are bills protecting Americans from the overreach of their
own government.
It is a sad time in which we find ourselves when we must dedicate
legislative effort to undoing the harmful effects of the American
government on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the CFPB issued its rule commonly referred to
as the qualified mortgage rule, or the QM rule. The QM rule requires
creditors to make a good faith effort to determine a customer's ability
to repay a loan if the loan is secured by a home. However, the rule
creates a legal safe harbor from liability under the rule for qualified
mortgages.
One aspect of a qualified mortgage is that it cannot have total
points and fees exceeding 3 percent of the total loan amount if the
loan amount is at least $100,000. However, some fees may be excluded
from the points and fees cap if they are reasonable and the lender or
any affiliate of the lender receives no compensation from the service.
This all sounds well and good. We certainly don't want predatory
lending institutions referring business to themselves just to pad their
bottom line at the expense of unsuspecting borrowers.
But this is a great example of how massive, one-size-fits-all
Washington regulation often ends up hurting Americans. The result of
the points and fees cap within the QM rule has been to place low- and
moderate-income borrowers in a position where they end up spending more
money to secure a loan.
Mr. Speaker, my home State of Colorado has been experiencing
explosive population growth over the past decade and longer. Between
2009 and 2016, we added a net increase of more than 600,000 people. But
home prices also increased significantly over that time, more than 57
percent.
In 2016, according to The Denver Post, we had the lowest growth we
have experienced in many years at only a 30,000-person net increase. In
part, the slowing growth rate has to do with rising housing costs. This
is why it is vitally important that many first-time homeowners and
others have access to affordable loans. Government regulation should
not be a part of driving up housing costs.
Why does this happen? Why does a Federal regulation result in hurting
the very people it is intended to help?
It is simple: Washington regulators cannot take into account the
unique circumstances of each individual American. This is a crucial
difference between the common sense of Americans across this land and
the self-importance of some here in D.C.
Many in D.C. believe firmly that the Federal Government is able to
protect every American from every bad experience. They express enormous
faith in so-called experts who believe they can effectively govern from
afar the lives of Americans.
I reject this notion. I reject the belief that a class of enlightened
experts and bureaucrats in Washington can better run the lives of
individuals. That philosophy deprives Americans of the freedom to make
their own choices. When Washington's power expands, individual liberty
retreats. So we have to have bills like the ones before us today.
The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill required the CFPB to issue
the QM rule. The QM rule was supposed to help low- to moderate-income
borrowers save money, but, instead, the QM rule created a situation
where low- and moderate-income borrowers cannot take advantage of
discounted services offered by their lender.
The rule forces these borrowers to secure these services from third
parties which almost always charge more than the lenders would charge
for the same services. The negative impact of this rule is so
abundantly clear that half of the committee's Democrats voted with all
of the Republicans in support of fixing this provision of Dodd-Frank.
Passing this bill will not magically cause housing in Colorado to
become more affordable, but it will eliminate an unnecessary regulation
that needlessly drives up borrowing costs.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to rolling back Dodd-Frank regulations, the
second Financial Services bill that we have before us today protects
the ability of small banks to issue debt and raise capital.
The Federal Reserve generally discourages bank holding companies from
using debt to finance acquisitions, particularly the purchasing of
banks. However, the Federal Reserve carved out certain small bank
holding companies.
In order to be considered a small bank holding company, these
companies had an asset cap of $150 million. By 2015, the cap had been
increased to $1 billion. The bill before us today increases the cap to
$3 billion.
As we have heard last night during testimony at the Rules Committee,
there is no science or data behind the level of the cap. Think about
that for a second. The government has established a cap that has a
negative impact on our community banks, and the cap has no basis in
anything, not science, not data, not historical financial patterns,
nothing. The cap is simply a whim of Washington.
Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. It is time we allow our community banks
to have an avenue to continue being locally owned and based in our
communities rather than being bought out by Wall Street.
Today we have two Financial Services bills before us that reduce
regulations and allow Coloradans and all Americans greater freedom in
the choice of banking services. I urge support of these two bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
I rise today to debate this rule, the Common Sense Nutrition
Disclosure Act, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2017, and the Small Bank
Holding Company Relief Act of 2018.
H.R. 772 would amend the labeling requirements for nutrition
information displayed by restaurants and other retail food
establishments. This measure would unnecessarily complicate and further
delay the implementation of nutrition labeling requirements established
by the Affordable Care Act.
In what can only be described as a rather astounding attempt to avoid
good sense, this bill will make calorie and nutrition information less
accessible and less useful to consumers at a time when we are spending
$147 billion annually on healthcare measures related to chronic
illnesses that are directly tied to obesity. Consumers need more access
to this information, not less.
The second measure, H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2017, would
introduce some of the high fees that borrowers faced leading up to the
2008 mortgage and financial crisis. This bill would roll back important
home-buyer protection reforms, taking us back to the days when the true
cost of a loan could be obscured in mortgage documents to the detriment
of home buyers everywhere.
The third measure, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018,
would direct the Federal Reserve Board to triple the Small Bank Holding
Company Policy Statement from $1 billion to $3 billion, allowing even
larger banking institutions to use greater amounts of debt to finance
acquisitions, seemingly ignoring the lessons
[[Page H792]]
from the previous financial disaster that we continue to climb out of
to this very day.
Indeed, these Financial Services bills would weaken and politicize
the policies created after the financial crisis to identify and guard
against systemic risk in our financial system; and will allow even
larger bank holding companies to leverage themselves with debt when
financing the purchase of other banks.
Reviewing this legislation, I had to ask myself: Are the memories of
my Republican colleagues really so short that they do not remember the
complete breakdown of our financial system only a few short years ago?
Let me remind my friends across the aisle that the financial crisis
of 2008 was the worst economic downturn America has faced since the
Great Depression. Four million homes went through foreclosure and 9
million Americans lost their jobs.
Yet, instead of supporting efforts to ensure a financial collapse of
such magnitude does not happen again, the majority has, instead, chosen
to weaken the very protections put in place to prevent it.
With this in mind, we are left with two questions of equal
importance: On the one hand, why are the Republicans so set on
weakening much-needed and proven economic protections and making it
harder for people to knowingly buy healthy food? And, secondly, why are
they doing so now?
Mr. Speaker, the government runs out of funding this Thursday at
midnight. We, once again, are forced to stare down the very real
possibility of another shutdown because the Republican leadership
either cannot or will not govern in a mature and reliable manner.
Instead, our country is forced to lurch from continuing resolution to
continuing resolution for no discernible reason. I think we are coming
up on continuing resolution number 5.
Rather than taking the time to address their ever-present inability
to govern responsibly, we are here today to debate evidence of that
very inability, namely, the three bills we will be asked to vote on
shortly.
It strikes me as odd, and is certainly frustrating, that I must, once
again, remind the majority that we have yet to pass a budget agreement
that provides an equal increase to both defense and nondefense
spending.
Caveat right there. Later today, when we take up the CR, it is likely
going to be said by a lot of people that our primary responsibility is
to provide for the defense of this Nation, and I agree 100 percent. But
that does not ignore the secondary responsibility of promoting the
general welfare, and there are a variety of measures that are
unattended and need to be attended. I might add, military people,
veterans, and others find themselves in need of those particular
services that are unattended as well.
We have yet to enact disaster aid so that our fellow Americans in
Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, California, and
southwest Louisiana can recover from the devastating hurricanes and
wildfires.
{time} 1030
We have yet to provide funding, and we will be talking about that a
little bit later in our previous question request. We haven't provided
funding for what we all know is the urgent opioid crisis. We have yet
to protect hardworking Americans' pensions, and we have yet to see a
serious proposal from Republican leadership to protect DREAMers and
those whose temporary protected status will soon run out.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my friend from Florida that
we were both here on the floor as the House of Representatives passed
all 12 appropriations bills in early September.
As we look across to the other side of the Capitol, not much work has
been done on those appropriations bills since they left the House and
traveled to the Senate.
The answer to the continuing problem that we have with continuing
resolutions is to find Members of the Senate who are willing to work as
hard as the House has and pass appropriations bills and fund the
government.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening right now, and I
hope we do pass a continuing resolution, I hope we do fund the
military, and I hope we give some more stability to this government.
But the finger pointing in this case I don't think is warranted in
the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs.
Love).
Mrs. LOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support
of the underlying bills: H.R. 772, the Common Sense Nutrition
Disclosure Act of 2017; H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2017; and
my bill, H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018.
Both H.R. 1153 and H.R. 4771 have received strong bipartisan support
in the Financial Services Committee, and I urge my colleagues to
support this rule.
The goal of H.R. 4771 is one that I have been pushing for the past
few years to help our small banks thrive and serve their communities.
Since that is a shared goal on both sides of the aisle, I am grateful
that Mr. Gottheimer and Mr. Meeks joined me in cosponsoring this bill.
The Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018 is a very simple
bill that helps small banks and savings and loan companies get the
access to capital they need to serve the financial needs of small
businesses and individuals in their communities.
This bill would simply raise the consolidated asset threshold under
the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement from
$1 billion to $3 billion in assets.
Raising the asset threshold means that hundreds of additional small
banks and thrift holding companies around the country will qualify for
coverage under the policy statement and, therefore, be exempt from
certain regulatory and capital guidelines.
These exemptions make it easier for these small holding companies to
raise capital and issue debt. Many holding companies that are above the
current threshold face challenges with regard to capital formation,
which is particularly of concern for small institutions that are
struggling to meet higher capital level demands by regulators.
The Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement was first issued in
1980 and provides exemptions from certain capital guidelines for small
bank institutions. These capital standards were originally established
for larger institutions and disproportionately harm small bank holding
companies.
The policy statement also makes it easier to form new banks and
thrift holding companies and to make the acquisitions by issuing debt
at the holding company level.
These are all important tools in ensuring that our smallest
institutions can continue to lend to consumers and small businesses in
their communities and survive in an environment that continuously
challenges our community banks.
The policy statement also contains several safeguards designed to
ensure that small bank holding companies that operate with higher
levels of debt permitted by the policy statement do not present an
undue risk to the safety and the soundness of these subsidiary banks.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill to help our small banks stay
strong and continue to support their communities. The last time the
threshold was raised in 2014, the effort received widespread bipartisan
support.
H.R. 4771 also received strong bipartisan support in the Financial
Services Committee during the most recent markup.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give equal support to this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, every day, more than 115 Americans die from an opioid
overdose. In 2016, the opioid epidemic claimed more American lives than
car accidents and even breast cancer.
In order to tackle this growing crisis, we need to pass legislation
that invests in effective solutions. Even President Donald John Trump
agrees. Last year, he said: ``It is a national emergency. We are going
to spend a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money on the
opioid crisis.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have not spent a lot of time, a lot of effort,
or a lot of money on this crisis. Instead, the President and the
Republican Party spent most of last year trying to take
[[Page H793]]
away healthcare from millions of Americans and passing a tax cut for
billionaires and corporations. And to that, Mr. Speaker, I say: Enough.
We need to act now.
For that reason, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Kuster's
bill, H.R. 4938, the Respond to the Needs in the Opioid War Act.
This legislation would create a $25 billion opioid epidemic response
fund to invest in programs that will help States respond to the
epidemic over the next 5 years.
I happen to live in south Florida, which has an equivalent crisis
with everyone around the Nation. The people with addiction problems
seem to gravitate to several areas in south Florida, particularly
Delray Beach and Palm Beach County, where I live.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) to discuss our proposal,
who is a true champion on this issue.
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, in New Hampshire and all across this country, people are
dying every day. Communities have been devastated by the heroin and
opioid epidemic. Last year, we lost nearly 500 people to substance
abuse disorder in my small State of New Hampshire.
Helping families, first responders, treatment providers, law
enforcement officials, and activists in the Granite State confront this
crisis has been one of my top priorities in Congress.
Our communities need our help, and there is strong bipartisan
commitment here in the House to respond effectively to this crisis.
While we have passed effective legislation over the last 2 years,
including the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, the most
important thing that we can do is to provide the funding to help those
on the front lines of this crisis do their jobs.
While I and my Democratic colleagues welcome the President's
declaration of an opioid public health emergency, the lack of
corresponding funding means that this commitment has been little more
than empty rhetoric.
We need leadership from Congress and the President to save lives
across the country by providing real solutions to the opioid epidemic,
and I call on my colleagues to act now.
During the State of the Union, the President, once again, expressed
his commitment to working to address the opioid and heroin epidemic,
but, unfortunately, his actions have fallen short of his rhetoric.
I have come to the floor today so we can defeat the previous question
and bring up for consideration my legislation, the Respond NOW Act.
This critical legislation creates a $25 billion opioid epidemic
response fund to provide $5 billion annually over 5 years targeted to
numerous key initiatives involving agencies such as the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.
This includes $18.5 billion for SAMHSA grants to States, particularly
those targeted at expanding medication assistance treatment, which
opioid experts agree is among the most critical ways to help those
suffering from substance use disorder.
My bill also provides funding to increase the number of substance use
treatment providers and to expand medical research related to the
opioid epidemic.
Additionally, it provides $2.5 billion for critical CDC initiatives,
such as expanding and strengthening evidence-based prevention and
education strategies.
Finally, the bill includes funding specifically to support children
and families impacted by this opioid epidemic, including $250 million
to support the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which can help
address the risk of adverse childhood experiences, a known driver of
this epidemic.
We need to break the cycle, and these programs are ideally suited to
support substance abuse treatment services to help families stay
together and keep children in safe and stable homes.
The opioid crisis is a multifaceted challenge, and we are fortunate
that so many amazing researchers, first responders, law enforcement
officials, community activists, and others are doing amazing work in
communities all across our country. But they need the resources to
effectively meet these challenges. We must stop playing political games
and act immediately to provide emergency funding to help stop this
crisis in New Hampshire, in Florida, and all across this country.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn now to the final bill made in order under
this rule, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.
Mr. Speaker, in 2016, I had the privilege to visit with one of my
constituents, Lamont Muchmore. Lamont owns a Papa John's pizza
franchise and invited me to come to his restaurant. He even taught me
how to throw, or how to toss--maybe throw, maybe toss--a pizza. It was
a great experience. I got to meet members of his team and hear about
their professional goals. I am happy to say that the American Dream is
alive within the hearts of the people of Colorado.
However, my visit with Lamont was not without concern. You see,
recently, Washington had decided to push a hugely disruptive regulation
on our food service industry.
In the interest of ensuring Americans had information on their food
choices, Washington crafted a one-size-fits-all mandate that every menu
item be labeled with its nutritional content.
As someone who has become extremely aware of the quality of foods
that I consume, I certainly understand the do-good intentions behind
this kind of regulation. But the impact on businesses like Lamont's has
been substantial. In fact, some businesses have no realistic way of
complying with the rules.
Further, the law that put these regulations in place, ObamaCare,
placed criminal penalties on those who fail to comply. How ridiculous
is that? If you mislabel or fail to properly label the calorie count on
a menu item, you could be fined and go to jail.
The bill before us today rectifies some of the harm done by this
rule. The bill allows multiple avenues for businesses such as Lamont's
pizza restaurant to comply with menu labeling requirements in the most
cost-effective manner possible.
While I don't believe the Federal Government needs to require the
calorie count of a food item on a menu in Colorado, this bill offers a
compromise. Americans will still have access to nutrition information
about the food they are purchasing, while businesses will be able to
provide a variety of prepared and local foods without fear of major
penalties if one serving happens to be slightly different in its
calorie count than the last serving.
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to visit with
Coloradans who are working hard to build their businesses, provide for
their families and community, and employ people, only to be met with
the constant headwind that our Federal Government blows in their faces
through its Washington-knows-best regulatory schemes. Washington should
get out of the way and let Americans do what we do best: cultivate our
resources for the good of our family and neighbors.
I think often of Coloradans like Lamont. It is men and women like him
all across this great land that are doing the important work. I am
committed to ensuring that this Federal Government stops jeopardizing
their hard-won success, and that Washington's so-called experts give
honor where it is due: to the hardworking American people.
I thank Lamont for taking the time out of his day to visit with me.
This bill answers the needs of his team, and I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H794]]
I ask the gentleman from Colorado: Does Lamont own more than one
establishment?
Mr. BUCK. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. He does.
Mr. HASTINGS. Does he own more than 20?
Mr. BUCK. I don't believe he owns more than 20.
Mr. HASTINGS. If he doesn't own more than 20, then he is not affected
by this law. I just want you to know that. I am with you. I want Lamont
to be successful.
Mr. BUCK. I will pass that information on to Lamont, although I
disagree with your reading.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, Democrats do not want
to weaken financial protections keeping our economy stable and strong.
Democrats do not want to make it harder for Americans to know the
nutritional value of their food.
Rather, Democrats are ready to pass a budget that creates jobs and
grows the paychecks of hardworking Americans. Democrats are ready to
provide relief to our fellow Americans suffering from natural
disasters. Democrats are ready to protect American's pensions.
Democrats are ready to protect DREAMers; people who have known no other
country than the United States; people, who, but for one piece of
paper, are just as American as anyone who will walk in this Chamber
today; people who served in the United States military, almost 1,000 of
them.
Preferably, we would like to do that work in a bipartisan way. All we
need is for the Republican Conference to stand up to the extreme
faction in their party and to finally work with us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Washington is out of step with the vast majority of the American
people. It is true that we often do work here that moves our country
forward, that protects this great land, but it is also true that there
is a competing worldview in this City which seeks to rule over the
American people.
In Colorado, we have experienced the negative effects of overreach by
the Federal Government.
How is it that regulators living 1,700 miles away from us believe
they can create rules that take into account our needs and that respect
our way of life?
It is just not possible.
Washington is good at stamping out large Federal programs. The
problem is that it usually stamps out individual liberty in the
process. This City must stop telling the people of Colorado how to live
every detail of their lives. Washington's so-called experts must stop
burying Colorado businessmen and -women under piles of rules.
If we truly free our people to grow and pursue their hopes and
dreams, we will experience a renaissance of growth unmatched in our
history. This Congress has done good work in rolling back the strong
arm of the Federal Government, but there is more work to do.
These bills before us continue what should be a never-ending pursuit
of giving back to the people their personal liberty which has been
confiscated by overreaching Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Walden for
their work on these bills. I thank Chairman Sessions for bringing these
bills to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bills and the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 725 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4938) to address the opioid epidemic, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4938.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________