Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 53 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)

[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

[[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.

____________________