[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1814-H1819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1206, NO HIRES FOR THE DELINQUENT
IRS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4885, IRS OVERSIGHT
WHILE ELIMINATING SPENDING (OWES) ACT OF 2016
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 687 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 687
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1206) to
prohibit the hiring of additional Internal Revenue Service
employees until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that
no employee of the Internal Revenue Service has a seriously
delinquent tax debt. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-47 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 Ways and Means; (2) the further
amendment printed in the report of the
[[Page H1815]]
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for a division of the question; and (3) 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. 4885) to
require that user fees collected by the Internal Revenue
Service be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
114-50 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 Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for H.R. 1206, the No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act,
and H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act
of 2016.
House Resolution 687 provides a structured rule for H.R. 1206 and a
closed rule for H.R. 4885.
The resolution makes all germane amendments offered by Members in
order.
Additionally, the resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate
equally divided between the chair and the ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, each April, Americans send a large portion of their
hard-earned income to the Internal Revenue Service. Often, they don't
get a good return on their investment from the agency tasked with
collecting their tax dollars.
Since I joined Congress in 2011, I have heard from countless
constituents struggling to understand how to comply with the complex
Tax Code or with other directives from the Internal Revenue Service.
Often, they turn to my office because they have no help within the
agency and nobody willing to give them help.
I know that these problems aren't new and they aren't issues just
contained in my district. They impact all Americans who have
representatives here in Congress, from both the Republican and the
Democrat side.
We owe our constituents improvements in customer service from all
Federal agencies. In the end, everybody who works for our government is
in the job of customer service to provide a service for our citizens.
And, of course, this week is tax week, so it is a natural week to
advance some bills aimed at restoring our American people's confidence
in their public institution and improving the taxpayer experience with
the Internal Revenue Service.
This rule makes two bills in consideration: No Hires for the
Delinquent IRS Act, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Rouzer), and IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act,
sponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
{time} 1230
Under current law, the IRS is required to terminate any employee who
willfully fails to file his Federal tax return or intentionally
understates his tax liability. A report from last year by the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS
consistently reduces penalties for current employees who violate tax
laws. The Treasury Inspector General reported that, of the 1,580
employees who were found to have willfully violated tax laws between
2004 and 2013, only 39 percent were terminated, resigned, or retired.
The No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act would prohibit the hiring of
additional IRS employees until the Secretary of the Treasury can
certify that current IRS employees do not have serious delinquent tax
debt. The vast majority of Federal employees pay their taxes in full
and on time, but this bill would give the American people and American
taxpayers the confidence in knowing that Internal Revenue Service
employees are following the same laws that the American people follow
and that the agency is tasked with enforcing.
The other bill under consideration under this rule is the IRS
Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act, which would repeal a
provision of the current law that enables the Internal Revenue Service
to spend user fees that are collected by the agency without any
congressional approval or without an appropriation. Under this bill,
these fees would be directed to the Treasury's general fund, helping to
ensure the agency operates in a transparent and accountable manner. It
would also help us as we are trying to close in on our deficit spending
and are trying to balance our budget.
The funds from these fees have historically supported taxpayer
services, but in fiscal year 2015, the IRS spent only 10 percent of
this money for that purpose. It diverted the other 90 percent for other
purposes. In fact, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight found
that the IRS is purposely diverting these funds away from taxpayer
services and towards other functions, like the implementation of
ObamaCare and other items.
Together, these bills would take important steps toward improving the
IRS' customer service to taxpayers, and it would give Americans the
peace of mind that the Internal Revenue Service and its employees are
following the same laws that the American people and taxpayers are
required to follow.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30
minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the closed rule providing for the
consideration of both H.R. 1206, the No Hires for the Delinquent IRS
Act, and H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act of
2016.
Mr. Speaker, when we began this Congress, we were told that it would
be the most open Congress that we have had in our great Nation. The
general public does not quite grasp, at least I believe, the
significance of rules being closed or rules being open.
When there is an open rule for whatever the subject matter is, then
every Member of the House of Representatives has an opportunity, if he
or she chooses, to make potential amendments to the subject matter that
is before the House. My colleagues on the other side have chosen a
different tack. I might add, at other times--in my opinion, wrongly--
Democrats have done the same thing, and that is to have closed rules
and shut out the rest of the people who may have interesting and
necessary proposals with reference to whatever the subject matter is.
In this particular instance, we are now numbering, with these two
bills, 55 times that we have come here to the floor with closed rules.
I bring that to the attention of the general public with an eye toward
hoping that there will be some pressure, as there was when I came here,
on the majority body to begin to open up this process so that all
Members can participate. These bills are nothing more than partisan
messaging bills that the majority hopes to use to score cheap political
points during the tax season deadline, which was yesterday.
H.R. 1206 would freeze hiring at the IRS until the Treasury Secretary
certifies that there are no IRS employees with seriously delinquent tax
debt. I agree--and I believe Democrats agree--
[[Page H1816]]
that IRS employees should pay their taxes. In my view, that is common
sense. The good news is that the IRS' department, the Treasury, has the
lowest tax delinquency rate--at 1.19 percent--throughout the entire
executive branch. So, instead of solving the actual important problems
that are facing our Nation, my Republican friends--and the presenter of
this measure is my friend--have, apparently, decided it is more
important to try and invent problems to solve.
There is then H.R. 4885, yet another one of these grab bag proposals
that we bring here with more than one rule at a time. This bill would
prohibit the IRS from supplementing its annual appropriations funding
through user fees, but what it really amounts to is an end-around
attempt to cut an additional 4 percent from the IRS' budget. We already
cut that budget, rather substantially, previously. Now we seek, under
this measure, to cut even more.
In other words, the majority often complains that the IRS is not good
at its job, and in their wisdom, the answer to this concern is to cut
the agency's budget even more and make it harder to hire the people it
needs. The IRS is already drastically underfunded and understaffed, so,
naturally, my friends on the other side think the solution is to cut
more and hire less. This counterintuitive logic is not making the IRS a
more successful agency. No. Instead, these proposals will simply make
the IRS' already difficult task of enforcing the tax law and serving
the American people even more difficult.
Mr. Speaker, more importantly, last week, I asked my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle: Where is the budget? I had the pleasure of
working with my friend from Ohio in presenting yet another rule that
was going nowhere like this one is. I asked him to have a colloquy with
me regarding the budget. I won't bother him with that this week. I am
sure that, doubtless, he and I will be back here next week and will be
talking about the ongoing negotiations, as he told me last week, on the
side of the majority.
This week, now that we have blown past the statutorily mandated
deadline to pass a budget resolution, through my colleague on the other
side and you, Mr. Speaker, I will just ask my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle: Where is the budget? Perhaps the American people
would like to ask them the same thing: Where is the budget?
Mr. Speaker, it is not just the fact that we have no budget; it is
the fact that we are not addressing, for example, Puerto Rico's debt
crisis, that we are not funding a response to combat the risk posed by
the Zika virus. Let me footnote that particular situation.
My understanding is that, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, the
chairman of the Rules Committee indicated that he thought that there
were 20 States that had this problem but that he felt that Texas didn't
have the problem. He did assert, with all of the horrible rain and
flooding that occurred in certain areas of Texas yesterday, that the
residual from that likely will allow, as summer proceeds, for added
mosquitos.
What has transpired that is little understood by the public is that
this matter is now affecting as many as 20 States, according to the
chairman. My recollection, from just the news alone, indicates that
there may be as many as 33 States in which this pronounced virus has
shown up. There are now 80 examples of its having occurred in the State
of Florida--7 of them in the congressional district that I am
privileged to serve. This particular virus that affects pregnant women
and their children is likely to mutate, and scientists signified--the
NIH department testified here earlier this week--that this may now be
something that we are going to have to look at with adults, who may
very well wind up with this problem.
If this thing blows up, then we are going to have a crisis in this
Nation, and that needs to be addressed right now, not at such time as
many people are affected. We can reasonably expect that, with what has
occurred, the President has requested nearly $2 billion to address this
problem. The Republican majority sent back to the President: take it
out of Ebola, and take it out of other areas. The NIH indicates that
they would then have to go into other funds, which they are going into,
including the fund for tuberculosis.
Here again, we have a similar example as to what we have going on
here. Rather than addressing a real crisis, we are addressing matters
that are going nowhere fast. We are not taking steps to ensure that men
and women are paid the same for the same work. We are not working to
reform our criminal justice system or our broken immigration system. In
fact, under the leadership of this Republican majority, we are not
doing much of anything here to solve any of the problems that are
facing our country--a broken infrastructure that we have been begging
about right here in the Nation's Capital. Aside from all of the
potholes, the Memorial Bridge may very well be shut down as well as
thousands of bridges in this country; yet we cannot do the things that
are vitally necessary that we should be doing in a bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Conference's inability to govern means,
instead of addressing the many important problems that are facing this
great Nation of ours, we are here today, attacking an already
underfunded and understaffed agency so that the majority can score
political points. Sadly, this has become the status quo with my friends
on the other side of the aisle.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to address a few issues with regard to the rule on the two
bills.
The Rules Committee did approve every amendment that was found
germane. There were many amendments that were found not germane to
these bills. For example, there was an amendment filed that would have
declared that water district rebates are not taxable, but because
neither of these bills actually amends the Tax Code and defines what is
taxable and what is not, that was not germane. Of every amendment the
Rules Committee actually found germane, we included it to be voted on.
One of these bills has an amendment, and the other one had no germane
amendments filed. The rule did include some opportunities for that.
I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's impassioned plea on things
like infrastructure and Zika, on which we do have bipartisan
agreement--the gentleman is correct--and we need to work to solve those
problems.
{time} 1245
In this rule, we have two bills from the Ways and Means Committee. It
is tax week. Frankly, it is a week for us to increase the transparency
and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service, and that is what
these two bills do.
Frankly, the IRS has 100,000 employees. So by the gentleman's own
math, Mr. Speaker, of 1.5 percent, that is 1,500 employees with serious
delinquencies in the IRS, working to process other people's taxes.
There is some work we need to do to, again, to give some belief to
the American people that the employees of the Internal Revenue Service
play by the same rules that the American people do and that the
American taxpayers do. I think that is the purpose of the bill.
As soon as the Treasury Secretary can verify that we have weeded out
those with serious delinquencies from the IRS, then they could continue
to hire. So there is nothing that gets in the way there.
The other bill from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) makes
sure that, when there are user fees that aren't appropriated, they
can't be used. They have to go back to the Treasury.
Frankly, Article I of our Constitution says that Congress will
appropriate money for government services and government agencies. When
we have unaccountable fees that are not used through the appropriations
process, it creates a problem. It is a constitutional problem. It is
time we stand up for the Constitution, and that is what we are doing
today with Mr. Smith's bill.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the
distinguished chair of the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stivers), who is a member of the Rules Committee, for not only yielding
me the time, but also for the service that he gives to the Rules
Committee, the
[[Page H1817]]
hours of deliberate work, reading, and thought process.
I also want to address, if I can, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stivers) did, with great admiration not only to Judge Hastings for
always constantly staying with issues and ideas that not only affect
his district in Florida, but that really address the entire country.
I was delighted yesterday when the gentleman brought up in a most
thoughtful, genuine way: Where is the answer to these important
questions?
What we are here today, Mr. Speaker, to do is--as the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Stivers) talked about, we are here to have, I think, once
again a thoughtful debate about some problems that we think we see.
The role of the United States Congress, on behalf of the American
people, is to make sure that we provide proper oversight, that we fund
well and faithfully the running of the government.
As we see things that happen from time to time, it is our role to
make sure that we are providing the debate, the argument, the facts of
the case, and that is what we are doing today about the IRS.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) did talk about H.R. 4885, IRS
Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act. There is more to the story
about fees that are being collected by the IRS.
I am going to read here directly about what they have done. Mr.
Speaker, traditionally, the IRS has used this money that they collect
in fees, that they collect for work that they do that goes directly
back into customer service, sustaining themselves in the eyes of the
public, taking calls, answering questions, trying to be of a service
nature.
We understand the IRS is an organization that is there to collect
taxes and very few people want to pay certainly more than what they
have to. But in doing that, in complying with the law, it is not
unusual that a taxpayer would want to contact the Service to learn more
about paying their taxes, properly reporting their taxes, and properly
doing things.
So, historically, the user fee account has primarily supported
taxpayer services in the past. However, the Ways and Means Subcommittee
on Oversight found that, in fiscal year 2015, the IRS deliberately
diverted resources away from taxpayer services toward other agency
functions, including implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
So they took their eye off the ball that they had previously done to
change that. In fiscal year 2014, the IRS spent $183 million in these
user fees on taxpayer services, which was 44 percent of the user
account fees. That is what they used it for: 44 percent.
In fiscal year 2015, however, the agency spent only $49 million--from
$183 million to $49 million on taxpayer services and only 10 percent of
user fees from those accounts that came in. That decision amounted to a
73 percent reduction in user fee allocation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to say today to the IRS--because
this is how we give them oversight. We hold a hearing. We do a markup.
We bring the ideas to the Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee notifies all the Members that, if you have an
idea about how you would like to talk about this bill, there is an
amendment process. For both the rules that we are doing today, we made
all of the amendments in order that were germane.
What we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that we disagree with the
IRS. We are going to force the IRS to begin using these user fees in
the way that they have historically done so that the public, which are
taxpayers, have a chance to comply with the law, to get their questions
answered, and to do business as is necessary.
The IRS has intentionally changed the way they do business to the
detriment of the customer. Republicans all the time argue we ought to
be more like customer services or a business-type organization.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. STIVERS. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, so what we are trying to say today, which
we would like to do on a bipartisan basis, which we would like to do
straight up and look right at the IRS, is say: We would like to meet
you in a way to where you know what we think. We would like to be very
specific. We would like to show you exactly what we are talking about.
We would love to have you comply.
In this case, it is taking a piece of legislation that we think is in
the best interest of the IRS--because we are helping them protect
themselves--and Congress that has oversight and an administration that
we would welcome this opportunity. This is not some sneaky attempt to
do something wrong. This is the right attempt.
The second part of the rule is H.R. 1206, No Hires for the Delinquent
IRS Act. That simply says that we want to make sure that the
Commissioner of the IRS understands that they should not hire any new
employee if they have a tax problem.
I would think that would be part of the agreement. I would think that
an employee of the IRS would understand that, to be faithful to their
job, they should not be given an extra status better than any taxpayer
who pays their taxes, has done what they are supposed to do, and
follows the law.
Mr. Speaker, that is why Republicans are on the floor of the House of
Representatives today. I am proud of what Congressman Stivers is doing.
I support this rule that is a fair and logical rule for the best
interest of us working with the IRS, with our colleagues that are
Democrats and Republicans, and with the administration.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I ask the chairman if he would remain just a moment to engage in a
colloquy with me.
Mr. Chairman, with great respect, do you agree with me that, between
the years 2010 and 2015, Congress cut the IRS budget by 17 percent?
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in
a colloquy.
In fact, on a bipartisan basis, that was achieved, and the President
of the United States signed the legislation. That was because of the
gross examples of the IRS' conduct as it was related to
politicalization. That would be correct.
Mr. HASTINGS. So, then, having cut their budget by 17 percent and
then not allowing them to undertake the user fees under the measure
that is before us in a manner as you assert to undertake a mandate that
they had, do you agree with me that the IRS, under the Affordable Care
Act, is mandated to implement that act?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, sir. In fact, I do. But I also recognize--and the
gentleman knows this. You are making a very, very good point. They did
not use it for something they were not authorized to do.
My point is that I think what we are trying to say is we would like
to get the IRS to answer more questions. Some of the people who might
be asking questions, it might be related to the Affordable Care Act
because, in fact, it is a new portion of the law. And the IRS, I
believe, has a duty to at least balance what they do, sir.
Mr. HASTINGS. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
Then, for all of our edification, not needing a response unless you
care to give one, I said earlier in my remarks that it was less than 2
percent of the delinquencies that occurred in the executive branch,
inclusive of the IRS.
I don't mean to beat up on staff and Congress people, but
congressional employees have less than 6 percent, about 5.8 percent,
delinquencies.
Now, I am not arguing for delinquencies. But if we are going to go
after the IRS, then we might want to take care of our own.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas, if he cares to respond.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very important
point. I would respond back by saying it is probably my fault and
Members' fault. We do not ask that question.
I do not have a determination. I generally do not do a full
background check. I do not have access to their records. I would not
know if they were telling me the truth or not.
If you were a law enforcement organization or if you were a hospital
looking for certification, if you were the IRS, you would have pretty
much data available to you so that you didn't ask a question that you
couldn't verify. So I think the gentleman makes a point.
[[Page H1818]]
I will tell you that this Member of Congress is now and has always
been faithful and has not done anything with his taxes. I pay mine
every year.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am not just talking about
Congresspersons, I am talking about throughout the bureaucracy.
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I agree with that. Once again, I don't ask the
question, but the IRS should.
Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, I follow you. I don't have a problem with that. I
thank the chairman for his forthright commentary.
Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague from Ohio that I have no
further speakers. I think we have made our time deadline of 1:50. So I
am ready to close.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further speakers and am
prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up a bill that would ensure that American
corporations that enjoy the benefits of operating in our country
continue to pay their fair share of taxes by closing the tax inversion
loophole.
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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
These partisan messaging bills are not what the American people want
or deserve. These bills are what the extremists in the Republican Party
that didn't come here to govern want.
{time} 1300
Instead of debating and passing a budget, we are here today ignoring
the important work of governing so the majority can try and score
political points and appease the insatiable extreme wing of their party
that turned down their party's own budget proposal.
By the way, the Republican budget proposal, the one they couldn't get
enough votes in their own conference to pass, would have ended the
Medicare guarantee for seniors. It would have made $6.5 trillion in
cuts, the sharpest ever proposed by the House Committee on the Budget.
It would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and dismantled the
affordable health care of 20 million Americans.
And yet, that Republican proposal, as extreme as I view it to be, was
still not enough to get the extremist wing to agree to it. When I say
``the extremist wing,'' we are talking about roughly 40 Members of the
House of Representatives. Maybe it flows as high up as 47 or as low as
35. They seem to be the tail that is wagging this elephant.
So here we are. No budget, and we aren't addressing any of the real
pressing issues facing our country. Rather, we are debating partisan
messaging bills with no hope of becoming law. I don't think that there
are companion measures in the United States Senate, and I can pretty
much assure everybody that when we finish the discussion here today and
the Republicans pass this measure--and a handful of Democrats may vote
for it; I doubt that--but when we pass it, that will be the end of it
and tax season will go on. We will have made the measure look like it
is something that the American people are going to have as law.
The House of Representatives is not just some messaging platform that
the majority can use to try and score transparently cheap political
points. It is a place where the issues facing our Nation should be
addressed and solved in a bipartisan manner.
I want to lift from Roll Call--and for purposes of those in the
general public of our great country that do not know, we have two or
three little papers here inside the beltway, inside the capital, and
Roll Call is one of them. They, today, say the following:
``Governing by crisis has become the norm in Congress in recent
years, but so far this year even that hasn't happened.
``Puerto Rico is on the verge of economic collapse, an average of 78
people are dying every day from opioid overdoses,'' and 90-plus people
from gun violence, accidental or otherwise, ``and mosquitoes carrying
the Zika virus have been found in 30 States. But Congress has shown no
urgency about addressing those issues.
``Maybe that's not surprising from a Republican majority that can't
even adopt a nonbinding budget resolution after months of `family'
discussions.''
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Conference has cowered to the extremists
in their party, which is truly shameful and not doing one thing to help
the people of this great Nation that we have been elected to serve.
Let me make a prediction. This measure will pass. Both these bills
will pass the House of Representatives, and tomorrow we will be back
here talking about some more measures that are not going to pass as
law. Several reasons why. The Senate, first, is not likely to take it
up, and even if they did, the administration policy is widely known
that the measures would be vetoed.
So why are we doing this instead of Zika? Why are we doing this
instead of equal pay for women? Why are we doing these things instead
of dealing with our infrastructure? Why are we doing these things
instead of giving us a budget so that the appropriations process can do
more than end with a measure that will throw everything together at the
end of this session? Why are we doing these things and where is the
budget? That is what I ask my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's points on
things we should be doing, and I agree and hope we can get a budget
agreement in the next coming days or weeks, hopefully as soon as we can
get it done. There are other pressing issues that face this country:
issues of infrastructure, the Zika virus and how we are ready for it.
But today we are here on two bills that can increase the transparency
and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service. I believe both of
those bills are well intentioned. I think they would both bring more
accountability and more taxpayer confidence to that agency, and I would
urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 687 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. 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.
415) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the
rules relating to inverted corporations. 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 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 415.
____
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
[[Page H1819]]
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. STIVERS. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________