[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 169 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8254-H8259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1737, REFORMING CFPB INDIRECT AUTO
FINANCING GUIDANCE ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 511, TRIBAL
LABOR SOVEREIGNTY ACT OF 2015; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 526 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 526
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1737) to nullify certain guidance of the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and to provide
requirements for guidance issued by the Bureau with respect
to indirect auto lending. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment
to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 511) to clarify
the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under
the National Labor Relations Act. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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 Education and the Workforce; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution--
(a) the House shall be considered to have: (1) taken from
the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1177) to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that
every child achieves; (2) stricken all after the enacting
clause of such bill and inserted in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 5, as passed by the House; and (3) passed
the Senate bill as so amended; and
(b) it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce or his designee to move that the
House insist on its amendment to S. 1177 and request a
conference with the Senate thereon.
Sec. 4. In the engrossment of H.R. 3762, the Clerk shall
strike title I and redesignate the subsequent titles
accordingly.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from
Oklahoma is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration of two important measures. First, the
resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1737,
the Reforming Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Indirect Auto
Financing Guidance Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee, makes in order three amendments submitted to the
Rules Committee which were germane to the legislation, and provides for
a motion to recommit.
In addition, the resolution provides a closed rule for consideration
of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. The rule
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, and
provides for a motion to recommit.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule facilitates a conference with the
Senate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
by replacing the text of S. 1177 with the text of H.R. 5, as passed by
the House, and provides for a motion by the chair of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce to request a conference with the Senate.
Finally, the rule directs the Clerk to strike a provision from the
reconciliation bill which was already enacted
[[Page H8255]]
into law in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, facilitating
consideration of the bill by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1737 passed out of the Financial Services Committee
by a vote of 47-10. It nullifies a guidance put forward by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau which the CFPB was specifically exempted
from making in the first place. In addition to the CFPB's disregard for
its statutory limitation, the CFPB's methodology is severely flawed.
According to a study by Charles River Associates, the CFPB's
methodology overestimates minorities by up to 41 percent, leading many
to question the reliability of these results.
In addition, and more importantly to me, Mr. Speaker, the rule
provides for consideration of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty
Act of 2015. When Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in
1935, it specifically recognized all governments were excluded.
Subsequent regulations and case law further recognized this exemption
applies to territories, possessions, the District of Columbia, and
State-operated port authorities. From the 1970s until 2004, the NLRB
recognized that tribal governments are exempt from the NLRA as
sovereign governments. Unfortunately, in 2004, the NLRB decided to
reverse 69 years of prior precedent and strip tribes of their ability
of self-government.
In our first terms in Congress, Chairman Kline and I both worked to
try and restore the sovereignty this board had stripped away. While
unsuccessful at that time, I am happy we are now able to rectify this
injustice.
H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would unequivocally state
that tribal governments are not subject to the National Labor Relations
Act. I respect my friends who hold different opinions, but in this
case, they are simply wrong. In the NLRB's 2004 decision, they made an
arbitrary distinction between commercial activity and government
activity. If you are a tribe and it is commercial activity, they said
the NLRB could regulate it. But that same standard isn't applied to any
other government exempted from the NLRA, regardless of whether it
engages in commercial activities or not. Their nature, as a government,
precludes their regulation under the NLRA.
Practically every county and city in this country has a golf course.
Most States have a lottery. The National Park Service operates hotels.
Virginia and other States sell alcohol. Many cities operate convention
centers. All of these activities are not regulated under the NLRA. It
should be the same with tribes.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule sets up a
process for us to go to conference on an ESEA reauthorization. The last
time we considered an ESEA reauthorization was 13 years ago. It is far
past time to reauthorize this critical program.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, on January 5, 2011, newly elected Speaker John Boehner
announced: ``To my friends in the minority, I offer a commitment:
openness, once a tradition of this institution but increasingly scarce
in recent decades, will be the new standard . . . You will always have
the right to a robust debate in an open process that allows you to
represent your constituents, to make your case, offer alternatives, and
be heard.''
What we were promised was openness, but what we got was absolutely
the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the breaking of a record, perhaps
the worst kind of record: this has officially become the most closed
session of Congress in American history. We are living it now.
Today marks the 45th closed rule in this session of Congress, and
with each new closed rule that the majority approves, we will break the
record anew. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the
House floor, which limits debate and silences half of the American
people who are represented by the minority of the House.
It is true that the trend toward more closed rules has been growing
over the past 20 years under the leadership of both political parties,
but my Republican colleagues have taken the trend to new heights. The
Republican Congress, for example, passed more closed rules in 1 week in
October of 2013 than in an entire year under Democrat control.
It is the work of the Rules Committee to report each rule that comes
to the floor, and according to our statistics, in this session of
Congress, the majority has chosen a closed rule more times than any
other kind of rule.
Under this regime, the majority has wasted taxpayer money on their
obsession with taking health care away from millions of people and held
more than 60 votes to repeal or dismantle ObamaCare. They have spent
over $5 million of taxpayer money on a duplicative, politicized
Benghazi special committee even after nine other House and Senate
committees and one State Department committee had found nothing
nefarious nor illegal. Benghazi was, yes, a tragedy, but it was not
a conspiracy. To continue with their wasteful, politicized special
committees, they created a special committee to investigate Planned
Parenthood, even after grilling the president of Planned Parenthood,
Cecile Richards, for 5 hours in a hearing and the chairman later
declared that no law had been broken.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you get here for your taxpayer
dollars.
While Americans are riding over rutted roads, traveling over unsafe
bridges, using crowded and outdated airports, and our schools are
crumbling around our children, this majority insists on wasting
millions of dollars and our time not on governance, but on purely
political goals. These distractions keep true regular order nothing but
a mirage. This is the work that we got under Speaker Boehner's promise
of openness.
As it turns out, Speaker Ryan promised the same openness for his
tenure. On November 5, 2015, just after taking office, he said to a
gaggle of reporters: ``I want to have a process that is more open, more
inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory, and that's what we're
trying to do.'' We have heard that before.
He even explained the importance of an open legislative process and
said: ``So that every citizen of this country, through their elected
Representatives, has the opportunity to make a difference. That is the
people's House. This is the branch of government closest to the
people.''
Will we get that openness? Today gives us very little reason for
hope.
Let me remind us that while we may have a new hand wielding the
gavel, no amount of good intentions can overcome the dynamics in the
radical Republican Conference because it remains the same.
Mr. Speaker, for this body to function as the Founding Fathers
intended, we need debate and we need openness. For our constituents to
be heard and for our institutions to thrive, we need debate and we need
openness.
Democrats have always been willing to provide the votes to move the
country forward on any bill that would come to the floor, and I would
like to extend my well wishes to our new Speaker, Paul Ryan, and
express again our willingness to work together for the American people,
because that is why we have been sent here.
Let me mention, if I may, that today, when we are concerned about
bringing refugees and immigration, that we have been begging for 2
years or more for this House to take up an immigration bill, and the
majority has refused to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I would differ from my good friend
on whether or not we have an open process here. Frankly, I think we can
all point to times in the past where each of us believe the other has
been less than open. I recall, during the Democratic majority, we
literally would bring appropriations bills to the floor with absolutely
closed rules, something that violates the tradition of this House.
In terms of this legislation, I hope I am forgiven, but again, I find
very little relevance of discussions of Benghazi and Planned Parenthood
to this particular debate. I don't think it has anything to do.
[[Page H8256]]
The legislation in front of us really deals with two bills: H.R.
1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bill, actually seeks to
simply restrain an agency from exercising authority that it is
prohibited from exercising under the legislation, and all the
amendments that were germane to that piece of legislation were indeed
made in order.
H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, frankly, is just simply:
Does the NLRB have this jurisdiction or not? It doesn't take a lot of
amendments. It is just a straight question. Our assertion is,
obviously, that it does not. It has claimed authority it should not
have, and we are simply restoring that to tribal governments.
{time} 1245
So I actually think the rule in question facilitates the debate,
allows those who have different ideas to present them if they are
relevant, and I think we will end up with a good result.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up H.R. 430, a bill to clean up the secret money in
politics and give the American people the fair and transparent
political system that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), to discuss our proposal, the
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, who began the discussion here by pointing out that here we
go again. We say there is new leadership in town on the Republican
side, but it is the same old closed process: closed rule, limit
democracy, don't allow a full debate, and don't allow the people's
House to decide on important questions for the country. When you have a
closed rule, you are starting to close down democracy; you are limiting
the ability of this House to make decisions on behalf of all the
American people.
So we have, as part of the previous question, if you defeat the
previous question, a proposal to also improve transparency and openness
in the full political process, because this is the people's House, and
we would hope that it would do the people's business. But we also know
that there are a lot of special interests out there that are spending
millions and millions and millions of dollars trying to get their way
and substitute their special interests for the public interests. They
are spending millions of dollars to try to elect candidates who will do
their bidding.
What this proposal does is just say we need to be transparent and
open about who is spending all that money. People in those interests
can continue to spend money to try and elect candidates, but don't do
it secretly. Do it openly.
So what we are asking is for this House to take up what is called the
Disclose Act. The Disclose Act simply says that voters have a right to
know which special interests around the country are spending millions
and millions of dollars to try to influence their voting decision,
because we believe that sunlight and transparency helps build
accountability and that accountability helps build a stronger
democracy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
So after the Citizens United decision, that terrible decision, what
happened? Special interests were able to spend millions and millions of
dollars at a time. They weren't constrained by any limits on what kind
of contributions they could make. So we got a lot more money, but we
also got something else. We got essentially a political underground in
spending. We had this system now where people try and channel their
moneys in secret ways to hide themselves from the public.
So if we get to vote on the Disclose Act, we will see where we stand
on the simple question of whether this body supports transparency,
because, honestly, if you have got nothing to hide, you have got
nothing to fear.
Right now we have these commercials out there. They say, ``Paid for
by Committee for a Better America,'' ``Paid for by mom and apple pie,''
but the people who are paying for them don't want the voters to know
who they are. They want it to be a closed process. We are asking that
they disclose their identity.
In fact, in the Citizens United case, eight of the nine Supreme Court
Justices said they were for more disclosure. And, in fact, recently,
Justice Kennedy, who was one of the five in the 5-4 majority, said that
the disclosure that he thought would work is not working. But they said
the legislature can always act on this issue and improve the
transparency and disclosure of the political process. Even Justice
Scalia said that would be good for the political process.
We want to know who is spending all that money to try and influence
decisions of the people's House. What is wrong with a little sunshine?
What is wrong with transparency? Doesn't that improve accountability,
and doesn't that strengthen our democracy?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentlewoman.
I understand that we are going to continue to have these closed rules
apparently that are not going to make this an open process here, but
for goodness' sake, Mr. Speaker, let's at least allow the American
people to know who is spending all that money to try to influence
voting decisions and, ultimately, influence the kind of legislation
that comes to the floor of this House, because we need to be focused on
the people's business, not the business of secret special interests.
Let the sunshine in. Let's allow transparency. Let's defeat the
previous question so that we can vote on the Disclose Act and give the
voters the right to know that they deserve.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the debate so far because my good
friends on the other side said absolutely nothing about H.R. 1737 and
H.R. 511, so I assume that they support these bipartisan pieces of
legislation.
Just to reiterate, with all due respect to my friends, we are not
here to talk about campaign finance reform, always a worthy subject of
discussion. I remember a number of years bringing up campaign finance
reform, trying to get rid of taxpayer subsidies for political
conventions. We finally got that done and redirected that money to
research for pediatric diseases but could never get it made in order
when my friends were on the other side of the aisle, so I understand
the frustrations. But again, we have got two important bills to
consider, and I think that is where we ought to focus our attention.
In H.R. 1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has literally
gone beyond the mandate laid out in Dodd-Frank. So I must say I am
mystified that I am up here defending a provision of Dodd-Frank, but in
this case, it is actually the right thing to do. They have tried to
extend their authority into auto lending, which is specifically
prohibited under the statute, so we are trying to make that crystal
clear.
H.R. 511 does something that, frankly, this House can be very proud
of. It recognizes and extends and restores tribal sovereignty in a very
important area. That has actually been an area of bipartisan
cooperation.
We worked together in the Violence Against Women Act across party
lines to extend tribal sovereignty with respect to domestic crime and
domestic violence committed by non-Indians on Indian land against
Indian citizens. Now we are trying in the labor area to once again
restore tribal sovereignty to what it was before 2004 when the National
Labor Relations Board, frankly,
[[Page H8257]]
acted outside of its authority and seized jurisdiction it simply
doesn't have under any statute ever passed by Congress.
I would invite my friends to focus on those two areas, hope they do,
and certainly look forward to working with them in a bipartisan manner
to pass both of those bills.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, it really is a shame that the only way we can talk about
campaign finance is to put it in our previous question because it is
never a subject for debate here. That really is a shame because we have
terrible situations going on in campaign finance unaccounted for, which
is something that we have never had before in this country, certainly
since the Watergate issue, where we cleaned up campaign finance
considerably and did well with it. But now all that is gone and
anything goes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule we are doing today strikes a provision of the
reconciliation bill that the House passed last month in the latest
futile Republican attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. This
provision is unprecedented, is unacceptable, and we oppose it. The
stricken provision eliminates an auto enroll requirement that employers
who offer health insurance automatically enroll new employees in the
health plan. The rule strikes this provision from the reconciliation
bill because it became law as part of last month's bipartisan budget
agreement.
My Republican colleagues may describe this as a simple housekeeping
measure, but no matter what is done, the reconciliation bill will not
become a serious piece of legislation.
The bill passed by the House would add 16 million people to the ranks
of the uninsured, would increase health insurance premiums by up to 20
percent for millions of others, and would reduce women's access to
important health services by ending Medicaid funding to Planned
Parenthood clinics.
The best piece of housekeeping that Congress could do on the
reconciliation bill is to set it aside and put an end, once and for
all, to this fantasy of repealing affordable health coverage for
millions of Americans. Instead, let us focus on the policies that
actually help American families, such as improving access to education
and to good-paying jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that people paid some attention to this debate
today. There is so much going on in the House that one wonders if we
have.
Let me just reiterate that this is the most closed Congress in
history. At every turn, the majority has chosen to shut out debate and
silence the will of Members. We have heard again this morning the
minority party, our constituents, and the democratic process itself are
ailing, Mr. Speaker, and we must do something about it.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous
question so that we can take up Mr. Van Hollen's good measure here and
try to clean up, as even the members of the Supreme Court who voted to
give us Citizens United would like to see us make some change there
because they recognize that what they did has been a complete failure.
Somehow they had this awesome wonderland idea that everybody would just
continue to put their name down on their contributions, and we have
certainly found that that is not the case. We don't even know what
country a lot of the money is coming from.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and also to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat mystified by the debate that my friends on
the other side have offered. It has got a lot to do with campaign
finance reform. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the legislation
before us that deals with that.
I beg to differ in terms of whether or not the rules here are closed
or inappropriate. Frankly, every amendment offered to H.R. 1737 that
was germane was actually made in order; and, frankly, amendments on
H.R. 511 simply aren't necessary. It is a yes or no type of question.
Either the NLRB has jurisdiction that we think it has claimed
inappropriately over Indian tribes and labor matters or it does not,
and we think that clarifies things considerably.
So again, we also are a little bit surprised to see what we do think
is a housekeeping matter in terms of striking something out of the
reconciliation bill objected to. I just remind my friends they voted
overwhelmingly for the budget deal itself that included that measure.
There is nothing untoward going on here. We are just trying to move
forward legislation that we think is important and remove things that
have already been enacted into law. So it is, indeed, as suggested, a
housekeeping matter.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support
the rule. H.R. 1737 undoes a regulation that should never have been
made in the first place, and H.R. 511 restores a right, the right of
self-governance, that should have never been taken away from tribal
governments.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 526 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 5. 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.
430) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
provide for additional disclosure requirements for
corporations, labor organizations, and other entities, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration, the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 430.
____
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
[[Page H8258]]
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. COLE. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 526, if
ordered, suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1694 and H.R. 3114.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245,
nays 178, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 629]
YEAS--245
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
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 (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
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
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--178
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
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
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
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
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
DeFazio
Eshoo
Hinojosa
Moore
Payne
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Takai
Titus
{time} 1329
Messrs. SIRES, VELA, and LARSON of Connecticut changed their votes
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during rollcall No. 629 on
November 17, 2015 due to an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.
I would like to reflect that on rollcall No. 629, 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 630]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
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 (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
[[Page H8259]]
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
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)
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--181
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
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
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
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
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
DeFazio
Hinojosa
Moore
Pascrell
Payne
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Takai
Titus
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1337
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
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 629 and 630, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no'' and ``no.''
____________________