[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.

                          ____________________