[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 74 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3790-H3795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5645, STANDARD MERGER AND
ACQUISITION REVIEWS THROUGH EQUAL RULES ACT OF 2018; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2152, CITIZENS' RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 2018; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 57, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU OF CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 872 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 872
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5645) to
amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to
provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall exercise
authority with respect to mergers only under the Clayton Act
and only in the same procedural manner as the Attorney
General exercises such authority. 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 the
Judiciary; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 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 bill (H.R. 2152) to
require States and units of local government receiving funds
under grant programs operated by the Department of Justice,
which use such funds for pretrial services programs, to
submit to the Attorney General a report relating to such
program, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary 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 the Judiciary; 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 joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 57) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating
to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act''. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution 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 commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lamborn). 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 my friend, the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Torres), 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 rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
The rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the Judiciary
Committee and a Senate joint resolution that gives this House an
opportunity to utilize the Congressional Review Act to repeal the
CFPB's onerous regulation on indirect auto lenders.
The first proposal we will consider today is the Citizens' Right to
Know Act of 2018. This piece of legislation, offered by my friend and
colleague from Texas, Judge Ted Poe, will bring much-needed sunlight to
the Federal pretrial services programs.
We will also consider legislation offered by my fellow Judiciary
Committee member, Representative Handel from Georgia, which ensures
companies entering into merger proceedings will receive equal
treatment, whether their case is reviewed by the Department of Justice
or the Federal Trade Commission.
Finally, the House will consider a joint resolution that will repeal
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's burdensome guidance on
indirect auto lending. Senator Moran's legislation previously passed
the Senate 51-47 on March 22, 2018. President Trump has also signaled
his support for this legislation.
The rule makes in order one amendment to the Standard Merger and
Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules, or SMARTER, Act.
Why?
Because all other amendments offered were not germane to the subject
matter being discussed in these important pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have an opportunity to debate a crucial
component of the criminal justice system: federal pretrial release
programs. Before the 1960s, defendants had three options to be released
prior to trial. Individuals were either released upon one's own
recognizance, or if they posted commercial bail, or the individual
would remain in prison until his or her hearing date.
However, in the 1960s, the Johnson administration established a
fourth option: pretrial services programs. These programs were
originally intended to assist nonviolent, indigent individuals who did
not possess the means to post commercial bail. The program captured
information about the alleged offender's community ties and released
low-risk individuals without financial obligations. The program only
required a signature and a promise to appear in court.
While pretrial release programs were created to serve those
individuals who do not pose a threat to the community and could not
afford to post commercial bail, these taxpayer-funded programs have
quickly expanded and overgrown their original intent.
Today, more than 300 pretrial release programs exist across the
United States. These programs are being used to slowly eliminate a
successful service that operates independently of Federal tax dollars:
the commercial bail system.
In fact, a number of major cities across the country are exploring
the potential of moving completely to a pretrial release system while
significantly reducing the use of commercial bail.
[[Page H3791]]
However, the problem with this expansion and these federally funded
pretrial release programs is that they allow violent individuals and
repeat offenders to participate even when many of these defendants are
perfectly capable of posting a commercial bond and have previously done
so.
Offenders are not required to post any collateral for their release.
There is no supervision to ensure that they show up in court on their
hearing date. Worst of all, there is no incentive to prevent a criminal
from committing another crime in the meantime.
If you have ever watched an episode of the popular television show
``Dog the Bounty Hunter,'' you know that this is not how the commercial
bail system works. These professionals ensure that defendants show up
for trial on the correct date, or they will physically bring the
individual in question to the courthouse for their hearing.
{time} 1230
On top of these issues, federally funded pretrial release programs
are not required to report to the Department of Justice any information
regarding an offender's past criminal history, utilization of the
pretrial release program, failure to appear before a court, and any
other relevant compliance data. A judge is essentially releasing
potentially dangerous individuals back into the community with so
little as a wink and a promise that they will appear in court.
We cannot allow this practice to continue. Mr. Speaker, our
constituents deserve to know whether their tax dollars are being spent
responsibly.
Judge Poe's bill, the Citizens' Right to Know Act, will address these
significant concerns by ensuring that the Department of Justice and
Congress have the information we need to determine whether these
programs that receive millions of dollars from the Federal Government
are operating effectively.
The legislation requires the Attorney General to submit a report to
Congress annually that includes information regarding each defendant
participating in a pretrial release program. The report will include
the individual's name, each occasion the individual failed to appear
for court, and the individual's previous arrest record.
Additionally, this proposal ensures that local jurisdictions will
submit required data to the Department of Justice by establishing that
any failure to produce this report will result in forfeiture of a
portion of the jurisdiction's Federal grant funds for the following
year.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good government solution that will
provide much-needed oversight for pretrial services programs and give
communities an incentive to ensure we are not allowing violent repeat
offenders back on the streets without the correct level of supervision.
Finally, this important legislation will also ensure that the
millions of taxpayer dollars we spend annually on those programs are
being utilized in the best way possible.
We owe it to our constituents to make sure that we know how their
hard-earned money is being spent. It is about time that we brought a
little sunlight to these programs that allow potentially violent
offenders to go free in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee also moved an important piece of
legislation that will bring parity to the merger and acquisition
process no matter which Federal agency takes charge of the antitrust
review process.
Currently, both the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division
of the Department of Justice have authority to enforce section 7 of the
Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers and acquisitions that could
undermine competition in the marketplace or create a monopoly. Both
agencies receive notice of proposed mergers and are given an
opportunity to review the transaction, while only one agency ends up
taking custody of the transaction.
However, the FTC and DOJ maintain different standards when seeking a
preliminary injunction against a proposed merger. This disparity
manifests itself in multiple ways. However, one main difference is that
the DOJ will often seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction
before a district court, while the FTC has fought against this
consolidation of injunctions. That means that two separate Federal
agencies with two different legal standards oversee the merger process
without any clear guidance determining which agency and standard will
be used to examine the transaction.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue fostering this double standard
surrounding merger and acquisition review. Businesses need certainty
before attempting to enter into major transactions, and Federal
regulatory bodies must be as transparent as possible when making
decisions that can create major ripples in the country's economy.
Representative Handel's bill, the SMARTER Act, gives businesses
certainty about how their merger will be reviewed before entering into
a major deal. This important piece of legislation harmonizes the
Federal antitrust review process by ensuring mergers and acquisitions
will be treated identically no matter what Federal regulatory agency
reviews the transaction. This bill will treat businesses in a way that
will encourage continued economic growth, build market stability, and
ensure the review process will be the same no matter which Federal
agency reviews the transaction.
Mr. Speaker, while we are debating the topic of financial stability
and economic growth, we are also here to discuss an important piece of
legislation the Senate recently passed and we will consider on the
House floor this week.
The House will debate S.J. Res. 57, Senator Moran's legislation that
offers a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act
that would overturn the CFPB's onerous regulation of the indirect auto
lending industry. In fact, despite being expressly prohibited from
overseeing auto dealers in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the
CFPB promulgated and issued guidance regulating the indirect auto
lending industry.
To make matters worse, the CFPB tried to disguise this harmful
regulation by issuing it in the form of a guidance document, which does
not need to go through the typical notice and comment process. This
arduous regulatory scheme sought to disrupt third-party lending,
especially from small community banks and credit unions in the auto
loan market. The CFPB did so by issuing guidance stating that, in order
to avoid liability under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, institutions
with indirect lending relationships with auto dealers must either place
controls on dealer compensation or forbid dealers from offering a
marked-up rate on loans.
The CFPB overstepped its statutory authority once again in what the
agency described as an attempt to reduce discrimination in the
marketplace. However, as Chairman Hensarling testified before the Rules
Committee yesterday, the House sent 13 letters to the CFPB questioning
the rationale for the rule and science the agency used to determine
that there was discrimination occurring in the marketplace. Not
surprisingly, the CFPB could not point to sound science that led to
this decision. In fact, new evidence shows that the CFPB's expected
outcomes could be off by as much as 20 percent.
To make matters worse, Chairman Hensarling also testified that this
rule is expected to increase the per person cost of purchasing an
automobile by $586 per loan. I know that in eastern Colorado, $586
makes a big difference. That is the difference between being able to
put money aside for taking a family vacation or making much-needed home
repairs.
This guidance has only resulted in removing options from consumers,
reducing the ability to find affordable auto financing, and setting a
dangerous precedent in how to dance around Federal rulemaking
processes.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that this Congress takes steps to rein in the
CFPB's unaccountable, overbroad regulatory powers. One agency should
not have the ability to significantly curtail an entire facet of the
lending market. Additionally, no agency should be able to skirt formal
rulemaking procedures when issuing guidance of this magnitude.
The CFPB's indirect auto lending rules create an unworkable situation
where an independent agency, manned by unaccountable bureaucrats,
flagrantly ignored Federal statute to do what it thinks is best for the
American people. Instead of benefiting the American people, though,
this guidance
[[Page H3792]]
threatens to raise the cost of credit, cut back opportunity for
indirect lending, and has created disincentives for financial companies
to provide customers with discounted auto loans.
Congress must take this opportunity to overturn a detrimental
guidance that is not only circumventing the rule of law by disguising
new regulations in an effort to draw less scrutiny, but is also raising
rates and providing fewer choices for consumers.
This resolution of disapproval will accomplish all of these goals.
The legislation, which recently passed in the Senate 51-47, will
utilize the Congressional Review Act process to overturn the CFPB's
guidance while also sending a clear message that agencies should not be
circumventing congressional oversight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week, many of us spent our time in the district
working, meeting with our constituents, seeing the good work that
people are doing, and learning what issues people want us to take up
when we return to voting.
I wish I were before you lauding the majority's leadership for
finally taking up the most important and pressing work for our
constituents, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, this
rule brings three bills to the floor, three bills none of my
constituents have been pleading for, three bills that don't require
immediate action, bills that may not even see Senate consideration.
Last year, this majority set the record for the most closed rules in
a session, and it seems that nothing has changed.
The first bill considered in this rule is H.R. 2152, the Citizens'
Right to Know Act. While I understand the goal of this legislation, by
attempting to improve the pretrial services programs to keep dangerous
criminals off the streets, this bill fails to accomplish the real need
to improve how our Nation's flawed bail systems operate. While this
bill received a markup, it received no hearings and was reported out of
the Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote. Surely, we can
do better than this.
The second bill we are considering is H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger
and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or SMARTER Act. Quite
simply, this bill aims to weaken the Federal Trade Commission's ability
to carry out the agency's antitrust responsibilities.
Maybe things are different elsewhere in the country, but I have not
had one constituent call my office complaining about the need to weaken
the FTC's antitrust enforcement abilities. No. People in southern
California are more concerned about good wages, finding affordable
housing, and getting their children a good education. However, again,
we will take up this legislation, which already died in the Senate last
Congress. This legislation undermines the independence of the FTC and
undercuts the congressional intent and purpose for the agency's
creation.
There are far more important issues under the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee that we should be considering instead, including
bipartisan gun safety measures and legislation to protect Dreamers.
However, instead of considering these very important issues facing our
Nation, we are debating a bill to make technical changes to antitrust
laws that, if enacted, would only be used in exceedingly rare
situations.
Finally, the third legislation included in this rule is S.J. Res. 57,
a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution of a CFPB rule
relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.'' Unlike the other two bills included in this
rule, this joint resolution hasn't seen a single hearing or markup in
the House.
If the majority is fine with bringing up legislation that has yet to
have a hearing, why not bring up the Dream Act?
Two weeks ago, I spoke about some of the more important issues our
constituents care about, and nothing about my time back home in
California changed my beliefs of what we should be working on. In fact,
over the past 2 weeks, we have seen even more Members sign on to
Representative Denham's Queen of the Hill resolution. Three more
Members of the majority now support an open process.
For those who may not understand what Queen of the Hill means, it is
really quite simple: let the best idea win.
If Speaker Ryan allows us, Queen of the Hill would give all the
competing immigration proposals in Congress a vote on the floor. All of
us would have an opportunity to vote on the four most well-known
proposals: the Dream Act, Chairman Goodlatte's bill, the USA Act, and
any other bill the Speaker sees fit for a vote. This is how the House
should work: an open process where we take up the most important issues
of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before
us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends like to claim that their tax scam
bill they jammed through Congress last year, skewing all the benefits
to the wealthy and rich corporations, is some sort of panacea that will
eventually trickle down all of its benefits to American workers, curing
all the ills in our economy. That tired idea hasn't worked before, and
it isn't working now.
But don't take my word for it. Just ask the Republican Senator from
Florida, Marco Rubio, who said in a recent interview: ``There is still
a lot of thinking on the right that, if big corporations are happy,
they're going to take the money they're saving and reinvest in American
workers. In fact, they bought back shares; a few gave out bonuses;
there's no evidence whatsoever that money's been massively poured back
into the American worker.''
All this Republican majority seems intent on doing is bringing up
bills that benefit large banks and big businesses. When are we going to
do something for workers?
As we toil on rolling back the Wall Street regulations and cutting
taxes for the richest corporations, the 21st century economy is
changing. Mr. Speaker, over the next decade, approximately 45 percent
of all jobs will be in middle-skill occupations, which require more
than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree.
Registered apprenticeship programs are a vital element of training for
these middle-skill occupations and helping individuals contribute to an
effective workforce.
A highly skilled workforce is necessary to compete in today's global
economy, but this Republican majority has given working Americans a raw
deal instead of extending a helping hand. Luckily for my Republican
colleagues, today we will give them an opportunity to vote on
legislation that will actually benefit American workers and finally
help them get a better deal.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's LEARNS Act,
H.R. 2933, which would promote effective registered apprenticeships
that would give students and workers the skills they need to find well-
paying jobs.
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
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Zeldin).
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for an
important resolution, S.J. Res. 57. I proudly sponsor the House
companion legislation to this Congressional Review Act resolution to
repeal ill-founded guidance issued by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau relating to the dealer-directed auto lending market.
Mr. Speaker, only to a group of unaccountable bureaucrats in
Washington, D.C., would it make sense to raise the
[[Page H3793]]
cost of lending for some of the most vulnerable consumers while, at the
same time, claiming you are doing this edict to help them.
The indirect auto lending market, also known as dealer-directed
financing, is loans offered to car buyers in the dealership where they
are purchasing the vehicle, as opposed to direct auto loans which
consumers get from banks or other financial institutions.
Dealer-directed financing is an important option for consumers and
provides them and the dealership they are purchasing the vehicle from
with the flexibility to meet a consumer's needs based on their budget
and credit score.
In 2013, in an attempt to shut down this market, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, under the leadership of Richard Cordray,
issued this flawed guidance based on questionable ``disparate impact''
statistics. To justify this illegal and secretive edict, the CFPB
falsely accused honest automobile dealerships and the financial
institutions they work with of unproven violations of fair lending
practices.
The CFPB, through its own admission, noted a 20 percent error rate in
its data, and an independent audit of the data used to justify this
ruling showed an error rate as high as 41 percent.
If the CFPB had followed the law, most notably, the Administrative
Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment on any pending
regulations, they could have been held accountable for their use of
deeply flawed data to justify a questionable regulation. To get around
the law, however, the CFPB issued the ruling as ``guidance,'' but then
proceeded to enforce this mandate as a Federal regulation. Through this
flawed attempt to take control of the $1.1 trillion auto lending market
by effectively barring dealer-directed financing, this Obama-era CFPB
ruling could raise the cost of auto loans by nearly $600 for each
consumer.
Let's be absolutely clear: discrimination of any kind, whether in
lending, housing, or other financial services, is morally repugnant and
also very illegal under various Federal and State laws, including the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA.
But what is also very wrong and illegal is when a rogue Federal
agency sidesteps the law and common sense by creating a false claim of
unfair lending practices with zero proof, transparency, or
accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the hard work of Director Mulvaney in
undoing so much of the damage caused by his predecessor, but it is
critical we assist him by changing the law. Through passage of this
resolution, Congress will use its Article I powers and our authority
under the Congressional Review Act to strike down this flawed
regulation.
Once a regulation is repealed through passage of CRA resolution into
law, Federal agencies are barred from issuing a similar regulation in
the future. Through this resolution, we can assure that this Warren-
Cordray-Obama attack on automobile dealerships and their customers will
never be revived by a future administration.
Just 2 years ago, a similar measure to rein in a flawed CFPB ruling
passed this Chamber with overwhelming bipartisan support. I hope this
continues to be a priority on both sides of the aisle, and I urge all
of my colleagues to support this rule.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I mentioned, this rule includes three bills. One of those is H.R.
2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. The Citizens' Right to Know Act
fails to address the real problems in our Nation's bail system and,
instead, threatens to make things much, much worse.
I don't think many of us disagree with the need to assist our local
governments in keeping dangerous criminals off the streets while
respecting the rights of those who may be innocent of crimes and have
yet to have had their day in court. This legislation makes things
worse. It threatens Federal assistance and would encourage local
governments to lean more on high bail demands.
Unlike many bipartisan proposals in Congress which seek to make real
improvements to bail, this bill will likely result in more low-income
individuals being kept in jail simply because they aren't one of the
fortunate who can afford to pay bail. This is a real issue in southern
California and why I have worked with my colleagues on legislation to
implement ``ability-to-pay'' rules to bail demands. Your income
shouldn't determine your freedom.
In our community, bail was so excessive that private companies found
a way to get rich off people who couldn't afford to pay the high costs.
We ended up with people stuck in permanent contracts, paying hundreds
of dollars a month to companies that found ways to skirt the rules of
bail bondsmen.
We support greater transparency in our criminal justice system;
however, this bill falls short of that goal. Rather than shedding the
light on our trial system, this bill undermines Americans' privacy
rights and exposes defendants to vulnerability.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, has come out in strong
opposition to this bill, citing privacy concerns due to the personally
identifiable information that will be collected and publicly reported
by the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of the ACLU's position
letter.
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.
Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of
2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler: On
behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we write
to express our opposition to H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right
to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House Judiciary Committee
considers this bill. This legislation raises privacy concerns
for the ACLU given the personally identifiable data that is
to be collected and publicly reported by the federal
government. The bill also undermines efforts to eliminate or
reduce jurisdictions' reliance on money bail systems. We urge
the Committee to instead consider H.R. 1437, the ``No Money
Bail Act of 2017,'' and H.R. 4019, the bipartisan ``Pretrial
Integrity and Safety Act of 2017,'' two bills endorsed by the
ACLU.
For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation's
guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and
communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and
liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United
States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU takes up
the toughest civil liberties cases and issues to defend all
people from government abuse and overreach. With more than
two million members, activists, and supporters, the ACLU is a
nationwide organization that fights tirelessly in all 50
states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, for the principle
that every individual's rights must be protected equally
under the law, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, disability, or national origin. The Citizens'
Right to Know Act is inconsistent with the ACLU's mission.
The Citizens' Right to Know Act Raises Privacy Concerns
The Citizens' Right to Know Act requires jurisdictions
receiving funds from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
report to the Attorney General the names, arrest records, and
appearance failures for those participating in DOJ funded
pretrial services programs. The legislation allows the
Attorney General to make public the names, arrest records,
and failure appearances that jurisdictions report. Except for
a clause that subjects the data ``to any applicable
confidentiality requirements,'' the bill does not provide any
explicit privacy protections for those whose personally
identifiable information has been collected by the federal
government and is subject to public release. The bill
requires that the Attorney General penalize noncompliant
jurisdictions by denying them 100% of the DOJ grant program
funds that are used to support pretrial services programs.
While the ACLU appreciates the need for the federal
government to collect and report data, personal privacy
interests must be balanced with public interests. When
personally identifiable information is being collected and
publicly reported, the ACLU largely believes that such
information should be obtained and disseminated only with
individuals' informed consent. We also believe that the
potential to harm individual reputations should be considered
when arrest records are publicly shared. We are troubled that
the Citizens' Right to Know Act would collect and publicly
report personally identifiable information of individuals
participating in pretrial services programs--individuals who
have not been convicted of a crime given their pretrial
status.
[[Page H3794]]
The Citizens' Right to Know Act Undermines Bail Reform Efforts
The Citizens' Right to Know Act is inconsistent with
bipartisan efforts to reform money bail systems, like the
Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act, which the ACLU endorses.
By collecting and reporting only certain data about pretrial
services programs and those participating in them, the
Citizens' Right to Know Act will depict a one-sided picture
of pretrial services programs and participants. For example,
the legislation's focus on when an individual has failed to
appear promises a negative narrative around the pretrial
stage. If this bill were serious about measuring the true
impact of pretrial services programs, it would collect a more
robust data set and not that which is of interest only to the
bail bonds industry.
The ACLU supports bail reform that corrects the injustice
of basing a defendant's release on how much money the person
has. Instead of considering the Citizens' Right to Know Act,
the Committee should take up the Pretrial Integrity and
Safety Act. This legislation would incentive jurisdictions to
reform their money bail systems through federal resources
rather than penalize them like the Citizens' Right to Know
Act, which denies DOJ grants to noncompliant jurisdictions.
The Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act would build safer
communities, stronger families, and a fairer criminal justice
system by ensuring that people who are innocent in the eyes
of the law are not deprived of their freedom because they
cannot afford money bail.
For the above described reasons, the ACLU urges Members of
the House Judiciary Committee against favorably reporting out
the Citizens' Right to Know Act. Instead, we encourage the
Committee to give serious consideration to bail reform bills
through legislative and oversight hearings on the issue. If
you have any questions, please contact Kanya Bennett,
Legislative Counsel with the ACLU.
Sincerely,
Faiz Shakir,
National Political Director.
Kanya Bennett,
Legislative Counsel.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this bill fails to provide explicit privacy
protections for the individuals whose personal information will be
collected and subject to public release, and jurisdictions that fail to
comply with these reporting requirements face the severe penalty of
losing 100 percent of their DOJ pretrial services grant funding.
Not only does this bill fail to require consent from the defendants
to publicly release information about their alleged crimes and their
private information, but it also poses the very real threat of
destroying their reputation. These individuals have not been convicted
of a crime nor have they had their day in court, given their pretrial
status.
These are the concerns that could have been raised if this
legislation was given a full, robust debate through committee hearings.
I am disappointed that my amendment to this bill, which would have
addressed one of the many abuses perpetrated by the money bail system,
was not made in order. My amendment would have prohibited predatory
companies from locking people into seemingly lifetime contracts of
monthly fees.
We can do better. These are bipartisan issues. For this reason and
many other concerns I have with the closed process we are operating
under, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have before us a rule that makes three pieces of legislation in
order: a bill that increases transparency for pretrial release
programs, legislation that streamlines the review process for mergers
and acquisitions, and a resolution of disapproval for the CFPB's
harmful indirect auto lending rule.
The Federal Government's greatest responsibility to its citizens is
to secure their safety and security. Congress has a duty to recognize
when there is a security problem that is putting people in jeopardy,
especially when it is a Federal pretrial release program that is
putting potentially violent offenders onto the streets without any
supervision. The American people deserve to know that their hard-earned
tax dollars are being spent in the most responsible way possible. We
cannot continue pushing millions of dollars into broken programs that
release dangerous individuals back on the street.
Additionally, Congress has a statutory duty to ensure that businesses
are not pursuing anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. However,
that does not mean that we should continue fostering the current
climate that features the DOJ and FTC maintaining two distinctly
different processes for reviewing these transactions. We have the
unique opportunity to create certainty for businesses while harmonizing
the review process with the SMARTER Act.
Finally, the House must take advantage of this opportunity to rein in
the CFPB utilizing the Congressional Review Act's power to overturn
harmful regulations on the indirect auto lending industry. Not only
will this resolution of disapproval end a detrimental piece of
guidance, but it will also send a strong message to regulatory agencies
that they cannot overstep their statutory boundaries and will not get
away with attempting to cloak major regulatory actions merely as
guidance documents.
I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 872 Offered by Ms. Torres
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.
2933) to promote effective registered apprenticeships, for
skills, credentials, and employment, 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 Education and
the Workforce. 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. 2933.
____
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
[[Page H3795]]
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.
{time} 1300
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.
Mrs. TORRES. 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.
____________________