[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.

                          ____________________