[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1554-H1559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4545, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
EXAMINATION FAIRNESS AND REFORM ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 1116, TAKING ACCOUNT OF INSTITUTIONS WITH LOW OPERATION RISK ACT
OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4263, REGULATION AT
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 773 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows
H. Res. 773
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4545) to
amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Act of 1978 to improve the examination of depository
institutions, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution 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; (2) the further amendment printed in part
B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the
Member designated in the report, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question; and (3) 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
[[Page H1555]]
bill (H.R. 1116) to require the Federal financial
institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and
business models of institutions into account when taking
regulatory actions, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution 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. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4263) to amend
the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to small company
capital formation, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment printed in part D of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution 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.
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 Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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.
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?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation. The rule makes in order three bills reported favorably by
the Committee on Financial Services. All three bills were the subject
of multiple hearings before the Committee on Financial Services. All
three bills were reported favorably by a bipartisan majority without
amendment. The rule ensures that each of these provisions are fully
paid for and makes in order an amendment offered by the Democrat
ranking member on the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of working with Chairman Hensarling
to bring many Financial Services Committee bills to the floor for
debate. I will be here again tomorrow doing the same thing. I am always
amazed at how bipartisan these votes are in the Financial Services
Committee.
Once again, we have before us today components of the Financial
CHOICE Act. As I have already noted, each of these bills received
bipartisan support in the committee. I anticipate that these bills will
receive a bipartisan vote on the House floor as well.
Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the Senate is working
hard toward their own bill overhauling Dodd-Frank. It is about time.
The House has already done its work under the leadership of Chairman
Hensarling. We passed the Financial CHOICE Act nearly a year ago. But I
certainly understand that the Senate has its own ideas about financial
reform.
I would encourage the Senate to look at the roster of bills that we
have passed unpacking the CHOICE Act, as they demonstrate a clear
bipartisan roadmap to overhauling our financial regulatory reform
effort. We continue to provide that roadmap today.
The first bill made in order by this rule is sponsored by my good
friend, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. H.R. 1116, the TAILOR
Act, is commonsense legislation that I am pleased to cosponsor.
One of the biggest complaints I hear as I travel the Fourth
Congressional District of Colorado is how the Federal Government stamps
out cookie-cutter regulations without a thought as to how much
variation occurs in industries from State to State. For example, how do
Washington regulators take into consideration the unique business model
of AMG National Trust headquartered in Colorado? Do they know better
than my good friend Earl Wright, who cofounded the bank in 1972, about
the banking needs of his customers? Are they able to differentiate
between AMG's needs and the needs of a bank in another State or on Wall
Street? Typically, the answer is no.
They do not model banking regulations to the particular differences
from State to State. But even inside a State there is diversity within
industries. The needs of AMG National Trust's customers vary from the
needs of other community banks in my district; such as, the Bank of
Burlington or Community State Bank, both of which are on the Eastern
Plains.
The TAILOR Act solves this problem. It requires regulatory actions to
take into account each particular institution's business model and risk
profile. Mr. Speaker, this change would be an innovative regulatory
reform. It would ensure that overarching goals of accountability to
investors and depositors are maintained while providing flexibility in
the application of the regulations to each institution.
Independent community banks and credit unions have been hit hard by
Dodd-Frank's wrong-headed approach to financial services regulation. In
2016, former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said: `` . . . when it
comes to bank regulation and supervision, one size does not fit all''--
and--``rules and supervisory approaches should be tailored to different
types of institutions such as community banks.''
The TAILOR Act will do just that. It will reorient our regulatory
structure and free up our community lending institutions to increase
their investments in our communities, creating jobs and opportunities
for Americans.
This rule also makes in order H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+
Improvement Act. This regulation was the result of the JOBS Act passed
by Congress in 2012. While Regulation A had been around for many years,
it caused startups to enter into a cumbersome process for raising money
from certain types of investors. The process is so inefficient that
most startups avoided it altogether.
Regulation A+ revamped the regulation and raised the amount of money
that entrepreneurs could raise in their startup fundraising round.
Crucially, it also changed the type of investor who could invest in a
startup. Prior to the JOBS Act, essentially only accredited investors
could participate in the first fundraising round.
The problem is that, according to research done by Forbes magazine,
accredited investors only made up 1 percent of the population, thereby
excluding 99 percent of Americans. The JOBS Act changed the regulation
to allow nonaccredited investors to participate in a startup's initial
fundraising round. Expanding the pool of investors has proven to be a
success, and the Regulation A+ Improvement Act continues reforming this
area of investment regulation by further increasing the threshold
investment amount. This bill will ensure greater access to capital for
entrepreneurs seeking investors in their startup.
Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 4545, the Financial
Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act. This bill establishes
deadlines by which certain regulatory decisions must be made and
provides for a more transparent appeals process. Under current law,
financial institutions may appeal regulatory determinations to an
intra-agency appellate process. The Financial Services Committee found
during hearings that the appeals process was not as impartial as it was
intended to be.
This bill removes the appeals process from the original examining
agency and creates an independent examination review director who is
able to review regulatory determinations. To ensure timeliness of
regulatory reviews, the bill requires the final reports from agencies
are completed within 60 days.
The combination of a better appeals process and deadline for agency
action gives community financial institutions certainty as a regulator
evaluates their practices.
[[Page H1556]]
{time} 1230
Certainty in the regulatory arena will ensure that lending
institutions do not needlessly restrict capital investments due to the
unpredictability of a regulatory agency's decisionmaking process.
These three bills continue to advance smart financial regulatory
reforms that the Committee on Financial Services has been known for
under Chairman Hensarling. Washington's cookie-cutter approach to
regulation hinders investments in Colorado and across the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I support these measures, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule provides
for the consideration of three bills out of the Financial Services
Committee. Before I turn to the bills, I want to talk about the urgent
issues that are not scheduled for floor time this week.
Why aren't we debating appropriations bills to keep the government
funded through the end of this fiscal year?
Just 2 weeks away from another government shutdown, yet, instead of
discussing how we can keep government open through the end of the year,
we are debating unrelated bills.
We are halfway through the current fiscal year and we are forcing a
month-after-month crisis of government funding. This is no way to run a
government or a business. Agencies need certainty. Our constituents
need to know that they can rely on government services and the security
of our Nation. We should be discussing appropriation bills now.
In addition, there are over 800,000 DACA recipients, or Dreamers,
that don't have any certainty, whose ability to work legally hinges
upon a court decision that is on appeal.
In my home State of Colorado, there are over 15,000 Dreamers from
countries far and wide, young, aspiring Americans who grew up in our
country and know no other country, who are able to work legally today,
but who risk the expiration at any moment by the whim of a court.
Every day, over 100 DACA recipients lose their protected status or it
expires. We need to take up, in this body, a permanent solution for
Dreamers, a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to rely on
the whims of the court system to protect them.
Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have demanded that
Speaker Ryan bring an immigration bill to the floor. In fact, in the
past, he said he would do so--last week, the week before. Yet we still
haven't brought forward the Dream Act, or the Hope Act, or any of the
bills that I am proud to cosponsor, that are bipartisan, that would
address the urgent issue of how we can ensure that Dreamers are able to
work legally.
Even as we speak now, there are students on the Capitol lawn
participating in an organized walkout in support of ending school gun
violence. Students in Colorado are joining as well. I sent a letter to
be read to the students who are doing that because I hope that we agree
that no young person should have to fear going to school, nor should
any parent have to fear sending their child to school.
I strongly support sending more resources to schools that create
supportive environments, that foster emotional and mental health. And,
yes, we need to do more on gun violence, including universal background
checks.
So why aren't we discussing those bills here today?
In addition, the administration's budget eliminated title IV-A of the
Every Student Succeeds Act, which is the very kind of support and
enrichment grant that helps schools support health and mental health
services and counseling. So in the administration's own budget, it
would undermine our ability to keep schools safe.
School safety funding is not a replacement for gun safety measures,
but it can help reduce violence by supporting our children in school
and creating a safe learning environment.
Those are some of the pressing issues that we could be considering; I
dare say that our constituents are demanding that we consider. I dare
say our continued ignoring of these issues is one of the reasons that
the congressional approval rating is so low. Nobody is calling my
office asking for these obscure bills today on regulations of big
banks.
I am getting calls from constituents about reducing gun violence in
schools; finding a permanent solution for DACA recipients; keeping
government open, and protecting the integrity of our elections from
foreign interference.
My colleagues must have short memories because we just forget how
hard the financial meltdown of 2008 was on the country's middle class.
While Wall Street banks were getting taxpayer bailouts, nearly 7
million Americans lost their homes, workers lost thousands of dollars
in retirement accounts, and our unemployment rate spiked to 10 percent.
Since Dodd-Frank was signed into law, we have avoided another major
meltdown. The banking system is strong again because of the Dodd-Frank
reforms, yet my Republican colleagues continue to bring bills to the
floor that are aimed at crippling financial regulators to put banks
ahead of the safety of the financial system, consumers, and the
economy.
H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act, would require that Federal regulators
tailor any action to limit the burdens on financial institutions. What
this bill does is force Federal regulators, those in charge of
protecting consumers and our system from risk, to conduct a time-
consuming re-analysis limiting what they look at to the burdens on
financial institutions, the very protections that were put in place in
Dodd-Frank and, instead, change those to financial institutions, not to
ensure consumer protection, to reduce costs rather than ensure
protection.
It is almost like you are giving such authority to the tailors that
they cut up your whole suit, and that is not what we want. If there are
adjustments that need to be made, we should make them through statute,
not give broad authority to government regulators to shred consumer
protections.
H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform
Act, would establish a new Office of Independent Examination Review,
yet more bureaucracy and paperwork, and have financial institutions
appeal and postpone supervisory determinations, creating yet more
Republican red tape, more big government committees that the
Republicans seem so fond of at the cost to taxpayers.
This is, again, one of those bills that could have been easily
tailored to provide targeted improvements to the exam process, but,
instead, the Republicans want to set up more government committees and
more red tape.
H.R. 4545 takes away the financial regulators' ability to supervise
financial institutions, instead, creating new government panels that
risk putting consumers at additional risk.
The last bill being considered under this rule is H.R. 4263, the
Regulation A+ Improvement Act. This bill would increase the annual
exemption threshold under the SEC's Regulation A+ for companies to sell
initial public offerings while being exempt from registration and
disclosure requirements.
The purpose of the JOBS Act, as my colleague from Colorado mentioned,
is to help startups and small businesses access capital by easing some
security regulations. Regulation A+, unlike these other two proposals,
actually reduces regulations, so it is a good bill. I plan on
supporting it. It would make it easier for smaller, nonpublic companies
to access capital by allowing them to offer shares to the general
public.
So two bills setting up new bureaucracies and new Republican red tape
commissions that tie up government, and one that actually reduces
regulation, which I think will have more Democratic support.
Currently, a company offering up to $50 million in securities is
exempt from SEC registration requirements. This bill is very simple. It
just raises the threshold from $50 million to $75 million. Compliance
costs are very expensive. So for a company in that range, they are
often prohibited from accessing capital markets.
The SEC has the authority to raise the offering limit, something that
Congress gave the SEC the authority to do. The JOBS Act requires the
SEC to review the limit every 2 years, and if they decide not to
increase it, the SEC has to report to Congress.
[[Page H1557]]
According to the Kauffman Foundation, startup activity has increased
steadily over the past 3 years. Startups are a major job creator in our
communities. Reducing red tape and bureaucracy is a good idea. Startups
create 3 million jobs annually, and we need to continue to find ways to
support startups and entrepreneurs.
So, again, the biggest problem with all of these bills is that they
have nothing to do with what the American people are demanding Congress
act on. Two of them create more Republican red tape, bureaucracy, give
more power to the Federal Government. One of them helps small
businesses raise capital by reducing regulation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have two other speakers. Neither of them are
here at this point in time. I would be glad to listen to more of the
things that the House should be doing, if Mr. Polis would like to
engage in that discussion. But at this point, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
President Trump's March 5 deadline ending DACA has come and gone, and
all we got out of the White House was tweet after tweet, a stifling of
bipartisan proposals in the Senate, and a continued failure to lead.
President Trump tweeted: ``Total inaction of DACA by Dems. Where are
you? A deal can be made.''
Mr. Speaker, has the President forgotten that it was his decision to
suddenly end the DACA program that has thrown the system into chaos?
Well, to answer his question, the Democrats are right here. My
colleague is right here with a motion to solve DACA right now. Let's do
it. Let's rumble. This is actually the 25th time that we have attempted
to bring the bipartisan bill, the Dream Act, for a vote on the floor of
the House, while it is Republican colleagues who have stood by ignoring
the will of this House and the Nation and refusing to let us vote on a
bill that would fix DACA.
The Democrats have been and are making our position clear. We want
immigration policies that make America safer and that reflect the fact
that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. It is time
that President Trump and my colleagues on the other side work with us
to ensure that.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This
bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of
young people who are American in every way except for on paper.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I stand on this floor to speak about our
Dreamers.
Again, I must ask very simply: What happened?
For months, Washington refused to pass a budget. We had many
continuing resolutions. Again, one of the issues was Dreamers.
After spending caps were raised for both military and nonmilitary
expenditures, we got a budget and both Democrats and Republicans voted
for that budget. Yet, still, no action for the Dreamers.
Eighty percent of the public wants a fix. We recognize that Dreamers
are soldiers, teachers, police officers. They are our friends. They are
our neighbors. The President has said he wants also a fix to the
Dreamer issue, yet here we are again, one more time, and, again, the
Dreamers face a very uncertain future.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop using Dreamers as pawns in a bigger
political chess game. At the State of the Union Address here on this
floor, my guest was a Dreamer, a young lady studying chemistry at one
of my local universities. She wants to be a scientist, and I know she
is going to be a very good scientist. That is what chemistry majors do.
You know, America is the land of immigrants, and we have many, many
hardworking immigrants. That is what Dreamers are. They work hard. They
study hard. They pay taxes. They follow the law. They have been fully
vetted. Yet, today, again, we ask: What happened to the Dreamers?
I ask my colleagues, let's give Dreamers the opportunity to earn the
American Dream. Let's give them the opportunity to earn citizenship.
And let's not live with regrets. Let's not look back 20, 30 years from
now and say what we could have, should have, would have. Now is the
time to act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can immediately bring up the Dream Act to the floor
and give relief to almost a million young people who want nothing but
to earn the American Dream.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), the sponsor of H.R. 4263.
Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here to debate a rule
on the Regulation A+ Improvement Act. As much as I also want to do
things regarding the Dreamers, the issue at hand is a bill that is
meant to help those who are creating jobs.
I want to thank my cosponsors, Representatives Sinema and Gottheimer,
for cosponsoring the bill. Any time we can do a bill together on a
bipartisan basis, I think it is a better bill.
{time} 1245
The purpose of this bill is pretty simple. Seven out of ten jobs in
this country, new jobs, come from the 28 million small businesses. I
used to run one of those businesses and grew it to be a larger national
business, and I know from experience that you have to have capital to
grow businesses.
If we help companies raise capital, then we help them create jobs.
Biopharmaceutical companies in my State of New Jersey are perfect
examples. These are growing companies. They are capital intensive. They
need help. The government can't do everything, but the Federal
Government can play a role in helping these companies access capital,
and that is what this bill is about.
Regulation A+ of the 1933 Securities Act, the very first securities
law in this country, Federal law, allowed companies to offer shares on
public exchanges. It required that any company that engaged in
interstate commerce had to register with the SEC.
They made two exceptions: Regulation A+, which was for Main Street
investors, but it put a cap on the amount that could be offered; and
Regulation D, which allowed an unlimited offering to companies that
were only selling to accredited investors. It has been really helpful
in creating jobs and giving companies access to capital.
This bill is a modest improvement. Over time, Regulation A+ has gone
from a small limit to, most recently, a $50 million limit under the
JOBS Act of a few years ago, and it is time to raise that limit again.
There is good precedent for this. The JOBS Act actually required that
the SEC raise it within 2 years of 2015, when the JOBS Act took effect,
or they had to explain to Congress why they didn't. Well, they haven't.
They haven't raised it.
We have an interest in making sure that we help our companies in this
country create new jobs, and so this bill would raise that limit from
$50 million to $75 million and allow companies to make offerings to
Main Street investors, everyday people trying to find good companies so
they can build a future for their families.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been through committee markup. It was open
to amendments. It is a bipartisan bill. It has gone through the Rules
Committee. It is in order for this bill to move to the floor, and I
urge that the rule be passed.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any remaining
speakers?
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for our all-
Colorado lineup.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of H.R. 1116 and H.R. 4545.
[[Page H1558]]
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Buck) for the time, and I appreciate consideration of the
rule here today.
Mr. Speaker, both of the bills being considered under this rule
amount to real relief for our Nation's community banks and credit
unions.
H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act, which passed out of committee with
bipartisan support, will direct Federal financial regulators to tailor
their regulations to the risk profile and business model of our
institutions, meaning that regulation intended for the largest
financial institutions will no longer burden the smallest of our
institutions.
Our community banks and credit unions have long suffered the
consequences and costs of complying with extensive heavyhanded and
onerous regulations. They were created after the 2008 financial crisis.
While many of these regulations are necessary for financial
institutions of all sizes, many are not.
Complying with manifold regulations has significantly hampered the
ability of our community institutions to offer credit to small
businesses, help families get a mortgage, and extend loans to retirees
and the recently employed. As one community banker wrote to me: ``We
have seen time and again the impact of this regulatory environment
consume many hours and resources of our compliance, credit, and audit
teams despite the relatively simple business model we follow.''
By requiring financial regulators to consider the cost of compliance
on smaller institutions as well as whether or not a regulation is
necessary for an institution based on the size and risk profile of that
institution, the TAILOR Act will go a long way to alleviate the burden
of heavy regulation on our community banks. In turn, this will lead to
renewed economic growth for our local communities that rely heavily on
the presence of community banks and credit unions in their own
hometowns.
The other bill being considered under this rule, H.R. 4545, which
also came out of committee with bipartisan support, the Financial
Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, will provide
certainty for community banks and credit unions that they will have
independent recourse should a bank examination result in a
determination that they disagree with.
If a bank or a credit union receives an examination decision that it
finds unfavorable, the only recourse it has under the current structure
is to appeal that decision directly to the same regulator that arrived
at that decision in the first place. The Exam Fairness bill included in
this rule will change that reality by creating a new Office of
Independent Examination Review that will serve as an independent
appeals office, providing banks and credit unions with uniform and
predictable avenues to appeal examination determinations of significant
consequence.
At this independent office, sober review of the agency's
determination, transparency, and timeliness will be paramount, meaning
that financial institutions will no longer have to wade through long
delays in their appeals process and will no longer have to fear
retaliation from a financial regulator because they appealed the
examination results. Mr. Speaker, this amounts to new assurances to
community banks and credit unions that they will have fair recourse in
the examination process should they disagree with an examiner's
findings.
I would like to thank the Speaker for advancing this rule.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that our community banks
and credit unions can realize real relief.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Once again, Congress is spending our limited time here on the floor
debating issues that are not being asked for by our constituents,
creating new government commissions and Washington red tape that gets
in the way of our economic growth and success.
We have spent countless hours debating bills that the Senate probably
won't even take up instead of the items we need to do like
appropriations bills, where we are 2 weeks from the expiration of
government funding.
Apparently, these bills are rushed to the floor to score political
points for special interests instead of dealing with the over 800,000
Dreamers whose ability to work legally hangs in the balance of a court
decision.
We are considering legislation that creates new commissions and red
tape instead of focusing on how to put more money in the pockets of the
middle class.
I strongly urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the rule and the
previous question so we can bring the bipartisan Dream Act forward and
finally show that, yes, the House of Representatives can do its job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It really is fairly simple. Washington's regulations tend to strangle
economic growth. What usually starts as a do-good effort quickly
devolves into a ``Washington knows best'' regulatory regime. Instead of
recognizing the unique needs of businesses around this country, the
Federal Government usually stamps out a cookie-cutter regulation that
purports to be the solution to a problem but, in reality, almost always
has unintended consequences that reduce the freedom of Americans and
reduces economic activity in our communities.
The bills before us today take a balanced approach to regulation,
maintaining overarching safeguards while making commonsense reforms
that free our community banks and credit unions to increase investment
in our communities.
I promised Coloradans that I would work to reduce the role of Federal
Government in their lives. These three bills today do just that.
I thank my fellow Coloradan, Mr. Tipton, for introducing two of these
measures. I thank Chairman Hensarling for bringing these bills to the
floor.
I urge passage for the rule and the underlying rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 773 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children 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 the Judiciary. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
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,
[[Page H1559]]
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. POLIS. 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.
____________________