Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 60 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1819-H1824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4890, BAN ON IRS BONUSES UNTIL
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY DEVELOPS COMPREHENSIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE
STRATEGY, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3724, ENSURING
INTEGRITY IN THE IRS WORKFORCE ACT OF 2015

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 688 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 688

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. 4890) to impose a ban on the payment of
bonuses to employees of the Internal Revenue Service until
the Secretary of the Treasury develops and implements a
comprehensive customer service strategy. 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-49. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute 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. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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. 3724) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service from rehiring
any employee of the Internal Revenue Service who was
involuntarily separated from service for misconduct. 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 114-48 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 Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 688, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
this rule on behalf of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 4890, Ban on IRS Bonuses Until Secretary of the
Treasury Develops Comprehensive Customer Service Strategy, and H.R.
3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act of 2015.
For each of these two bills, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means and also provides a motion to
recommit. H.R. 4890 will be considered under a structured rule, while
H.R. 3724 will be considered under a closed rule, as none of the
amendments submitted were germane.
Yesterday the Committee on Rules received testimony from members of
the Committee on Ways and Means. Both pieces of legislation covered by
this rule were considered and marked up by the Committee on Ways and
Means and enjoyed discussion before that committee. H.R. 3724 passed
the committee by a voice vote, and H.R. 4890 was also passed and
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means.
It is fitting that the House consider these bills to rein in and
reform the IRS this week, as Americans across the country have had to
face tax day yesterday.

[[Page H1820]]

Our Tax Code is overly burdensome and complex and penalizes
hardworking Americans. Tax dollars belong in the hands of Americans who
have earned them, not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
The bills before us today help to rein in the IRS, protect taxpayer
money, and hold the IRS accountable.
H.R. 4890, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Meehan), prohibits the IRS from paying bonuses to employees until it
creates and submits to Congress a comprehensive strategy to improve
customer service.
The IRS' mission is to ``provide America's taxpayers top quality
service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities.
. .''
Unfortunately, the IRS has fallen woefully short of this stated goal.
The IRS does not have a comprehensive customer service strategy to
ensure that it is providing effective and efficient service. In fact,
in fiscal year 2015, only 38 percent of the callers wanting to speak to
an IRS representative were able to reach one. This is unacceptable.
No one likes to pay their taxes, but the IRS has a responsibility to
provide service and assistance to those who are trying to meet the
burdensome obligation.
H.R. 4890 makes clear that until the IRS meets its obligation to the
taxpayers who fund the agency, IRS employees will not get bonuses. To
me, this is common sense. We should not be rewarding agency employees
when they are not meeting their mission. H.R. 4890 helps hardworking
Americans by ensuring that the IRS implements a comprehensive customer
service strategy.
H.R. 3724, introduced by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs.
Noem), prohibits the IRS Commissioner from rehiring any employee who
was let go from the agency for misconduct.
Now, just think about that one for a second. We are in a place with
the IRS where we have to prohibit by law that agency from rehiring
people who they have fired for misconduct. No wonder people shake their
heads.
I can tell you this--a businessman or woman in Georgia would think
twice about hiring someone they had to fire, but the IRS, which has
access to sensitive taxpayer data, is repeatedly doing just that,
according to the agency's own inspector general.
In fact, according to Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, the IRS rehired 141 former employees who had been
removed from service for issues ranging from falsification of official
forms to abuse of IRS leave and property policies.

{time} 1315

Americans deserve better. They deserve to know their tax and personal
information is protected and that those handling it are held
accountable. It is past time we hold the IRS to a higher standard.
I would like to thank Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady,
Congresswoman Noem, Congressman Meehan, and their staffs for their work
in bringing together these important reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this
rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 4890, under a structured
process, and H.R. 3724, under a completely closed process. These two
pieces of legislation are part of the House majority's effort this week
to micromanage the IRS and undermine its ability to enforce our tax
laws.
This is not a serious attempt at legislating. These bills are press
releases. Let's be honest. They are press releases for my friends in
the majority to use on the campaign trail, and they are serving as a
distraction from the business the Republican leadership has failed to
act upon.
Last Friday, House Republicans missed the legally mandated deadline
for Congress to enact a budget, and it appears as though we are not
going to see a budget resolution on the floor this week--or anytime
soon. It is pretty sad that Speaker Ryan, a former Budget Committee
chairman himself, can't get the House to pass a budget.
In 2011, Speaker Ryan said that failing to enact a budget is a
``historic failure to fulfill one of the most basic responsibilities of
governing.'' In 2012, the Speaker went on to say that not passing a
budget ``has serious consequences for American families.''
But the extreme budget proposed by the Republican leadership--a
budget that would end the Medicare guarantee, gut antipoverty programs,
and demand $6.5 trillion in cuts--was not extreme enough for House
Republicans, so they can't get a majority within their ranks. This is a
failure of the majority to do its job, plain and simple.
Demands by a vocal group of conservative Members to abandon a
bipartisan agreement reached last year on spending caps has put a
budget in jeopardy and the promise of regular order for the
appropriations process out of reach. Don't be surprised if all these
spending bills get crammed in during a lame duck session after voters
have cast their ballots and we have this big monstrosity that comes
before the Congress--nobody knows what is in it--and it gets passed.
That is the way the business of this House will proceed. I don't think
that is what the American people want; and if you want to talk about
what makes the American people shake their heads, it is that.
Forgive me if I find it ironic that we are here today telling the IRS
how to do its job while this Republican majority can't even do its job
of passing a budget and fulfilling its most basic responsibility of
governing.
So if my Republican friends don't want to pass a budget, there are
other important things we can do besides these message bills that are
going nowhere:
Negotiations have stalled on legislation to help Puerto Rico avoid a
default. We could do that.
A bill to provide aid to families in Flint, Michigan, has not reached
the floor for a vote. Clearly, I think everybody in this country was
horrified when they learned of the fact that the residents of Flint,
Michigan, were being poisoned by the water that was coming out of their
faucets. We could do something about that, but we are not.
A bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the
U.S. Senate has been blocked by the leadership in this House for the
past 3 years. We could actually fix our immigration laws rather than
just complain about them, but we are not going to do that, I guess,
either.
I might also suggest to my friends that, if they need bills to
consider on the floor, we could respond to the thousands and thousands
of constituents from all over the country that have been rallying at
the Capitol during the past week as part of the Democracy Spring and
Democracy Awakening movements and take up legislation to reform our
campaign finance system. Let's do something about getting the money out
of politics. Let's remove the influence that special interests have on
congressional elections--and all elections--because of our broken
campaign finance laws. We could do that, but we are not. We are doing
messaging bills that are going nowhere.
We could join millions of our constituents and people across the
globe in celebrating Earth Day by considering climate change
legislation. I know that may be a heavy lift on my Republican friends,
because a big chunk of the Republican Conference doesn't even believe
that climate change is an issue.
We could do tax reform. Let's simplify the Tax Code. Let's remove all
these loopholes that allow big corporations to escape paying taxes
while regular, hardworking people have to pay taxes. Let's do tax
reform. That would be a good thing to do during this week, but we are
not going to do that.
And perhaps we can maybe debate an AUMF, an Authorization for Use of
Military Force, something that I have been urging this place to do for
a long, long time now. Yesterday, the Pentagon announced hundreds more
U.S. forces will be deployed in Iraq. We are getting sucked into this
war even more deeply. I think people are tired of endless wars. Our
troops are expected to perform their responsibilities when we send them
to places like Iraq and Syria, but why aren't we expected to do our job
and actually debate these

[[Page H1821]]

issues and vote on them? Instead, we are silent; we are indifferent.
So we have a lot that we can do. Unfortunately, we are not doing any
of those things. This place is becoming a Chamber where trivial issues
are debated passionately and important ones not at all. We need to do
better, and we need to start coming together and figuring out how to
solve some of these problems.
H.R. 3724, which is unnecessary at best, prohibits the IRS
Commissioner from rehiring any former employee that was terminated for
misconduct, even though there are already processes in place to ensure
employees with significant performance or conduct problems are not
rehired. This legislation is not even necessary.
H.R. 4890 prevents the Treasury Department from paying bonuses to IRS
employees until the Secretary submits to Congress a customer service
strategy that has been approved by the Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration. Again, an added layer of bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter sent to all Members of
Congress from The National Treasury Employees Union, which is opposed
to H.R. 4890 and a number of the other bills that we are debating here
today.

The National

Treasury Employees Union,

April 12, 2016.
Dear Representative: As President of the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), representing over 150,000 federal
employees in 31 agencies, including the men and women at the
IRS, I am writing to express opposition to several bills
scheduled to be considered by the House Committee on Ways and
Means on April 13. NTEU believes all of these bills would
weaken IRS' ability to carry out their taxpayer service and
enforcement missions, and undermine efforts to retain
dedicated and experienced employees.
H.R. 4885, the ``IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending
(OWES) Act of 2016,'' would require IRS collected user fees
to be deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury and
would prevent the IRS from spending the user fees ``unless
provided by an appropriations act.'' NTEU strongly opposes
eliminating IRS' ability to use the user fees that it
collects, as provided by law. The IRS charges user fees for
various services: to assist taxpayers in complying with their
tax liabilities; to clarify the application of the tax code
to particular circumstances; and to ensure the quality of
paid preparers of tax returns, among others. While user fees
have historically been used, in large part, to fund
traditional taxpayer service activities, recent budget cuts
in excess of $900 million since Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 have
forced the IRS to reallocate a greater portion of these user
fees to implement a number of significant legislative
mandates, nearly all of which came with no additional
funding. These include the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA), and the Achieving
a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act.
While proponents of this legislation claim the bill is
simply an attempt to ensure proper congressional oversight of
the IRS, in reality these measures are designed to undermine
and weaken the IRS's ability to enforce enacted laws. While
NTEU takes no position as to whether any particular tax
statutory provisions remain or are repealed, NTEU believes it
is important to remember that the IRS, and its personnel, are
charged with implementing each and every tax law passed by
Congress, including the ACA. Therefore, it is imperative that
the IRS be provided with the resources necessary to carry out
its responsibilities under the law, and to retain the
flexibility to allocate user fee revenues as necessary to do
so.
Prohibiting the IRS from accessing the roughly $400 million
in user fees it collects each year is effectively an
immediate cut of $400 million to its budget, and will simply
force the IRS to divert resources from other critical
taxpayer service and enforcement programs to carry out its
statutory mandates.
NTEU also urges you to oppose H.R. 1206, the ``No Hires for
the Delinquent IRS Act'' which would prohibit the hiring of
additional IRS employees until the Secretary of the Treasury
certifies that no employee of the IRS has a seriously
delinquent tax debt.
While NTEU believes that each and every IRS employee should
pay their taxes in full and on time, we have serious concerns
about how the bill defines a seriously delinquent tax debt,
and believe basing IRS' ability to hire additional personnel
on such an uncertain standard is unjustified, and will only
further undermine its ability to meet its taxpayer service
and enforcement missions.
Under H.R. 1206, a tax debt is considered ``seriously
delinquent'' by the filing of a notice of a federal tax lien
(NFTL). Unfortunately, using notice of a lien as an
indication a debt is seriously delinquent is inappropriate
since it is not a final determination of tax liability.
Section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code establishes that a
lien can be filed immediately upon the assessment of tax. In
many instances, the IRS may file an NFTL to simply secure the
government's future potential interest and establish its
priority as a possible creditor in competition with other
creditors. Therefore, the filing of the NFTL is not a true
indication that a tax debt is ``seriously delinquent.''
In addition, it is unclear why this legislation is even
necessary. The bill specifically singles out the tax status
of employees at the IRS who have an overall tax compliance
rate of over 99%, the highest in the federal government, and
a much higher compliance rate than the general public.
Furthermore, for those employees at the IRS that do have tax
debts, the existing Federal Payment Levy Program already
allows the IRS to levy federal salaries to recover federal
tax debts.
We also believe restricting the IRS' ability to hire
qualified applicants based upon an uncertain tax status
standard of its employees is misguided, and will simply
further impede its ability to provide quality services to
American taxpayers. The IRS workforce has been reduced by
more than 15,000 employees over the past five years,
including many front-line customer service and enforcement
personnel. Therefore, it is critical that the IRS have the
ability to hire additional personnel to provide the services
taxpayers expect and to implement the laws passed by
Congress.
Finally, NTEU urges you to oppose H.R. 4890 which would
prohibit the IRS from paying performance awards to its
employees until the Secretary of the Treasury develops and
implements a comprehensive customer service strategy. NTEU
believes this legislation is unnecessary, and will only serve
to undermine IRS efforts to retain experienced employees that
provide many of the critical taxpayer services. In fact, the
IRS has already recently provided a detailed and
comprehensive strategy to improve taxpayer services, and in
particular, the phone level of service, as part of its FY
2017 budget request. However, implementation of this strategy
will require a commitment by Congress to provide the IRS with
the necessary resources and staffing. If members are serious
about helping the IRS meet its mission of providing taxpayers
with top quality service in a timely manner, Congress will
fund the Administration's FY 2017 IRS budget request.
Furthermore, this measure is unfairly punitive to hard-
working front-line employees who are not responsible for
developing or implementing agency-wide policies and
strategies, and who have already experienced significant pay
hardships in recent years--stemming from the three-year pay
freeze and furlough days, followed by three years of
minuscule pay increases, and performance awards below one
percent of their salaries. Like all federal agencies and
effective employers, the IRS must be able to properly
compensate its workforce, particularly at a time of a healthy
job market, and to distinguish and reward higher performing
employees.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose these
bills during committee consideration on Wednesday, April 13.
Please contact Matt Socicnat of my staff if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Reardon,
National President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if the majority is concerned with customer
service at the IRS, we should be considering appropriations legislation
to fully fund the administration's budget request for the agency. IRS
funding has been slashed by nearly $1 billion since 2010, and as a
result, the IRS had to cut 12,000 jobs, reduce employee training, and
delay technology updates. So while I understand that my friends on the
other side of the aisle don't like the IRS, it is their demands for
steep funding cuts that have led directly to a degradation of customer
service during the past several years.
Furthermore, the IRS has already developed and has begun to implement
a strategy to improve taxpayer services, and here is the deal, Mr.
Speaker. If this were really an issue, we could have brought this up at
any time. We could come together and try to see whether we can work on
bipartisan legislation, but instead, we bring up legislation attacking
the IRS during the week that people have to pay their taxes. You don't
have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this is all about
messaging and not about substance.
I think that people in this country are really sick and tired of the
performance of this Congress--or the lack of performance of this
Congress. We have a lot of challenges that we need to confront; we have
a lot of problems that we need to solve; and rather than doing this, we
ought to be doing the people's business. We ought to be legislating in
a serious way and leave these press releases and these messaging bills
for the Republican congressional campaign committee. It is beneath, I
think, the standards that this Congress should uphold.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We

[[Page H1822]]

have no speakers because everybody is so interested in this legislation
that I think they would prefer to stay in their offices.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up Mr. Van Hollen's bill that would restrict American
companies' use of so-called tax inversions to shrink their tax
obligations by hiding money in foreign countries. The bill would direct
the money toward repairing our crumbling infrastructure.
That is exactly the type of legislation we ought to be debating here:
something that is meaningful to the American people and to get American
corporations that are trying to not pay their fair share to pay their
fair share and to invest in repairing our crumbling infrastructure,
whether it be water infrastructure that we see in such disrepair in
places like Flint, Michigan, or our roads and bridges. Where I come
from in Massachusetts, we have bridges that are older than most of your
States, and they need repair.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I believe there is probably going to be debate on these bills this
week on the House floor. But also, there are certain times when you
just understand the bills are, as I say from my part of the world, just
common sense, and we just need to get to them.
It is amazing that we actually have to tell the IRS to not rehire
people that they fired for misconduct. That is just an amazing idea.
There are a lot of things that need to go on over there, the least of
which is to give them more money which they have shown, repeatedly over
the past few years, that they use to target groups that they don't
like.
So that is not the reason that they are problematic. There are other
issues there that need to be dealt with.
As I said before, our tax system is out of control. Americans deserve
to keep their hard-earned dollars. While I would like to dismantle the
IRS--I am more of a fair tax proponent--while it exists, we must rein
it in and hold it accountable.
This rule provides for consideration of legislation that will protect
taxpayers. It takes important steps toward ensuring that the IRS is not
abusing taxpayer dollars. For that reason I urge my colleagues to
support this rule and H.R. 4890 and H.R. 3724.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 688 Offered By Mr. McGovern

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.
3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety,
transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface
transportation programs, 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. 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. 3064.
____

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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on H.R. 688
will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H.R. 688, if ordered;
ordering the previous question on H.R. 687; and adoption of H.R. 687,
if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 172, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 155]

YEAS--240

[[Page H1823]]

Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
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)
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
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--172

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Bera
Bishop (GA)
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
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
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, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
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
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
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)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--21

Bass
Becerra
Beyer
Blumenauer
Collins (NY)
DeSaulnier
Dold
Edwards
Fattah
Fincher
Garrett
Hinojosa
Jackson Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Meng
Rush
Stutzman
Van Hollen
Waters, Maxine

{time} 1352

Mr. THOMPSON of California changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 242,
noes 172, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 156]

AYES--242

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)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
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
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
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

NOES--172

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Bishop (GA)
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
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, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
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
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)

[[Page H1824]]

Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--19

Beyer
Blumenauer
Collins (NY)
Dold
Edwards
Fattah
Fincher
Garrett
Hinojosa
Jackson Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Loudermilk
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Meng
Rush
Stutzman
Van Hollen
Waters, Maxine

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1359

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.

____________________