[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 67 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1915-H1924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





            SECURE AND FAIR ENFORCEMENT BANKING ACT OF 2021

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1996) to create protections for financial 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. 1996

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Secure And 
     Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2021'' or the ``SAFE Banking 
     Act of 2021''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; purpose.
Sec. 2. Safe harbor for depository institutions.
Sec. 3. Protections for ancillary businesses.
Sec. 4. Protections under Federal law.
Sec. 5. Rules of construction.
Sec. 6. Requirements for filing suspicious activity reports.
Sec. 7. Guidance and examination procedures.
Sec. 8. Annual diversity and inclusion report.
Sec. 9. GAO study on diversity and inclusion.
Sec. 10. GAO study on effectiveness of certain reports on finding 
              certain persons.
Sec. 11. Application of this Act with respect to hemp-related 
              legitimate businesses and hemp-related service providers.
Sec. 12. Banking services for hemp-related legitimate businesses and 
              hemp-related service providers.
Sec. 13. Requirements for deposit account termination requests and 
              orders.
Sec. 14. Definitions.
Sec. 15. Discretionary surplus funds.
       (c) 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 (where such 
     cannabis-related legitimate business operates 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) or a 
     service provider (wherever located), 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 (where such cannabis-
     related legitimate business operates 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) or 
     service provider (wherever located), 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

[[Page H1916]]

     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.
       (c) Business of Insurance.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     interfere with the regulation of the business of insurance in 
     accordance with the Act of March 9, 1945 (59 Stat. 33, 
     chapter 20; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) (commonly known as the 
     ``McCarran-Ferguson Act'') and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
     Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).

     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. Not later than the end 
     of the 180-day period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall update the February 14, 
     2014, guidance titled `BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-
     Related Businesses' (FIN-2014-G001) to ensure that the 
     guidance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the 
     SAFE Banking Act of 2021 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 2021.
       ``(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 2021.
       ``(vi) Service provider.--The term `service provider' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 14 of the SAFE Banking 
     Act of 2021.
       ``(vii) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 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. APPLICATION OF THIS ACT WITH RESPECT TO HEMP-RELATED 
                   LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES AND HEMP-RELATED SERVICE 
                   PROVIDERS.

       (a) In General.--The provisions of this Act (other than 
     sections 6 and 10) shall apply with respect to hemp-related 
     legitimate businesses and hemp-related service providers in 
     the same manner as such provisions apply with respect to 
     cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service providers.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) CBD.--The term ``CBD'' means cannabidiol.
       (2) Hemp.--The term ``hemp'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
     1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o).
       (3) Hemp-related legitimate business.--The term ``hemp-
     related legitimate business'' means a manufacturer, producer, 
     or any person or company that--
       (A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B) 
     in conformity with the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 
     (Public Law 115-334) and the regulations issued to implement 
     such Act by the Department of Agriculture, where applicable, 
     and the law of a State or political subdivision thereof or 
     Indian Tribe; and
       (B) participates in any business or organized activity that 
     involves handling hemp, hemp-derived CBD products, and other 
     hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including cultivating, 
     producing, extracting, manufacturing, selling, transporting, 
     displaying, dispensing, distributing, or purchasing hemp, 
     hemp-derived CBD products, and other hemp-derived cannabinoid 
     products.
       (4) Hemp-related service provider.--The term ``hemp-related 
     service provider''--
       (A) means a business, organization, or other person that--
       (i) sells goods or services to a hemp-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 hemp, 
     hemp-derived CBD products, or other hemp-derived cannabinoid 
     products; and
       (B) does not include a business, organization, or other 
     person that participates in any business or organized 
     activity that involves handling hemp, hemp-derived CBD 
     products, or other hemp-derived cannabinoid products, 
     including cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, 
     transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing, or 
     purchasing hemp, hemp-derived CBD products, and other hemp-
     derived cannabinoid products.

     SEC. 12. BANKING SERVICES FOR HEMP-RELATED LEGITIMATE 
                   BUSINESSES AND HEMP-RELATED SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       (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 CBD 
     products are particularly affected, due to confusion about 
     the legal status of such products.
       (b) Federal Banking Regulators' 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 update their existing guidance, as applicable, 
     regarding the provision of financial services to hemp-related 
     legitimate businesses and hemp-related service providers to 
     address--
       (1) compliance with financial institutions' existing 
     obligations under Federal laws and implementing regulations 
     determined relevant by the Federal banking regulators, 
     including subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United 
     States Code, and its implementing regulation in conformity 
     with this Act and the Department of Agriculture's rules 
     regulating domestic hemp production (7 C.F.R. 990); and
       (2) best practices for financial institutions to follow 
     when providing financial services, including processing 
     payments, to hemp-related legitimate businesses and hemp-
     related service providers.

[[Page H1917]]

       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
     institution''--
       (A) has the meaning given that term under section 5312(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code; and
       (B) includes a bank holding company, as defined under 
     section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 
     U.S.C. 1841(a)).
       (2) Hemp terms.--The terms ``CBD'', ``hemp'', ``hemp-
     related legitimate business'', and ``hemp-related service 
     provider'' have the meaning given those terms, respectively, 
     under section 11.

     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).
       (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), regardless if the 
     customer receiving the product or service is a consumer or 
     commercial entity;
       (B) means a financial product or service, or any 
     combination of products and services, permitted to be 
     provided by--
       (i) a national bank or a financial subsidiary pursuant to 
     the authority provided under--

       (I) the provision designated ``Seventh'' of section 5136 of 
     the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 24); or
       (II) section 5136A of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States (12 U.S.C. 24a); and

       (ii) a Federal credit union, pursuant to the authority 
     provided under the Federal Credit Union Act;
       (C) includes the business of insurance;
       (D) 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;
       (E) 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
       (F) 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.

[[Page H1918]]

       (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, the Commonwealth of 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 reducing the dollar figure by 
     $6,000,000.

  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 include extraneous materials on H.R. 1996.
  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 cannabis, 
including CBD products. 318 million people live in those 47 States. 
That is 97.7 percent of the population of America.
  However, because cannabis remains illegal under Federal law, the 
Controlled Substance Act, businesses in these States are forced to deal 
in cash; and the businesses, their employees, and ancillary businesses 
can't access the banking system.
  The fact is that the people in States and localities across the 
country are voting to approve some level of cannabis use, and we need 
these cannabis businesses and employees to have access to checking 
accounts, payroll accounts, lines of credit, credit cards, 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, this will reduce the risk of violent crime in our 
communities. These businesses and their employees become targets for 
crime, robbery, assault, and more by dealing in all cash, and this puts 
the employees and the store owners at risk.
  Over the last year in Oregon alone, a string of more than 100 
robberies and burglaries at cannabis businesses culminated in a murder 
when Michael Arthur, a dispensary employee, was shot to death during a 
robbery.
  Just last week in Colorado, an innocent bystander was shot during an 
attempted break-in at a medical cannabis business. And in Colorado, we 
are always reminded of Travis Mason, the young father and Marine Corps 
vet, who was murdered while working as a security guard for a cannabis 
business.
  We must do better for these employees, their families, and all our 
communities.
  The SAFE Banking Act will create a safe harbor for financial 
institutions and their employees who choose to do business with a 
cannabis company. Section 3 of the bill is particularly important to 
not only cannabis businesses, but everyone who might do business with a 
cannabis-related company. This section would protect ancillary 
businesses, like real estate owners, accountants, electricians, and 
vendors, by clarifying the proceeds from legitimate cannabis businesses 
are not unlawful under Federal laws. This proceeds section is the key 
provision allowing all cannabis-related businesses and their service 
providers and landlords to access the banking system without fear of 
reprisal.
  This bill now has 177 bipartisan cosponsors, and one-third of the 
Senate is cosponsoring the companion bill from Senators Merkley and 
Daines.
  Last Congress, the SAFE Banking Act passed the House 321-103, with 
the support of 91 Republicans. The broad base of support for this 
legislation generated a diverse group of cosponsors and endorsing 
organizations from banking, credit union, and insurance trade 
associations to labor unions, cannabis businesses and advocates, and 
State government leaders.
  There are, obviously, many more marijuana issues we need to address 
working together, including additional research, tax issues, and 
criminal justice reforms. Passing this bill will show that Congress can 
work together in a bipartisan way to address outdated marijuana laws. I 
hope this bill is an icebreaker for the House to take up other reforms 
and finally remove the conflict between State and Federal laws.
  In summary, even if you are opposed to the legalization of cannabis, 
you should support this bill. American voters have spoken and continue 
to speak, and the fact is that you can't put the genie back in the 
bottle. Prohibition is over. The SAFE Banking Act is focused solely on 
taking cash off the streets and making our communities safer, and only 
Congress can take these steps to provide this certainty for businesses, 
employees, and financial institutions across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Velazquez, Stivers, Davidson, 
Joyce, Correa, and Blumenauer for their partnership on this bill and 
their commitment to making our communities safer. I also thank 
Representatives Luetkemeyer, Barr, and Porter for their contributions 
to the text of this bill and their support. Finally, I thank Chairwoman 
Maxine Waters for her support over the years and for continuing to make 
this a priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the 
SAFE Banking Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1996.
  I want to begin by commending my colleague from Colorado, Mr. 
Perlmutter, for the way that he has approached this legislation. He is 
incorporating a lot of ideas from Members all across this Chamber and 
from across the country. He has doggedly pursued this legislation for 
many years, and I want to commend him for that.
  I also want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers and Mr. Joyce of 
Ohio, for the way they have approached this bill. I think this is a 
testament to constructive criticism of a bill and it becoming better as 
a result of it.
  Let me say, regardless of your position on this bill, I do think the 
fact remains that cannabis is a prohibited substance under schedule I 
of the Controlled Substances Act.
  Let me further state that, by enacting this legislation, we are 
effectively kneecapping law enforcement in legalizing money laundering. 
These are concerns that I have, that still remain.
  By effectively legalizing money laundering, we are inserting a new 
level of risk in our financial system. We are preventing our legal 
entities from doing their jobs. We are encouraging bad actors and 
placing our financial institutions at risk.
  Rather than dealing with the issues of cannabis and the question of 
its Federal legalization, we are dealing with a component of the 
challenge, which is the banking of it, and it is a challenge. I think 
we are adding a new risk to our banking system and our anti-money 
laundering reforms that we passed just in January of this year. That 
seems counterintuitive to me.
  For years, Congress has worked to reform our anti-money laundering 
laws. Now, in one fell swoop, we are undoing a lot of that hard work 
and we are going to make it easier for money launderers.
  If you want to help the system, if you want to give financial 
institutions the certainty and security they want and need to do the 
job with the cannabis industry, where it is legalized in these

[[Page H1919]]

States, we should debate the merits of cannabis remaining a schedule I 
substance, not pass a bill that skirts around the substance of the 
issue.
  This bill we are considering today is one of the biggest changes to 
U.S. drug policy, yet it was done with little debate this Congress. 
There has been a lot of debate overall in this Congress, far more than 
the Senate has even had, on the question of cannabis.
  This bill, which is really the first step in legalizing cannabis at 
the Federal level, was reported out of the Financial Services Committee 
last Congress, and it is a committee that really has no jurisdiction 
over the Controlled Substances Act. We only had one hearing featuring 
one panel of witnesses. We haven't had a hearing this Congress to 
discuss changes over the last 2 years, let alone a markup to discuss 
any changes that might strengthen or impact the bill.
  For example, late last year, Congress passed a sweeping bipartisan 
anti-money laundering piece of legislation. These reforms include 
prohibitions on the concealment of sources of assets in monetary 
transactions; a prohibition, I will add, that comes with a steep 
penalty of up to 10 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines.
  If we were doing our due diligence, we would have done a deeper 
discussion on how these new AML Act changes would impact banks working 
with cannabis industries as clients instead of me raising this issue at 
the eleventh hour on the floor, which is what I have got to resort to.
  In addition to this concern, I believe I have voiced many other 
concerns, including our need to better comprehend and address the 
supervisory and regulatory issues that would result from enactment of 
H.R. 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Ranking Member 
Luetkemeyer of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial 
Institutions and myself as ranking member of the full Committee on 
Financial Services.
                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2019.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.
     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. Sec. 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 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 cannibis-related businesses?
       13. What are the implications of H.R. 1595 on federal, 
     state, and local law enforcement, including the Department of 
     Justice and the Drug Enforcement Agency?
       14. How are the 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, this letter raises a number of concerns, 
including:
  What changes to our banking laws are necessary to implement the SAFE 
Banking Act, a number of questions that I have;
  What agencies are going to be necessary for this working group to 
actually ensure that the letter of this law is adhered to by the 
executive branch, that they actually follow it as the writer of the 
legislation intends;
  How the executive branch will interpret the ``know your customer'' 
rules enacted in the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we enacted just 
2 months ago, 3 months ago;
  How we would deal with suspicious activity reporting requirements 
under the new guidelines of the SAFE Banking Act, compared to what we 
enacted at the end of last year;
  How we deal with currency transaction reports under this law, 
compared to what we just passed; and
  What are the implications on nonbank financial firms as well, such as 
insurers and investment companies.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the author of the bill intends for insurers and 
investment companies and banks to have the same qualifications when 
they are handling money that has touched the cannabis industry. I think 
that is the intent.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, I think we need to understand whether or not the 
administration would follow that intent that the author has stated 
clearly in debates here on the House floor last Congress and this 
Congress and, furthermore, whether or not Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement will have a similar interpretation that the writer of this 
bill says is his intent, that Federal law enforcement should hear the 
voice of Congress and hear this step to legalization which is part of 
this bill.
  I do not think it is the author of the bill's idea to get into sort 
of the broader conversation about legalization at the State level and 
what we should do at the Federal level in this bill. However, that is a 
part of it.
  In March of 2019, the National Sheriffs' Association voiced concern 
with this bill, saying that it could easily be exploited. They echoed 
my concerns that ``allowing banking access for a Schedule 1 drug gives 
money laundering access to international drug cartels, which are 
already using the cover of legalization.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include that letter in the Record.

[[Page H1920]]

                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                                   March 19, 2019.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, House of Representatives, Committee on Financial 
         Services, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick McHenry,
     Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Committee on 
         Financial Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry: On 
     behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and more 
     than 3,080 sheriffs nationwide, I write to express our deep 
     concern and opposition to H.R. 1595, The SAFE Banking Act. 
     This bill creates protections for depository institutions 
     that provide financial services to cannabis-related 
     businesses and service providers for such businesses.
       H.R. 1595 will increase the legalization of marijuana 
     across the Nation, which we understand is an intended 
     consequence of this bill. Furthermore, allowing banking 
     access for a Schedule 1 drug gives money laundering access to 
     international drug cartels, which are already using the cover 
     of legalization. This will inevitably open the door to other 
     criminal activity!
       NSA is concerned with the welfare and safety of citizens 
     and works to preserve their rights to live and work in 
     communities where drug abuse is not accepted and they are not 
     subjected to the adverse effects of drug abuse. The dangers 
     of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the threat to 
     public safety caused by their use in terms of highway safety, 
     criminal activity, and domestic violence are well-documented.
       NSA believes that any legislation regarding national 
     legalization must engage the nation's law enforcement 
     agencies in order to have a comprehensive discussion 
     regarding the potential implications this bill could have on 
     our communities. We urge The House of Representatives to 
     defeat this dangerous bill.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jonathan F. Thompson,
                                       Executive Director and CEO.
  Mr. McHENRY. Furthermore, we see cannabis-legal States like 
California, Washington, and Colorado, as the subject of recent news 
reports that 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 
that article in the Record, Mr. Speaker.

                   [From Global Power, May 29, 2018]

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

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

       Los Angeles.--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 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 Sheriffs 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.


                     A `MASSIVE' MARIJUANA NETWORK

       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.


                HOW FOREIGN CARTELS OPERATE IN THE U.S.

       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. Furthermore, because of this patchwork at the State 
level, I think you are seeing additional concerns at the southern 
border right now, and I will include for the Record a letter that the 
former Border Patrol chief submitted that in February alone there was 
nearly $14 million a day of marijuana caught at the southern border.
  Despite these many issues I still have with the SAFE Banking Act, I 
do appreciate the work that my colleagues

[[Page H1921]]

have put into this legislative effort, but considering that the larger 
issue of cannabis legalization has not yet been debated here on the 
House floor, I think it is premature for the Financial Services 
Committee to do the full work of this Congress on the question of 
cannabis legalization at the Federal level. I think that would be 
better left to the Judiciary Committee, with a wider debate here on the 
House floor, and I would encourage that wider debate.
  Notwithstanding that, I would like to thank my colleagues for the 
hard work that they have put into this legislation. Even if I have 
concerns, I know that there is more than sufficient support to pass 
this under the suspension calendar, and that would not happen were it 
not for the good legislative work of my colleague and friend from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  I do believe that my colleague was quite intentional about the date 
that he wanted to actually have the vote here on the House floor. With 
that, for those of you who don't know, tomorrow is 4/20/21, 4/20 being 
the operative date.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for his many compliments. I would just remind him, we are the 
Financial Services Committee. We have a certain amount of jurisdiction 
that deals with financial institutions and financial services, and that 
is what this bill is focused on, dealing with so much cash generated by 
this industry, whether we do anything or not, and to try to advance 
public safety in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee, who had a lot to 
do with writing the Small Business piece of this.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 
1996, the SAFE Banking Act, and I rise in strong support.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for his extraordinary leadership on this 
legislation.
  When the pandemic first hit and stay-at-home orders went into place, 
many small cannabis businesses were deemed essential. Yet, just as 
States recognized these businesses as critical, Federal law still fails 
to provide them the same access to key financial services, like banking 
and insurance.
  H.R. 1996, the SAFE Banking Act, will address this problem, enabling 
them to grow and hire more workers. Failing to allow cannabis 
businesses to utilize financial products and services not only creates 
artificial barriers for these small businesses, it is also an issue of 
public safety, as these high-volume cash businesses are frequently the 
target of robberies and break-ins.
  That is why the SAFE Banking Act is so important and why, as chair of 
the House Small Business Committee and senior member of the Financial 
Services Committee, I am proud to stand by it since its first 
introduction.
  I thank Mr. Perlmutter for his leadership. Let's pass this 
legislation once and for all.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Stivers), the subcommittee chair on Housing, Community 
Development, and Insurance.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Perlmutter for 
his hard work on this. I am an unlikely person to support this bill 
because I am opposed to recreational marijuana, but I came to this 
because a company that is just outside my district that sells nutrients 
now finds themselves in the situation where 25 percent of their profits 
come from selling to legal marijuana businesses, and they are being 
threatened, a Fortune 500 company, with losing their bank accounts.
  We can't let that happen. We have got to make sure that we stand up 
for safety and stand up for common sense. That is what this bill does.
  Three points about this bill. Number one, it encourages safety 
because money that is in a bank account can be frozen and can be 
tracked.
  By the way, this bill also increases suspicious activity reports, so 
this idea about money laundering doesn't work because there are 
suspicious activity reports that are expanded under the bill, and you 
can freeze and track the money, which is really important. That is why 
a lot of folks in law enforcement like this bill.
  The final thing is, this bill includes provisions to stop Operation 
Choke Point that Republicans couldn't even get passed when we had the 
presidency, the Senate, and the House, and we got that negotiated into 
this bill. It helps in a big way to make sure that there's not an 
Operation Choke Point in the future, so nobody can choke off legal 
businesses from their bank accounts and from access to the payments 
system. That is a big deal. I want to thank Congressman Perlmutter for 
allowing that.

  Finally, before my time is up, I want to acknowledge Congressman 
Warren Davidson, who isn't going to be able to fly in in time for this. 
Congressman Davidson has been working on this bill with me for almost 2 
years with Congressman Perlmutter. Warren Davidson has done an amazing 
job. I just want to acknowledge his hard work, all his efforts. We 
wouldn't be here today but for Congressman Warren Davidson.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1996.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Mr. Stivers 
for working with me so much over the last few years on this. I am going 
to miss him as he chooses to take another path in the near future. I 
just want to say on the floor, that he is a real credit to this 
institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, the SAFE Banking Act can be summarized in 
three basic points. First of all, this measure does not legalize 
anything at the State level. Today, 47 States, four U.S. territories, 
and D.C., representing 98 percent of the U.S. population, have 
legalized cannabis in one form or another.
  Second, this is essentially a States' rights issue. This measure 
essentially says that when a State legalizes cannabis, the Federal 
Government will respect that decision when it comes to banking.
  Finally, this measure is essentially about helping our local police 
officers back home do their job safely and effectively. We already give 
our local police officers the impossible job of taking care of the 
homeless and the mentally ill, and now we are asking our police 
officers to protect the legalized cannabis industry, a cash business, 
from those criminals that would prey upon them. This just doesn't make 
sense.
  Today, because of Federal law, the cannabis industry can only operate 
on a cash basis. They pay their Federal, State, and local taxes with 
cash. Let me repeat. Today, the cannabis industry pays their Federal 
taxes with cash. They pay their employees with cash. They pay their 
rent with cash, and they pay their bills with cash. This is no way to 
keep our streets safe.
  Let's help our local police officers keep our communities safe. Let's 
get the cash out of the cannabis industry, and let's pass H.R. 1996.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations of the House Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SAFE Banking Act.
  Kentuckians have a deep interest in the production, cultivation, and 
sale of nonintoxicating industrial hemp and hemp-derived products, 
including CBD. In fact, Kentucky boasts a proud heritage and 
agricultural tradition in industrial hemp. Henry Clay, the great 
Speaker of the House who once represented the district that I now 
represent, was, in fact, an industrial hemp farmer.
  More recently, the Commonwealth has seen a revival in the industrial 
hemp industry, resulting in much growth and job creation in this area. 
Much of the growth of the industry occurred as a result of the 
Industrial Hemp Research Pilot Program established under the 2014 farm 
bill and the 2018 farm bill, which took it a step further and fully 
legalized industrial hemp.
  Despite these positive steps forward, hemp businesses still have 
trouble accessing certain financial services. Just today I spoke with a 
CBD retailer in my district who confirmed that while the situation has 
improved somewhat over the last few years, access to card

[[Page H1922]]

processing services is uneven and uncertain. 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 
update best practices for serving hemp and CBD businesses.
  Since we last debated this bill, conditions have improved for hemp 
financing. In December 2019, financial regulators jointly issued 
guidance confirming that banks are free to provide banking services to 
the hemp industry, just as they are for any other agricultural 
commodity. Unfortunately, there is still work to do to ensure that 
these legal hemp businesses have full access to the financial system. 
There remains some ambiguity, specifically regarding payment 
processors' dealings with hemp businesses. This bill makes needed 
clarifications.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for 
working across the aisle on this bill. He and his team took great care 
to ensure that these changes were incorporated into the bill and made 
the needed clarifications. I thank him for his cooperation. This will 
have a meaningful impact on Kentucky farmers, small businesses, and a 
burgeoning industry in Kentucky and across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
his work on this bill and his input on the card processing piece of the 
legislation.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). He 
has put the effort together across a whole range of cannabis issues. I 
thank him for his steadfast work on this subject.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here with my 
friend, Mr. Perlmutter, and the bipartisan support that we are 
receiving from Mr. Stivers. We are going to hear in a moment from the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), who has been a champion.
  Sadly, I feel my good friend from North Carolina could have given his 
speech 25 years ago. The legalization train has left the station. This 
is a business in the United States that is approaching $20 billion of 
revenue this year.
  As has been pointed out, 97 percent of the American public has access 
to some form of legal cannabis. Medical cannabis, 4 million patients 
utilize it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has arrived, and it is being held 
captive of the past practice by pretending that the Federal Government 
can wish away the legalization of this subject. They can't. The flawed 
Federal policies create serious problems.
  As Mr. Perlmutter pointed out, we have had over 100 robberies in my 
community, including a fatality. These cash-only enterprises are 
sitting ducks for people who have nefarious aims. It is an invitation 
for money laundering now because of the vast amount of cash that is 
circulated.
  It impacts so many legitimate businesses, real estate, insurance, 
attorneys, accountants, who get caught up. We already heard reference 
to what happened to Mr. Stivers' constituent in Ohio, a business that 
provides gardening supplies, that risks losing their bank account.
  It is time for us to address this inconsistency. It is time for us to 
pass, again, the SAFE Banking Act. And it is time for us to move 
forward with legalization on the Federal level with the MORE Act, which 
will resolve these inconsistencies.
  Once and for all, give the American people what they want and what 
they repeatedly vote for across the country. Unleash this State legal 
business to realize its full potential for health, the economy, and a 
cry for racial justice.
  I appreciate us being at this point for a critical first step along 
the torturous path to full legalization, which I am confident will 
happen this Congress and not a moment too soon.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the tragic passing of Steve 
Fox, a pioneering advocate, strategist, a true leader in the marijuana 
cannabis legalization effort.
  It is fitting today that we are passing the SAFE Banking Act. We 
wouldn't be where we are today without Steve and his amazing efforts. 
His life work, leadership, and strategic brilliance are unmatched.
  Passing this critical legislation today would be a small part of a 
fitting memorial for a man whose efforts made it possible, indeed, 
imperative to solve this problem.
  I first met Steve as we were strategizing on the Oregon legalization 
effort. Back in 2013, after the Colorado legalization campaign that he 
orchestrated had passed and before Oregon joined the ranks of 
legalization, he was already a legend. He pioneered so much of the 
groundwork for the legalization movement that exploded after the 
success of the Colorado campaign which owed so much to his strategic 
brilliance.
  Steve was thoughtful, hardworking, and self-effacing. While this has 
become a national movement with many leaders now emerging, none compare 
with Steve. Few will fully understand his many contributions and 
importance. I for one will miss his genuine, quiet leadership.
  As someone who's been working on this longer than anyone in American 
politics, I know we are all deeply, deeply indebted to Steve. We mourn 
his loss, extend our thoughts to his family and many friends.
  This should be the year that we finish the pioneering work of his 
career. It would be a fitting capstone to a lifetime of cannabis 
leadership, activism, and progress.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I would say that if we are going to have 
legalization of cannabis, let's have legalization of cannabis and do it 
in regular order in the House of Representatives, not have it come 
through the Financial Services Committee. I wanted to be clear, and I 
wanted to make sure my colleague heard that.
  But I do commend my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for taking every bit 
of the jurisdiction that we currently have and using it smartly for the 
best outcome possible.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my 
colleague and good friend.
  Mr. JOYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 1996, the 
SAFE Banking Act of 2021, and I am proud to help lead this commonsense, 
overdue effort.
  The vast majority of States, including my own, have enacted laws 
that, to varying degrees, permit their residents to use cannabis. 
However, the Federal Government has not only infringed on the inherent 
right of these States to implement those laws, but also stifled medical 
research, diverted law enforcement resources needed elsewhere, and 
hindered legitimate businesses, businesses that provide vital services 
to cancer patients, veterans, and those seeking opioid alternatives for 
pain management.
  Because of the Federal interference in this arena, cannabis companies 
are not afforded the same access to financial services as every other 
legal business in our country.
  With banks refusing to accept their money out of fear of Federal 
repercussions, these businesses are forced to operate in all cash. They 
pay their workers in cash, store cash in vaults on-site, and hire 
armored cars and trucks to transport cash to pay taxes.
  As a former prosecutor, I can tell my colleagues that this is a 
serious public safety issue.
  But it is not just cannabis companies that are paying the price for 
this antiquated policy. Small businesses that provide services to 
State-legal cannabis companies can also be targeted by the Federal 
Government, such as plumbers, electricians, and even soil and 
fertilizer businesses.
  Regardless of where you stand on the legality of cannabis, I think we 
can all agree that it shouldn't be that hard to sell a bag of dirt.
  At a time when small businesses are just beginning to recover from 
the economic destruction caused by COVID-19, the Federal Government 
should be supporting them, not standing in their way. Congress must 
provide financial certainty to these businesses and safety to their 
employees.
  Many of my colleagues have shied away from this issue because they 
are under the impression that it doesn't impact their constituents. But 
as I have outlined here today, it most certainly does.
  The American people across the majority of States, both red and blue, 
have voted to enact sensible cannabis reforms. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to respect the will of their constituents and the rights of 
their States and begin engaging in these reforms.
  It is past time we address the antiquated cannabis policies and 
remove unnecessary red tape. I strongly urge

[[Page H1923]]

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of the SAFE 
Banking Act so we can take a step in that direction.
  The Federal Government can no longer afford to fail on an issue that 
our States have taken the lead on.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee for yielding.
  I rise in support of the SAFE Banking Act, which I am honored to 
introduce with my colleagues, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. 
Blumenauer, and others.
  It seems the war on drugs is a lot like so many of the other forever 
wars that this Congress confronts, deeply unpopular in all parts of the 
country except Washington, D.C.
  I commend the majority party for bringing this bill to the floor and 
allowing businesses that serve particularly medical marijuana patients 
the opportunity to access the U.S. financial system.
  There is an important part of this legislation that bears note. With 
the SAFE Banking Act, we will have an unprecedented opportunity for 
research and collaboration, which did not exist previously and which 
doesn't exist now.
  There are so many universities, medical centers, other research 
institutions that would like to partner with and work alongside 
marijuana businesses with the opportunity to improve health outcomes 
for patients and to bring relief to people who badly need it.
  I would implore my colleagues in the majority party to reach out to 
President Biden as I did to President Trump. Ask him to take executive 
action to remove marijuana from the list of schedule I drugs so that we 
can accelerate marijuana reform for the benefit of our fellow Americans 
and those who are in need and in pain and are counting on it.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these 
endorsements for the SAFE Banking Act, including from the American 
Bankers Association, the American Council of Independent Laboratories, 
the American Council of Life Insurers, the American Financial Services 
Association, the American Land Title Association, the American Property 
Casualty Insurance Association, the American Trade Association for 
Cannabis and Hemp, the Arizona Dispensaries Association, the California 
Cannabis Industry Association, and the National Armored Car 
Association. It goes on forever. I am not going to list all of these. 
There are about 50 different endorsements.

         H.R. 1996, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021--Endorsements

       American Bankers Association; American Council of 
     Independent Laboratories; American Council of Life Insurers; 
     American Financial Services Association; American Land Title 
     Association; American Property Casualty Insurance 
     Association; American Trade Association for Cannabis and 
     Hemp; Arizona Dispensaries Association; California Cannabis 
     Industry Association; California and Nevada Credit Union 
     Leagues; Cannabis Business Association of Illinois; Colorado 
     Bankers Association; Colorado Municipal League; Credit Union 
     National Association; Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers; 
     Electronic Transactions Association; Independent Community 
     Bankers of America; Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of 
     America; Law Enforcement Action Partnership; Mountain West 
     Credit Union Association; National Armored Car Association; 
     National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National 
     Association of Professional Insurance Agents; National 
     Association of Realtors.
       National Cannabis Roundtable; National Cannabis Industry 
     Association; National Medicinal Cannabis Coalition; National 
     Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; Minority 
     Cannabis Business Association; Policy Center for Public 
     Health & Safety; Reinsurance Association of America; Rural 
     County Representatives of California; The Real Estate 
     Roundtable; United Food and Commercial Workers; U.S. Cannabis 
     Council; U.S. Hemp Roundtable; Wholesale & Specialty 
     Insurance Association; TerrAscend USA; NUG, Inc.; Cresco 
     Labs; 4Front Ventures; Terrapin Care Station; Full Spectrum 
     Omega, Inc.; National Association of State Treasurers; Four 
     Attorneys General from Colorado, the District of Columbia, 
     North Dakota, and Ohio; 21 Governors from California, 
     Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, 
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Nevada, New Jersey, New 
     Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, U.S. Virgin Islands, 
     Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; 51 
     state and territory banking associations.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to repeat this from my earlier remarks. This bill represents 
one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy. If we want banks to 
provide services risk-free, then we should do it thoughtfully and 
address the legality of cannabis instead of this workaround. This bill 
represents a yeoman's task of a legal framework so that funds from 
cannabis in those legalized States can be legally banked.
  But that is not a holistic approach to this issue, nor should it be 
the Financial Services Committee leading the debate, which we have had 
one hearing on in the last 3 years in this committee--actually, you 
could say probably one hearing in the last decade on the Financial 
Services Committee. Yet, we have this bill, which, frankly, on its face 
is a very well-balanced bill to fix a glaring problem that is happening 
across the country.
  This bill will legalize the banking of a federally illegal product. I 
am sure the irony of this is not at all lost on the American public.
  The drug cartels, frankly, are keen to this, and other bad actors are 
keen to this. They will attempt to take advantage of this if it is not 
well-implemented, if it is not thoughtfully implemented, especially if 
those things are not the case.
  No matter how we spin what is happening right now, we currently have 
a crisis at the southern border, and human trafficking is certainly a 
part of that; a desire to come to the United States is certainly a part 
of that; and the movement of illegal drugs into the United States is 
certainly a part of that. This doesn't help with that crisis at the 
southern border.
  Again, we are the House Financial Services Committee. We are not the 
Homeland Security Committee, and we are not the Appropriations 
Committee, so we can't fix all things within our jurisdiction.
  Let me close with this. I do not support this bill because it 
represents a workaround to a much bigger debate that we need to have in 
the United States, and that is whether or not cannabis should remain a 
schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This fact is 
the bigger issue that I think this Congress should wrestle with, and I 
would welcome it. In fact, I think we can have a much more nuanced 
debate here.
  But I do want to close by thanking my colleagues for creating a very 
thoughtful product. This legislative text is much improved upon from 
where it was originally. I thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for 
leading that conversation and leading that set of negotiations.
  It has taken years to produce this product. It is strong legislative 
text. It is a strong legal framework. Even though I have pointed out a 
number of its deficiencies and challenges, I do see on its face how 
this would resolve a huge problem in a large number of States.
  I understand that, and I am inviting the larger discussion about 
cannabis, as well. I think we need to have that conversation.
  But I do thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter, for his leadership 
there, and I thank my colleagues, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Davidson, and Mr. 
Joyce, on our side of the aisle for engaging in that, as well as Mr. 
Luetkemeyer and Mr. Barr who dealt with particular issues in their 
States and their jurisdictions, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' but I understand if 
they do vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina. To his point that there is a broader discussion that has to 
take place, the purpose of this bill is a public safety purpose. Its 
purpose is to keep people from being killed, from being robbed, and 
from being assaulted. That is within the Financial Services Committee 
arena because, at this point, the cannabis industry and the people who 
serve it in one way or another have to deal in cash, which really 
creates the

[[Page H1924]]

potential for the robberies, for the murders, and for the assaults.
  We have been able to gather a lot of support for this. I mentioned 
the bankers, the credit unions, the insurance industry, the cannabis 
industry, obviously, the real estate industry, the armored cars, and 
the minority cannabis industry. Law enforcement is supportive of this. 
We have the National Treasurers Association, 21 Governors, and 
attorneys general because they know this is a public safety matter and 
that we really need to address it.
  We have been working on it for some time, as the gentleman from North 
Carolina mentioned, but we need to get this to the Senate. They need to 
take whatever action they want to take, but we have to make our 
communities and these businesses safer.
  The SAFE Banking Act is about public safety. Our bill is narrowly 
tailored to get cash off the streets and improve public safety.
  I thank my lead cosponsors on this bill, Representatives Velazquez, 
Stivers, and Davidson, and all of my colleagues who have listened to me 
talk about the need to address this problem for the last 8 years.

                              {time}  1700

  I also thank the staff of the Committee on Financial Services, the 
staff from my lead cosponsors, and my own staff, who put so much time 
into this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of 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. 1996, 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. ROSENDALE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
are postponed.

                          ____________________