[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7962-H7974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SECURE AND FAIR ENFORCEMENT BANKING ACT OF 2019

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1595) to create protections for depository institutions that 
provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses 
and service providers for such businesses, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1595

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Secure And 
     Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019'' or the ``SAFE Banking 
     Act of 2019''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to increase public 
     safety by ensuring access to financial services to cannabis-
     related legitimate businesses and service providers and 
     reducing the amount of cash at such businesses.

     SEC. 2. SAFE HARBOR FOR DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--A Federal banking regulator may not--
       (1) terminate or limit the deposit insurance or share 
     insurance of a depository institution under the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.), the Federal 
     Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), or take any other 
     adverse action against a depository institution under section 
     8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818) 
     solely because the depository institution provides or has 
     provided financial services to a cannabis-related legitimate 
     business or service provider;
       (2) prohibit, penalize, or otherwise discourage a 
     depository institution from providing financial services to a 
     cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider or 
     to a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian Tribe 
     that exercises jurisdiction over cannabis-related legitimate 
     businesses;
       (3) recommend, incentivize, or encourage a depository 
     institution not to offer financial services to an account 
     holder, or to downgrade or cancel the financial services 
     offered to an account holder solely because--
       (A) the account holder is a cannabis-related legitimate 
     business or service provider, or is an employee, owner, or 
     operator of a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider;
       (B) the account holder later becomes an employee, owner, or 
     operator of a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider; or
       (C) the depository institution was not aware that the 
     account holder is an employee, owner, or operator of a 
     cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider;
       (4) take any adverse or corrective supervisory action on a 
     loan made to--
       (A) a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider, solely because the business is a cannabis-related 
     legitimate business or service provider;
       (B) an employee, owner, or operator of a cannabis-related 
     legitimate business or service provider, solely because the 
     employee, owner, or operator is employed by, owns, or 
     operates a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider, as applicable; or
       (C) an owner or operator of real estate or equipment that 
     is leased to a cannabis-related legitimate business or 
     service provider, solely because the owner or operator of the 
     real estate or equipment leased the equipment or real estate 
     to a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider, as applicable; or
       (5) prohibit or penalize a depository institution (or 
     entity performing a financial service for or in association 
     with a depository institution) for, or otherwise discourage a 
     depository institution (or entity performing a financial 
     service for or in association with a depository institution) 
     from, engaging in a financial service for a cannabis-related 
     legitimate business or service provider.
       (b) Safe Harbor Applicable to De Novo Institutions.--
     Subsection (a) shall apply to an institution applying for a 
     depository institution charter to the same extent as such 
     subsection applies to a depository institution.

     SEC. 3. PROTECTIONS FOR ANCILLARY BUSINESSES.

       For the purposes of sections 1956 and 1957 of title 18, 
     United States Code, and all other provisions of Federal law, 
     the proceeds from a transaction involving activities of a 
     cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider 
     shall not be considered proceeds from an unlawful activity 
     solely because--
       (1) the transaction involves proceeds from a cannabis-
     related legitimate business or service provider; or
       (2) the transaction involves proceeds from--
       (A) cannabis-related activities described in section 
     14(4)(B) conducted by a cannabis-related legitimate business; 
     or
       (B) activities described in section 14(13)(A) conducted by 
     a service provider.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

       (a) In General.--With respect to providing a financial 
     service to a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider within a State, political subdivision of a State, or 
     Indian country that allows the cultivation, production, 
     manufacture, sale, transportation, display, dispensing, 
     distribution, or purchase of cannabis pursuant to a law or 
     regulation of such State, political subdivision, or Indian 
     Tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country, as 
     applicable, a depository institution, entity performing a 
     financial service for or in association with a depository 
     institution, or insurer that provides a financial service to 
     a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider, 
     and the officers, directors, and employees of that depository 
     institution, entity, or insurer may not be held liable 
     pursuant to any Federal law or regulation--
       (1) solely for providing such a financial service; or
       (2) for further investing any income derived from such a 
     financial service.
       (b) Protections for Federal Reserve Banks and Federal Home 
     Loan Banks.--With respect to providing a service to a 
     depository institution that provides a financial service to a 
     cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider 
     (where such financial service is provided within a State, 
     political subdivision of a State, or Indian country that 
     allows the cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, 
     transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, or 
     purchase of cannabis pursuant to a law or regulation of such 
     State, political subdivision, or Indian Tribe that has 
     jurisdiction over the Indian country, as applicable), a 
     Federal reserve bank or Federal Home Loan Bank, and the 
     officers, directors, and employees of the Federal reserve 
     bank or Federal Home Loan Bank, may not be held liable 
     pursuant to any Federal law or regulation--
       (1) solely for providing such a service; or
       (2) for further investing any income derived from such a 
     service.
       (c) Protections for Insurers.--With respect to engaging in 
     the business of insurance within a State, political 
     subdivision of a State, or Indian country that allows the 
     cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, transportation, 
     display, dispensing, distribution, or purchase of cannabis 
     pursuant to a law or regulation of such State, political 
     subdivision, or Indian Tribe that has jurisdiction over the 
     Indian country, as applicable, an insurer that engages in the 
     business of insurance with a cannabis-related legitimate 
     business or service provider or who otherwise engages with a 
     person in a transaction permissible under State law related 
     to cannabis, and the officers, directors, and employees of 
     that insurer may not be held liable pursuant to any Federal 
     law or regulation--
       (1) solely for engaging in the business of insurance; or
       (2) for further investing any income derived from the 
     business of insurance.
       (d) Forfeiture.--
       (1) Depository institutions.--A depository institution that 
     has a legal interest in the collateral for a loan or another 
     financial service provided to an owner, employee, or operator 
     of a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider, or to an owner or operator of real estate or 
     equipment that is leased or sold to a cannabis-related 
     legitimate business or service provider, shall not be subject 
     to criminal, civil, or administrative forfeiture of that 
     legal interest pursuant to any Federal law for providing such 
     loan or other financial service.
       (2) Federal reserve banks and federal home loan banks.--A 
     Federal reserve bank or Federal Home Loan Bank that has a 
     legal interest in the collateral for a loan or another 
     financial service provided to a depository institution that 
     provides a financial service to a cannabis-related legitimate 
     business or service provider, or to an owner or operator of 
     real estate or equipment that is leased or sold to a 
     cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider, 
     shall not be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative 
     forfeiture of that legal interest pursuant to any Federal law 
     for providing such loan or other financial service.

     SEC. 5. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) No Requirement to Provide Financial Services.--Nothing 
     in this Act shall require a depository institution, entity 
     performing a financial service for or in association with a 
     depository institution, or insurer to provide financial 
     services to a cannabis-related legitimate business, service 
     provider, or any other business.
       (b) General Examination, Supervisory, and Enforcement 
     Authority.--Nothing in this Act may be construed in any way 
     as limiting or otherwise restricting the general examination, 
     supervisory, and enforcement authority of the Federal banking 
     regulators, provided that the basis for any supervisory or 
     enforcement action is not the provision of financial services 
     to a cannabis-related legitimate business or service 
     provider.

[[Page H7963]]

  


     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS.

       Section 5318(g) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Requirements for cannabis-related legitimate 
     businesses.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to a financial institution 
     or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial 
     institution that reports a suspicious transaction pursuant to 
     this subsection, if the reason for the report relates to a 
     cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider, the 
     report shall comply with appropriate guidance issued by the 
     Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the guidance is consistent with the purpose and 
     intent of the SAFE Banking Act of 2019 and does not 
     significantly inhibit the provision of financial services to 
     a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider in 
     a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian country 
     that has allowed the cultivation, production, manufacture, 
     transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, sale, or 
     purchase of cannabis pursuant to law or regulation of such 
     State, political subdivision, or Indian Tribe that has 
     jurisdiction over the Indian country.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(i) Cannabis.--The term `cannabis' has the meaning given 
     the term `marihuana' in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
       ``(ii) Cannabis-related legitimate business.--The term 
     `cannabis-related legitimate business' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 14 of the SAFE Banking Act of 2019.
       ``(iii) Indian country.--The term `Indian country' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 1151 of title 18.
       ``(iv) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian Tribe' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 102 of the Federally 
     Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
       ``(v) Financial service.--The term `financial service' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 14 of the SAFE Banking 
     Act of 2019.
       ``(vi) Service provider.--The term `service provider' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 14 of the SAFE Banking 
     Act of 2019.
       ``(vii) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.

     SEC. 7. GUIDANCE AND EXAMINATION PROCEDURES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Financial Institutions Examination Council shall 
     develop uniform guidance and examination procedures for 
     depository institutions that provide financial services to 
     cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers.

     SEC. 8. ANNUAL DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION REPORT.

       The Federal banking regulators shall issue an annual report 
     to Congress containing--
       (1) information and data on the availability of access to 
     financial services for minority-owned and women-owned 
     cannabis-related legitimate businesses; and
       (2) any regulatory or legislative recommendations for 
     expanding access to financial services for minority-owned and 
     women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.

     SEC. 9. GAO STUDY ON DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall carry out a study on the barriers to marketplace entry, 
     including in the licensing process, and the access to 
     financial services for potential and existing minority-owned 
     and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall issue a report 
     to the Congress--
       (1) containing all findings and determinations made in 
     carrying out the study required under subsection (a); and
       (2) containing any regulatory or legislative 
     recommendations for removing barriers to marketplace entry, 
     including in the licensing process, and expanding access to 
     financial services for potential and existing minority-owned 
     and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.

     SEC. 10. GAO STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN REPORTS ON 
                   FINDING CERTAIN PERSONS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     carry out a study on the effectiveness of reports on 
     suspicious transactions filed pursuant to section 5318(g) of 
     title 31, United States Code, at finding individuals or 
     organizations suspected or known to be engaged with 
     transnational criminal organizations and whether any such 
     engagement exists in a State, political subdivision, or 
     Indian Tribe that has jurisdiction over Indian country that 
     allows the cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, 
     transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, or 
     purchase of cannabis. The study shall examine reports on 
     suspicious transactions as follows:
       (1) During the period of 2014 until the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, reports relating to marijuana-related 
     businesses.
       (2) During the 1-year period after date of the enactment of 
     this Act, reports relating to cannabis-related legitimate 
     businesses.

     SEC. 11. BANKING SERVICES FOR HEMP BUSINESSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 
     115-334) legalized hemp by removing it from the definition of 
     ``marihuana'' under the Controlled Substances Act;
       (2) despite the legalization of hemp, some hemp businesses 
     (including producers, manufacturers, and retailers) continue 
     to have difficulty gaining access to banking products and 
     services; and
       (3) businesses involved in the sale of hemp-derived 
     cannabidiol (``CBD'') products are particularly affected, due 
     to confusion about their legal status.
       (b) Federal Banking Regulator Hemp Banking Guidance.--Not 
     later than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Federal banking regulators 
     shall jointly issue guidance to financial institutions--
       (1) confirming the legality of hemp, hemp-derived CBD 
     products, and other hemp-derived cannabinoid products, and 
     the legality of engaging in financial services with 
     businesses selling hemp, hemp-derived CBD products, and other 
     hemp-derived cannabinoid products, after the enactment of the 
     Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; and
       (2) to provide recommended best practices for financial 
     institutions to follow when providing financial services and 
     merchant processing services to businesses involved in the 
     sale of hemp, hemp-derived CBD products, and other hemp-
     derived cannabinoid products.
       (c) Financial Institution Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``financial institution'' means any person providing 
     financial services.

     SEC. 12. APPLICATION OF SAFE HARBORS TO HEMP AND CBD 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), 
     the provisions of this Act (other than sections 6 and 10) 
     shall apply to hemp (including hemp-derived cannabidiol and 
     other hemp-derived cannabinoid products) in the same manner 
     as such provisions apply to cannabis.
       (b) Rule of Application.--In applying the provisions of 
     this Act described under subsection (a) to hemp, the 
     definition of ``cannabis-related legitimate business'' shall 
     be treated as excluding any requirement to engage in activity 
     pursuant to the law of a State or political subdivision 
     thereof.
       (c) Hemp Defined.--In this section, the term ``hemp'' has 
     the meaning given that term under section 297A of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o).

     SEC. 13. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSIT ACCOUNT TERMINATION 
                   REQUESTS AND ORDERS.

       (a) Termination Requests or Orders Must Be Valid.--
       (1) In general.--An appropriate Federal banking agency may 
     not formally or informally request or order a depository 
     institution to terminate a specific customer account or group 
     of customer accounts or to otherwise restrict or discourage a 
     depository institution from entering into or maintaining a 
     banking relationship with a specific customer or group of 
     customers unless--
       (A) the agency has a valid reason for such request or 
     order; and
       (B) such reason is not based solely on reputation risk.
       (2) Treatment of national security threats.--If an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency believes a specific 
     customer or group of customers is, or is acting as a conduit 
     for, an entity which--
       (A) poses a threat to national security;
       (B) is involved in terrorist financing;
       (C) is an agency of the Government of Iran, North Korea, 
     Syria, or any country listed from time to time on the State 
     Sponsors of Terrorism list;
       (D) is located in, or is subject to the jurisdiction of, 
     any country specified in subparagraph (C); or
       (E) does business with any entity described in subparagraph 
     (C) or (D), unless the appropriate Federal banking agency 
     determines that the customer or group of customers has used 
     due diligence to avoid doing business with any entity 
     described in subparagraph (C) or (D),

     such belief shall satisfy the requirement under paragraph 
     (1).
       (b) Notice Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--If an appropriate Federal banking agency 
     formally or informally requests or orders a depository 
     institution to terminate a specific customer account or a 
     group of customer accounts, the agency shall--
       (A) provide such request or order to the institution in 
     writing; and
       (B) accompany such request or order with a written 
     justification for why such termination is needed, including 
     any specific laws or regulations the agency believes are 
     being violated by the customer or group of customers, if any.
       (2) Justification requirement.--A justification described 
     under paragraph (1)(B) may not be based solely on the 
     reputation risk to the depository institution.
       (c) Customer Notice.--
       (1) Notice required.--Except as provided under paragraph 
     (2) or as otherwise prohibited from being disclosed by law, 
     if an appropriate Federal banking agency orders a depository 
     institution to terminate a specific customer account or a 
     group of customer accounts, the depository institution shall 
     inform the specific customer or group of customers of the 
     justification for the customer's account termination 
     described under subsection (b).

[[Page H7964]]

       (2) Notice prohibited.--
       (A) Notice prohibited in cases of national security.--If an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency requests or orders a 
     depository institution to terminate a specific customer 
     account or a group of customer accounts based on a belief 
     that the customer or customers pose a threat to national 
     security, or are otherwise described under subsection (a)(2), 
     neither the depository institution nor the appropriate 
     Federal banking agency may inform the customer or customers 
     of the justification for the customer's account termination.
       (B) Notice prohibited in other cases.--If an appropriate 
     Federal banking agency determines that the notice required 
     under paragraph (1) may interfere with an authorized criminal 
     investigation, neither the depository institution nor the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency may inform the specific 
     customer or group of customers of the justification for the 
     customer's account termination.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--Each appropriate Federal 
     banking agency shall issue an annual report to the Congress 
     stating--
       (1) the aggregate number of specific customer accounts that 
     the agency requested or ordered a depository institution to 
     terminate during the previous year; and
       (2) the legal authority on which the agency relied in 
     making such requests and orders and the frequency on which 
     the agency relied on each such authority.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term 
     ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' means--
       (A) the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined 
     under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813); and
       (B) the National Credit Union Administration, in the case 
     of an insured credit union.
       (2) Depository institution.--The term ``depository 
     institution'' means--
       (A) a depository institution, as defined under section 3 of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and
       (B) an insured credit union.

     SEC. 14. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Business of insurance.--The term ``business of 
     insurance'' has the meaning given such term in section 1002 
     of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 5481).
       (2) Cannabis.--The term ``cannabis'' has the meaning given 
     the term ``marihuana'' in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
       (3) Cannabis product.--The term ``cannabis product'' means 
     any article which contains cannabis, including an article 
     which is a concentrate, an edible, a tincture, a cannabis-
     infused product, or a topical.
       (4) Cannabis-related legitimate business.--The term 
     ``cannabis-related legitimate business'' means a 
     manufacturer, producer, or any person or company that--
       (A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B) 
     pursuant to a law established by a State or a political 
     subdivision of a State, as determined by such State or 
     political subdivision; and
       (B) participates in any business or organized activity that 
     involves handling cannabis or cannabis products, including 
     cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, transporting, 
     displaying, dispensing, distributing, or purchasing cannabis 
     or cannabis products.
       (5) Depository institution.--The term ``depository 
     institution'' means--
       (A) a depository institution as defined in section 3(c) of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c));
       (B) a Federal credit union as defined in section 101 of the 
     Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752); or
       (C) a State credit union as defined in section 101 of the 
     Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752).
       (6) Federal banking regulator.--The term ``Federal banking 
     regulator'' means each of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System, the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
     Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Financial Crimes 
     Enforcement Network, the Office of Foreign Asset Control, the 
     Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National 
     Credit Union Administration, the Department of the Treasury, 
     or any Federal agency or department that regulates banking or 
     financial services, as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       (7) Financial service.--The term ``financial service''--
       (A) means a financial product or service, as defined in 
     section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481);
       (B) includes the business of insurance;
       (C) includes, whether performed directly or indirectly, the 
     authorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing, 
     transferring for deposit, transmitting, delivering, 
     instructing to be delivered, reconciling, collecting, or 
     otherwise effectuating or facilitating of payments or funds, 
     where such payments or funds are made or transferred by any 
     means, including by the use of credit cards, debit cards, 
     other payment cards, or other access devices, accounts, 
     original or substitute checks, or electronic funds transfers;
       (D) includes acting as a money transmitting business which 
     directly or indirectly makes use of a depository institution 
     in connection with effectuating or facilitating a payment for 
     a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider in 
     compliance with section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, 
     and any applicable State law; and
       (E) includes acting as an armored car service for 
     processing and depositing with a depository institution or a 
     Federal reserve bank with respect to any monetary instruments 
     (as defined under section 1956(c)(5) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (8) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 1151 of title 18.
       (9) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 102 of the Federally 
     Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
       (10) Insurer.--The term ``insurer'' has the meaning given 
     that term under section 313(r) of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       (11) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a 
     person who manufactures, compounds, converts, processes, 
     prepares, or packages cannabis or cannabis products.
       (12) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person who 
     plants, cultivates, harvests, or in any way facilitates the 
     natural growth of cannabis.
       (13) Service provider.--The term ``service provider''--
       (A) means a business, organization, or other person that--
       (i) sells goods or services to a cannabis-related 
     legitimate business; or
       (ii) provides any business services, including the sale or 
     lease of real or any other property, legal or other licensed 
     services, or any other ancillary service, relating to 
     cannabis; and
       (B) does not include a business, organization, or other 
     person that participates in any business or organized 
     activity that involves handling cannabis or cannabis 
     products, including cultivating, producing, manufacturing, 
     selling, transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing, 
     or purchasing cannabis or cannabis products.
       (14) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any 
     territory or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 15. DISCRETIONARY SURPLUS FUNDS.

        Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$6,825,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$6,821,000,000''.

     SEC. 16. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 1595.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud we are here today to pass this bill about 
public safety, accountability, and respecting States' rights. Forty-
seven States, four U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia have 
spoken and legalized some form of recreational or medical marijuana, 
including cannabidiol. 318.2 million people live in those 47 States. 
That is 97.7 percent of the population.
  However, because marijuana remains illegal under Federal law, 
businesses in these States are forced to deal in cash. These 
businesses, their employees, and ancillary businesses cannot access the 
banking system.
  The fact is, the people in States and localities across the country 
are voting to approve some level of marijuana use, and we need these 
marijuana businesses and employees to have access to checking accounts, 
lines of credit, payroll accounts, and more.
  This will improve transparency and accountability and help law 
enforcement root out illegal transactions to prevent tax evasion, money 
laundering, and other white-collar crime.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this will also reduce the risk of 
violent crime in our communities. These businesses and their employees 
become targets for murder, robbery, assault, and more by dealing in all 
cash, and this

[[Page H7965]]

puts the employees and store owners at risk. Congressman Heck will 
speak directly to this point.
  The SAFE Banking Act will create a safe harbor for financial 
institutions and their employees who choose to do business with a 
marijuana company.
  Section 3 of the bill is particularly important to not only marijuana 
businesses but everyone who might do business with a marijuana-related 
company. This section would protect ancillary businesses like real 
estate owners, accountants, electricians, and vendors by clarifying 
that the proceeds from legitimate cannabis businesses are not illegal 
under Federal laws. This proceeds section is the key provision, 
allowing all cannabis-related businesses and their service providers to 
access the banking system without fear of reprisal.
  We have worked with our Republican colleagues on a few changes to 
improve the bill since it was marked up in March.
  As Mr. Barr will discuss, the bill now includes protections for 
financial institutions to provide financial services to hemp and CBD 
businesses since we have learned the provisions from the farm bill last 
year did not provide sufficient clarity for banks and credit unions to 
provide these services.
  At Mr. Stivers' urging, we expanded the protections in the bill for 
various insurance products, such as workers compensation.
  Additionally, we have added language from Mr. Luetkemeyer's Financial 
Institution Customer Protection Act, which passed the House 395-2 last 
Congress. This language would prohibit bank regulators from directing a 
bank to close an account for reputational reasons.
  In summary, if someone wants to oppose the legalization of marijuana, 
that is their prerogative. But American voters have spoken and continue 
to speak. The fact is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. 
Prohibition is over.
  Our bill is focused solely on taking cash off the streets and making 
our communities safer. Only Congress can take these steps to provide 
this certainty for businesses, employees, and financial institutions 
across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Heck for his partnership through 
the years on this bill. I also thank Representative Stivers and 
Representative Davidson for their support and cosponsorship of the SAFE 
Banking Act. Subcommittee Chairman  Greg Meeks and Representative Katie 
Porter have been very helpful in the process.
  Finally, I thank Chairwoman Maxine Waters for shepherding this bill 
through the Financial Services Committee and making this a priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes,'' and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1595.
  Before I go into the contents of my argument against this 
legislation, I want to start by commending the bill's sponsor, Mr. 
Perlmutter from Colorado, for his tireless advocacy, his reasonableness 
in his approach, and his willingness, even in the midst of the toughest 
negotiations around the subject matter, to keep his cool, to think 
through the import of the bill, and to seek compromise where he could.
  It is quite a legislative endeavor that he has taken upon for 
himself, for this institution, for his State, and for States around the 
country. He has been a fantastic advocate.
  And I would say that, standing in opposition to this bill, it is not 
because of his lack of good will. It is not for lack of his willingness 
to engage, but for a fundamental disagreement in the approach. We have 
been able to have real discussions around this that I think would make 
the American people more proud or more confident in this institution 
and our body politic, more broadly speaking.
  I also want to thank my friend and colleague on the committee, Mr. 
Stivers from Ohio, for his work on the issue. Together, they have 
conducted themselves with wonderful integrity and respect for their 
colleagues and their colleagues' views and ideas, especially on an 
issue like this where it can create an enormous amount of controversy.
  Twenty-one States have legalized medicinal marijuana, and 10 States 
have legalized the recreational use of the drug. However, cannabis 
remains completely illegal in 19 States. Federal law defines this as a 
drug that has ``a high potential for abuse; no currently accepted 
medical use in treatment in the United States; and a lack of accepted 
safety for use of the drug . . . under medical supervision.'' That is 
the current Federal law.
  This bill does not change the fact that cannabis remains a prohibited 
schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act.
  To that end, if we seek to give financial institutions certainty, we 
should deal with the listing of cannabis as a schedule I substance, not 
debating a partial solution for financial institutions to what is a 
much larger problem and a larger societal issue that we must wrestle 
with.
  Should States be allowed to continue to violate Federal law? Does 
Federal law need to be changed when it comes to the scheduling of 
cannabis?
  We have an FDA that regulates cigarettes and e-cigarettes, which, as 
we know, there is the recent announcement that they will seek a ban on 
flavored e-cigarettes. But the FDA has no regulatory authority to 
regulate cannabis.
  The bill we are considering today is one of the biggest changes to 
U.S. drug policy in my lifetime, yet it was done with little debate. 
While our committee has jurisdiction over financial institutions--in 
the nature of our debate, it is usually about the nature of regulation 
for the capital markets and for banks--we heard little from the 
committees of jurisdiction over the Controlled Substances Act or the 
Criminal Code. In fact, the Financial Services Committee is the only 
one that has held a hearing on the issue of cannabis this Congress.
  Now, I would say that is due to the leadership of Mr. Perlmutter and 
his tireless advocacy for this, but we only had one panel of witnesses. 
I voiced my concerns in our jurisdiction to Chairwoman Waters and to 
Congressman Perlmutter about my concerns for this.
  In March of this year, I wrote Chairwoman Waters to express my belief 
that we need to have a better comprehension of the nature of this 
substance and address the supervisory and regulatory issues that would 
result from enactment of H.R. 1595. I include in the Record a copy of 
that letter.

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2019.
     The Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services,
     Washington, DC.
     The Hon. Gregory W. Meeks,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial 
         Institutions, Washington DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Meeks: We write today 
     to seek your agreement to delay consideration of H.R. 1595, 
     the SAFE Act, currently scheduled to be marked up on March 
     26, 2019, until the Committee has a better understanding of 
     the full range of consequences that enacting such legislation 
     may trigger. As you know, marijuana is a schedule I 
     controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. The impact 
     that many state laws, which have legalized marijuana, have on 
     the federal laws governing the manufacturing, use, and sale 
     of marijuana, including proceeds, raise many questions and 
     concerns. Any change to these statutes, or those that impact 
     them, has the potential to divide the Congress and the 
     country. We must ensure that Congress has done its due 
     diligence, including conducting thorough oversight and 
     review, before moving such legislation.
       The hearing at the Committee on Financial Services on 
     February 13, 2019, made clear that we need to better 
     comprehend and address the supervisory and regulatory issues 
     that would result from enactment of H.R. 1595. Many 
     outstanding questions remain, which include but are not 
     limited to the following:
       1. What changes to our banking laws are necessary to 
     implement the SAFE Banking Act or other legislation creating 
     a safe harbor for cannabis-related businesses?
       2. How would individual agencies enforce Bank Secrecy Act 
     (BSA) requirements following enactment of the SAFE Banking 
     Act? What changes would be required of BSA requirements?
       3. How would individual agencies enforce anti-money 
     laundering (AML) regulations following enactment of the SAFE 
     Banking Act? Would AML reforms be necessary?
       4. How would individual agencies enforce Know Your Customer 
     (KYC) rules following enactment of the SAFE Banking Act? What 
     changes would be required of KYC rules?
       5. How would individual agencies enforce Suspicious 
     Activity Report (SAR) filing requirements and guidelines 
     following passage

[[Page H7966]]

     of the SAFE Banking Act? What changes would be required of 
     SAR filing requirements and guidelines to ensure illicit 
     financial activities were not being financed?
       6. How would individual agencies enforce Currency 
     Transaction Report (CTR) filing requirements and guidelines 
     following enactment of the SAFE Banking Act? What changes 
     would be required of CTR filing requirements and guidelines?
       7. In what ways are agencies working with state 
     counterparts, including state banking and securities 
     supervisors, under the existing regime? How would those 
     cooperative relationships change with enactment of H.R. 1595?
       8. Would H.R. 1595 require conforming changes to any of the 
     statues, rules, and requirements previously listed to ensure 
     there are no unintended consequences, such as cartels and 
     other bad actors gaining access to our financial system?
       9. Would the safe harbor require any changes to the rules 
     or processes governing federal deposit insurance systems?
       10. What are the implications of H.R. 1595 on nonbank 
     financial firms, including insurers and investment companies?
       11. What are the implications of H.R 1595 on third parties, 
     including payment processors?
       12. What are the implications of H.R. 1595 on individual 
     and institutional investors of cannabis-related businesses?
       13. What are the implications of RR.1595 on federal, state, 
     and local law enforcement, including the Department of 
     Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency?
       14. How are proceeds from state licensed growers and 
     distributers taxed under federal law? Relatedly, what 
     conforming changes to our tax code are necessary?
       15. What are the implications of H.R. 1595 on other 
     products and services offered by financial institutions, 
     including but not limited to mortgage products, deposit 
     advance products or general commercial lending?
       As Members of Congress, and the Committee of primary 
     jurisdiction, we owe it to our constituents and to the public 
     to fully understand the implications of any legislation 
     before supporting or opposing it. We urge you to hold H.R. 
     1595 and any related legislation until we have a full 
     understanding of the consequences of this bill.
           Sincerely,
     Patrick McHenry,
       Ranking Member.
     Blaine Luetkemeyer,
       Ranking Member.

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, in that letter, I listed a number of 
questions that have yet to be answered, including:
  What steps will Federal financial regulators have to take to 
harmonize standards and protect against illicit activity, including 
institutions' obligations with respect to the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-
money laundering requirements, suspicious activity reports, and 
currency transaction reports?
  What are the implications of this bill on nonbank financial firms, 
including investment companies?
  I know there have been additions, since we have come to the floor, to 
include insurance companies, and I think that is a positive step. But 
these are some of the basic questions that still need to be resolved.
  It is also important that we understand whether this legislation 
could lead to bad actors, like drug cartels, that could more easily 
access our banking system in the United States. These concerns have 
been echoed by several former Directors of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy and former Administrators of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration.
  In a July letter from this year, former law enforcement officials 
serving from 1981 to 2014 have voiced concerns that the SAFE Banking 
Act could be exploited to provide easier, more cost-effective ways for 
nefarious groups to launder money. I include in the Record a copy of 
that letter.

     Hon. Mike Crapo,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, & Urban 
         Affairs, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sherrod Brown,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, & 
         Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Brown: We write as 
     former Directors of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy and former Administrators of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration to warn about the unintended consequences of 
     the SAFE Banking Act to legalize the banking of federally 
     illegal proceeds from the sale of marijuana.
       Some Members of your Committee may be familiar with the 
     Black Market Peso Exchange that has been in operation for 
     several decades. This scheme has enabled international drug 
     cartels to launder billions of U.S. dollars through 
     international monetary exchanges and has ensnared many banks 
     and mainstream U.S. companies.
       The lesson that the Black Market Peso Exchange teaches us 
     is that cartels will go to enormous lengths and use 
     sophisticated and complex methods to move cash into banks-
     since laundering money is the life-blood of criminal 
     organizations. It is therefore a virtual certainty that 
     cartels will seek to exploit the SAFE Banking act if it 
     provides them with an easier and more cost-effective means to 
     launder their money.
       Because cash made from the sale of marijuana looks the same 
     regardless of what it was used to pay for, it will be 
     extremely difficult for banks to know whether large bundles 
     of cash presented for deposit were made from the sale of 
     marijuana rather than from the sale of heroin, fentanyl, or 
     methamphetamine.
       In short, the SAFE Banking Act could inadvertently allow 
     cartels to bring into banks duffel bags of cash made from the 
     sale of those illicit drugs that are killing tens of 
     thousands of Americans every year.
       Consider the current landscape of offering banking services 
     to cash-intensive marijuana businesses. Even if customers are 
     offered the opportunity to pay in credit, many customers will 
     choose to pay cash to avoid being tracked within, the state 
     seed-to-sale tracking system.
       While banks know how much cash to expect from other cash-
     intensive businesses like dry cleaners or convenience stores, 
     it will be very difficult to figure out when a marijuana 
     dispensary is participating in a money laundering scheme. The 
     scale of the marijuana industry is already such that there 
     are huge opportunities for these dispensaries to be the 
     destination for cartel cash. Indeed, we have already seen 
     many cases of cartels using the cover of legalization to 
     operate illicit marijuana grows and black market activity. 
     Two recent examples within the past year involved organized 
     efforts to expel Mexican drug cartels growing marijuana in 
     Northern California--including a request to use the 
     California National Guard, and the May 2019 bust of the 
     largest international drug trafficking organization in 
     Colorado law enforcement history, with over 80,000 plants in 
     over 250 locations and 4.5 tons of finished marijuana 
     products.
       We urge the Senate Banking Committee to reject the SAFE 
     Banking Act and other legislation that would give these 
     cartels more cover and more access to the U.S. financial 
     system.
           Sincerely,
         Mr. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Former Director, May 7, 2009 to 
           March 6, 2014, Office of National Drug Control Policy; 
           Mr. John P. Walters, Former Director, December 7, 2001 
           to January 20, 2009, Office of National Drug Control 
           Policy; General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.), Former 
           Director, February 29, 1996 to January 20, 2001, Office 
           of National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Lee P. Brown, 
           Former Director, July 19, 1993 to January 1996, Office 
           of National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Robert Martinez, 
           Former Director, March 28, 1991 to January 20, 1993, 
           Office of National Drug Control Policy; Mr. William J. 
           Bennett, Former Director, March 13, 1989 to December 
           13, 1990, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Ms. 
           Michele M. Leonhart, Former Administrator, November 10, 
           2007 to May 14, 2015, Drug Enforcement Administration; 
           Ms. Karen P. Tandy, Former Administrator, July 31, 2003 
           to November 9, 2007, Drug Enforcement Administration; 
           Mr. John C. Lawn, Former Administrator, July 26, 1985 
           and March 23, 1990, Drug Enforcement Administration; 
           Mr. Peter B. Bensinger, Former Administrator, February 
           23, 1976 to July 10, 1981, Drug Enforcement 
           Administration.

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, drug cartels are a significant problem in 
cannabis-legal States like California, Washington, and Colorado. As 
reported in a May article by NBC News, the cartels have found that it 
is easier to grow and process marijuana in legal States like Colorado 
and ship it throughout the United States than it is to bring it from 
Mexico or Cuba.
  I include in the Record a copy of this article, as well.

                    [From nbcnews.com, May 29, 2018]

    Foreign Cartels Embrace Home-Grown Marijuana in Pot-Legal States


  Foreign gangs are finding that black-market marijuana is profitable 
              even in states that have legalized cannabis

(By Dennis Romero, Gabe Gutierrez, Andrew Blankstein and Robert Powell)

       Los Angeles.--Attorney General Jeff Sessions called it 
     ``one of the largest residential forfeiture actions in 
     American History.''
       In early April, local and federal authorities descended 
     upon 74 marijuana grow houses in the Sacramento area they say 
     were underwritten by Chinese organized crime. They filed 
     court paperwork to seize the properties, worth millions of 
     dollars.
       Federal officials allege that legal recreational marijuana 
     states like California, Colorado and Washington, where 
     enforcement of growing regulations is hit-or-miss, have been 
     providing cover for transnational criminal organizations 
     willing to invest big money to buy or rent property to 
     achieve even bigger returns.
       Chinese, Cuban and Mexican drug rings have purchased or 
     rented hundreds of homes and use human trafficking to bring 
     inexperienced growers to the United States to tend them, 
     federal and local officials say.
       The suspects are targeting states that have already 
     legalized marijuana ``in an attempt

[[Page H7967]]

     to shroud their operations in our legal environment here and 
     then take the marijuana outside of the state,'' said Mike 
     Hartman, executive director of the Colorado Department of 
     Revenue, which regulates and licenses the cannabis industry. 
     Authorities say they've seen an increase in these ``home 
     grows'' since the launch of recreational pot sales in 
     Colorado.
       While California and Washington have mainly seen organized 
     criminals from China buying homes and converting them into 
     grow houses, Colorado has largely been grappling with Cuban 
     and Mexican-led cartels, said Sheriff Bill Elder of the El 
     Paso County Sheriff's Office in Colorado.
       ``They have found that it's easier to grow and process 
     marijuana in Colorado, ship it throughout the United States, 
     than it is to bring it from Mexico or Cuba,'' Elder said.
       In El Paso County, NBC News witnessed firsthand the damage 
     a commercial-scale cannabis grow can do to a home otherwise 
     built for an average American family. Growers pose as 
     legitimate renters, and by the time authorities disrupt their 
     operation, homes have been gutted and trashed.
       ``We've fallen through floors,'' U.S. Drug Enforcement 
     Agency Special Agent Randy Ladd said. ``The electrical 
     damage, they draw so much current that you'll see, in some 
     places, the wires are fused inside of the electrical box. 
     And--a lot of people--they don't wanna pay the high electric 
     bills. So what they do is they take jackhammers and pickaxes 
     and they cut through the foundation of the house, so that 
     they could steal the power.''
       One of the biggest busts so far came last June, when the 
     Colorado attorney general's office announced that ``a massive 
     illegal interstate marijuana distribution and cultivation 
     network stretching from Colorado to Texas'' had been 
     dismantled. It was allegedly Chinese-connected, Ladd said.
       Authorities said the network was responsible for securities 
     fraud, millions of dollars of laundered cash, 2,600 
     ``illegally cultivated'' marijuana plants and 4,000 pounds of 
     harvested cannabis, according to the Colorado attorney 
     general's statement.
       The operation took place in 18 warehouses and storage units 
     and 33 homes, mostly in the Denver area, authorities said. 
     ``These seizures are believed to only scratch the surface,'' 
     the office said.
       Ladd alleged that some Chinese crews cover immigrants' 
     costs of traveling to America in exchange for work in the 
     grow houses. ``It's like indentured servitude,'' he said. 
     ``It is a form of human trafficking.''
       The workers often fly from China to Belgium, and from 
     Belgium to Mexico, before making asylum claims at the border 
     and then disappearing by the time they're scheduled to tell 
     their stories in court, Ladd said. Often when grow houses are 
     raided, immigration fugitives are discovered, he said.
       The grow homes are usually purchased by shell property 
     management companies, Ladd said. ``These growers can hide in 
     plain sight,'' he said.
       The Sacramento-area raids, which also struck Calaveras, 
     Placer, San Joaquin, El Dorado, Yuba and Amador counties, 
     shed some light on how many of the foreign rings operate.
       Northern California-based DEA Special Agent Casey Rettig 
     said suspects send cash to the United States in $9,999 
     increments, just below the mandated reporting threshold, and 
     receive funds from China that fly under that nation's $50,000 
     foreign spending limit. They then purchase homes with the 
     help of cash lenders instead of traditional mortgage firms.
       Last fall, a scenario fitting that pattern unfolded in 
     Grays Harbor County, Washington, southwest of Seattle, as a 
     drug task force busted an alleged cultivation ring funded by 
     organized crime in China.
       More than 40 suspects were arrested and $80 million worth 
     of cannabis was seized, the Grays Harbor County Sheriff's 
     Office said. ``The majority of these homes were purchased 
     with cash, and information was developed that these purchases 
     were conducted by Chinese nationals involved in organized 
     crime,'' according to a statement from the Sheriff's Office.
       And just this month, search warrants were served at 19 
     locations in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, a 
     federal official who did not want her name used said. The 
     ring was allegedly run by three Chinese nationals who 
     produced thousands of pounds of cannabis destined for greater 
     New York, the U.S. attorney's office in Seattle alleges.
       The suspects, who face drug conspiracy charges, purchased 
     homes with the help of multiple wire transfers from China 
     that included dollar figures--$2,000 to $5,900--they believed 
     would fly under the radar, according to a federal complaint.
       Ultimately it was the houses' exorbitant electricity use--
     up to 38,477 kilowatt hours in one day versus the American 
     average of just 30--that made them targets of a federal 
     investigation, according to the filing.
       Even a single grow house can contain a large marijuana 
     operation. In April, police in Pomona, California, an exurb 
     in Los Angeles County, announced they discovered a 23-room 
     grow house allegedly run by Chinese nationals. Fifty-five-
     hundred marijuana products, including 2,900 plants and nearly 
     21 pounds of cannabis, were seized, police said.
       ``The grow operation used advanced systems of lighting, air 
     conditioning, fans, exhaust blowers and air-filtering systems 
     to control the climate inside the buildings and the odor of 
     marijuana,'' according to a Pomona police statement.
       Pomona police spokeswoman Aly Mejia said a gun and $6,900 
     in cash were also found.
       The DEA's Rettig, speaking from her base in San Francisco, 
     said the Chinese operations are ``illegal under state law.'' 
     In California, marijuana growers, producers and retailers 
     need state and local licenses. Cities can opt out and ban 
     such businesses altogether.
       Rettig said even with the Golden State's sky-high housing 
     market--the median price of a home is $535,100, according 
     listings site Zillow--overseas criminals know that 
     ``marijuana can fetch three times as much out of state.''
       ``There's a great profit motive in it,'' the DEA's Ladd 
     said. ``In Colorado, marijuana legalization has magnified the 
     black market. The standard price per pound here is $2,000, 
     but they can get $3,500 to $4,500 by shipping it back East. 
     The profits are great there.''

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, beyond the regulatory issues, Congress has 
yet to examine these potential societal harms and implications for 
human health.
  In a January article regarding research on the health effects of 
marijuana, author Malcolm Gladwell wrote: ``Before any drug gets 
permitted to go on the market, basic questions have to be answered 
about its safety and efficacy. We don't know relatively basic questions 
about marijuana.''
  I include this piece from The New Yorker in the Record.

                  [From the New Yorker, Jan. 7, 2019]

                   Is Marijuana as Safe as We Think?

                         (By Malcolm Gladwell)

       A few years ago, the National Academy of Medicine convened 
     a panel of sixteen leading medical experts to analyze the 
     scientific literature on cannabis. The report they prepared, 
     which came out in January of 2017, runs to four hundred and 
     sixty-eight pages. It contains no bombshells or surprises, 
     which perhaps explains why it went largely unnoticed. It 
     simply stated, over and over again, that a drug North 
     Americans have become enthusiastic about remains a mystery.
       For example, smoking pot is widely supposed to diminish the 
     nausea associated with chemotherapy. But, the panel pointed 
     out, ``there are no good-quality randomized trials 
     investigating this option.''We have evidence for marijuana as 
     a treatment for pain, but ``very little is known about the 
     efficacy, dose, routes of administration, or side effects of 
     commonly used and commercially available cannabis products in 
     the United States.'' The caveats continue. Is it good for 
     epilepsy? ``Insufficient evidence.''Tourette's syndrome? 
     Limited evidence. A.L.S., Huntington's, and Parkinson's? 
     Insufficient evidence. Irritable-bowel syndrome? Insufficient 
     evidence. Dementia and glaucoma? Probably not. Anxiety? 
     Maybe. Depression? Probably not.
       Then come Chapters 5 through 13, the heart of the report, 
     which concern marijuana's potential risks. The haze of 
     uncertainty continues. Does the use of cannabis increase the 
     likelihood of fatal car accidents? Yes. By how much? Unclear. 
     Does it affect motivation and cognition? Hard to say, but 
     probably. Does it affect employment prospects? Probably. Will 
     it impair academic achievement? Limited evidence. This goes 
     on for pages.
       We need proper studies, the panel concluded, on the health 
     effects of cannabis on children and teen-agers and pregnant 
     women and breast-feeding mothers and ``older populations'' 
     and ``heavy cannabis users''; in other words, on everyone 
     except the college student who smokes a joint once a month. 
     The panel also called for investigation into ``the 
     pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of cannabis, 
     modes of delivery, different concentrations, in various 
     populations, including the dose-response relationships of 
     cannabis and THC or other cannabinoids.''
       Figuring out the ``dose-response relationship'' of a new 
     compound is something a pharmaceutical company does from the 
     start of trials in human subjects, as it prepares a new drug 
     application for the E.D.A. Too little of a powerful drug 
     means that it won't work. Too much means that it might do 
     more harm than good. The amount of active ingredient in a 
     pill and the metabolic path that the ingredient takes after 
     it enters your body--these are things that drugmakers will 
     have painstakingly mapped out before the product comes on the 
     market, with a tractor-trailer full of supporting 
     documentation.
       With marijuana, apparently, we're still waiting for this 
     information. It's hard to study a substance that until very 
     recently has been almost universally illegal. And the few 
     studies we do have were done mostly in the nineteen-eighties 
     and nineties, when cannabis was not nearly as potent as it is 
     now. Because of recent developments in plant breeding and 
     growing techniques, the typical concentration of THC, the 
     psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has gone from the low 
     single digits to more than twenty per cent--from a swig of 
     near-beer to a tequila shot.
       Are users smoking less, to compensate for the drug's new 
     potency? Or simply getting more stoned, more quickly? Is 
     high-potency cannabis more of a problem for younger users or 
     for older ones? For some drugs, the dose-response curve is 
     linear: twice the dose creates twice the effect. For other 
     drugs, it's nonlinear: twice the dose can increase the effect 
     tenfold, or hardly at all. Which is true

[[Page H7968]]

     for cannabis? It also matters, of course, how cannabis is 
     consumed. It can be smoked, vaped, eaten, or applied to the 
     skin. How are absorption patterns affected?
       Last May, not long before Canada legalized the recreational 
     use of marijuana, Beau Kilmer, a drug-policy expert with the 
     RAND Corporation, testified before the Canadian Parliament. 
     He warned that the fastest-growing segment of the legal 
     market in Washington State was extracts for inhalation, and 
     that the mean THC concentration for those products was more 
     than sixty-five per cent. ``We know little about the health 
     consequences-risks and benefits-of many of the cannabis 
     products likely to be sold in nonmedical markets,'' he said. 
     Nor did we know how higher-potency products would affect THC 
     consumption.
       When it comes to cannabis, the best-case scenario is that 
     we will muddle through, learning more about its true effects 
     as we go along and adapting as needed-the way, say, the once 
     extraordinarily lethal innovation of the automobile has been 
     gradually tamed in the course of its history. For those 
     curious about the worst-case scenario, Alex Berenson has 
     written a short manifesto, ``Tell Your Children: The Truth 
     About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence.''
       Berenson begins his book with an account of a conversation 
     he had with his wife, a psychiatrist who specializes in 
     treating mentally ill criminals. They were discussing one of 
     the many grim cases that cross her desk--``the usual horror 
     story, somebody who'd cut up his grandmother or set fire to 
     his apartment.'' Then his wife said something like ``Of 
     course, he was high, been smoking pot his whole life.''
       Of course? I said.
       Yeah, they all smoke.
       Well . . . other things too, right?
       Berenson used to be an investigative reporter for the 
     Times, where he covered, among other things, health care and 
     the pharmaceutical industry. Then he left the paper to write 
     a popular series of thrillers. At the time of his 
     conversation with his wife, he had the typical layman's view 
     of cannabis, which is that it is largely benign. His wife's 
     remark alarmed him, and he set out to educate himself. 
     Berenson is constrained by the same problem the National 
     Academy of Medicine faced--that, when it comes to marijuana, 
     we really don't know very much. But he has a reporter's 
     tenacity, a novelist's imagination, and an outsider's knack 
     for asking intemperate questions. The result is disturbing.
       The first of Berenson's questions concerns what has long 
     been the most worrisome point about cannabis: its association 
     with mental illness. Many people with serious psychiatric 
     illness smoke lots of pot. The marijuana lobby typically 
     responds to this fact by saying that pot-smoking is a 
     response to mental illness, not the cause of it--that people 
     with psychiatric issues use marijuana to self-medicate. That 
     is only partly true. In some cases, heavy cannabis use does 
     seem to cause mental illness. As the National Academy panel 
     declared, in one of its few unequivocal conclusions, 
     ``Cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing 
     schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the 
     greater the risk.''
       Berenson thinks that we are far too sanguine about this 
     link. He wonders how large the risk is, and what might be 
     behind it. In one of the most fascinating sections of ``Tell 
     Your Children,'' he sits down with Erik Messamore, a 
     psychiatrist who specializes in neuropharmacology and in the 
     treatment of schizophrenia. Messamore reports that, following 
     the recent rise in marijuana use in the U.S. (it has almost 
     doubled in the past two decades, not necessarily as the 
     result of legal reforms), he has begun to see a new kind of 
     patient: older, and not from the marginalized communities 
     that his patients usually come from. These are otherwise 
     stable middle-class professionals. Berenson writes, ``A 
     surprising number of them seemed to have used only cannabis 
     and no other drugs before their breaks. The disease they'd 
     developed looked like schizophrenia, but it had developed 
     later-and their prognosis seemed to be worse. Their delusions 
     and paranoia hardly responded to antipsychotics.''
       Messamore theorizes that THC may interfere with the brain's 
     anti-inflammatory mechanisms, resulting in damage to nerve 
     cells and blood vessels. Is this the reason, Berenson 
     wonders, for the rising incidence of schizophrenia in the 
     developed world, where cannabis use has also increased? In 
     the northern parts of Finland, incidence of the disease has 
     nearly doubled since 1993. In Denmark, cases have risen 
     twenty-five per cent since 2000. In the United States, 
     hospital emergency rooms have seen a fifty per-cent increase 
     in schizophrenia admissions since 2006. If you include cases 
     where schizophrenia was a secondary diagnosis, annual 
     admissions in the past decade have increased from 1.26 
     million to 2.1 million.
       Berenson's second question derives from the first. The 
     delusions and paranoia that often accompany psychoses can 
     sometimes trigger violent behavior. If cannabis is implicated 
     in a rise in psychoses, should we expect the increased use of 
     marijuana to be accompanied by a rise in violent crime, as 
     Berenson's wife suggested? Once again, there is no definitive 
     answer, so Berenson has collected bits and pieces of 
     evidence. For example, in a 2013 paper in the Journal of 
     Interpersonal Violence, researchers looked at the results of 
     a survey of more than twelve thousand American high-school 
     students. The authors assumed that alcohol use among students 
     would be a predictor of violent behavior, and that marijuana 
     use would predict the opposite. In fact, those who used only 
     marijuana were three times more likely to be physically 
     aggressive than abstainers were; those who used only alcohol 
     were 2.7 times more likely to be aggressive.
       Observational studies like these don't establish causation. 
     But they invite the sort of research that could.
       Berenson looks, too, at the early results from the state of 
     Washington, which, in 2014, became the first U.S. 
     jurisdiction to legalize recreational marijuana. Between 2013 
     and 2017, the state's aggravated-assault rate rose seventeen 
     per cent, which was nearly twice the increase seen 
     nationwide, and the murder rate rose forty-four per cent, 
     which was more than twice the increase nationwide. We don't 
     know that an increase in cannabis use was responsible for 
     that surge in violence. Berenson, though, finds it strange 
     that, at a time when Washington may have exposed its 
     population to higher levels of what is widely assumed to be a 
     calming substance, its citizens began turning on one another 
     with increased aggression.
       His third question is whether cannabis serves as a gateway 
     drug. There are two possibilities. The first is that 
     marijuana activates certain behavioral and neurological 
     pathways that ease the onset of more serious addictions. The 
     second possibility is that marijuana offers a safer 
     alternative to other drugs: that if you start smoking pot to 
     deal with chronic pain you never graduate to opioids.
       Which is it? This is a very hard question to answer. We're 
     only a decade or so into the widespread recreational use of 
     high-potency marijuana. Maybe cannabis opens the door to 
     other drugs, but only after prolonged use. Or maybe the low-
     potency marijuana of years past wasn't a gateway, but today's 
     high-potency marijuana is. Methodologically, Berenson points 
     out, the issue is complicated by the fact that the first wave 
     of marijuana legalization took place on the West Coast, while 
     the first serious wave of opioid addiction took place in the 
     middle of the country. So, if all you do is eyeball the 
     numbers, it looks as if opioid overdoses are lowest in 
     cannabis states and highest in non-cannabis states.
       Not surprisingly, the data we have are messy. Berenson, in 
     his role as devil's advocate, emphasizes the research that 
     sees cannabis as opening the door to opioid use. For example, 
     two studies of identical twins--in the Netherlands and in 
     Australia--show that, in cases where one twin used cannabis 
     before the age of seventeen and the other didn't, the 
     cannabis user was several times more likely to develop an 
     addiction to opioids. Berenson also enlists a statistician at 
     N.Y.U. to help him sort through state-level overdose data, 
     and what he finds is not encouraging: ``States where more 
     people used cannabis tended to have more overdoses.''
       The National Academy panel is more judicious. Its 
     conclusion is that we simply don't know enough, because there 
     haven't been any ``systematic'' studies. But the panel's 
     uncertainty is scarcely more reassuring than Berenson's 
     alarmism. Seventy-two thousand Americans died in 2017 of drug 
     overdoses. Should you embark on a procannabis crusade without 
     knowing whether it will add to or subtract from that number?
       Drug policy is always clearest at the fringes. Illegal 
     opioids are at one end. They are dangerous. Manufacturers and 
     distributors belong in prison, and users belong in drug-
     treatment programs. The cannabis industry would have us 
     believe that its product, like coffee, belongs at the other 
     end of the continuum. ``Flow Kana partners with independent 
     multi-generational farmers who cultivate under full sun, 
     sustainably, and in small batches,'' the promotional 
     literature for one California cannabis brand reads. ``Using 
     only organic methods, these stewards of the land have spent 
     their lives balancing a unique and harmonious relationship 
     between the farm, the genetics and the terroir.'' But 
     cannabis is not coffee. It's somewhere in the middle. The 
     experience of most users is relatively benign and 
     predictable; the experience of a few, at the margins, is not. 
     Products or behaviors that have that kind of muddled risk 
     profile are confusing, because it is very difficult for those 
     in the benign middle to appreciate the experiences of those 
     at the statistical tails. Low-frequency risks also take 
     longer and are far harder to quantify, and the lesson of 
     ``Tell Your Children'' and the National Academy report is 
     that we aren't yet in a position to do so. For the moment, 
     cannabis probably belongs in the category of substances that 
     society permits but simultaneously discourages. Cigarettes 
     are heavily taxed, and smoking is prohibited in most 
     workplaces and public spaces. Alcohol can't be sold without a 
     license and is kept out of the hands of children. 
     Prescription drugs have rules about dosages, labels that 
     describe their risks, and policies that govern their 
     availability. The advice that seasoned potheads sometimes 
     give new users--``start low and go slow''--is probably good 
     advice for society as a whole, at least until we better 
     understand what we are dealing with.
       Late last year, the commissioner of the Food and Drug 
     Administration, Scott Gottlieb, announced a federal crackdown 
     on e-cigarettes. He had seen the data on soaring use among 
     teen-agers, and, he said, ``it shocked my conscience.'' He 
     announced that the F.D.A. would ban many kinds of flavored e-
     cigarettes, which are especially popular

[[Page H7969]]

     with teens, and would restrict the retail outlets where e-
     cigarettes were available.
       In the dozen years since e-cigarettes were introduced into 
     the marketplace, they have attracted an enormous amount of 
     attention. There are scores of studies and papers on the 
     subject in the medical and legal literature, grappling with 
     the questions raised by the new technology. Vaping is clearly 
     popular among kids. Is it a gateway to traditional tobacco 
     use? Some public-health experts worry that we're grooming a 
     younger generation for a lifetime of dangerous addiction. Yet 
     other people see e-cigarettes as a much safer alternative for 
     adult smokers looking to satisfy their nicotine addiction. 
     That's the British perspective. Last year, a Parliamentary 
     committee recommended cutting taxes on e-cigarettes and 
     allowing vaping in areas where it had previously been banned. 
     Since e-cigarettes are as much as ninety-five per cent less 
     harmful than regular cigarettes, the committee argued, why 
     not promote them? Gottlieb said that he was splitting the 
     difference between the two positions--giving adults 
     ``opportunities to transition to non-combustible products,'' 
     while upholding the F.D.A.'s ``solemn mandate to make 
     nicotine products less accessible and less appealing to 
     children.'' He was immediately criticized.``Somehow, we have 
     completely lost all sense of public-health perspective,'' 
     Michael Siegel, a public-health researcher at Boston 
     University, wrote after the F.D.A. announcement:
       Every argument that the F.D.A. is making in justifying a 
     ban on the sale of electronic cigarettes in convenience 
     stores and gas stations applies even more strongly for real 
     tobacco cigarettes: you know, the ones that kill hundreds of 
     thousands of Americans each year. Something is terribly wrong 
     with our sense of perspective when we take the e-cigarettes 
     off the shelf but allow the old-fashioned ones to remain.
       Among members of the public-health community, it is 
     impossible to spend five minutes on the e-cigarette question 
     without getting into an argument. And this is nicotine they 
     are arguing about, a drug that has been exhaustively studied 
     by generations of scientists. We don't worry that e-
     cigarettes increase the number of fatal car accidents, 
     diminish motivation and cognition, or impair academic 
     achievement. The drugs through the gateway that we worry 
     about with e-cigarettes are Marlboros, not opioids. There are 
     no enormous scientific question marks over nicotine's dosing 
     and bio-availability. Yet we still proceed cautiously and 
     carefully with nicotine, because it is a powerful drug, and 
     when powerful drugs are consumed by lots of people in new and 
     untested ways we have an obligation to try to figure out what 
     will happen.
       A week after Gottlieb announced his crackdown on e-
     cigarettes, on the ground that they are too enticing to 
     children, Siegel visited the first recreational-marijuana 
     facility in Massachusetts. Here is what he found on the menu, 
     each offering laced with large amounts of a drug, THC, that 
     no one knows much about:
       Strawberry-flavored chewy bites
       Large, citrus gummy bears
       Delectable Belgian dark chocolate bars
       Assorted fruit-flavored chews
       Assorted fruit-flavored cubes
       Raspberry flavored confection
       Raspberry flavored lozenges
       Chewy, cocoa caramel bite-sized treats
       Raspberry & watermelon flavored lozenges
       Chocolate-chip brownies. He concludes, ``This is public 
     health in 2018?''

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's 
willingness to work with several of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle. I want to commend him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), 
once again, for their commitment to this effort.
  This version of the legislation before us right now is dramatically 
improved and includes a number of Republican priorities, such as 
language on Operation Choke Point, and a solution that will help 
industrial hemp farmers across the country, but most especially in 
Kentucky.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are many questions left to be answered. We do 
not fully understand the sweeping implications of this legislation. We 
do not yet know what the resulting regulatory regime will look like, 
nor do we have any assurance that it will not expose the current 
financial system to illicit activity. In particular, as it is currently 
drafted, H.R. 1595 offers insufficient safeguards against drug cartels 
accessing the banking system.
  What this legislation does is provide a half answer to a much larger 
problem than just banking. We owe it to our constituents and to the 
public to have a serious debate on the underlying issue, and that is 
the issue of whether or not cannabis should be considered a schedule I 
substance under the Controlled Substances Act. I know Mr. Perlmutter 
and I share that same sentiment that we should have that larger debate.
  In the meantime, Congress is working in a bipartisan way to come up 
with at least a measure of a solution, but I am hopeful that we can get 
the medical research necessary and the FDA processes necessary for us 
to have that larger debate as well. I would welcome that debate, as I 
know the American people would as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to my friend for the kind words about 
working across the aisle. This has been a partnership in many respects, 
lots of interchange.
  I would also say to my friend, the Financial Services Committee has 
certain jurisdiction. We couldn't take up all of the different things 
that the gentleman has suggested, Mr. Speaker, but we were able to take 
up this marijuana bill. It is the first time this Congress has done it, 
certainly in my terms here, and the reason we did that was because the 
chairwoman was a driving force to get this matter in front of the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters), chairwoman of the full committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1595, the SAFE 
Banking Act, sponsored by Representatives Ed Perlmutter, Denny Heck,   
Steve Stivers, and Warren Davidson. Let me say to all of these 
individuals who have worked so long and so hard on this legislation, I 
am proud of the work that they have done; I am proud of the cooperation 
that they have demonstrated; and I am proud to be on this floor with 
them today.
  This bipartisan bill addresses a pressing public safety issue for 
businesses that legally grow, market, or sell cannabis in States that 
have legalized its use and that are currently forced to operate with 
cash only. Forty-seven States, three territories, and D.C. have 
legalized some form of marijuana, and it is time for Congress to act.
  Cannabis-related businesses are locked out of the banking system and 
cannot maintain checking accounts, process payroll obligations, or pay 
taxes. The Financial Services Committee heard testimony in February 
that these cash-only businesses and their employees have become targets 
for violent criminals.
  The SAFE Banking Act addresses this serious problem by providing a 
safe harbor to financial institutions that choose to serve State-
regulated cannabis businesses. The bill would also help others, like 
plumbers or electricians who provide services to cannabis businesses, 
who face similar challenges with access to banking services. With the 
passage of this bill, all of these businesses will gain access to 
traditional financial services that most businesses take for granted.
  H.R. 1595 also promotes diversity and inclusion, with several 
reporting provisions to help Congress monitor that minority-owned and 
women-owned cannabis businesses get access to credit they need and have 
a fair chance to compete.
  As I have said before and I say here on the floor today, this bill is 
but one important piece of what should be a comprehensive series of 
cannabis reform bills.
  I have long fought for criminal justice reform and deeply understand 
the need to fully address the historical racial and social inequities 
related to the criminalization of marijuana.
  I support legislation like Representatives Lee's Marijuana Justice 
Act and Chairman Nadler's MORE Act that would de-schedule marijuana 
federally and provide assistance, such as job training and reentry 
services, for those who have been harmed by the war on drugs.
  Let me be clear. It is long overdue for Congress to address the 
unjust criminalization of marijuana use. So I eagerly look forward to 
the Judiciary Committee sending the legislation to the House floor 
soon.
  I thank Representatives Perlmutter and Heck for their longstanding 
leadership on this issue for the past 6 years.
  I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the bill and, when we get the 
legislation from the Judiciary Committee, to do all of those things 
that I have spoken about here, what is considered justice for those who 
have been harmed by some of the laws that cause people to

[[Page H7970]]

be incarcerated. We eagerly look forward to that legislation. We urge 
the Judiciary Committee to send it to the floor so that we can support 
it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the ranking member of the Investor 
Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member allowing 
me this time.
  Let's set aside the moral and societal aspects of cannabis and the 
debate and acknowledge that we have a problem. We do have a problem. We 
have States that have decided to violate Federal law; and within those 
States, we have banking institutions and businesses that are operating 
within the confines of the State, however, that are still in violation 
of the Federal law.
  Now, here is what we do agree on: We need to have a goal of 
predictability for these financial institutions and for these 
businesses. However, I don't believe that this bill will ultimately do 
that because the Federal Government still views this as a schedule I 
substance.
  I had an amendment in committee, as the author of the bill well 
knows, that would have forced alignment with all of the various 
regulators. I think at the time, my recollection is, we counted 13 
different Federal regulators that touch these institutions in one way 
or another.
  The answer to that was, well, in the bill, we have a requirement that 
they are going to agree with each other within 180 days.
  Well, this is not going to come as a surprise to those watching on C-
SPAN. We can't collectively tie our shoes here in Washington in 180 
days, much less get through something that complicated.
  My amendment said that this would go into effect only when and if all 
of the regulators could agree to the language of how to deal with it. I 
still think that is the right way to go.

                              {time}  1645

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. There is a big difference we know between industrial 
hemp and recreational cannabis. The only way for us to really get at 
this issue and provide predictability to the companies, to the 
financial institutions, and to our citizens is to have the full debate 
about whether marijuana and cannabis should be a schedule I substance 
or not. It is time for this full debate to happen, and I look forward 
to it.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Michigan, I guess I 
have more confidence in the Federal employees that they can get 
something done in the next 180 days.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Heck) who has been working on this subject with me for the last 6 
years.
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act.
  Before I do that, I want to acknowledge the leadership of this man 
for a very long period of time. The only reason we are standing here 
tonight about to vote on this is because of the tireless and brilliant 
leadership by the gentleman from Colorado. I thank him for it. It has 
been an incredible journey over a long period of time. I thank the 
chair of the committee as well for her strong and clear leadership on 
this. Lastly, I would like to thank the two gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. 
Stivers and Mr. Davidson, who are not just allies, they are friends and 
have done excellent work in this regard.
  This is a public safety bill pure and simple. If you want your 
neighborhoods to be safer, Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes.'' If you want your 
communities to be safer, vote ``yes.'' If you want the employees at the 
dispensaries throughout the 47 States who have some form of legalized 
cannabis, vote ``yes.''
  This is a public safety bill, and it is not hypothetical. It is real. 
Exhibit A, Travis Mason. June 18 of 2016, Travis Mason got up and went 
to work. He was full of optimism about life. He was a marine veteran. 
He served this country honorably. He was looking forward to his future, 
because he just had been informed that he was approved to take the 
Denver Police Department test. He was confident he would pass it. He 
had been studying for it.
  So he kissed his lovely wife, Samantha, good-bye. They were both 
marine veterans, both just 24 with three small children. He kissed 
Aidyn and Daisy--they were twins--and little baby Julian good-bye and 
went to work where he served as a security guard in a dispensary in 
suburban Denver.
  Because that was an all-cash settlement, because the Federal law did 
not allow for that business to be banked, to be within the guardrails 
of the financial system, an evil person walked in that night and shot 
Travis dead and left Samantha a 24-year-old widow with three small 
children. This was so unnecessary. If we pass this legislation that 
does not have to happen. This is not hypothetical.
  You can be agnostic on the underlying policy of whether or not 
cannabis should be legal for either adult recreational use or to treat 
seizures for juvenile epileptics, but you cannot be agnostic on the 
need to improve safety in this area.
  If you believe that the first two provisions, especially, of the Cole 
memorandum, which sets forth: Keep marijuana out of the hands of 
children and keep cash out of the hands of the cartels, if you support 
that, you must vote ``yes'' on this bill so that we can track this and 
so that we can monitor this.
  If we do nothing, bad things will again happen. If we pass this law, 
if we pass the SAFE Banking Act, the public safety measure, then we can 
avoid another widow, Samantha, and another murdered clerk at a 
dispensary. We can make our neighborhood safer, and we can make our 
communities safer. Please join us in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1595.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 9 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Germantown, Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
  Mr. KUSTOFFF of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking 
member for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1595, the SAFE 
Banking Act. I do want to say, I appreciate the debate that we have had 
in our Financial Services Committee, but I think that we need to have 
the same debate in the Judiciary Committee.
  We all know that over the last several years, States across the 
country have passed various laws to legalize marijuana for both 
recreational and medical purposes. That flawed approach has created a 
patchwork of State laws and regulations that have allowed for the 
spread of marijuana use across the U.S.
  Proponents of this bill claim that it will provide consistent 
guidelines for marijuana companies to do business across our national 
finance system. However, my concern is that the legalization will only 
provide safe harbor while legitimizing and encouraging more widespread 
use of this currently illegal drug.
  The reality today is that we are voting to nationally legalize 
marijuana throughout our banking system rather than taking the correct 
approach, which I believe is to take a vote to legalize what is 
currently an illegal substance.
  I would ask my colleagues who support this bill to think long and 
hard about what you are actually voting on today, because the 
consequences will be far-reaching beyond the intent of this bill.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), who is a co-chair of the Congressional 
Cannabis Caucus and a sponsor of the Marijuana Justice Act which we 
hope to see marked up and brought to the floor.
  Ms. LEE of California. First of all, Madam Speaker, let me thank 
Congressman Perlmutter for yielding and also for his tireless 
leadership. This has taken a heck of a long time. The gentleman has 
stayed with it. He has been persistent, and I stand here and salute his 
efforts.
  I also want to thank Chairwoman Waters for moving this bill out of 
the Financial Services Committee and for

[[Page H7971]]

her support for our Marijuana Justice Act. I want to thank Congressman 
Heck for his clarity as to why this bill is necessary and for his 
support. And then, of course, my partner and friend, who has been on 
this issue so many years as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional 
Cannabis Caucus in which I also serve as co-chair, Congressman Earl 
Blumenauer. I salute and thank everyone for getting us to this point.
  The SAFE Banking Act would explicitly permit banks and other 
financial institutions to work directly with State legal cannabis 
businesses--legal cannabis businesses--instead of relying on cash 
transactions. This bill is not only timely but extremely necessary. 
Right now the cannabis industry needs access to safe and effective 
banking immediately.
  Now, let me be clear. Federal law severely limits access to loans and 
capital for the cannabis business, especially, mind you, for those who 
have cannabis-related arrests and convictions on their record. That 
means that less than one-fifth of the cannabis industry is owned or 
operated by people of color, even though African Americans have been 
shown to use cannabis at the same rate as White Americans, yet are 
incarcerated at about 80 percent more in terms of incarceration rates. 
This is just plain wrong. So this bill is a great first start to 
addressing all of these issues.
  I am telling you, Madam Speaker, communities of color should equally 
benefit from all of the laws that have been passed at the State level. 
They should have the opportunity to generate generational wealth for 
their families, too.
  That is why, in addition to this bill, the House must bring forward 
legislation like my Marijuana Justice Act and the MORE Act, which 
addresses criminal justice reform, restorative justice, and fully 
reinvests in communities of color impacted by the failed and racist war 
on drugs.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Perlmutter, again, for his 
leadership and for working with us to get this to the floor.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Columbus, Ohio (Mr. Stivers), who is the ranking member of the National 
Security, International Development and Monetary Policy Subcommittee of 
the Financial Services Committee. He is a great advocate for the bill.
  Mr. STIVERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act. 
The bill provides a limited safe harbor for banks and credit unions to 
open and maintain accounts for marijuana-related businesses and other 
nonmarijuana-related businesses.
  I personally oppose recreational marijuana. But for me, this bill has 
nothing to do with the larger debate about marijuana and whether it is 
a good or bad thing. Instead, I am narrowly focused on the public 
safety aspects of this bill. The inconsistencies between State and 
Federal law have created a situation where a growing number of State-
regulated businesses are operating on a cash-only basis. As a result, 
they sit on large pools of cash that make them a magnet for violent 
robberies.
  The transactions of cash-only businesses are not subjected to 
rigorous anti-money laundering or know your customer requirements that 
would be required for bank account holders. This makes it difficult for 
regulators and law enforcement to trace transactions or to freeze 
money.
  The SAFE Banking Act will make our communities safer by getting cash 
off the streets and into regulated financial institutions, so we can 
root out fraud and other illegal activity. The bill also extends the 
safe harbor to any proceeds indirectly received from these businesses 
such as a hardware store down the street or the landlord of these 
businesses.
  Importantly, the SAFE Banking Act does not change the legal status of 
marijuana. Additionally, H.R. 1595 also includes provisions that would 
prevent financial regulators from denying or discouraging access to the 
banking system for other legal businesses as happened in 2014 through 
2016. This protection is a major protection for other legal businesses.
  I want to thank Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Heck for their incredible 
advocacy on this. I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member 
McHenry for their honest and hardworking efforts, even when they 
disagree. And I want to thank Senator Cory Gardner who has championed 
this bill in the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1595.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 
supporters for the SAFE Banking Act from a broad coalition, including 
the National Association of Attorneys General, including 38 State 
attorneys general, 20 State Governors, and 18 State banking 
supervisors, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Credit Union 
National Association, the Independent Community Bankers Association, 
the American Bankers Association, the Mid-size Bank Coalition of 
America, the National Bankers Association, Law Enforcement Action 
Partnership, the Minority Cannabis Business Association, the Mayors 
Coalition for Marijuana Reform, eight insurance trade associations, the 
International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Cannabis 
Industry Association, the National Cannabis Roundtable, the Cannabis 
Trade Federation, the California Cannabis Industry, the Florida 
Agriculture Commissioner, the Safe and Responsible Banking Alliance, 
the Electronic Transaction Association, the Real Estate Roundtable, the 
National Association of Realtors, Brinks, Inc., the National Armored 
Car Association, the American Financial Services Association, and 
ScottsMiracle-Gro.

       H.R. 1595, the SAFE Banking Act, is supported by a wide 
     range of national organizations and state officials, 
     including:
       National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), United 
     Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Credit Union National 
     Association (CUNA), Independent Community Bankers Association 
     (ICBA), America Bankers Association (ABA), Mid-size Bank 
     Coalition of America (MBCA), National Bankers Association 
     (NBA), 50 State Banking Associations, Electronic Transaction 
     Association (ETA), Third Party Payment Processors Association 
     (TPPPA), Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), The Real 
     Estate Roundtable (RER), National Association of REALTORS, 
     Safe and Responsible Banking Alliance (SARBA), American Land 
     Title Association (ALTA).
       American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), 
     The Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB), 
     Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), Independent 
     Insurance Agents and Brokers of America (Big ``I''), 
     Wholesale Specialty Insurance Association (WSIA), National 
     Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA), National 
     Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), Rural 
     County Representatives of California (RCRC), Brinks, Inc., 
     International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), National 
     Association of Professional Employer Associations (NAPEA), 
     National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), Minority 
     Cannabis Business Association (MCBA), National Cannabis 
     Roundtable (NCR), Cannabis Trade Federation (CTF), 
     ScottsMiracle-Gro, National Armored Car Association (NACA).
       Additionally, the Mayors Coalition to Push for Marijuana 
     Reform, 38 State Attorneys General, 20 Governors, 18 State 
     Banking Supervisors, and the Florida Agriculture Commissioner 
     have endorsed the legislation.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been the quarterback of a lot of 
this cannabis legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
the leadership, and you have heard from a number of the champions in 
this House fighting for a more rational policy regarding cannabis.
  We are in this fix today because Congress has refused to provide the 
partnership and the leadership that the States demand. The States 
aren't waiting for us. As you have heard, 47 States have taken steps to 
legalize some form of State legal cannabis.
  One of the most insidious aspects of our being out of sync is what we 
have seen in terms of access to banking services. Congressman Heck 
elaborated I think very emotionally and effectively about the dangers 
that this presents. We have an opportunity to fix that problem.
  This is an $11 billion industry and growing, and it is growing 
because the people and the States have demanded it. We need to step up 
and solve one of the biggest problems, and that is simply they don't 
have access to banking services. I have worked on this issue for 
decades. I have never met a human being who feels that there is any 
good

[[Page H7972]]

purpose served by forcing them to pay their bills with duffle bags full 
of $20 bills--not one person. It is an invitation to theft, it is an 
invitation to money laundering already, it is an invitation to tax 
evasion, and it stifles the opportunities of this business.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to vote for this as the next step. 
This is an important foundational, but it is not the last step. We have 
important legislation that is keyed up and ready to go. This approval 
today will provide momentum that we need for further reform that we all 
want and will make America safer and stronger.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1595, the SAFE 
Banking Act, and I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), 
my friend, for working with me in a bipartisan way to include two 
amendments that will allow legal hemp farmers and businesses in my 
district to access financial services.
  Kentuckians have a deep interest in the production, cultivation, and 
sale of industrial hemp, and we have historic connections to this, too. 
Many Americans may not know, but my predecessor in the central Kentucky 
seat in Congress, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, was once a hemp 
farmer. Now, thanks to the farm bill, the hemp industry in the 
Commonwealth is booming once again.
  Much of the resurgence of the industry occurred under the Industrial 
Hemp Research Pilot Program, established by the 2014 farm bill. Since 
the program's enactment in 2014, the number of approved acres in 
Kentucky increased from 922 to over 50,000. In 2018, sales of hemp 
products were three-and-a-half more times than the previous year.
  The 2018 farm bill took it a step further and fully legalized 
industrial hemp, ending 80 years of prohibition of the plant. Hemp is 
now completely exempt from the Controlled Substances Act. Despite these 
positive steps forward, hemp businesses still have trouble accessing 
financial services like bank accounts, loans, and payment processing.
  This bill will provide additional clarity for banks, insurance 
companies, and card processors that they can, in fact, do business with 
legally operating hemp businesses. It would also direct our Federal 
financial regulators to issue joint guidance to financial institutions 
on how to serve hemp and CBD businesses without legal risk.
  There is amazing potential for hemp and hemp-derived products. One 
hemp farmer in my district has an exclusive deal with Patagonia to 
provide hemp for farming. Toyota, which has the largest manufacturing 
facility in my district, is exploring the use of hemp for car 
interiors. Hemp farmers in my district are cultivating hemp to produce 
products ranging from nutraceuticals, dietary supplements, 
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, apparel, footwear, fashion, and even 
industrial products and construction materials.
  But for hemp producers and businesses to fully scale up and take 
advantage of the descheduling under the farm bill, they need access to 
financial services.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my 
friend, for working with me in a bipartisan way, and I urge support for 
H.R. 1595.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side 
has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The gentleman from Colorado 
has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Meeks), the chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer 
Protections and Financial Institutions.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, there has been a rapid and dramatic shift 
in the legal treatment of cannabis, led by voters at the local and 
State levels.
  Nearly every American now lives in a State where cannabis has been 
decriminalized to some extent and legal business activities permitted 
to varying degrees, including in my home State of New York. But Federal 
drug laws and bank regulations have not evolved to reflect this new 
reality. We need clear, harmonized laws, which the SAFE Banking Act 
provides.
  Without passage of this bill, the legal cannabis industry is forced 
to operate mostly in cash, depriving law enforcement of important 
financial data and creating avoidable security risks for companies and 
their employees.
  With the passage of this bill, entrepreneurs, employees, and 
financial institutions operating legally within the bounds of State and 
local laws will no longer bear the burden of a punitive Tax Code, high 
compliance hurdles, the lack of all basic financial services, and 
significant security risks.
  I am proud of the work Mr. Perlmutter has done on this bill, and I 
compliment him.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Davidson), a great member of the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
SAFE Banking Act.
  This is a banking bill. It defends civil liberties with a simple 
concept: If it is legal in your State, you should be able to bank it. 
No Federal regulator should be able to block an American's lawful 
access to the financial system.
  In Ohio, legal, State-regulated businesses are being forced into 
using cash or intermediaries. This bill will help get cash off our 
streets and into the regulated financial system.
  I am also pleased the bill includes Mr. Luetkemeyer's legislation to 
stop the closing of accounts on the basis of political biases or 
motivations.
  For far too long, financial institutions have said: You are not going 
to bank those people, are you?
  It is time to defend civil liberties and pass this important bill.
  Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan, broad support of its passage.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
commonsense legislation, the SAFE Banking Act.
  When I was a State senator in California, I was visited by Dr. 
Moynihan, who came to visit my office to ask that I do some legislation 
to help his daughter. In her short lifetime, she had been tormented by 
epileptic seizures. The only drug that worked for her without severe 
side effects was cannabis.

  It breaks my heart to know that these legit businesses can pay their 
taxes with cash, yet customers like Dr. Moynihan can't use a credit 
card. He also has to pay with cash to get legitimate products. It 
doesn't make sense.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please support commonsense 
legislation. Please vote ``aye'' on this legislation.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McHenry) for yielding, and it is on behalf of those cannabis 
patients in Fort Walton Beach and across the Sunshine State that I rise 
in support of the SAFE Banking Act.
  I am proud to have been a part of drafting Florida's medical 
marijuana laws, and it is ludicrous that the Congress of the United 
States would stand between people operating under the color of State 
law and their ability to access the financial system.
  It is good for no one to have billions of dollars rolling around 
outside of the accountabilities, efficiencies, and safeguards that the 
American financial system provides.
  A vast majority of States have legalized some form of cannabis, and 
if a business is legal in that State, it should have the same financial 
protections as any other business.
  I am a proud original cosponsor of the SAFE Banking Act, and I thank 
my colleagues for their tireless work on this issue. I know the bill is 
not perfect. I expect the bill to get better in the Senate, but 
hopefully, this will build some commonsense momentum for real cannabis 
reform.

[[Page H7973]]

  Let's get this drug off the schedule I list and do right for the 
great people in the country.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Speaker, today, because federally regulated banks 
and other financial institutions may face prosecution if they offer 
their services to businesses selling legal cannabis products across 47 
States, D.C., and four U.S. territories, many legal businesses are 
forced to operate in a cash-only business, making them targets for 
theft and creating opportunities for tax evasion and money laundering.
  It is simply unfair to deprive legal, State-approved businesses of 
financial services any longer. Social equity will go further by 
allowing businesses to come out of the shadows.
  As chair of the House Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on 
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, I am pleased that this 
legislation was made inclusive of hemp as it moved through the process. 
I have heard from a number of legal hemp businesses that have 
experienced similar issues.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), 
my colleague, for the inclusion of the territories.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I strongly 
support this bill and congratulate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Perlmutter) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for their hard 
work.
  We have to pass this bill because it is a public safety issue. Banks 
can't serve marijuana businesses, an $11 billion business, because it 
is still illegal at the Federal level, which means that legal marijuana 
businesses around the country operate in all cash.
  This is a huge public safety issue because storing huge piles of cash 
in warehouses is a magnet for criminal activity. But it also means that 
companies that just provide services to marijuana businesses, like 
electric or water utilities, are also getting cut off from the banking 
system. Undermining people's access to basic utilities creates yet 
another public safety problem.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me begin as I did with my opening statement. I 
commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for how he has 
managed this bill and brought it to the floor.
  What we have here on the House floor, and we are debating now, is a 
much broader bill and, therefore, will have a much broader vote than 
what we had in committee, however limited we were in committee 
jurisdiction.
  Madam Speaker, I know if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) 
were on the Appropriations Committee, he would have worked for medical 
research funding. I know that if he were on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, he would have worked for an FDA process on cannabis. And if 
he were on the Committee on the Judiciary, he would have worked to 
deschedule the drug.
  However, we find ourselves on the Financial Services Committee, and 
this is not a normal conversation that we have on the committee. But 
this is addressing a key issue that many States are facing, and many 
financial institutions, credit unions, and banks are facing, which is 
how to bank people with a lot of cash, with a product that is legal at 
the State level but defined at the Federal level as an illicit 
substance that is harmful for human consumption.
  While Congress is taking this half-measure, it doesn't resolve the 
issue. It does not resolve the issue of medical research or 
understanding the brain science and how cannabis affects the adolescent 
brain. There are enormous questions there. There are enormous questions 
about the Federal Criminal Code. But these are things that we should be 
debating rather than this half-measure on banking.

  While this is an important step on the question of the overall 
legalization of this drug, it still doesn't resolve the issue fully.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues for a ``no'' vote, but I expect 
this vote will pass on the suspension calendar today. I thank my 
colleague for his handling of this important issue and the wise nature 
of how he has approached the amendment process to address many 
different equities across the country. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry). As I said at the top of this debate, this bill is about 
public safety, accountability, and respecting States' rights.
  Our bill is narrowly tailored to get cash off the streets and improve 
public safety in communities across the country.
  I thank my cosponsors. They have heard from me. They have been 
working with me for years, and I really appreciate that. Especially, I 
thank the staff of the Committee on Financial Services, the staff of my 
cosponsors, and my own staff for the work they have done to put this 
bill and coalition together.
  There are many marijuana issues that remain, but this one gets the 
cash off the streets. This is about public safety.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the SAFE 
Banking Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1595, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 321, 
nays 103, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 544]

                               YEAS--321

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Axne
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gibbs
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gooden
     Gottheimer
     Graves (GA)
     Green (TN)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Keller
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Mast

[[Page H7974]]


     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--103

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Brady
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Conaway
     Cook
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hice (GA)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lucas
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stewart
     Thornberry
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Abraham
     Clyburn
     Crawford
     Cummings
     Higgins (LA)
     Marshall
     McEachin
     Torres (CA)
     Wright

                              {time}  1742

  Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, BUCHANAN, and Ms. SEWELL of Alabama changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. EMMER, NADLER, Mrs. LURIA, Messrs. HUNTER, WOMACK, LONG, Ms. 
STEFANIK, Messrs. RESCHENTHALER and TIMMONS changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________