[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H570-H583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CUSTOMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in
[[Page H571]]
which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous
materials on 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 595 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 766.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1013
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Mooney of West Virginia in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
{time} 1015
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am proud to offer H.R. 766, Mr. Chairman. It is a bipartisan piece
of legislation that provides transparency and accountability among
Federal banking regulators and the Department of Justice.
This legislation comes in response to the abuse of authority by DOJ,
FDIC, and other banking agencies under the action called Operation
Choke Point, an initiative which seeks to deny legally operating
businesses the financial services they need to operate and survive.
The notion that Operation Choke Point is limited to payday lenders or
the banks serving them is far from the truth. This initiative has
spread across many industries, including tobacco shops, gun
manufacturers and dealers, pawnbrokers, even a coal mine and an auto
dealer. Even attorneys and data companies that serve these industries
have been impacted.
While regulators will tell you this activity has stopped, Operation
Choke Point remains a very live issue. For more than a year, I have
asked Americans impacted by this initiative to submit their story at
our email address of [email protected].
Just this week I heard from a payday lender in Missouri who recently
received account termination notices from his financial institution.
Gregory Bone, whose businesses have served borrowers in Branson,
Pineville, and Neosho, has operated since 1998 and is registered with
both the State of Missouri and the U.S. Treasury Department. On January
21st, there is a similar story from a credit bureau in California and,
before that, a tobacco shop in Florida.
The underlying problem here cannot be overstated. The Federal
Government should not be able to intimidate financial institutions into
dropping entire sectors of the economy as customers based not on
wrongdoing, but purely on personal and political motivations and
without due process.
We have the internal DOJ and the FDIC memos that prove these motives
that are driving Operation Choke Point. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform did a fantastic job of putting together two reports
that take the different agencies' own emails and show what is actually
going on and the motivation for those actions.
This program sets a dangerous precedent that shouldn't be permitted
under any administration. William Isaac, the former chairman of the
FDIC, appointed to the board by President Carter and named chairman by
President Reagan, stated in committee that Operation Choke Point is the
most dangerous government program he has seen in his 45-year career as
a banker, a bank consultant, and as a regulator.
H.R. 766 offers a straightforward approach to a complicated problem.
First, it dictates that banking regulators cannot suggest, request, or
order an institution to terminate a banking relationship unless the
regulator has a material reason beyond reputational risk.
The bill also strikes the word ``affecting'' in FIRREA and replaces
it with ``by'' or ``against.'' This modest change will help ensure that
broad interpretations of the law are limited and that the intent of the
statute, penalizing fraud against or by financial institutions, is
restored.
It is essential that DOJ and financial regulators maintain the
ability to pursue bad actors, and I fully support these efforts. This
is something they must continue to do. But the checks and balances in
this legislation would ensure accountability and would not hinder the
ability to pursue those suspected of fraudulent activity.
The provisions contained in H.R. 766 are reasonable. In fact, the
FDIC used its authority to already put them in place. Agency policy now
requires staff to track and document account termination orders, which
must be made in writing and cannot rely on reputational risk. The
willingness of the FDIC to put these standards into place tells other
regulators that they can and should follow suit.
I am proud the House is working in a bipartisan fashion to address
this issue, including the passage of limitation amendments by voice
votes in the 113th and 114th Congresses.
Republicans and Democrats alike have talked to regulators about the
dangers of such a program. Many of my friends on the other side of the
aisle have expressed their concerns to me privately as well. This
bipartisan legislation takes a responsible approach to curbing the
malpractice we have seen.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hensarling for his
outstanding support as we have gone through this 2\1/2\ year process.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 766.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members, if you listen carefully to my colleague on
the opposite side of the aisle, Mr. Luetkemeyer, you would think that
the major point of this bill is the Choke Point controversy.
Considerable time was spent by my colleague on the opposite side of
the aisle talking about Choke Point. Well, I do not want that
discussion to obscure the real problem with this very bad legislation.
H.R. 766 eliminates core provisions of the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, or FIRREA, that the Justice
Department has used to investigate and prosecute bank fraud. This is
what this discussion should be about: bank fraud.
FIRREA has proven to be the Justice Department's most effective tool
for holding Wall Street accountable. We hear a lot of talk about Wall
Street. We went through 2008 and the subprime meltdown, the bailout,
and all of that.
Most of the Members on both sides of the aisle agree that we had to
rein in the practices of Wall Street. Here we have a bill today that
would basically protect them and take away the very tool that is used
in order to make them accountable.
After using FIRREA to secure historic settlements against Wall
Street, including a $7 billion settlement against Citibank, a $5
billion settlement against Goldman Sachs, a $13 billion settlement
against JPMorgan Chase, and a historic $16 billion settlement against
Bank of America, now H.R. 766 seeks to stifle the Justice Department's
investigative powers over financial fraud. In fact, there are still
ongoing settlement negotiations with
[[Page H572]]
banks like Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs that were announced just this
week.
Without investigatory powers and an extended statute of limitations
granted to the Justice Department by FIRREA, it would be impossible for
us to identify and rectify the fraudulent activity that set us up for a
crisis 10 years ago.
Apparently, H.R. 766 supporters believe that actually holding banks
accountable for fraud was too much of a burden for them, replacing our
system of too big to jail with one where our biggest banks are now too
frail to fine.
H.R. 766 also invites the next crisis by imposing burdensome
requirements--listen to this--imposing burdensome requirements on the
Justice Department's ability to investigate bank fraud, allowing fraud
schemes to continue at the expense of consumers and the financial
system.
The Justice Department's ability to identify and rout out fraud would
be critical in averting future crises, and H.R. 766 would be a free
pass to banks that make their money by breaking the law.
That would include banks like Plaza, Commerce West, and Four Oaks,
all of which knowingly aided fraudsters, despite the many red flags
raised by their financial activities.
At Commerce West in particular, the bank admitted fraud for failing
to file suspicious activity reports with regulators even after the
bank's own employees determined that one of their customers was
routinely submitting fraudulent checks to the bank.
According to the Justice Department's complaint, the bank also failed
to heed the warning of other banks that pointed out to Commerce West
that some of their customers were fraudulent businesses.
Furthermore, H.R. 766's account closure provisions are a solution in
search of a problem as regulators are now forcing financial
institutions to close customer accounts.
Every Federal banking regulator has been clear, except for rare cases
involving national security or systemic risks. The responsibility for
closing accounts is a decision for financial institutions.
Some financial institutions are simply deciding that they would
rather lose a customer than invest in the resources needed to ensure
that our financial system is not being used for money laundering or
other criminal activity.
In order to protect our economy from the next financial crisis,
regulators have to have the necessary tools to prevent fraud and
protect consumers.
Americans are still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis.
We should be in the business of seeking ways to continue to hold banks
more accountable for their misconduct, not rolling back the Federal
Government's most effective tool for protecting consumers, investors,
and taxpayers from bank fraud. Banks that break the law don't deserve
get-out-of-jail-free cards.
The administration will veto H.R. 766. I urge my Democratic
colleagues to oppose H.R. 766.
I just want to say that, despite yesterday when we had five bills
that had been rolled into one that I warned our Members of Congress
about because of what they literally did, particularly in terms of
allowing corporations to not have to disclose information about the
stock that they were giving to their employees, and I talked about how
bad that was.
This is worse. This is worse because we are able to call names and to
point out banks because we have the information. It is real.
We are able to point out how the Justice Department has been affected
in making these banks accountable. So why in the world would we want to
take away the Justice Department's tool that is FIRREA? Why would we
want to prevent the Justice Department from going after these banks who
know they are dealing with crooks and fraudsters?
I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), the cosponsor of the bill.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Missouri. We have
been working on this now 2\1/2\ to 3 years.
The bill is fairly simple, Mr. Chairman, in what it actually does. It
just takes a second to read the operative line that an appropriate
banking Federal agency may not formally or informally request or order
a depository institution to terminate a specific customer account
without a really good reason.
I want people to think about that, Mr. Chairman. The fact that we
have to actually debate this frightens me. The fact that we have to
bring a bill to the floor of the United States House that says the
Federal Government regulators cannot force a bank to close an account
without a good reason should frighten people.
I heard Mr. Luetkemeyer talk about many of the companies that have
been impacted: gun manufacturers, pawnshops. It has now spread, Mr.
Chairman, to individuals.
We are hearing reports that individuals engaged in legal businesses--
every single one of the victims are engaged in legal activity.
We are hearing now that individuals who happen to engage in legal
poker playing in Las Vegas, Nevada, which is a completely legal
endeavor--you may not like it--are having their bank accounts shut off
by the Federal Government.
My dad told me when I got to this job: The difference between the
government when I was your age and the government that you are going
into is that I was never afraid of my government. Your children will
grow up afraid of their government because of things exactly like this.
We are debating a bill on the floor of the House that says the
government can't force banks to shut down legal business banking
accounts. It is outrageous, but it is real, and it has happened for a
long time.
It has happened, by the way, Mr. Chairman, because this
administration has not been able to accomplish their agenda through
legislative process. So they are doing it now through regulation.
There is a report that our committee put out. It is an excellent
report. I commend it to everybody. There are emails from within the
regulators. I will read one.
It says:
I have never said this to you, but I am sincerely
passionate about this. I literally cannot stand payday
lending. They are abusive, fundamentally wrong, hurt people,
and do not deserve to be in any way associated with banking.
It is a completely legal business, Mr. Chairman.
I hope that we have bipartisan support for this. We have had
cosponsors on both sides. I encourage wholehearted support of this so
we can get the Federal Government out of making decisions like this.
{time} 1030
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I would
simply like to point out that Mr. Mulvaney just continued in the vein
that Mr. Luetkemeyer started out in, obscuring the real point of this
bill.
They are going to keep telling you it is all about Choke Point. What
they are not going to talk about is taking away the Justice
Department's ability to use FIRREA to go after these banks that are
committing crimes.
I don't want the Members to be misled. Ask them why they are refusing
to talk about the main point of this bill.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the ranking member and the
chair of the committee. I would also like to say that this is a
situation where there are--and I have even seen myself--some closures
of accounts, which I think were not adequately justified, but this bill
doesn't just solve that problem. It solves a whole lot of problems that
are not problems.
So they take what could be a legitimate issue, and then they use that
little hole in the tent to push in a whole bunch of other stuff that
will literally weaken the whole system.
My good friend from South Carolina, if that was all the bill said, it
wouldn't be that bad of a problem, but that is not only what it says.
In fact, it weakens financial protections and lets bad actors in the
system off the hook. If we are concerned about small accounts being
closed, we should focus on that issue, but this particular bill goes
way beyond that.
As Members contemplate how they want to vote on this bill, they had
better think about and read this bill carefully because it goes far
beyond just
[[Page H573]]
simply calling for a justification for arbitrarily closing accounts.
That is why I oppose the bill.
I oppose the bill, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act,
H.R. 766. This bill would do the opposite of what is asserted in the
title. H.R. 766 would not protect customers of financial institutions
actually. Instead, it would make it more difficult to hold financial
institutions accountable, and it will achieve that goal in a bait-and-
switch way by acknowledging what may be, in some cases, a legitimate
issue of arbitrary account closures, but then coming in, sneaking in
the back door, all this other stuff, to weaken the financial system.
Many Americans, including those who saw the movie ``The Big Short,''
cannot understand how so few people went to jail for the schemes that
caused the financial crisis. People made loans they knew would fail,
sold those bad loans to investors, and caused the financial crisis that
cost our economy $14 trillion.
Twelve million people lost their jobs, and 11 million people lost
their homes. Who went to jail for all this mortgage fraud? Well, I
think there is only one person I have been able to find. I would be
happy to find anyone else. Teresa Giudice from ``The Real Housewives of
New Jersey,'' football player Irving Fryar, and straw buyers in
Michigan, those are the only people I could find who went to jail for
this. Other people who committed massive fraud, they paid fines, but
they walked away.
I am incredibly frustrated by the fact that the Department of Justice
has not pursued more criminal prosecutions of people at the
multinational corporations who caused the financial crisis. But the
answer to that problem is stronger enforcement, not to take away the
most important tool Federal prosecutors have to pursue financial fraud.
There is this thing called FIRREA. I know people watching C-SPAN are
like, what is that? These Congress people always speak in acronyms. It
is the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act.
FIRREA was specifically designed to hold bankers accountable for
destabilizing the financial system with their fraudulent activity. This
bill weakens that.
In an Orwellian twist, it says that FIRREA cases cannot be brought
when fraud is committed against a bank instead of by a bank. I will say
it again. If this bill passes today, FIRREA cases can only be brought
when fraud is committed against a bank and not by a bank. That is bad.
It also limits law enforcement's subpoena power. Don't we want to be
able to subpoena these guys? Why would we want to be able to weaken
that?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Newhouse). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1
minute to the gentleman.
Mr. ELLISON. It eliminates the bankers' regulators' ability to ensure
safety and soundness of the financial system. We need to enforce the
law, not wink at it.
Members, they are dangling a shiny, little object in front of you by
saying they are going to stop arbitrary account closures. This bill is
way more than that. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his
work on this very important bill.
The Constitution is clear: the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed, yet time and time again, this
administration has attempted to circumvent the constitutional rights of
Americans to further their political agenda.
Today, under the guise of protecting consumers, the Department of
Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are targeting
payment companies to choke off credit for certain businesses they deem
high risk, including ammunition and firearms stores, lending
institutions, and other lawful businesses as well.
Instead of protecting consumers, this initiative is restricting
consumer choice and crippling legitimate businesses. This policy makes
financial service providers responsible for policing their customers.
That is not fair to either banks or their consumers.
This commonsense legislation we are considering today will protect
consumer access to banking services and restrict the administration
from using the highly substantive notion of reputational risk to
undercut constitutional rights and terminate the accounts of lawful
businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a valued member of the Committee
on Financial Services.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, as a fellow Washingtonian, might I
just observe that you make that dais look good.
I actually counterintuitively want to start out by thanking my
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), for taking this
issue on.
We had a problem in a lot of communities around the country with
businesses getting access to the banking system, and I know he worked
this very hard last year. He investigated; he talked to banks,
businesses, and regulators; and he actually negotiated a solution with
the FDIC that he had pushed and pushed until they actually adopted it.
It was a good solution. In fact, part of this bill would essentially
codify that. What it would say is, you can't use FIRREA to go after
whole sectors of the economy. It has to be specifically and
individually based. You have to have a reason to believe that an
individual business was engaged in fraud if you were going to use the
banking system to get at them. Good solution, constructive solution. My
hat is off to you, sir.
Unfortunately, this bill, as has been suggested earlier, goes
farther. Section 3 makes it a lot harder for the Department of Justice
to investigate financial solutions because, as has been suggested, it
takes direct and specific aim at the powers under FIRREA, as the
gentleman from Minnesota had indicated. It puts limits on them as to
when subpoenas can be issued. To me, frankly, that is a solution in
search of a problem.
FIRREA has been the key statute in going after fraud that, in fact,
helped lead to the Great Recession and the crisis, and the wiping out
of $13 trillion in net worth. Frankly, I am one of those people who
believes we need more prosecutions, not fewer, for all the damage and
harm done to Americans throughout this land.
I am very reluctant to embrace any language that substantially
weakens or obstructs FIRREA's ability to investigate fraud. I do agree
with my friend that investigations and our oversight of them could be
improved by requiring a paper trail. I worked with him to see if we
could find a compromise that did that, but we couldn't. So ultimately,
we had to disagree, and this is a disagreement that I will characterize
as being a very strong one.
The truth of the matter is, in the last two calendar years alone,
FIRREA was the operative statute which led to $40 billion in fines and
recoveries being levied. Truth be told, it is very, very unlikely, if
not highly unlikely, that any of those $40 billion in fines or
restitution could have been recovered if the language of this
legislation had been in effect; $20 billion of which was restitution to
harmed parties, people who lost their homes inappropriately because
they had had fraud perpetuated upon them.
I don't think that is what the American public wants right now. I
think the American public is still eager for some accountability for
the actions and behavior that led to the Great Recession.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentleman.
Mr. HECK of Washington. So I join in the chorus of my colleagues who
suggest that this bill is actually not just a step backward but two
giant steps backward. There is an issue here that could be worked on.
This is not the right solution; and, I might add, it is not going to
become law because it has already been indicated by the executive
branch this probably isn't going anywhere.
I would entreat you--in the spirit of trying to find a solution to a
real problem--please, let us set aside, vote ``no,'' and not enact that
which is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist and, in
fact, does considerable
[[Page H574]]
harm to the American public and to our ability to hold people
accountable.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly rewarding and
heartwarming to see that the ladies and gentlemen on the other side of
the aisle continue to support our bill from the standpoint they
recognize that where there is a problem, Operation Choke Point exists,
that our bill is the solution. The only thing they seem to have
problems with is the part that we try and do something with the DOJ
with regards to FIRREA.
To settle that and enlarge on that discussion, I am proud to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), our
Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee chairman who will provide some
information with regard to that very thing.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I am
grateful for Chairman Luetkemeyer's work on this important issue.
Our financial systems are the bedrock of our economy. When financial
systems work, our economy works. And we have seen when our financial
system doesn't work, things come crashing down. To make sure our
financial system is safe and sound, we have empowered regulators to
keep an eye over it, to make sure we don't do things that are too risky
that can endanger the financial system and then, therefore, the
economy.
One of the problems, though, is that those regulators have stepped
outside that traditional role and have tried to impact policy decisions
that should be made in this institution by rules and regulations that
come out from their oversight capacity.
I look at the liberals, or it might be the progressives, inside the
FDIC who, in line with the administration, said: I don't like gun
dealers, I don't like ammunition manufacturers. Who cares about the
Second Amendment? I don't like them.
Now, if you don't like guns and you don't like ammunition and you
don't like short-term lenders, if you want to get rid of those things,
have a debate about it. Have an argument. Introduce a bill, and let's
vote on it. Let the American people see it. But the administration
knows they will lose because most Americans like their guns, they like
their Second Amendment.
So instead of going through this institution, they very craftily
thought: Wow, just think, if we were able to, as regulators, put
pressure on banks so banks would stop banking legal businesses that we
don't like--guess what happens if they can't bank? They will go out of
business, and we will have less guns, less ammunition, and we will have
less short-term lending. That is exactly what they have done.
But we didn't empower the FDIC to make policy decisions. We said,
hey, keep the banking system safe and sound. But like so many corners
of this administration, they have expanded that authority to advance
their liberal, progressive agenda.
I know my friends across the aisle, who I like very much and are
friends of mine, are trying to focus on big banks and Wall Street. But,
Mr. Chairman, to the ranking member I would say: Listen, big banks
aren't being affected by Choke Point. It is the smallest, little
businesses in our communities that don't have the power to stand up and
fight back and push back. They are the ones that are affected.
{time} 1045
Big banks on Wall Street don't get hit by this. It is the little guy.
This is a bill that Mr. Luetkemeyer crafted that stands up for the
little guy--the little one that doesn't have the lobbyist and the money
to come to town to talk to Members of Congress--who is being affected
by this liberal progressive agenda today that they know can't be get
passed by law, so they do it by regulation.
This is one more horrible example of how your government isn't
working and how this institution isn't representing the people that we
were sent here to represent.
This is a great bill. Let's pass it. Let's join together and let's
stop Operation Choke Point.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Again, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will talk about
guns. They will talk about Choke Point. They will talk about unfairness
to businesses based on a bank's ability to close accounts. They will
talk about everything except the real point of this legislation.
I don't know why, I don't know where it came from, and I don't know
who can convince a serious public policymaker that somehow you are to
take away the investigative power of the Justice Department, a Justice
Department that has proven that it could use FIRREA--that is the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act--to
investigate banks that are guilty of fraud. I don't know where this
would come from. Given what we have gone through in this country,
starting in 2008, I don't know why any serious public policymaker would
want to do that.
What have we witnessed in this country, based on the predatory
practices of banks? We have seen whole communities devastated. We have
seen foreclosures and people lose their homes. We have seen homes
underwater. We have increased homelessness. We have seen the targeting
of some of the most vulnerable communities in our country, based on the
fraudulent practices of banks.
The Justice Department has a tool, and they are using this tool. Why
would any credible Member of Congress want to take away the Justice
Department's ability to investigate and to fine these institutions?
No, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about Choke Point. This is not
about guns. This is not about any of that other stuff that they are
trying to make you believe you should pay attention to.
Every legislator and every public policymaker should ask themselves:
Do I want to be a part of ever allowing this institution to once again
revert back to the practices that caused people to lose their homes,
that threw this country into a recession, that still has us reeling
from the negative impacts of those decisions by a bank?
Why would anybody want to take away the Justice Department's
investigative powers? In addition to that, this bill will not even
allow the Justice Department to exercise its authority to subpoena. Why
do you want to do that? It doesn't make good sense.
Again, you can talk about Choke Point all night long. You can
describe it as being unfair to businesses, you can talk about what we
need to do, but that is not what this is about.
I know why you don't want to talk about it because you have got to be
ashamed of it. You have got to be ashamed of the fact that you are
leading this institution to do away with investigative powers of the
Justice Department.
Let me just say this. The Department of Justice has relied heavily on
the powers granted under FIRREA to pursue billions of dollars of
mortgage fraud cases since the financial crisis. In these cases,
financial firms defrauded the government by knowingly selling faulty
mortgages while representing them as high quality.
Without FIRREA, investigations would have stalled and taxpayers would
have been left on the hook for even more losses. FIRREA powers were
also instrumental in securing the historic $25 billion mortgage
servicing settlement.
As many of our colleagues know, there are still many more problems in
the mortgage servicing industry, and eliminating this tool would
encourage fraudulent practices by mortgage services that end up
wrongfully kicking Americans out of their homes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is
remaining on each side, please.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman from
Missouri has 19 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California
has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to make a few comments here. It seems that the ranking
member, as eloquently as she has spoken, continues to deflect from the
bill we are talking about with regard to talking about mortgage
servicing assets, the mortgage crisis that we had a few years ago. That
is not in this bill.
We are talking about Operation Choke Point, which is recognized by
the Department of Justice. The Oversight and Government Reform
Committee has a report from their own
[[Page H575]]
email showing that within their own agency there was a discussion among
the legal staff, believing they didn't have the ability to do what they
do. They thought it was illegal themselves to do what they were doing,
and yet they did this.
Mr. Chairman, for anybody who is listening and watching today, it
should send a chill down their spine when you sit here and have the
leading law enforcement agency in this country believe and know that
they are doing something wrong and still do it. That, Mr. Chairman,
cannot happen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Ross), a cosponsor of the bill and a member of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, want to thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for
introducing this legislation which prohibits the Department of Justice
from cutting off financial support to law-abiding businesses through
its Operation Choke Point.
Created under the guise of a program to root out banking fraud and
money laundering, Operation Choke Point has morphed into an instrument
used by administration bureaucrats to pressure and force banks to end
relationships with the legitimate businesses the administration
considers to be a ``reputational risk.''
This country is made up of all walks of lives and all walks of
entrepreneurs and small businesses, yet this administration has
targeted these small and legitimate businesses.
I have a cigar retailer back home who was told by his bank that he
could no longer do business there. I have a gun store owner who was
told the same thing. I have a pawnshop that was told the same thing.
These targeted business owners do not receive a note from the bank
stating: ``Due to Operation Choke Point, we regretfully must end our
financial relationship with your business.'' No. They are just
discontinued from doing any banking relationship, without any notice
whatsoever.
If what we have done with the Department of Justice and the FDIC is
empower them with the ability to deny a fundamental right of
constitutional due process, then yes, we need to correct it. We have
that obligation.
As the chairman points out, we ought to be outraged over these
administrators doing this to our legitimate businesses.
This legislation, introduced by my colleague, will prohibit any
Federal banking agency from suggesting, requesting, or ordering a
depository institution to terminate a customer account or prohibiting
an institution from maintaining a banking relationship with specific
customers unless the agency has a material reason to do so, and that
reason is not solely based on reputational risk.
This bipartisan, commonsense legislation passed the Financial
Services Committee by a vote of 35-19. In voting to pass H.R. 766
today, I will be voting to rein in this out-of-control administration
and its assault on small, legal businesses not only in Florida, but
across the country.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Let me draw Members' attention to what is being attempted on the
opposite side. They keep talking about Choke Point and how they want to
save payday lenders and rent-to-own and pawnshops and all of that. I
may have some issues with some of that, but that is not what this is
about today. Today, this is about the fact that they refuse to tell you
what is really in this bill.
They cannot stand up and defend why in the world they would be taking
away the Justice Department's ability to investigate bad banks. They
cannot tell you why they are ignoring the lessons of 2008 and predatory
lending and what the Justice Department has been able to do using
FIRREA and investigating and fining and getting settlements.
They cannot tell you why they would ignore the fact that many
innocent middle class folks who work every day and who fought hard to
make down payments and signed on the dotted line for mortgages didn't
know that they were being tricked into signing mortgages that they
could never really keep up with and that the interest rates would reset
and go higher and higher and they were going to lose their homes.
They cannot defend the predatory lending practices. They cannot
defend the fraud. They cannot defend the undermining of the average
American family. They cannot defend the fact that Americans lost their
homes. So they are going to keep talking about Choke Point and how they
have got to protect payday lenders and how they have got to protect
pawnshop owners and how they have got to protect rent-to-own and all
those businesses they hold so dearly and want to protect.
This really doesn't have anything to do with that. If they want to
have a real discussion about Choke Point, we are willing to do that;
but, this is not the time to do it.
This is not the time to use this to hide behind the fact that you
want to protect the big banks. As a matter of fact, this is so
outrageous, it basically says that, instead of the Justice Department
or anyone going after the banks, it would protect the banks by saying
that you can't go after the banks and you have to protect them and you
can't go against them.
I am simply saying over and over again that I don't care how many
Members they call up and I don't care how many Members come and talk
about Choke Point, somebody needs to tell us why they can't talk about
taking away the investigatory powers and the power to subpoena from the
Justice Department, a Justice Department that has proven that it is
willing to use its investigatory powers in order to deal with these big
banks.
So listen very carefully and listen to all this Choke Point stuff
that they are trying to ram down your throats. Listen and look them in
the eye and see if they can look you back in the eye and defend what
they are doing.
Don't allow them to mislead you, Members of this Congress, into
thinking that this bill is all about protecting payday lenders and
rent-to-own and pawnshop owners and all these businesses that they care
so much about.
This is about stripping the Department of Justice of their power to
investigate and subpoena. This is about pulling the rug out from under
the citizens of this country who have tried to own homes and who have
not been protected by their own government until we had reform. This is
about saying they don't care what the Justice Department has been able
to do to rein in these practices. They are going to come here today
with a bill and tell you it is all about Choke Point.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tipton), an outstanding member of the committee.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we found some common ground. The ranking member was
just talking about listening to Operation Choke Point. I think that is
important for every American, because we are talking about freedom. We
are talking about reining in an out-of-control bureaucracy. We are
talking about actually preserving freedom in this country, to take it
back for the American people and for businesses as well.
I want to applaud Chairman Luetkemeyer for his leadership on this
issue. It prevents Federal banking issues from pressuring banks and
credit unions to terminate customer accounts with legal businesses.
Although it is important to be able to prevent fraud in the banking
system, Operation Choke Point has largely been abused by the agencies
and their regulators, pressuring and manipulating financial
institutions based on personal prejudices of Federal bureaucrats.
In my district and many others across the U.S., legitimate businesses
have found themselves shut out of the banking system after years of
longstanding relationships with banks and credit unions. Oftentimes,
this derisking means that these legal businesses are further shunned by
other financial institutions fearful of civil and criminal liability as
well as greater regulatory scrutiny.
Thankfully, this legislation puts commonsense restraints on
regulators that have been running amok. By requiring Federal banking
agencies to provide a material reason other than reputational risk for
terminating a customer account, this bill establishes
[[Page H576]]
necessary, clear standards to avoid further abuses.
{time} 1100
Instead of relying on implicit or explicit threats from regulators,
this legislation requires written justification of any request to
terminate or restrict customer accounts.
It is clear that, despite several letters, hearings, and warning by
Congress, financial institutions continue to face unwarranted pressure
from the regulators. These requirements provide the necessary oversight
to ensure banks, credit unions, and their customers are treated in a
fair manner.
I am happy to lend my support to this bill, and I encourage my
colleagues to support this commonsense measure. I again thank the
gentleman from Missouri for his efforts on this legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Williams), another outstanding member of our committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
I rise today to support H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer
Protection Act of 2016.
As a small-business owner for 44 years, I have seen it all--or at
least I thought I saw it all--and I am deeply troubled over a Federal
Government program that I believe to be, at best, immoral and, at
worst, illegal: Operation Choke Point.
The Obama White House has single-handedly granted itself the
authority to cut off relationships between private financial
institutions and the perfectly legitimate businesses which they serve.
This Congress has not passed any legislation granting the executive
branch such immense power.
Mr. Chairman, all of us here have bore witness to the Obama
administration's willingness to bypass the lawmaking branch of our
government, but this is a new low. Operation Choke Point is the worst
example of the Obama White House telling Americans what is best for
them, and there is no appeals process.
Mr. Chairman, this is the worst form of government intrusion I have
ever seen and can think of. Operation Choke Point is another example of
this administration's going around Congress to create laws rather than
do their job, to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
As a second-generation small-business owner, I support H.R. 766,
which will rein in this abuse of power. Operation Choke Point is un-
American and deceiving. It is simply wrong.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and do away with Operation
Choke Point once and for all. Let's save small business. Let's save
Main Street America.
In God we trust.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members, after the Justice Department finally began
to use the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act
that we refer to as FIRREA to create some semblance of justice for
financial crisis-era bank fraud and misconduct, my Republican
colleagues respond by restricting the Department of Justice's most
powerful tool for holding banks accountable.
This is an interesting debate that we are having. We are sitting here
wondering why it is that not one Member on the Republican side of the
aisle who has taken to the floor to debate this bill will talk about
FIRREA and will talk about the Justice Department and what you are
doing in stripping away their powers.
I know why. Because you know that, if, in fact, you really got up and
talked about what you were doing, you would lose all of the votes even
on your side of the aisle. This is outrageous. So you are hiding behind
Choke Point.
Not one Member on the opposite side of the aisle has the guts to get
up and say: I can't do this. I am going to talk about what this bill is
really about.
And so they continue to march down here, taking their orders to talk
about Choke Point, Choke Point, Choke Point.
No. No. No. This is about stripping the Justice Department of its
investigatory powers and its subpoena powers.
FIRREA is the last line of defense between consumers and investors
and bank fraud. Central to the DOJ's ability to investigate fraud and
to build cases against financial institutions is its subpoena power,
power that H.R. 766 singles out for unprecedented and burdensome
restrictions.
Instead of bolstering the Justice Department's ability to investigate
mortgage fraud, H.R. 766 seeks to actually protect the banks and to
insulate them from accountability. Wow. Wow.
Can you just imagine that anyone could go home to their constituents
and say: I just voted for a bill that would actually protect banks and
insulate them from accountability, I just voted for a bill to strip the
Justice Department of its power to investigate?
Bank fraud should be met with the full force of the Federal
Government. H.R. 766 is a dangerous step backwards for an economy still
reeling from financial crisis-era fraud and misconduct.
Every regulator has been clear that account closures aren't the
result of pressure from regulators, but from banks that have decided
that, for some customers, they would rather lose their business than
investigate any anti-fraud practices to protect our financial system
from money laundering.
Look, you have got people who are willing to work on that part of
public policy that you would like to see some changes in, but this is
not it.
When you couple that discussion to overshadow what you are doing, to
strip the Justice Department of its powers to investigate, what you are
doing is you are setting up a situation to take us backwards and to
harm so many people.
Have you forgotten the lessons already of 2008? Have you forgotten
already what this country went through? Have you forgotten that the
citizens of this country had to bail out the biggest banks to keep us
from going into a depression?
We went into a recession. We tore up communities. We threw people out
of their homes. We increased homelessness.
Now you want to come back and give the banks an opportunity to do
what got us into trouble in the first place? Well, I can't imagine that
you are prepared to defend that.
The common theme throughout H.R. 766 and many of the proposals that,
unfortunately, cleared the Financial Services Committee is that, even
in the aftermath of the financial crisis, my Republican colleagues
would have you believe it is the big banks that are the ones in need of
protection, protection from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to please address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), one of the most knowledgeable members of our
committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to address H.R. 766.
Before I talk about what my constituents have asked me to talk about,
Mr. Chairman, which is the problems with Operation Choke Point, for I
do take my instruction from my constituents at home, I do want to call
my distinguished ranking member's concern to this report about this
bill, which says, ``or a Federally insured financial institution
against an unaffiliated third person.''
So I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand where the
gentlewoman from California is coming from in terms of gutting FIRREA.
It was certainly my privilege to serve at Treasury when FIRREA was
negotiated with the Congress and enacted into law.
I rise today, though, to support H.R. 766, the Financial Institution
Customer Protection Act, which helps to target and stop the egregious
abuse of executive power in what has been known as Operation Choke
Point.
Bank examiners want our commercial banks across the country to be
conscious of reputation risk, something every institution, large and
small, takes very, very seriously.
Our boards of directors of our banks understand that, just like
credit risk, reputation risk is important. We don't
[[Page H577]]
need to be lectured on the dangers of doing business with some high-
risk customers.
But, in Operation Choke Point, we find subtle and not-so-subtle
pressure from regulators to terminate business relationships rather
than to expose that reputation risk.
I have heard from pawnbrokers in Arkansas, legally licensed State and
Federally regulated businesses, that they are victims of Operation
Choke Point by having their bank servicing limited or cut off.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HILL. Just last week, Mr. Chairman, not 2 years ago, a firearms
dealer in my hometown of Little Rock was dumped by his payment
processor and is now having to pay more in interest, having less
control of his cash.
These are small, legitimate businesses that do business with our
banks, and they are being penalized by the prejudiced, politicized
agenda of this administration.
This is not the only example. It is reminiscent of the IRS targeting
of conservative groups.
So, with great pleasure, I support my friend from Missouri's bill. It
is a reasonable, targeted approach. I urge all my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining, please?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), my friend and chairman of our Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 766, the
Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015, offered by my
good friend from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
This legislation is critical to ensure small businesses across the
country are able to access basic banking services without the threat of
being targeted at the political or ideological whims of Washington
bureaucrats.
As my colleagues have mentioned, H.R. 766 prohibits the Federal
Government banking regulators from formally or informally prohibiting
banks to serve lawful and legitimate businesses. Let me repeat that. It
keeps them from prohibiting banks from serving lawful and legitimate
businesses.
Over the last several years, we have seen an effort by the Department
of Justice, in cooperation with the Federal banking regulators, to
target certain categories of lawful merchants. These merchants include
gun stores, short-term, small-dollar credit lenders, and others. This
effort has been officially named Operation Choke Point.
Operation Choke Point has used a perverse interpretation of the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, currently
referred to as FIRREA, to force banks to terminate banking
relationships with certain categories of merchants even if its unlawful
behavior isn't present.
Representative Luetkemeyer's bill would clarify the original intent
of FIRREA. Unfortunately, the minority leader and the ranking member of
the committee have been spreading misinformation about the impact of
H.R. 766. So I will spend the rest of my remarks outlining exactly what
the bill will do and what it will not do.
It does not decriminalize any type of fraud. All of these criminal
statutes comprising FIRREA's predicted offenses are untouched by this
bill.
H.R. 766 does not prohibit the Department of Justice from holding
financial institutions accountable. FIRREA tools are still available
for the pursuit of any of the frauds committed by bank insiders against
the bank.
Additionally, the bill expressly provides that FIRREA's civil tools
also apply to fraud committed by the bank against an unaffiliated third
party.
In other words, where a bank defrauds a purchaser of a mortgage-
backed security, as was alleged by the big bank settlements, FIRREA's
civil tools remain available to the Department of Justice.
H.R. 766 does prohibit the use of FIRREA tools where fraud is
committed by a bank's account holder, but not by the bank itself.
This is the type of self-affecting fraud that the Department of
Justice asserted that gave rise to Operation Choke Point. In other
words, the fraud must be committed by the bank or against the bank for
FIRREA to apply.
I hope everyone will read page 6, lines 21-25, of the bill.
Finally, H.R. 766 does limit the ability of the Attorney General to
delegate issuance of FIRREA civil subpoenas.
As a result, FIRREA subpoenas must be signed by the Attorney General
or the Deputy Attorney General rather than a low-ranking Department of
Justice attorney.
Unfortunately, we yet have another example of the minority not
actually reading the text of the bill before making public statements.
Going forward, I hope the minority will study the text of the bill
instead of relying on false statements and talking points of the senior
Senator from Massachusetts.
{time} 1115
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege to serve in this body for a
number of terms, but I have not lost my ability to be outraged.
Operation Choke Point is an outrage to the American people.
Who will stand up and defend the small mom and pop shops on Main
Street from the billions of dollars and the thousands of lawyers at the
so-called Justice Department who wake up one day and decide that,
notwithstanding current law, they are going to put them out of
business?
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have one outstanding Member of
Congress, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), my colleague
who is standing up to these people. He is standing up to these people
by authoring H.R. 766, and he is saying enough is enough. And we must
say enough is enough.
Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, a number of Democrats on the other side of
the aisle have actually joined with our side to say that justice must
prevail and that the rule of law must prevail. I suspect that is why
the ranking member--bless her heart--had to spend so much time speaking
herself, because she probably couldn't find any other speakers to come
and help her out.
It is an outrage, Mr. Chairman, that this administration continues to
trample on the Constitution. Clearly, we know the President has his pen
and he has his phone. But he clearly doesn't have a copy of the
Constitution. For legally constituted businesses to have to fear that,
in the dark of night, they are going to be shut down by the awesome
power of the Obama administration is an outrage. All Americans should
be outraged.
Frankly, when is it that we will have the ranking member and others
stand up for the rule of law? We are losing the rule of law to the
discretion of regulators. If there was any justice in the Obama Justice
Department, somebody would be indicted over Operation Choke Point.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, they should indict themselves for bringing forth
something we haven't seen since the Nixon era. What else is going to be
in the bag of dirty tricks?
Somebody has to stand up against the elites in Washington who bypass
article I, section 1 of our Constitution. All legislative power is
vested in this body. It is not vested in the Justice Department, Mr.
Chairman. They are supposed to enforce the law, not make the law.
To wake up one morning and find out that your bank account and your
access to funds have been choked off by an oppressive Federal
Government, lawlessly, has to be stopped. Where is the justice, Mr.
Chairman? I ask you, where is the justice?
Now, just yesterday I learned that on the other side of the Capitol,
we had a Senator from Massachusetts who invoked the names of three dead
African Americans who tragically lost their lives and used that bloody
shirt to attack this bill. Then this very same Senator turned around
and put out a fundraising appeal on H.R. 766.
The American people have not lost their ability to be outraged at
those who may possess Ivy League degrees and Washington, D.C.,
addresses who have the arrogance to tell them what is
[[Page H578]]
best for them, their businesses, their lives, and their families.
It is time that we respect the rule of law. It is time that we
respect the Constitution. It is time that we choke off Operation Choke
Point and put it into the dustbin of history: the history of dirty
tricks and the history of lawlessness.
That is why it is so important, Mr. Chairman, that all Members--
Democrat, Republican, and liberals--let their voice be heard by casting
their vote for H.R. 766.
Why--why--do Members outsource their legislative authority to the
unaccountable and unelected? Sooner or later, Mr. Chairman, the shoe is
going to be on the other foot.
Who will stand for justice today? We will look closely as the names
come up on the big board. The American people are watching, and they
want to know: Who is going to stand with me? Who is going to stand for
the rule of law? Who is going to stand for the Constitution? Who is
going to stand for the little people in America?
I am proud to stand with Chairman Luetkemeyer and the Republicans of
the House Financial Services Committee to ensure that Operation Choke
Point is choked off once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-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.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 766
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Financial Institution
Customer Protection Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSIT ACCOUNT TERMINATION REQUESTS
AND ORDERS.
(a) Termination Requests or Orders Must Be Material.--
(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 material 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 poses a threat to national
security, including any belief that such customer or group of
customers is involved in terrorist financing, such belief
shall satisfy the materiality requirement under paragraph
(1)(A).
(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 not required.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as requiring a depository institution or an
appropriate Federal banking agency to inform a customer or
customers of the justification for the customer's account
termination described under subsection (b).
(2) 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, 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.
(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. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM,
RECOVERY, AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1989.
Section 951 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1833a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``affecting a
federally insured financial institution'' and inserting
``against a federally insured financial institution or by a
federally insured financial institution against an
unaffiliated third person''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) in the header, by striking ``Subpoenas'' and inserting
``Investigations''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
``(C) summon witnesses and require the production of any
books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, or other records
which the Attorney General deems relevant or material to the
inquiry, if the Attorney General--
``(i) requests a court order from a court of competent
jurisdiction for such actions and offers specific and
articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the information or testimony sought is
relevant and material for conducting an investigation under
this section; or
``(ii) either personally or through delegation no lower
than the Deputy Attorney General, issues and signs a subpoena
for such actions and such subpoena is supported by specific
and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the information or testimony sought
is relevant for conducting an investigation under this
section.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 114-414. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sherman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 114-414.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 6, strike ``poses'' and all that follows
through ``such belief'' and insert the following: ``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
Page 2, line 9, strike ``materiality requirement under
paragraph (1)(A)'' and insert ``requirement under paragraph
(1)''.
Page 3, line 16, after ``security'' insert the following:
``, or are otherwise described under subsection (a)(2)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Sherman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, this is really two bills that have been put
together. One deals with Operation Choke Point, and for reasons
explained by the majority, it is important that we pass that part of
the legislation. The other imposes restrictions on FIRREA, and for
reasons eloquently expressed by the ranking member, I do not support
that part of the bill. I, frankly, do not know how I am going
[[Page H579]]
to vote because of these portions of the bill, one is important to
pass, and the other is a restriction that I cannot support.
I will point out for all of us who want to deal with Operation Choke
Point that it is unfortunate that these two bills have been put
together into one because we know the President isn't going to sign
this bill if it has got the FIRREA portion in it. So it is my hope that
we put on the President's desk a bill that protects American businesses
from Operation Choke Point, a bill that the President can sign.
I want to use the time allotted here to try to improve the Operation
Choke Point provisions because I hope they are ultimately signed into
law.
Now, why are those Operation Choke Point provisions important? As the
majority has explained, various businesses that are currently unpopular
with the bureaucracy are being targeted, and it is an extremely
powerful tool to destroy a business and to cut off its access to
financial institutions.
Today they come for the gun stores and the tobacco dealers. And I
don't have friends who are gun store owners and tobacco dealers, so
some would say I should be quiet. But I do not know who the next
President of the United States will be. And as I listen to the Record,
I know that if they have the power, they will come after the Planned
Parenthood clinics and the environmental organizations.
Woe be to a Congress that yields extreme power to the executive
branch in the expectation that the executive branch will use it in a
way that they favor knowing that the tide turns and the other party
could be in control of that branch. So it is important that we improve
the Operation Choke Point provisions of this bill.
Every speaker who talked about the Operation Choke Point provisions
of this bill focused on mom and pop businesses, domestic businesses.
Every bit of the discussion in committee focused on that, and that is
why it is important that this bill not have an unintended consequence
never discussed by anyone at committee; that is, that it would affect
our anti-terrorism and national security efforts.
So in the words of the Democratic Daily Whip from Whip Hoyer, the
Sherman amendment clarifies that the underlying bill does not prevent
banking regulators from requesting a financial institution terminate a
relationship because the customer poses a national security threat, is
engaged in terrorist financing, or is domiciled in Iran, North Korea,
Syria, or another state sponsor of terrorism.
I think it is a step forward to improve the Operation Choke Point
portions of this bill. I think that, as further improved, those
provisions should and, I believe, will become law. So I ask support for
an amendment that makes it clear that a bill that was discussed only in
the sense of domestic businesses, only in the sense of ma and pa and
Main Street, does not have an effect that the author never included in
our national security policy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Maxine Waters).
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank
the gentleman from California who has shown his concern about the Choke
Point provisions of the bill. He is absolutely right. Both of these
issues are in this bill. We cannot divide it in the way that we are
moving forward. And it means that if this bill passes, no matter what
the concern may be, the overriding concern must be about stripping the
Justice Department of its investigatory power and its subpoena power.
It must be about undermining the Justice Department's ability to hold
these big banks accountable.
I don't think you can divide this. This is one bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this bill will be
going through the legislative process. It is important that we improve
the Operation Choke Point provisions.
I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Missouri, and I hope
that he will see fit to accept this amendment and to narrow it to a
focus outside of terrorism policy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), who is a very thoughtful member of the House
Financial Services Committee.
I wish to accept his amendment. I believe it adds greater granularity
and specificity on a very important issue. Since he lost an amendment
yesterday, I want him to bat at least .500.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 114-414.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, strike lines 4 through 9 and insert the following:
(1) Notice required.--Except as provided under paragraph
(2), 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 customer or customers of the
justification for the customer's account termination
described under subsection (b).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense
amendment that will protect customers of financial institutions and
increase transparency between them and the Federal Government.
I applaud the committee for bringing this bill to the floor to
protect consumers and businesses from an overreaching Federal
Government. I am especially grateful to Representative Luetkemeyer for
his work on the bill, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
My amendment will increase transparency by requiring the financial
institutions to provide notice to customers if their account is ordered
terminated by a Federal banking regulator. Customers have a right to be
informed when the Federal Government has instructed a financial
institution to close their accounts.
In the base bill, Federal banking agencies are required to notify the
financial institution and provide written justification as to why the
termination is needed. My amendment would simply require the depository
institution to share that justification with the customer.
{time} 1130
One of the ways the Federal Government has abused its powers in the
past regarding customers of financial institutions is Operation Choke
Point. Operation Choke Point was an unconstitutional program created by
the Obama administration that put pressure on banks and payment
processors to shut down industries like gun stores and pawn shops that
President Obama and the attorney general just didn't like.
After continued pressure from Chairman Luetkemeyer, myself, and other
Members of Congress, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC,
announced in January of 2015 that some changes to this terrible program
were to be made. While this was a positive step, this bill and my
amendment are still very necessary. Congress needs to codify these
customer protections to prevent future abuses by an overreaching
Federal Government.
My amendment will help put an end to the abuses of Operation Choke
Point. President Obama has been staunch in his assault on the Second
Amendment, and Operation Choke Point was simply another way for the
President and the DOJ to infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners
and businesses.
[[Page H580]]
American citizens do not want Big Government to have the power to
arbitrarily terminate their accounts at financial institutions based on
ideological opposition to individuals or organizations. This simple,
commonsense amendment, which is supported by Americans for Limited
Government, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and
Eagle Forum, is about protecting consumers and increasing transparency.
CBO has informed me that this amendment will not score. As such,
there is no reason not to pass this amendment or this bill that will
increase transparency and protect consumers throughout the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and H.R. 766.
I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gosar's amendment
is a dangerous amendment to an already highly problematic bill. As the
OCC deputy comptroller noted in 2015 testimony before our committee:
``In the rare cases where a customer has engaged in suspected criminal
or other illegal activity,'' the OCC ``may order the bank through an
enforcement action to terminate the customer's account.''
H.R. 766 creates a national security exception for customer notice,
but it leaves the term undefined in a case where the illegal activity
does not pose a threat to national security. Mr. Gosar's amendment
would potentially force banks to tip off someone engaging in criminal
activity, frustrating regulators' oversight of Federal anti-money
laundering laws.
Mr. Gosar's amendment exacerbates an already highly problematic
proposal, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman and Members, again, I just want to point out, since I
have time on this amendment, that this bill is not about all of this
anyway. They keep focusing on Choke Point, and they come up with these
questionable amendments, et cetera, such as Mr. Gosar's.
This is about the Republicans on the opposite side of the aisle
stripping the Justice Department of its authority to go after these too
big to fail banks and taking away their investigatory powers and their
subpoena powers, thus threatening the citizens of this country once
again to the kind of predatory lending that helped to almost bring down
this economy starting in 2008.
I ask for a ``no'' on this amendment, and I am going to ask for a
``no'' on the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I am miffed. I am absolutely miffed that a
customer, or a consumer, would not have the ability to understand that
their account was actually closed. I am totally miffed at personal
rights and responsibilities and the coordination with the Justice
Department.
Once again, this is the second amendment I have offered on Financial
Services with the same type of attitude and idiocrasy that I have
actually seen in defiance of a commonsense amendment.
I oppose the gentlewoman's objections, and I would ask everyone to
vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I would
ask the Members of this Congress to not pay attention to what has been
attempted by the opposite side of the aisle.
Again, I challenged them and I asked them to talk about FIRREA. I
asked them to talk about the bill that takes away the investigatory
powers of the Justice Department. I asked them to explain why they
would take away subpoena powers from the Justice Department. I asked
them if they remembered what happened when this country went into a
recession, almost a depression, because of predatory lending. I asked
them did they want to have their name and their vote behind big banks
that are guilty of fraud, who have been fined enormous sums of money by
the Justice Department because they were found guilty, and I am asking
them to talk about this. So this is a distraction. This is obscuring
the real bill that is before us.
Forget about this Choke Point part of the bill. We have time to work
on that. There are some Members on the opposite side of the aisle that
share some of those concerns, but not in this bill. They coupled it
with this taking away of the Department of Justice power because they
knew that they could somehow divert the attention over to the so-called
Choke Point and talk about this administration and talk about guns and
talk about payday loans and talk about rent to own and pawn shops and
all that.
This is not about small business protection. This is about using the
Choke Point argument as a way to divert attention away from what they
are really doing.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can't go home and explain to your
constituents why you would protect the too big to fail banks, why you
would take away the power to make them accountable. They have harmed
this country. They have harmed our citizens. They have caused people to
lose their homes, and they have increased the homelessness with their
predatory lending.
We have reform that we are trying to implement. I know every trick in
the book has been played to try to undermine Dodd-Frank and to keep us
from having the kind of reform because there are people who are just
very close to the big banks and they are not going to cross the big
banks. As a matter of fact, they used too much of their career to
protect the big banks.
This is an outrage. I want the Members of this Congress to
understand, we have got time to have a discussion about Choke Point and
all of that. We have Members on both sides of the aisle who would work
with you on those issues. This is not it.
You should not have placed this part in this bill. You should not
have had to try and make believe that this is all about Choke Point
when, in fact, the real big deal in this bill is about how you are
going to try to protect the biggest and the worst banks.
We have pointed out to you in this discussion all of the big fines
that have been imposed against these banks. Did these banks say, ``No,
we didn't do it''? Did these banks say, ``I am not going to accept
this. I am going to court, and I am going to fight''? You know they
rolled over because they are guilty, and you know that they are.
Please do not be diverted from the real meaning of this bill. This
bill is about crippling the Department of Justice and not about Choke
Point.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rodney Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 595, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of
a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
[[Page H581]]
Motion to Recommit
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Castor of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 766
to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect on the
date that the Attorney General and the Federal financial
institutions regulatory agencies jointly certify to the
Congress that in the preceding 5 years no federally regulated
financial institution has been subject to--
(1) a consent order, settlement, deferred prosecution
agreement, civil or criminal penalty for a violation of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;
(2) a consent order, settlement, deferred prosecution
agreement, civil or criminal penalty for bank fraud, wire
fraud, or mail fraud relating to the origination, servicing,
securitization, or sale of a mortgage product; or
(3) a consent order, settlement, deferred prosecution
agreement, civil or criminal penalty for unfair or deceptive
acts and practices relating to the origination, servicing,
securitization, or sale of a mortgage product.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies'' has
the meaning given that term under section 1121 of the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act
of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 3350).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker and Members, this is the final
amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I rushed to come to the floor to offer this motion to
recommit because this bill, H.R. 766, is so outrageous. Under this
bill, the Republicans in Congress are poised to give a get out of jail
free card to big banks and Wall Street interests when it comes to
fraud. Republicans propose to take away tools and investigatory powers
from the Department of Justice in cases of fraud and undermine the
Department of Justice's ability to prosecute mortgage fraud and other
crimes to the detriment of American families and our neighbors back
home.
Americans expect that the big banks that have broken the rules be
held accountable for any of their financial misdeeds. However, the
House Republicans are trying to give their special interest friends a
break they do not need at the expense of hardworking Americans.
Shortly after I was sworn into Congress in 2007, my neighbors started
to come to me and express, sincerely, about a problem that was
happening. It started in Florida almost earlier than anywhere else.
As the financial crisis took hold and people began to lose their jobs
or their employers cut back on their hours, they couldn't keep up with
their mortgages. The deeper we dug in to it, we began to see a pattern
of fraudulent practices by many in the mortgage loan business.
After 2007, I had six foreclosure prevention workshops. At that time,
I will never forget looking into the eyes of my neighbors, who asked
for a little bit of breathing room, a little bit of help.
We came to Washington and we asked for that help on behalf of
American families, not to let them off the hook for their mortgages,
but to give them a little breathing room. The response here in
Washington was, instead, the huge, multibillion-dollar Wall Street
bailout.
We asked, as part of that Wall Street bailout of the big banks: Could
you allow homeowners to have a little more breathing room so they could
stay in their homes? But, no, that couldn't be part of the
multibillion-dollar Wall Street package. That was a lesson to everyone
across America who really holds the power here in Washington, D.C.
Next week, I am still going to have another foreclosure prevention
workshop with HOPE NOW and my local partners, because people are not
healed and the fraud continues.
On Monday of this week, I sat down with my U.S. attorney in the
middle district of Florida, one of the busiest districts in America,
especially when it comes to fraud. Do you know what U.S. Attorney Lee
Bentley said? He said we need more tools to fight fraud. They are
winning big cases and big settlements when it comes to Medicare fraud
and mortgage fraud and rooting out waste in the system.
So it is appalling. You bring H.R. 766 to take away those
investigatory tools, the subpoena powers, for white-collar crime.
Today, House Republicans are aiming to weaken the vital financial
fraud fighting law, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act. This is irresponsible. House Republicans should be
called out for it.
Republicans will eliminate the authority of thousands of Federal
prosecutors to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigating and
prosecuting any big banks or other financial institutions that engage
in financial fraud or other financial crimes.
{time} 1145
So I am offering an amendment, a motion to recommit, that, instead,
sides with our hardworking families back home. My amendment will
prevent the legislation from taking effect until the Department of
Justice and banking regulators certify that no financial institutions
that are covered by the act have broken the law by taking advantage of
servicemembers or by perpetrating abuses in the mortgage market. That
is the very least my Republican colleagues could do.
In the meantime, American families who are appalled at this kind of
action in the Congress should know that the Democrats are united for
opportunity for hardworking Americans, especially for servicemembers
and homeowners who are seeking to enjoy the American Dream. Americans
should be appalled that Republicans want to take the financial cops off
the beat and take tools away from our Department of Justice and U.S.
attorneys.
I ask my House Republican colleagues to join us in working to build
an economy that works for all Americans, not just for the privileged
few.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion. Side with American families.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I think I have finally found some common
ground with my friends on the other side of the aisle, which is that we
lament how few prosecutions there have been after the great financial
crisis.
How about all of the former Democratic officials who used to warrant
Fannie and Freddie, which took tens of millions of dollars of bonuses
only to see hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer bailouts? Where
are those prosecutions, Mr. Speaker?
How about all of the Democratic lawmakers who came and said, ``Let's
roll the dice for taxpayer bailouts'' ? Guess what? The dice were
rolled, and taxpayers were rolled as well. Where are the prosecutions
there? It has been 8 years of the Obama administration's Justice
Department.
They are trying to take you away from what this is truly about. It is
about, again, Operation Choke Point. It is about the awesome resources
and power of the Federal Government that is being used to crush small
businesses that somehow appear on the Obama administration's enemy
list.
Today, those small businesses that deal with ammunition sales, that
are coin dealers, dating services--all on the enemies list--that deal
with fireworks sales, payday loans, pharmaceutical sales. It is all
right here in the FDIC Supervisory Insights. It reads that, even though
you are a perfectly legal business, if we don't like you, we are going
to crush you, and there is nothing you can do about it because we are
the Federal Government.
[[Page H582]]
Mr. Speaker, there is something we can do about it. We can pass H.R.
766. All the motion to recommit says is that the Justice Department
gets to decide whether the law is ever enacted. It is not worth the
paper it is printed on.
When is this body going to quit outsourcing its constitutional
authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats? It is an outrage.
Operation Choke Point is an outrage. It is an affront to the
Constitution. It is an affront to the rule of law. It is an affront to
all of the hardworking mom-and-pop shops all across America. It strikes
fear in the hearts of Americans.
It is time to stand up for the Constitution. It is time to stand up
for the rule of law. It is time to stand up for those who do not have
voice, for those who do not have power. Reject this motion to recommit,
and enact H.R. 766.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were 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 passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 177,
nays 240, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 62]
YEAS--177
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
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
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
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)
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
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.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
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
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.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
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
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
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
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
NOT VOTING--16
Beyer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Castro (TX)
Fincher
Green, Gene
Herrera Beutler
Huizenga (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Pitts
Rooney (FL)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Takai
Titus
Westmoreland
{time} 1208
Mr. ROKITA changes his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. JEFFRIES, HUFFMAN, VARGAS, and BUTTERFIELD changed their
votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Moment of Silence for the 12 U.S. Marines Stationed at Kaneohe Marine
Corps Base
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Gabbard was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, today we are gathered and rising in memory
of the 12 United States Marines stationed at the Kaneohe Marine Corps
base in my district who were tragically lost the night of January 14 in
a training accident.
We must never forget the risks that our servicemembers take every
single day, whether they are in training or in combat as they put their
lives on the line for the security of our Nation.
Major Shawn Campbell, College Station, Texas.
Captain Brian Kennedy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Captain Kevin Rouche, St. Louis, Missouri.
Captain Steven Torbert, Florence, Alabama.
Sergeant Dillon Semolina, Chaska, Minnesota.
Sergeant Adam Schoeller, Gardners, Pennsylvania.
Sergeant Jeffrey Sempler, Woodruff, South Carolina.
Sergeant William Turner, Florala, Alabama.
Corporal Matthew Drown, Spring, Texas.
Corporal Thomas Jardas, Fort Myers, Florida.
Corporal Christopher Orlando, Hingham, Massachusetts.
Lance Corporal Ty Hart, Aumsville, Oregon.
May we offer them a moment of silence to honor their service, support
their loved ones, and our entire U.S. Marines Corps in this tragic
loss.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will please rise for a moment of
silence.
Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H583]]
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 169, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 63]
YEAS--250
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
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
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
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
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
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
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
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--169
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
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
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.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Beyer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Castro (TX)
Fincher
Green, Gene
Herrera Beutler
Huizenga (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Rooney (FL)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Titus
Westmoreland
{time} 1217
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 1; Tuesday,
February 2; Wednesday, February 3; and Thursday, February 4, 2016, I
was on medical leave while recovering from hip replacement surgery and
unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would
have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 46 (on the motion to suspend
the rules and pass H.R. 2187, as amended). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No.
47 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4168). ``No'' on
rollcall vote No. 48 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res.
594). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 49 (on agreeing to the resolution H.
Res. 594). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 50 (on agreeing to the Palazzo
Amendment to H.R. 3700). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 51 (on agreeing
to the Al Green Amendment to H.R. 3700). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No.
52 (on passage of H.R. 3700). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 53 (on
passage of H.R. 3762, objections of the President to the contrary
notwithstanding). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 54 (on passage of H.R.
3662). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 55 (on ordering the previous
question on H. Res. 595). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 56 (on agreeing
to the resolution H. Res. 595). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 57 (on
agreeing to the DeSaulnier Amendment to H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' on rollcall
vote No. 58 (on agreeing to the Issa Amendment to H.R. 1675). ``Yes''
on rollcall vote No. 59 (on agreeing to the Carolyn Maloney Amendment
to H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 60 (on the motion to
recommit H.R. 1675, with instructions). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 61
(on passage of H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 62 (on the
motion to recommit H.R. 766, with instructions). ``No'' on rollcall
vote No. 63 (on passage of H.R. 766).
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on
rollcall No. 62 on the Motion to Recommit for consideration of 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 ``aye.''
Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 63 on the final
consideration of 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 vote
``nay.''
____________________