Data shows different loan approval race for different groups of consumers. Some of these result mace be due to discrimination and other mace not be. Its impossible to tell which is which from the statistics aaloan. You should disparty impact it doesnt matter. All statistical differences are considered by themselves discrimination. To be clear, none of us have a tolerance for intentional discrimination. If theres intentional discrimination, we must prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law. The Justice Departments use of disparty impact tries to fight one injustice with another. On a more practical level, disparty impact will make it difficult if not impossible for lenders to make rational economic decisions about risk. Lenders will feel pressure to weaken their current standards to keep their statistics in line with whatever the Justice Department bureaucrats consider nondiscriminatory. We have seen this discriminatory what discriminatory lending can do to our economy. Its reckless for our government to be encouraging those dangerous and shortsighted practices to continue. Ironically, disparty impact forces lenders, insurers and land lords to constantly take race, ethnicity, gender and other factors into account or risk running afall of the afoul of the Justice Department. You and i both know, mr. Speaker, that even an acquisition of discrimination could have a devastating impact on a small business. I quote roger clay, the president and general counsel for the center for equal opportunity he said, disparty impact standard for antidiscrimination law pushes people to do one of two things. Either a, get rid of legitimate selection criteria or b, use racial double standards to ensure that numbers come out right. On balance, mr. Speaker, disparty impact will make it more difficult and expensive for families to buy a home and will result in more discrimination, not less. For these reasons, both philosophical and practical, i ask my colleagues to reject this misguided theory of by supporting my amendment. Thank you and i reserve the plans of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise . First i want to raise a point of order against this amendment. The chair no, the amendment has been offered. Mr. Fattah ok. Secondly, i rise in opposition. I wont waste the congressmans time with a great deal of debate but as briefly as i can, what the gentlemans amendment says is, no matter what the result, if whole classifications of people are discriminated against based on a set of policies that d. O. J. Can do nothing about it. Thats the america you want, i hope the congress would register our opinion on it when we get a chance to vote. Well be seeking a roll call vote on this matter and ill be ld to yield. You said that if the the Justice Department may not go after them if a whole set of policies result in discrimination. Mr. Fattah what i said is what the gentleman offers to the house is an opportunity where no matter what the result, if whole classifications of people re left out, i. E. , theres a disparty impact, that d. O. A disparate impact, that d. O. J. Cant go after them. I hope we reject it. I reclaim my time, i appreciate you offering and well see what kind of america wed like to have when we cast a vote on this. Thank you and i yield back. The chair the gentleman yield back. The gentleman from new jersey. Mr. Garrett so i think what america wants is to only have be able to bring lawsuits for discrimination when there was in fact intentional discrimination. Not just the end results from some statistics some may believe there was discrimination. If there was intentional discrimination, this amendment does not do anything that would prevent the Justice Department from proceeding. I would also like to enter into the record support for the legislation from a number of organizations, including the consumer and mortgage coalition, Credit Union National association, National Association of Credit Unions and also p. C. E. I. , american insurance associations, all many of whom say the chair the question is ofed by general leave. Mr. Garrett which in part states, all 50 states have strong and comprehensive anti discriminatory regulatory regimes including a long list of enforcement tools, there is no evidence that these regimes re insufficient. Furthermore, they state that they do not allege furthermore, they say under dispair rat Impact Theory durnedis par rat Impact Theory theory, ate impact this could increase cost and undermine the availability of credit throughout the economy. In the end, mr. Speaker, what we were intending to do here is allow the continue for the Justice Department to proceed with when there is evidence of intentional discrimination but when theres no evidence whatsoever, when its purely on statistics, it should not proceed under this theory of law. With that, if theres no other speakers, ill yield back. The chair the gentleman yooleds back. The question is on the i move to strike the last word. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Fattah i want to make one point. Every single federal Appellate Court has upheld this a way to proceed in terms of looking at the impact of policies. What the gentleman offers is that if american baseball looks like it looked prior to Jackie Robinson, that thats just perfectly fine and i happen to think that american baseball is a little bit as a pastime, more enjoyable for all of us after the Jackie Robinson decision, which was to take into account those who have been left out and to take affirmative action to include them in thats the america i want my children to grow up in. I yield back. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment from the gentleman from new jersey. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. Mr. Fattah i seek a recorded vote. The chair a recorded vote is asked for. Puffer sunt to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise . I have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. Luetkemeyer of missouri. At the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to carry out operation choke point. The chair pursuant to house order of today, the gentleman from missouri, mr. Luetkemeyer, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. Mr. Luetkemeyer thank you, mr. Chairman. How does the federal government get rid of an industry it doesnt like . Easy. It cuts the industry off from the Financial Services it needs to operate. Sound impossible . Sure it does. However, thats exactly what the department of justice is doing in conjunction with the fdic. This program even has a name. Operation choke point. Its designed to force legally operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them off from Financial Services they need and what started starred with nondepository lenders is spreading. D. O. J. Is now pressuring those who service the gun and ammunition industries. As a former Bank Examiner and banker, i know how they are using the power of their position to intimidate the banks and undermine the banks ability to serve their customers who are doing a legal business. Its just plain wrong, mr. Chairman. However, i want to be very clear. I strongly support d. O. J. s authority to go after the bad actors. Those actions should be commended and should not be inhibited. What cannot be tolerated is the federal government using its authority to broadly target entire Industries Including those that obey the law and are living within the rules. The staff report just released from the eversight committee summarizes 853 pages of intefrpbl d. O. J. Documents. Many of these internal document show that even d. O. J. Officials question the legality of their actions and yet they continue. This isnt a republican or democrat issue, this isnt a conservative or liberal issue. This is an issue of d. O. J. Stepping outside the law. We worked on a bipartisan basis to inform d. O. J. And other regulators of the consequences of operation choke point but those concerns have fallen on deaf ears. As a result, this bipartisan amendment is an important step to ensuring that d. O. J. Can continue to do its job and makes clear that the Department Must not abuse its authorities. With that, mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to my good friend from colorado, mr. Perlmutter. The chair the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Perlmutter thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Luetkemeyer. I supported the original intent of operation choke point which sought to restrict online payday lenders usually operating from overseas from lending to states that prohibit payday lending. But the program expanded and is now being pushed well beyond its stated objective. Eliminating fraud and illegal transactions from our nations pame system should continue to be a priority for the department of justice and other federal regulators but employing a dragnet to Companies Engaged in legitimate Business Activities is wrong. State banking commissioners have also expressed concerns that federal agencies are attempting to deny essential Banking Services to lawful state licensed firms. Operation choke point pressures banks to close accounts and stop processing payments for those businesses that pose a reputational risk. What is happening here is this approach this dragnet approach, causes chilling effects on legitimate businesses and legitimate Banking Services. As a consequence, going after bad guys, the department of Justice Needs to do that but not in such a broad, all inclusive way to chile jit to kill legitimate business. Thats why i support this amendment and urge an aye vote and i yield back to the gentleman from missouri. The chair the gentleman yields ba. The gentleman from missouri. Mr. Luetkemeyer i want to close by saying i appreciate the gentleman from colorados support. This is a an agency thats gone well beyond the scope of its authority. It even questions its own authority and internal memos. The original intent is questionable but at this point its gone well beyond the original intent. There now is a list of other industries to go after. So i think this is a situation where we need to stop whats going on and i think my amendment clearly sets out what needs to be done. With that, i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from virginia for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise . Mr. Wolf strick the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Faces a Consumer Fraud and fraud is a major crime. This ought to be addressed by the committee of jurisdiction. The Judiciary Committee and the Financial Services committee. We do hear stories of outside of military bases veterans being exploited. So im just concerned of what it actually means and i think in order to be looked at by the committee of jurisdiction and not by the Appropriations Committee at 11 15 at night. So for that reason i oppose the amendment. The chair the gentleman yields back. Mr. Wolf i yield back. The chair the gentleman from pennsylvania. Fattah i strike the requisite number of words. I support this but not in this bill, not at this time because we dont completely understand it. The chair the gentleman yields back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. He amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise . Mr. King i have an amendment at the desk. The chair the clerk will report the amendment. The clerk amendment offered by mr. King of iowa. At the end of the bill before she short title insert the before the short title insert the foal log. None of the funds made available in this act under the heading state and local programs, may be used in contravention of section 642a of illegal Immigration Reform of 1986, 8 u. S. C. 1337a. Chip pursuant to the order of the house of today the gentleman from iowa will be recognized for five minutes and a member opposed will be recognized for five minutes. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. King thank you, mr. Chairman. My amendment does what my amendment does is prohibits any of the funds used within this portion of the bill to go to cities that have enacted what we call sanctuary cities or sanctuary political subdivisions. The sthoveks code we refer to 8. S. C. 1373 is write this is way. Notwithstanding any other provision of law a state or local official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any Government Entity or official from sending to or receiving from the immigration and Naturalization Services which would now be i. C. E. , information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. This is current law. We have multiple cities in the country that are violating current law and theyre doing so with the impunity. When we send funds out of this appropriations bill to those cities, it ignores an opportunity we have to restrain these cities and have them come back and comply with federal law. I was brought up in a Law Enforcement family. I had the constitution waved at me on a regular basis. It was expressed to me clearly its the supreme law of the land and the enumerator powers in it which this congress asserts and defends are included in u. S. C. 8 u. S. C. 1373. In other words if these cities and if these political subdivisions disagree with federal law, they can come here and ask congress to change the law but to defy it and do so with the level of impunity that they have cant be accepted by the United States congress. We have a response to believe the assert our constitutional and statutory authority. So thats what my amendment does, it says any cities that have sack chair policies and inch those will not receive funds out of this section of the bill and the dollar figure were dealing with is from a fund of 1. 235 billion. So i point out that today the secretary of homeland security, jay johnson, testified tpwhever Judiciary Committee, he was speaking specifically of secure communities. The act that allows fingerprints to be transferred back and forth between homeland security, f. B. I. He said even with the secure communities issue he said quote we have mayors and governors pursuing laws that limit the effectiveness of security communities, close quote. This address security communities in this way and addresses sanctuaries policy which the secure communities policy according to secretary jay johnson is a very worthy one, close quote. So this supports at least the tone of the message delivered today in Judiciary Committee and supports what this congress has done multiple times in the past. I urge the adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time does anyone seek time in opposition . The gentleman from pennsylvania. Mr. Fattah i rise in opposition. The chair the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Fattah i wont take five minutes. Obviously the other team this is between the garrett amendment on disparate impact and this, this is i guess not actually part of the effort to reach out for a greater fan base. The idea that local communities cant make decisions in their own interests and we need the heavy hand of the federal vernment tole turn them into some particular set of responsibilities that are actually our responsibilities, Immigration Laws are our responsibility. Not local communities. When the Fire Department shows up, they are supposed to put the fire out not worry about where someones papers are. I just think that its somewhat contradictory of some of the what we hear from the other team about where they are headed, but if this is representative thereof, rather than do comprehensive Immigration Reform, do our job as the United States congress. The senate has done its job. The president has said that he wants to sign a comprehensive bill. The chamber of commerce, all of the various religious and faithbased groups in our country have come forward. But rather than the Congress Taking up any bill, any bill on on Immigration Reform what we have is this constant effort to local communities who are just trying to make the best of a very tough situation that the federal government has created. We didnt want to burden them because we dont want to take our responsibility and enact a comprehensive Immigration Program. So im opposed to this amendment but im pleased that the gentleman has reminded us that this is in essence the Immigration Program that has some currency from the majority party. We should do Something Different than this. And we can, and 218 votes on this floor that would do comprehensive Immigration Reform if we would bring it. Then we wouldnt have to deal with these kind of amendments year in, year out, bill in, bill out. Because we would have