[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2165-H2171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 650, PRESERVING ACCESS TO 
 MANUFACTURED HOUSING ACT OF 2015, PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
685, MORTGAGE CHOICE ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF S. CON. 
     RES. 11, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 189

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 650) to 
     amend the Truth in Lending Act to modify the definitions of a 
     mortgage originator and a high-cost mortgage. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

[[Page H2166]]

     Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 685) to amend 
     the Truth in Lending Act to improve upon the definitions 
     provided for points and fees in connection with a mortgage 
     transaction. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  The House hereby (1) takes from the Speaker's 
     table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 11) setting 
     forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 
     2025; (2) adopts an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of House Concurrent Resolution 27, as 
     adopted by the House; and (3) adopts such concurrent 
     resolution, as amended.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a rule and the 
underlying bills that make it easier for hard-working families to 
purchase a home.
  I would like to be perfectly clear from the outset. These bills are 
about increasing access to affordable housing. They are about helping 
middle class men and women in our country gain a little bit better 
footing to help them along their American Dream, and that is why we are 
here today.
  What we are trying to do is get the government out of the way so that 
more Americans can purchase the homes of their choice. These bills are 
about achieving the American Dream of owning your own home. That brings 
us closer to why we are here today. We are here to help families who 
want to own their own home and to live the American Dream.
  The administration's Big Government regulations have made it harder 
for American families to own a home, so we are here to empower them, 
instead of rules and regulations by Washington bureaucrats.
  The ball of red tape coming out of Washington grows daily, and day by 
day, it spreads beyond the housing market. It ties the hands of 
families who want to own their own home, as well as the hands of 
business that want to hire new employees and investors that want to 
fund the next new big idea to make America stronger and better and to 
build jobs.
  Modest, reasonable regulation does have its place; overregulation 
does not. Overregulation stifles economic growth. It gets in the way 
and makes it harder for families to pull themselves not only out of 
poverty, but it keeps them from gaining the footing to get into the 
middle class. Ultimately, unreasonable regulation destroys a shot that 
people have at the American Dream.
  The problem with overregulation is that it is everywhere. This 
administration enjoys and relishes the opportunity to inflict 
themselves on every part of the American economy because they believe 
Washington knows best. Well, we just can't live this way and have 
people have their say and whack at the American Dream, also.
  Unfortunately, overregulation is like the weeds in the backyard; they 
have to be removed. One by one, that is how you gain accomplishment. 
That is what happened yesterday when the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee, Chairman Jeb Hensarling from Dallas, Texas, brought 
some reasonable opportunities to the Rules Committee for us to 
consider.
  What are we doing here today? We are removing just a few of the 
regulatory weeds that were promulgated by the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, or CFPB. These mortgages that we are talking about 
have rules that make it harder for low- and moderate-income Americans 
to qualify for a mortgage--harder.
  They negatively impact consumers and community banks who offer the 
majority of these loans to middle class Americans, and it makes them 
outside of the ability that people have to get them because of the high 
cost of regulation.
  These costs are passed on to consumers who, once again, are victims 
to an overzealous regulatory regime who stated that they were there to 
help the consumer in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we have a bipartisan piece of 
legislation that has gained over the last few years more people who 
understand the issues--not only those in the Financial Services 
Committee, but across Congress--and we are here today because of what 
is a good bill to remove a few weeds from the garden one at a time. 
Chairman Hensarling has given us that chance today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, before we left for our 
district work period, this House worked in a responsible and bipartisan 
way to permanently fix the sustainable growth rate formula.
  Unfortunately, we return to the floor this week with legislation 
intended to further undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and 
give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans by repealing the 
estate tax without even finding an offset, thereby increasing our 
deficit.
  What we should be doing today, Mr. Speaker, is considering 
legislation to strengthen financial protection for consumers, create 
jobs, and ensure the continuation of our economic recovery; or, in 
honor of Equal Pay Day, we should debate and vote on the Paycheck 
Fairness Act to ensure that women get paid for equal work.
  A full-time working woman still earns significantly less than what a 
man earns for comparable work. It turns out that women earn nearly 25 
cents less than a man for doing the same work. Achieving equal pay for 
women should be the top of our priority list, but, unfortunately, this 
Republican majority has denied us a vote on this critical issue.
  Today, instead, we will consider two pieces of legislation under a 
closed process to roll back important Dodd-Frank consumer protections.
  H.R. 650, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act, strips 
from manufactured homeowners critical protections enacted by Congress 
as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
  Manufactured homes are an important affordable housing option for 
many low- and moderate-income families, especially families living in 
rural areas. It is critical that these homeowners are able to have 
access to the same consumer protections afforded to consumers with 
traditional mortgages.
  H.R. 685, the Mortgage Choice Act, would allow mortgages with higher 
fees to improperly qualify for the qualified mortgage standards 
established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. By removing 
affiliated title insurance fees from the 3 percent cap established by 
the CFPB, creditors could be incentivized to direct borrowers to 
expensive affiliates.
  Passage of this legislation could ultimately drive up the cost of 
mortgages, limit competition in the marketplace, and undo borrower 
protections.

                              {time}  1245

  A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the Center for 
Responsible Lending, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights, the NAACP, and I could go on and on and on, has urged the House 
to reject these bills, as they ``could trigger the return of predatory 
lending, irresponsible underwriting, excessive fees, and the lax

[[Page H2167]]

regulatory environment that sparked the housing crisis.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that my friends in the majority don't like 
the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. They have made countless attempts 
to overturn the commonsense provisions contained in the law that 
protect consumers and work to prevent another financial crisis.
  But I don't think anybody in this House should want to set the stage 
for another financial crisis, and I have serious concerns about the 
process being used by the majority to repeal Dodd-Frank.
  My friend, the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, 
Maxine Waters, has worked in good faith with the majority on 
legislation to make technical corrections to Dodd-Frank and other 
bipartisan updates. In fact, just yesterday, this House passed several 
pieces of legislation from the Financial Services Committee with 
overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle.
  But the two bills that we are considering today fall far short of 
that goal. Mr. Speaker, after the passage of a clean Homeland Security 
bill and the SGR fix, I had hoped that bipartisan cooperation in 
legislating would be contagious. I was wrong.
  Today, the Republicans are back to their old ways of bringing up ``my 
way or the highway bills'' that will be brought to the floor under a 
closed rule and then vetoed by the President.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is going to have just his 
opportunity today because I am sure we are going to vote on this.
  I would like to advise the gentleman that I have no speakers. We 
spent a couple of hours yesterday in the Rules Committee fully debating 
this, understanding this bipartisan bill, and so I want to advise the 
gentleman that I will allow him to use the time. I would like to ask if 
he has any speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In honor of Equal Pay Day, if we defeat the previous question, which 
I will ask Members to vote ``no'' on, we will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will allow the House to consider the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  In this day and age, it is an outrage that women in the United States 
still make less compared to men for the same work. This bill will help 
close that pay gap, empower women, and ensure that they get the respect 
and the compensation that they deserve.
  When we talk about paycheck fairness, Mr. Speaker, we also should 
remember that this is not just a women's issue; it is a family issue. 
Families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends meet, and with 
less take-home pay, women have less for the everyday needs of their 
families, from groceries to rent to child care to doctors' visits.
  This is discrimination that exists in the United States of America, 
and we in this Chamber have an opportunity to end it.
  We cannot get the Republicans in this House to allow us to have an 
up-or-down, clean vote on this, so this is the only means available to 
us. At least have a debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
(Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  Congress often talks about strengthening the middle class and growing 
our economy. For many years now, we have had an opportunity to pass a 
commonsense bill that will actually help us do just that. It was the 
very first bill that I cosponsored.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act ensures equal pay for equal work and will 
help us end wage discrimination for half of our workforce.
  Recent reports tell us that, given current trends, pay equity between 
women and men will not be achieved until 2058. We shouldn't have to 
wait until our children are ready to retire before women are finally 
paid what they are worth.
  Women are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime 
due to wage discrimination. And for women of color, it is an even worse 
situation. African American women, on average, earn only 64 cents, and 
Latinas, on average, earn only 56 cents for every dollar earned by 
White men.
  When women aren't paid what they are worth, that means less money for 
their families, less money for child care, less money for gas and 
groceries, and less money to help them prepare for the future.
  When wage discrimination persists, women and their families are less 
able to contribute to the economy, and that hurts all of us. Ending 
wage discrimination for our workforce is just common sense. That is why 
today, on Equal Pay Day, I urge my colleagues to recommit to restoring 
the middle class and growing our economy by supporting the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentlewoman recognizes she 
needs to be talking to the White House probably most of all. During the 
last few years, every time this issue comes up, we refer to White House 
pay and equity among women who work at the White House, compared to 
their colleagues, and so this might just be one of those bills that the 
White House would veto because they could follow what they choose but 
maybe they wouldn't want this to be the law, or maybe they would want 
this to be the law so they could correct what they do at the White 
House for equal pay for equal work, women among their colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't think we have any other speakers here.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment that I would like to offer in the Record, along with 
extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I will remind my colleagues that if we could 
defeat the previous question, we will bring up the Paycheck Fairness 
Act. It has been somewhat of a puzzlement to me that it has been so 
difficult, in this Republican-controlled House, to bring up legislation 
that would outlaw and end discrimination against women, and that is 
what this is.
  When a woman is working at the same job a man is and getting paid 
less for that same work, that is discrimination, and there is no way 
around that fact. And we have the opportunity, in this House, and in 
the Senate, to end it.
  But yet we can't get this bill to the floor for the kind of up-or-
down, clean vote that we have been looking for for now quite a long 
time.
  As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a women's issue; it is 
a family issue. We are all talking about how this economy is not 
recovering as fast as we would like it to. We all like to talk about 
how we wish that people would earn a little bit more in their 
paychecks.
  Well, here is one way to do it. Make sure women get paid what they 
deserve, what they have earned. This should not be a controversial 
issue. This should not be something that requires that we can't get a 
vote on the floor.
  So we are now kind of relying on this procedural motion, by defeating 
the previous question, to try to at least get a debate on this and to 
try to get at least some people on record as saying we ought to have an 
up-or-down vote on this.
  As far as the underlying bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the 
underlying bill that we are considering here today, again, I would urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because it is a closed rule, 
and they are two bills that would undermine the Dodd-Frank financial 
reform legislation.
  Let me remind my colleagues why we have the Dodd-Frank legislation to 
begin with, and that is because we saw what the excesses of some in the 
financial industry had done. Our economy almost was ruined because of 
those excesses, and consumer rights were routinely trampled on.
  So we passed, in my opinion, a moderate and sensible kind of check on

[[Page H2168]]

some of these financial institutions--that is the Dodd-Frank 
legislation. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and again, 
it is a puzzlement to me, have spent almost every waking moment that 
they have trying to undo that, trying to take away protections for 
consumers, trying to take away protections for small businesses, for 
homeowners. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense at 
all.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question, and I would urge them to vote ``no'' on this 
closed rule.
  Again, just to make this point crystal clear, the Equal Pay Act that 
we are talking about is nothing more than an attempt to end what 
continues to be a discriminatory practice in the United States. Nobody 
should be defending a practice that allows women to get paid less than 
men for doing the same job. That is discrimination, pure and simple, 
and we ought to bring that to an end.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
and ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. He had to sit through the long hearing yesterday, and it 
was a most interesting one.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out that the Rules Committee asked Members and their 
offices to submit any ideas and amendments regarding this bill, and 
none were submitted. That is why we have a closed rule. That is why 
H.R. 685, the Mortgage Choice Act, and H.R. 650, Preserving Access to 
Manufactured Housing Act, are both under a closed rule because we tried 
to make it available to as many Members as chose, and no one took us up 
on it.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here because we have two Members who have worked 
hard in committee, they have worked hard over the last few years as 
new, young members of this Republican majority, Bill Huizenga from 
Michigan and Stephen Fincher from Tennessee, who worked very diligently 
inside the Financial Services Committee over the years and have brought 
these bills back to us.
  This is not their first appearance. We now have a Senate, however, 
that we believe will take up these bills.
  Republicans are committed to reducing the regulatory burden that 
makes it harder for families to get homes. In this case, it may be 
manufactured housing, it may be directly aimed at the middle class. It 
may help people a lot. The answer is, yes, it does. And that is why we 
are doing this.
  We are taking our time today because the middle class of this country 
deserves a right for us to pay attention to them. And community banks, 
small banks back home that people walk into, see the same people, day 
after day, year after year, who live in these communities, community 
bankers are there to help grow not only the middle class but also rural 
America and the areas that oftentimes are in agriculture areas, perhaps 
in the areas where there is a lot of energy exploration.
  People choose to have their own roof over their own head and need a 
chance to get a loan, need a chance to take care of their families.
  So, look, we are willing to keep working out and reaching out to 
Democrats. This is a bipartisan bill, and we are willing to do whatever 
it takes so that individuals and families can help realize this 
American Dream.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I wonder if the gentleman would be kind enough to allow 
me to reclaim the balance of my time because I had yielded back, and 
two of our speakers have just shown up.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the 
balance of the time I yielded back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to defeat the 
previous question so that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) can offer an amendment for the House to immediately consider 
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Three weeks ago, I reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. My bill 
would finish the job started by the Equal Pay Act some 50 years ago. It 
would end pay secrecy across the board. It would require employers to 
prove that pay disparities are not based on gender, and passing the 
bill would give teeth to a very, very simple principle: men and women 
in the same job deserve the same pay.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act has passed the House twice already, with 
bipartisan support I might add. It has come just two votes shy of 
passing in the other body.
  President Obama has called on us to pass it. More crucially still, 
the American people know the importance of paycheck fairness.
  In October, a Gallup poll asked Americans to identify the top issue 
facing women in the workplace. Equal pay was, by far, the most common 
response among men as well as women.
  All across the country today, working families are in trouble. Their 
wages are stagnant. They are in jobs that just don't pay them enough to 
be able to pay their bills. They are struggling to heat their homes and 
to feed their children.
  Equal pay is a crucial part of the solution to this problem, since 
women are more than half of the workforce. Two-thirds of us are 
breadwinners for our families. Lower pay for women means less gas in 
the car, less food on the table, less money in the college fund, and 
less spending to support our economy.
  Today is yet another Equal Pay Day. What Equal Pay Day means is that 
it has taken 104 days for the average woman's earnings to catch up with 
what the average man made last year. That is exactly 104 days too long.
  Fifty-two years since the Equal Pay Act became law, a woman still 
only makes 78 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by a man. The 
gap has barely changed in over a decade.
  For women of color the disparities are wider still. Their Equal Pay 
Day will not arrive until May or June.
  Even in nursing, a profession that is more than 90 percent female, a 
study last month showed that men earned $5,100 more per year, on 
average, than women when controlling for education, experience, and 
other factors.
  Clearly, we must do more to close the gender pay gap. President Obama 
and the Department of Labor have shown the way by taking action to 
protect women who work for Federal contractors. It is now time that we 
in the Congress act to extend real, enforceable pay equity protection 
to all women.
  Equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do. It is the smart 
thing to do. It, in fact, would reflect what today's economy is all 
about with women being in the workplace overwhelmingly. It is time to 
make it a reality for all Americans, and I ask my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), my distinguished colleague on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank both the gentleman from Texas as well as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Equal Pay Day.
  Today, April 14, marks the day in which women's earnings from January 
2014 have reached men's earnings in 2014 alone.
  In one of the wealthiest, most progressive countries in the world, 
women still find themselves 3\1/2\ months behind men in wage 
disbursement. That means that for every dollar earned by men in the 
United States, only 78 cents are earned by women. For a woman working 
full time over the span of her career, that means a total loss of 
$430,000, nearly $500,000. Non-White, disabled, and LGBT women fare 
even worse, with some making as little as 56 cents to every dollar 
earned by men in comparable positions.

[[Page H2169]]

  I am proud to join my colleagues today in recognition of the fact 
that this disparity is not only antiquated, but economically regressive 
and morally indefensible.
  It has been proven time and time again that increasing pay for women 
has a direct and immediate impact on improving our economy and the 
health of American families. Fairly compensating women is not only the 
right thing to do, but it would increase consumer demand, create jobs, 
and raise the GDP.
  Today, on Lilly Ledbetter's birthday, it is time for Congress to act 
to enable women to support America's children and families and end this 
crippling drag on our Nation's economic prosperity and moral stain on 
our country. It is time we play our part in ending the gender gap.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the gentleman was able 
to have these two additional bright speakers, including the gentleman 
from the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis. So things worked out very well.
  I want to thank my dear friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who 
asked for this, and I believe that I have responded in-kind.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, thank the chairman 
of the Rules Committee for his courtesy and generosity in allowing two 
of my colleagues who feel very strongly about these issues to have an 
opportunity to speak. I am very, very grateful. So, as a reward, I am 
not going to say anything else other than to urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, the relationship that the 
gentleman and I share is very good. We spend hours a week with each 
other, and we know that occasionally we have different speakers come, 
and I am delighted that I was able to give him that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, as I began closing a minute ago, let's take a step in 
the right direction right now, right here today. Let's take these two 
bills that came directly from the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Fincher) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) at the urging 
of the Financial Services Committee. I believe this is the right thing 
to do on, I believe, an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis of that 
committee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 189 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1619) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
     provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination 
     in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other 
     purposes. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1619.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 183, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 148]

                               YEAS--239

     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
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight

[[Page H2170]]


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

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     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
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     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
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass
     DeSantis
     Ellison
     Hanna
     Hinojosa
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1333

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HULTGREN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 148, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 185, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 149]

                               AYES--237

     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
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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 (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     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
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     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
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     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
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page H2171]]



                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass
     Ellison
     Hanna
     Huizenga (MI)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Smith (WA)
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. JEFFRIES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. COMSTOCK, Ms. McSALLY, and Mr. KATKO changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the week, I 
was absent for legislative business; had I been present, I would have 
cast the following votes: rollcall 145--H.R. 1259--On Motion to Suspend 
the Rules and Pass--``yes,'' rollcall 146--H.R. 1265--On Motion to 
Suspend the Rules and Pass--``yes,'' rollcall 147--H.R. 1480--On Motion 
to Suspend the Rules and Pass--``yes,'' rollcall 148--H. Res. 189--On 
Ordering the Previous Question--``yes,'' rollcall 149--H. Res. 189--On 
Agreeing to the Resolution--``yes.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was 
not present for two roll call votes on Tuesday, April 14, 2015. Had I 
been present, I would have voted in this manner: rollcall Vote No. 
148--Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule--``no,'' 
rollcall Vote No. 149--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 11, as amended, is considered as adopted.

                          ____________________