[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1261-1270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1675, ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEE 
  OWNERSHIP ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 766, 
         FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CUSTOMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 595

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1675) to direct the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission to revise its rules so as to increase the 
     threshold amount for requiring issuers to provide certain 
     disclosures relating to compensatory benefit plans. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
     in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-43. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     766) to provide requirements for the appropriate Federal 
     banking agencies when requesting or ordering a depository 
     institution to terminate a specific customer account, to 
     provide for additional requirements related to subpoenas 
     issued under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
     Enforcement Act of 1989, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-41. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act 
of 2015, and for H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer 
Protection Act of 2015. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured 
rule for consideration of both H.R. 1675 and H.R. 766.
  The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services for 
H.R. 1675 and H.R. 766. Additionally, the resolution provides for 
consideration of all seven amendments which were offered to H.R. 1675, 
and two of the three amendments offered to H.R. 766. Finally, Mr. 
Speaker, the resolution provides for a motion to recommit for each 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the 
underlying legislation. H.R. 1675 is a vehicle for a group of five 
legislative items, and I will speak about each one of them briefly by 
title.
  Title I, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, would amend SEC rule 
701, which hasn't been modified since 1999.
  Although small companies are at the forefront of technological 
innovation and job growth, they often face significant obstacles that 
are often attributable to the proportionately larger burdens on them 
that securities regulations--written for large public companies--place 
on small companies when they seek to go public.
  SEC rule 701 permits private companies to offer their own securities 
as part of written compensation agreements to employees, directors, 
general partners, trustees, officers, or even certain consultants 
without having to comply with very expensive and burdensome security 
registration requirements. SEC rule 701, therefore, allows

[[Page 1262]]

small companies to reward their employees through employee stock 
ownership in a company. These ESOPs have been very successful.
  The $5 million threshold in rule 701 has not been adjusted since 
1999. If the disclosure threshold had been adjusted for inflation, it 
would be more than $7 million today. The SEC has authority to increase 
the $5 million disclosure threshold via rulemaking, but like the 500 
shareholder rule that we had to fix--and my colleague from Colorado was 
very active in helping with--rule 701 has not been changed. It is 
unlikely to happen without congressional intervention. That is why this 
is so important.
  This is about getting employees access to ownership in their 
companies. It is about building ownership structures that make these 
companies stable over time. It allows businesses to incentivize their 
employees with a direct stake in the ownership in their company. It 
will help with employee retention, makes sure that these firms have 
great opportunities for retirement programs, and helps employees reap 
some of the benefits of their life's work that they worked so hard for 
every day.
  I will give an example, Mr. Speaker. There is a company in my 
district called Allied Mineral. I talked about this, as my colleague 
from Colorado may remember, yesterday in the Rules Committee.
  Allied Mineral is a company in Hilliard, Ohio, that has an ESOP, or 
employee stock ownership model, and many of those folks who operate 
forklifts in their warehouse will retire with over $1 million in their 
401(k). It really helps these folks want to stay in their company; 
therefore, it improves retention and cuts down on training new 
employees, but it helps them in their retirement. It is a great vehicle 
to make these companies productive and stable, as well.
  That is title I. Title I is really important. Title I is pretty 
universally agreed to.
  Title II, the Fair Access to Investment Research Act, directs the SEC 
to create a safe harbor for certain publications or distributions of 
research reports by brokers or dealers distributing securities, such as 
exchange-traded funds.
  An exchange-traded fund is an investment company whose shares are 
traded intraday on stock exchanges at market-determined prices. 
Investors can buy and sell exchange-traded funds through a broker or in 
a brokerage account, just as they would any other publicly traded 
company.
  Over the past three decades, exchange-traded funds have grown from 
100 funds with about $100 billion in assets to over 1,300 funds worth 
$1.8 trillion in assets. However, due to anomalies in our securities 
laws and regulations, most of the broker-dealers don't publish research 
about these exchange-traded funds, despite their growth in popularity.
  The SEC has implemented similar safe harbors to what this bill would 
suggest for other asset classes, including listed equities, corporate 
debt, and closed-end funds. This section will help investors get access 
to useful information when deciding whether to invest in exchange-
traded funds and similar products.
  Title II, I think, is also pretty agreed to.
  Title III, the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and 
Brokerage Simplification Act, amends the Securities Exchange Act to 
exempt merger and acquisition brokers from registration with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission. Merger and acquisition brokers 
perform services in connection with the transfer of ownership of mostly 
smaller privately held companies.
  An estimated $10 trillion of privately owned companies will be sold 
or traded as baby boomers retire and folks want to figure out what to 
do with their life's work and how to move their company in a way that 
the company can continue to exist. But it is important for us to reduce 
the costs associated with this flow of capital because the registration 
with SEC for these M&A brokers can be very expensive.
  M&A brokers currently help successful entrepreneurs take the capital 
out of their company and maybe move on to the next phase of their life, 
while simultaneously aiding new entrepreneurs in the ability to invest 
their capital in the continued success of their company. They foster 
economic development, growth, and innovation.
  Despite the valuable services of these M&A brokers, the compliance 
costs for this new regulation with the SEC and FINRA can be very 
expensive. For each individual broker inside an organization, it can 
cost $150,000. Ongoing costs are about $75,000 a year.
  Let's say somebody does four deals a year. Deals take a little while 
to happen, and they are not going to do a ton of deals. A small firm 
might do that few number of deals. If you do four deals a year, the 
first year you have just added $75,000 to the cost of each deal.

                              {time}  1245

  That is too high. It is causing problems. We need to make sure that 
we streamline this and allow these small companies to have access to 
the same type of access to capital that our big companies have.
  The limit in this is up to $250 million in sales. As many people in 
this Congress know, up to about $500 million in sales is what we call 
middle-market companies.
  Middle-market companies dot the maps of each one of our districts. 
These middle-market companies aren't necessarily names you might 
recognize or the American people would recognize, but they are the 
fastest growing part of our economy. They are major employers in our 
communities, and they deserve access to capital, just like the big 
companies do.
  So that is why title III is so important. It will relieve some of the 
fees for these merger and acquisition brokerage houses that help these 
companies get access to capital.
  Title IV, the Small Company Disclosure Simplification Act, provides a 
voluntary exemption for emerging growth companies, again, with annual 
revenues up to $250 million from the eXtensible Business Reporting 
Language.
  Basically, it is exportable files. The data is still available. The 
point here in title IV is that the data will be available, but it might 
not be in a downloadable format that you can put in a spreadsheet. You 
might have to look at it in a PDF.
  Investors look at a lot of things in PDF. I can look at PDFs on my 
phone, and it won't deny anybody information. But the cost of this new 
format is adding up to $50,000 in costs for these small companies. The 
question is: Does the cost really meet the benefit?
  So it allows an exemption for these small companies. And, again, it 
is an optional exemption. It is not a mandatory exemption. It doesn't 
end this downloadable program, but it allows these small companies to 
be more flexible in the way they do it because of the cost.
  Title IV requires the SEC to report to Congress on the XBRL 
requirements so that it can better analyze and understand how to 
utilize XBRL and structure data moving forward.
  Finally, we have title V, the Streamlining Excessive and Costly 
Regulations Review Act, in the Securities and Exchange Commission. It 
actually is built on some executive orders. Title V is modeled after 
executive orders that the President did last year.
  It would force the independent agencies and require the Federal 
Reserve, OCC, and FDIC to review regulations at least every 10 years 
and identify any outdated and unnecessary regulations that are imposed 
on depository institutions.
  We need to do the same thing for the SEC. That is what this does. I 
think it will help streamline and make sure that paperwork is more 
reasonable over time, especially for duplicative, outdated, and overly 
burdensome regulations.
  So that is H.R. 1675.
  The other bill is H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer 
Protection Act.
  You may have all heard about Operation Choke Point, where law 
enforcement, the Department of Justice, partnered with a lot of other 
agencies. Their plan was to ``choke off'' banking

[[Page 1263]]

services from businesses that they found undesirable.
  Rather than investigating and prosecuting companies that were alleged 
to have committed crimes like fraud and any other misdeeds, the 
Department of Justice issued subpoenas to financial institutions to ask 
about entire industries and effectively coerced financial institutions 
to cease offering banking services to many of those industries.
  The Department of Justice partnered with the FDIC, the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, to identify merchants that they said 
posed high risk for consumers, notwithstanding the question of whether 
these merchants were operating under the law or illegally.
  In doing so, the FDIC equated legitimate and regulated industries, 
such as coin dealers, firearms and ammunition sales industries, with 
inherently illegal activities, such as Ponzi schemes, debt 
consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia.
  So that is the real problem here, that they didn't separate out legal 
businesses with illegal businesses. If they want to do something with 
regard to businesses that are already illegal and make sure that those 
folks can't get access to banking services, that is a legitimate thing.
  But the way they identified high risk made a lot of legal businesses 
lose their access to financial services. They were terminated by their 
banks and they had, in many cases, no place to turn.
  This is a blatant overreach by our Federal regulators. And many of 
us, including me, believe this bill is an important step to make sure 
that businesses that are legally operating have confidence that they 
will have access to banking services. That is the key here.
  This last section of this last bill makes sure that legally operating 
businesses have access to legal banking services and that the banks 
can't be intimidated by their regulators to make sure that legally 
operated businesses don't have access to banking services.
  I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues. I 
urge support for both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule today 
because it is close--it is close--to a rule that would have substantial 
bipartisan support.
  The rule today provides for consideration of H.R. 1675, the 
Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015, and H.R. 766, the Financial 
Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015.
  In terms of process, there is some credit to be given under this 
rule. The rule was very close, with one major fault, which I will 
discuss in detail, to fulfilling the promises laid out by the new 
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  As you might recall, Mr. Speaker, there was a promise to all Members 
that each Member of this body would have a chance to consider his or 
her ideas on the House floor through a more open amendment process.
  And you know what? That is a good idea.
  Of course, if it was an idea that didn't have a majority of support, 
that is fine. But there would be a vote. We could debate it. We could 
vote on it.
  If ideas came to the floor, were debated and considered worthy by a 
majority of this body, they would pass. Even if a particular committee 
chair of jurisdiction didn't like the bill, even if leadership on 
either side didn't like the amendment, the will of the body could be 
heard for commonsense improvements.
  Now, this promise of regular order is so simple, so attractive, so 
desirable, by the American people who let us do our job, yet, 
unfortunately, it still remains elusive.
  Now, on the first bill here today, H.R. 1675, the Encouraging 
Employee Ownership Act, there were seven amendments submitted to the 
Rules Committee, four of which I was a cosponsor of.
  I am proud to say all seven amendments were made in order to be 
considered on the House floor. If that was all that this rule 
contained, I would be proud to support that rule.
  In addition to that, H.R. 1675 is actually good legislation. Look, 
any one of us can say we don't personally agree with every word, and 
there are amendments to address some of the deficiencies in the bill.
  But in its total, it is a package that should be considered for an 
affirmative vote by Members of both parties. I am confident that it 
will have strong bipartisan support in the underlying bill.
  It promotes and makes needed updates in employee ownership, which is 
a great form of corporate governance that I think each Member of this 
body should support. We have companies in my district that use it.
  The legislation also clears away red tape for small- and middle-
market companies, which my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) spoke 
about here on the floor as well as in the Rules Committee.
  I do believe that one of the bill's titles, in its current form, 
takes away and reduces market transparency in the wrong direction.
  But I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, we have amendments that will be 
considered today by Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, as well as cosponsored by 
myself, that would address that matter--to encourage transparency in 
financial markets--because financial markets are predicated on as-
close-to-perfect information as we can achieve and step towards perfect 
information, enhance the efficiency of markets; steps away from perfect 
information, decreased efficiency of markets.
  Now, the second bill, H.R. 766, unfortunately is a piece of 
legislation that again addresses a real need, but I can't support it.
  Again, I would be proud to vote for the rule if it included a simple 
amendment which I will be talking about in a moment. But, 
unfortunately, the process through the Rules Committee shut that down.
  I want to be clear. H.R. 766 takes a look at a critical, legitimate 
issue, the issue of the Justice Department and Operation Choke Point.
  Now, unfortunately, what it does is it goes too far in limiting the 
tools that are available to DOJ to combat actual illegal activities, 
like Ponzi schemes, banking fraud, and situations where the banks 
themselves are complicit in committing the alleged fraud.
  It also fails to deliver on what Mr. Stivers indicated its goal was, 
to allow legally operating businesses to access the banking system.
  It fails to deliver on that because, while there were nine amendments 
that were made in order, a critical amendment offered by my colleagues, 
Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado and Mr. Heck of Washington State, was not 
allowed, an amendment that would have furthered the goal of this bill 
to allow legally operating businesses to access banking services.
  It was a germane amendment. There were no points of order. In fact, a 
majority of the Members of this body have supported this amendment, in 
full or in part, in various floor votes in earlier times.
  A majority of this body supports a real-world solution to a real-
world problem, not just one we face in Colorado, but many States face. 
The fact that legal, legitimate marijuana-related businesses cannot 
interact with legitimate banking institutions is an enormous problem 
for economic growth and a security risk.
  It is a problem for law enforcement that we hear from police and 
sheriff departments back home every day, and it is a problem for the 
safety of our communities.
  It is simply not acceptable to meet the standard of an open and 
transparent process that the Speaker has promised to eliminate from 
even consideration and a vote, this very important amendment that 
addresses the accessibility of banking services to companies that are 
engaged in a legal State business. For 23 States and the District of 
Columbia, this is an enormous problem right now.
  To be clear, what we are talking about is not just people who run 
medical marijuana dispensaries, but also

[[Page 1264]]

highly regulated growing operations. Even farmers producing industrial 
hemp are turned away from opening bank accounts, cannot accept credit 
cards, have to haul around large amounts of cash to pay their employees 
every day, placing themselves and their employees at enormous risk of 
physical assault and robbery, as well as detracting from the very law 
enforcement ability to trace transactions that our law enforcement 
officials are clamoring for.
  Due to Congress' inaction, hundreds of businesses in Colorado and 22 
other States are forced to operate on a dangerous, untrackable, cash-
only system that raises serious public safety concerns, increases tax 
fraud, and is an enormous burden on our economy.
  Now, those are facts that are not in dispute. I know that there are 
many Members on both sides of the debate about how we should treat hemp 
and marijuana, whether they should be legal or illegal. That is not the 
issue.
  The issue is that 22 States and the District of Columbia have chosen 
to legalize it under State law. It is illegal under Federal law. We are 
not debating that here now either. That is fine. That wouldn't be 
germane for this bill, to say let's legalize it federally. That is not 
even what we are talking about here.
  What we are talking about is, in the States that it is legal, it is 
absolutely critical from even a law enforcement perspective--even if 
you want it to continue to be illegal federally--that the interactions 
are through our normal banking system in a traceable way.
  These are facts that are not in dispute. My good friend from Ohio 
knows these issues. In the lead-up to Ohio's possible consideration of 
legalization, I am confident that many Ohioans had conversations with 
law enforcement, walking through officials on the issue of making this 
a cash-based business.
  That was a significant issue in the Ohio election and in other 
States.

                              {time}  1300

  The issues of taxation and recordkeeping are critical. But do you 
know what, that points to the necessity of this legislation. Do you 
know what, Mr. Perlmutter's amendment would likely have passed this 
body with Republican and Democratic support. It would have won a 
majority of bipartisan support this week. It is not the job of the 
Rules Committee to pick winners and losers. If it is particularly 
objectionable for the Rules Committee to abuse its power to kill a 
measure that has demonstrated a bipartisan level of support, that is 
not an appropriate use of the discretion of our committee or our chair 
to have their personal opinions guide what amendments are forwarded to 
this body for full consideration.
  What else can Members do? We write thoughtful amendments that solve 
real-world problems in our State. We garner support for these 
amendments year by year talking to Republicans and Democrats. And then 
what, it just dies because we can't get it to a floor vote? How is that 
an open and transparent process? It is not.
  Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Heck are fighters. They will keep working on 
this. We will win this debate eventually. This is simply a speed bump 
in making sure that we address this issue for which there are no 
legitimate arguments on the other side regardless of where one stands 
on the legal treatment or regulation of substances that are currently 
classified.
  We should have won this week with this debate. This type of 
bipartisan work should be rewarded in this body, and the 23 States and 
the District of Columbia that face this issue deserve better. This 
amendment had no drafting error. There was no political gimmick to it. 
It wasn't nongermane. It didn't even rewrite in any substantial way the 
underlying bill. It was perfectly consistent. It wasn't even 
controversial. I can't understand why it didn't deserve consideration 
by this body--not even a 10-minute debate, not even a 1-minute debate.
  Will the gentleman from Ohio amend the rule to allow at least a 1-
minute debate on this amendment? I will yield for a ``yes'' or ``no.''
  Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from Ohio won't even allow 
a 1-minute debate. The gentleman from Ohio said he wanted legally 
operating State businesses to have access to banking services which is 
the very purpose of this bill. It is a great shame that we cannot fix 
this issue now. Because you know what, otherwise I give credit to the 
gentleman from Ohio and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for 
allowing 9 of 10 amendments to be considered on the House floor under 
these two bills.
  This is the rule that I am coming closest to supporting of any rule 
that we have debated thus far in the 114th Congress here on the floor, 
but because of this one glaring deficiency which prevents, through an 
open and transparent process, a real-world problem that Democrats and 
Republicans agree need to be solved from being addressed in any 
appropriate bill in an appropriate way, I cannot recommend to my 
colleagues that they support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like quickly to respond to what the gentleman 
referred to, and he did change some of my words. I said that these are 
legally operating businesses. Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from 
Colorado's own admission, these are not federally legal businesses. 
They are illegal under Federal law. Marijuana is illegal in U.S. Code 
21, section 812. The gentleman knows that.
  Maybe we should debate whether marijuana should be legal under 
Federal law. If he wants to debate that, that is okay. But this is a 
recognition for banking services of businesses that are operating 
lawfully under both Federal and State law, not ambiguous businesses 
that are legal under State law but illegal under Federal law. At the 
most, these businesses are ambiguous, but clearly they are illegal 
under Federal law. I didn't say businesses that are operating legally 
under State law in my comments. I said legally operating businesses. 
That means under Federal and State law.
  We live in a Federal republic with a State and a Federal Government. 
If something is illegal under Federal law, under U.S. Code 21, section 
812, then it is illegal. Those businesses are not legally operating 
businesses. That is the distinction. That is why the amendment from Mr. 
Perlmutter and Mr. Heck was not allowed, because these businesses--
drug-related businesses--are illegal under Federal code. That is the 
reason we are not debating that amendment here.
  I would say to the gentleman's point earlier where he wanted a minute 
of debate, I think he has gotten more than a minute on both sides on 
this. So he has done pretty well.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a 
fellow from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Ohio 
for the time today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 595 
providing for consideration of H.R. 766, the Financial Institution 
Customer Protection Act and H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee 
Ownership Act of 2015. I strongly support this rule and the underlying 
measures.
  H.R. 766 is a vitally important response to the administration's 
unacceptable executive overreach through Operation Choke Point. 
Operation Choke Point is another example of the administration's 
circumventing Congress. It is a disturbing abuse of authority to 
achieve politically motivated results, and the fine folks in northeast 
Georgia have made it clear that they won't stand for it.
  Under the program, the Justice Department and Federal financial 
regulators have coerced banks and other financial institutions into 
cutting off relations with legal businesses simply because the 
administration does not like them.
  The administration has painted a target on certain industries ranging 
from payment processors and short-term lenders to gun and ammunition 
stores to other small businesses. Again,

[[Page 1265]]

it is the administration who has decided under the guise of customer 
protection to target entire industries simply because they deem them 
offensive.
  This is not the way the government is supposed to operate, and it is 
time we prevent it from happening. I have had the opportunity to meet 
with some of the hardworking individuals in the industries affected, 
and it is clear action is needed.
  A few weeks ago I met with several members of the electronic payments 
industry. This is an industry that promotes innovation, is rapidly 
growing, and plays a large and important role in Georgia's economy. To 
give you an idea of the enormity of this industry, the electronic 
consumer spending is projected to exceed $7.3 trillion in 2017. Yet the 
administration has been increasingly exerting pressure on this 
industry. They have increasingly tried to make the payments industry 
responsible in part for the misdeeds of bad actors in other segments of 
the industry.
  Possibly even more disturbing, by forcing payments processors and 
banks to assume the role of regulators and police the industry for bad 
actors, known or unknown, the administration is promoting 
discrimination of legal businesses if they belong to a certain industry 
that isn't supported by the White House's political agenda. What has 
happened to fairness under the law? It is amazing to me. The 
administration is choking legitimate businesses off from needed capital 
and other resources by painting them with a scarlet letter, and they 
are burdening the payments industry by trying to use it as a means to 
carry out their own dirty work.
  Another industry long targeted by Operation Choke Point is the gun 
industry. As Americans, we have a constitutional right to bear arms 
under the Second Amendment. Just this week I had the privilege of 
visiting Honor Defense, a gun manufacturer located in my hometown of 
Gainesville, Georgia. I talked with the owner, toured their facilities, 
and assembled actually one of their fine firearms.
  These are hardworking American businesses operating legal businesses. 
The administration doesn't like this industry, though, so they have 
painted a target on their back. This is not right. We should be 
encouraging businessowners to grow their businesses and celebrating 
their success, not trying to force them out of business.
  Stories of industries and legitimate small businesses that have been 
targeted are widespread. It is time for this to stop. The government 
has a legitimate role in protecting consumers and preventing fraud. But 
that necessary role should not be abused to achieve political goals. 
Financial regulators should not be able to target legal businesses by 
choking off their lines of credit and forcing them out of business.
  Mr. Speaker, Operation Choke Point is misguided and politically 
motivated, and it is time we rein it in to protect small businesses and 
legitimate enterprises of hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up a bill to help prevent mass shootings 
by promoting research into the causes of gun violence and making it 
easier to identify and treat those prone to committing violent acts.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. To further discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. If we 
defeat the previous question, Mr. Polis will be able to offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring my Gun Violence Research Act to the 
floor for an immediate vote.
  My Gun Violence Research Act would lift the over 19-year-old ban on 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to 
objectively studying the health aspects of gun violence.
  Former Republican Congressman from Arkansas, the Honorable Jay 
Dickey, who was the author of the CDC ban, has gone on record 
regretting his decision--expressing that the prohibition was rooted in 
partisan politics, not sound public policy.
  With well over 32,000 Americans killed by gunshots per year and 
roughly 88 Americans killed every day--every day--gun violence is 
undoubtedly a public health crisis that necessitates attention.
  I represent Silicon Valley, and I have seen firsthand the role and 
value objective research plays in expanded knowledge and informed 
decisionmaking.
  Research on gun violence should not be controversial or partisan. It 
is a commonsense tool to help us understand why tens of thousands of 
our fellow citizens are being killed every year by gunshots.
  Without being able to adequately understand why the problem is 
occurring, we are unable to effectively tackle our Nation's gun 
violence epidemic and protect the American people whom we represent.
  This is why I urge my Republican colleagues to allow a vote on this 
critical legislation and lift the ban on desperately needed gun 
violence research. When we understand the problem, we can make informed 
public policy decisions to keep Americans safe without eroding the 
Second Amendment and demonizing the millions of law-abiding gun owners.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). He is a member of the 
Foreign Affairs and Science, Space, and Technology Committees.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
underlying rule and in support of H.R. 1675, a bill that aims to lessen 
many of the regulatory burdens that employers currently experience. Of 
particular interest to me and of interest to working men and women 
throughout America is title I of the bill entitled Encouraging Employee 
Ownership Act of 2015. This title would make it easier for private 
employers to grant their employees with greater ownership stake in 
their own companies without having to disclose certain sensitive 
information.
  The consideration of the bill is but the latest in a long history of 
actions taken by the Federal Government to promote an ownership 
society. President Jefferson recognized ownership of private property 
as the keystone of a free society. President Lincoln pushed for, and 
Congress delivered, the Homestead Act of 1862 which has proven to be 
one of the most important manifestations of Jefferson's vision of a 
broad-based ownership property society. More recently, President Reagan 
supported employee stock ownership, labeled it ``the next logical step, 
a path that benefits a free people.''
  In the near future, I will reintroduce legislation that incentivizes 
employee ownership even further than we currently have it by treating 
as tax-free any broad-based distribution of employer stock that is held 
by the employees for a certain period of time. Yes, it would be ESOPs 
on steroids. We would dramatically increase the amount of employee 
ownership in our country and all the benefits that go with that.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider my bill. It will be proposed 
probably next week. My proposal is simple and easy to understand. No 
team of lawyers or accountants would be needed to be hired in order for 
an employer to participate in this expansion of employee ownership of 
his or her company. As such, it has great potential to give a shot in 
the arm to many small upstart companies that do not have significant 
sums of cash to offer employees or to attract the very people who 
actually have the skills necessary

[[Page 1266]]

for their new company to succeed, but instead have an idea that if an 
employee is willing to work hard and make a company grow, prosper, and 
succeed that that company's benefits would be shared with the employee.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider joining me in support 
of the working people of this country by giving them the opportunity to 
achieve the American Dream and make employees partners instead of 
adversaries to management.
  One of the things in this bill that we are talking about today is 
taking a step forward in employee ownership. I certainly support that. 
The legislation I will propose takes another step.
  I would like to congratulate my friends who have been involved with 
this bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I look forward to 
discussing with him his bill next week and seeing whether it is 
something that I can support.
  I strongly believe in encouraging employee ownership through ESOPs 
options. This bill does part. We can do a lot more. It is a big thing 
that we can do to address the increasing income disparities that this 
country has in making sure that workers can participate in capital 
formation and capital growth along with owners and executives. We look 
forward to working with the gentleman on that bill and contacting the 
gentleman as well.
  The gentleman from Ohio said that somehow legal operating businesses 
must have access to banking resources, the goal of this bill. He said, 
oh, wait a minute, I mean Federal ones not State ones, not Federal not 
State. This is where you have a difference. Of course, you won't have 
any disagreement that there is an ambiguity here with regard to types 
of businesses that are legal at the State level and are not legal 
federally. But this is where you will find that most Democrats believe 
very strongly in States' rights.

                              {time}  1315

  Most Republicans believe here, with the exception of the other 
gentleman from California who just spoke and a number of others who 
would allow a majority to support this bill, but apparently the 
gentleman from Ohio believes in an overarching Federal definition 
telling States what they can and can't do indirectly through the 
banking system, effectively constraining their ability to allow banks 
to serve businesses that might sell types of firearms that are illegal 
federally, or types of marijuana or hemp or other products that might 
be illegal federally. Effectively, they are arguing that the Federal 
Government should tell them what to do and impose a one-size-fits-all 
solution on States that are as diverse as Texas and California and 
Colorado and North Dakota.
  I disagree with that premise, as do most of the Democrats here today. 
We feel that while this body, of course--and I agree with the 
gentleman--should continue with the discussion about the regulatory 
structure of legal treatment of cannabis products federally, that 
should in no way, shape, or form stand in the way of a simple fix that 
says, whether you want it to be legal or illegal, transactions should 
be traceable, safe, through the banking system for businesses that are 
legal at the State level.
  Let me address H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, 
also being named the Capital Markets Improvement Act. It is a good 
piece of bipartisan legislation that I think can be made even better 
through the amendment process.
  Title I of this bill, which will revise the SEC's rule 701 by raising 
and indexing for inflation the threshold under which companies can 
issue stock to employees without running into government red tape, is a 
commonsense, good piece of legislation. I hope it is something that 
most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with. I am an 
early cosponsor of this legislation, and I think we should promote and 
applaud the structure, the indexation, and, of course, allowing 
employees to have a stake in their companies.
  That is not the only solution. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) might have some other ideas I look forward to discussing, 
as do I. But if you want to help solve some of our Nation's issues with 
income inequality and the wealth gap, then we should applaud and 
promote companies that incorporate employee stock or option ownership.
  Whether you issue stock in the manner under this bill or whether you 
operate in ESOP or any of the other forms that allow workers to benefit 
from the growth of your company, we should find ways to work together 
to promote and encourage this style of corporate governance.
  Title II is a safe harbor for investment research, a bill that will 
help improve available market information for investors and something 
that has broad bipartisan support. I know my colleague from Delaware 
(Mr. Carney) will also be pleased to see this pass, as an original 
sponsor.
  My colleague from Ohio, who is a co-chair with me of the 
Congressional Caucus for Middle Market Growth, spoke yesterday and 
today about how this overall package of legislation will help grow 
companies in the all-important middle market. This is Main Street 
America. These are companies that might not be big enough to be 
multinational, multibillion-dollar brand names, and they are not 
startups or small companies, but it is the engine of our economy, the 
portion of the market that is a vital piece of our economic engine 
creating jobs on Main Street.
  Title III of this bill will work to reduce red tape for these very 
middle market companies.
  These provisions have broad bipartisan support, and I applaud them. 
The SEC has largely agreed with this. In fact, the only argument 
against it has been we already do this, and I think that is a weak 
argument because we ought to put it in statute. The SEC has agreed and 
has taken action, but, unfortunately, some of their actions have added 
in some increased investor impediments as well.
  I hope the administration can work with Congress to improve this bill 
if there are specific issues they have with it. But the bill is 
necessary. It is better to fix things in statute. I think that we can 
work together to reduce red tape to grow small- and middle-sized 
companies.
  Title V of the bill is another bipartisan piece of legislation that 
is in line with the sort of regulatory review that we already ask in 
many agencies. It is the sort of good government legislation I think 
both sides of the aisle can find agreement on and hopefully support 
now.
  Title IV of H.R. 1675, unfortunately, is a bit of a step in the wrong 
direction, and it is something we discussed extensively in the 
committee yesterday. Fortunately, for this provision, there was an open 
process. Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison have amendments that will be 
considered that improve the portion of the bill or remove it entirely. 
Unfortunately, the bill, as written, is a move away from searchable 
financial reporting that can be done digitally. It is a step away from 
sortable and downloadable formats. It is a return to the pen and paper 
and inefficient world of the 20th century rather than a step forward to 
the open data transparency world of the 21st century.
  Across the board, market participants, investors, and regulators want 
information that is already required--we are not talking about any new 
requirements--information that is already required, financial 
information, to simply be available in a digital, searchable format. 
That is all we seek to preserve and not eliminate.
  It is an odd and outdated use of government resources to deal with 
this information by hand, by pen, by paper. It puts investors and 
others at an enormous disadvantage, and it prevents and reduces the 
amount of information in the marketplace. Searchable and sortable data 
can be better used to track trends, find anomalies, find investment

[[Page 1267]]

opportunities, and help regulators notice trouble spots in markets and 
hopefully catch the next Enron before it explodes.
  Just as importantly, investors need information. So do 
entrepreneurial folks, who want to take this information and package it 
in new and interesting and exciting ways and sell it on to 
institutional and individual investors. We heard yesterday from 
detractors who said investors aren't asking for this information.
  We also heard that the committee didn't include any investors in 
their testimony; they only included operating companies. I am not sure 
who they are speaking for; but in my conversations, I have never heard 
any investor say, ``I want less information,'' or, ``I want information 
to be harder to search or find.'' No investor says, ``I want to know 
less about a company's earnings. I want it to be in an archaic pen and 
paper format.'' That argument that this information isn't welcome by 
investors is simply incorrect, and it is counter to anything you will 
ever hear from anyone in the investment community.
  Hopefully, we will fix these issues through amendment. Overall, I 
believe this package should merit serious consideration and support 
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, does 
address a very important issue, and that is the inexcusable actions of 
Operation Choke Point, which, at best, could be described as an 
overzealous use of the Department of Justice's power, or, at worst, as 
a pernicious attempt to root out activities that are determined to be 
politically unpopular.
  Unfortunately, as we examine this bill, it looks like it has some 
unintended consequences which are not addressed through the amendment 
process. The amendment process also fails to include a simple amendment 
that would further the goals of this bill with regard to the regulated 
marijuana industry in 22 States.
  I hope that we can address the Operation Choke Point issue. I hope we 
can prevent this administration and future administrations from 
engaging, having DOJ engage in this kind of troublesome use of 
authority to coerce closures of accounts for otherwise legitimate and 
legal customers of local financial institutions.
  If a bank or credit union has a legal business, it is legal in the 
State, they deem it creditworthy, they are a good customer and they 
want to open an account with them, they should be able to serve that 
customer. The Federal Government should not use the bank itself as an 
intermediary in a dispute. If the DOJ has a dispute with a bank's 
customer, that should be resolved between the DOJ and the customer, not 
the bank.
  I hope that there is groundwork for bipartisan legislation in this 
area that can ensure that this President and future Presidents and the 
future Department of Justices do not abuse their authority in this 
area.
  One real-life, everyday issue where this concept comes up of the 
Department of Justice and the Federal Government interfering with the 
bank working with its legal customer would have been addressed by the 
Perlmutter amendment that I spoke about earlier. It is not just a 
Colorado issue. Frankly, if this bill addressed that issue, despite it 
being overarching in other areas, I would probably support it.
  Thus is the importance of this issue from local law enforcement in 
our State. But, unfortunately, not even a minute, not even a second of 
debate is allowed on the issue. The gentleman from Ohio claimed that we 
were having that debate.
  To be clear, we are not. We are debating the underlying rule. There 
is no time for the sponsors of the amendment to make their case or for 
opponents of the amendment to make their case. We are outlaying the 
time for other amendments. Many amendments have 10 minutes; many 
amendments have more. There is not even a second for the debate of that 
amendment sponsored by Mr. Perlmutter. That is why I cannot support 
this rule.
  213 million Americans live in a State or jurisdiction where the 
voters have allowed for some legal marijuana use. Colorado tried to 
solve the problem locally, but we were rejected by Federal banking 
regulators in courts, so Congress needs to be the one to make this 
change. Only Congress can address this issue.
  While there remains a need to align Federal and State laws, while the 
DOJ and Treasury have issued some guidance, some institutions are 
providing banking services to the DOJ and Treasury guidance issues, the 
guidance does not solve the problem, which is why we need to change the 
law and provide certainty, which this very simple amendment that has 
bipartisan support and likely would have passed on the floor would have 
done. But it is completely shut down under this rule even though it 
furthers the actual goal of the legislation, is germane to the 
legislation, is consistent with the legislation, and yet it is 
completely shut down in a closed process that runs contrary to the 
Speaker's stated goal of allowing Members on both sides of the aisle to 
contribute to making things better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to address two quick points made by the gentleman.
  With regard to H.R. 1675 and exportable data, the gentleman tries to 
claim that this data will not be available. It will be available in 
scanned-in information, so you can still look at it and see it. It is 
not pen and paper data the way he alleges. It is still very accessible 
on the electronic systems. It is just not exportable data.
  The question is: Is that exportable data worth the $50,000 cost for 
these small companies? It is only a few small companies that will 
benefit from being relieved from this burden because the cost is more 
than the benefit.
  Secondly, the gentleman continues to ignore the fact that marijuana 
businesses are not legal under Federal law. If he wants to have the 
debate about whether they should be legal under Federal law, we should 
have that debate. That is not germane in this bill.
  What we are talking about are legal businesses that are legal under 
Federal and State law, not ambiguous businesses that are only legal one 
place or the other. In our Federal system, there is both a Federal and 
a State component. If he wants to debate making marijuana legal at the 
Federal level, that is legitimate; it is just not germane in this bill. 
This is for businesses that are legal at the State and Federal level.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), who is 
a distinguished member of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform that had a lot of hearings on Operation Choke Point.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the Financial 
Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015.
  Over the past several years, the Obama administration's Department of 
Justice has strong-armed the financial industry in an attempt to cut 
off payment processors, short-term lenders, gun and ammunition stores, 
and other companies from banking services simply because they do not 
like their line of business.
  Operation Choke Point is just another example of this administration 
trying to advance its radical leftist agenda through executive power 
overreach with a disregard for Americans' due process rights. In 
effect, these businesses are being treated as if they are guilty until 
proven innocent.
  The bill before us today prevents Federal bureaucrats from abusing 
their executive power to prevent legitimate businesses from using 
depository banks. It also requires written justification of any request 
to terminate or restrict a business' account, unless the business poses 
a legitimate threat to national security.
  In the First Congressional District of Georgia that I represent, we 
have a large, multi-State licensed consumer finance company that 
services more than 1,000 new customers every day. This is just another 
example of this administration working to limit economic growth and 
Americans' free will.

[[Page 1268]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can put an end to 
this administration's unconstitutional actions and restore the rule of 
law.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I appreciate the committee of jurisdiction's work and the 
Rules Committee's work to make 9 out of 10 amendments submitted in 
order today--that is 9 out of 10. But I have to reiterate again that 
the one that is most important to not only my home State, but the 
jurisdictions in which 213 million Americans live--22 States plus the 
District of Columbia--is omitted from consideration in its appropriate, 
germane bill.
  I strongly object to the unnecessary gatekeeping of the Rules 
Committee and what they have engaged in and the way that they have 
treated this excellent idea and real-world solution from Mr. Perlmutter 
and Mr. Heck.
  Access to banking services is an issue of fundamental importance for 
all businesses, as the proponents of this bill have argued. Do you know 
what? That includes State legal marijuana businesses. Just because some 
Members of Congress--and they are in the minority, by the way, and they 
are decreasing every day--object to the very existence of these 
businesses does not mean that they should obstruct the entire 
legislative process and shut down our ability to make it possible for 
these businesses to exist, grow, and succeed.

                              {time}  1330

  The Perlmutter-Heck amendment is a germane, thoughtful solution to a 
real-world problem, and I hope this House will atone for its error 
today by swiftly taking up legislation--and there is a stand-alone 
bill--to solve this banking issue once and for all.
  This was a discussion that we had in our committee yesterday, but, 
unfortunately, it is a discussion that we are not allowed to have on 
the people's floor of the House of Representatives. There is not an 
amendment that would have somehow legalized or have made any judgment 
about the legality or the morality of marijuana. It simply would have 
addressed a banking issue that both proponents and opponents of 
marijuana law reform agree needs to be addressed. Now, I am happy to 
have that conversation about how we should treat marijuana federally at 
a separate point. That is fine. I have legislation to regulate 
marijuana like alcohol, and others have other ideas.
  Those who are following at home need to know that the Perlmutter-Heck 
amendment is not that discussion. It was germane to the bill we were 
discussing, and it, frankly, gets at the issue of why our banks are 
being used as a chokepoint for doing business with otherwise legal and 
legitimate customers as determined by the States.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, while I support one of the two 
underlying bills--and I would like to be here to support the other if 
it would simply deal with the urgent issue of 213 million Americans who 
live in jurisdictions that face it--I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's points.
  These two bills are great bills. The first bill helps to preserve and 
to incentivize employee stock ownership. It decreases burdensome 
regulations so as to allow these middle market companies, which I 
talked about earlier, to have access to capital and to continue to 
grow, and it ensures that entrepreneurs can have access to the capital 
markets in an affordable and efficient way.
  H.R. 766 addresses legal businesses. Again, I want to stress 
``legal'' businesses. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Speaker, I 
think, would welcome the day of the Articles of Confederation. He wants 
to ignore that we have the State and the Federal governments. He wants 
the States to just make decisions and not allow the Federal Government 
to do anything. If marijuana is illegal at the Federal level, that is a 
fact. If he wants to have the debate about making marijuana legal at 
the Federal level, we should do that. That is not germane to this bill.
  These businesses are, at best, ambiguously legal, and they are 
clearly illegal at the Federal level. So let's clear up the ambiguity. 
Then they can have the same access that other legal businesses have, 
like gun dealers and automotive dealers and short-term lenders, which 
are already legal at both the State and Federal levels. They need 
access to banking services. H.R. 766 makes sure they will continue to 
have access to banking services.
  There are some amendments that I will be supporting and that others 
will be supporting. Make one's mind up on the amendments, but I think 
both of these bills are important. I urge my colleagues to support the 
rule and the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3926) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
     better understanding of the epidemic of gun violence, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3926.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''

[[Page 1269]]

       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 176, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Amodei
     Beyer
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Castro (TX)
     Conyers
     Deutch
     Ellison
     Fleming
     Hahn
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Loudermilk
     Rush
     Sarbanes
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1352

  Ms. SPEIER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 55, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 55, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 175, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)

[[Page 1270]]


     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Amodei
     Beyer
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Castro (TX)
     Deutch
     Ellison
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Hill
     Lawrence
     Paulsen
     Rush
     Sarbanes
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska) (during the vote). 
There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1359

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 56, I was unavoidably detained 
with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 56, I was not present due 
to a meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on 
rollcall No. 55 on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the 
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1675 and H.R. 766. I am not 
recorded because I was absent due to the birth of my son in San 
Antonio, Texas. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 56 on H. Res. 
595, the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 1675, 
Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015 and H.R. 766, Financial 
Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015. I am not recorded because 
I was absent due to the birth of my son in San Antonio, Texas. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________