Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 66 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 66 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2076-H2081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4901, SCHOLARSHIPS FOR OPPORTUNITY
AND RESULTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J.
RES. 88, DISAPPROVING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RULE RELATED TO DEFINITION OF
THE TERM ``FIDUCIARY''; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD
FROM MAY 2, 2016, THROUGH MAY 9, 2016

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 706 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 706

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4901) to
reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act,
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 88) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of
Labor relating to the definition of the term ``Fiduciary''.
All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from May
2, 2016, through May 9, 2016--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 5. The Committee on Armed Services may, at any time
before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2016, file a report to
accompany H.R. 4909.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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

Ms. FOXX. 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
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 706 provides a closed rule
for the consideration of H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity
and Results Reauthorization Act, as it is the product of careful
bipartisan and bicameral negotiations.
It also provides a closed rule for the consideration of H.J. Res. 88,
disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to
the definition of the term ``fiduciary,'' which is traditional for
Congressional Review Act resolutions.
The underlying bill and resolution we will consider today are
important steps forward on two issues of great concern to Americans:
education and retirement savings.
H.R. 4901, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
Reauthorization Act, also known as the SOAR Reauthorization Act, would
continue important funding provided to help young students here in
Washington, D.C., reach their full potential.
This legislation would provide $60 million annually for 5 years,
split equally among the District's public schools, charter schools, and
the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, which enables
low-income students to attend a private school that would otherwise be
out of their reach.
I have great confidence that the SOAR Reauthorization Act is a
positive step for students in the District of Columbia and that,
through its example, it will provide a model for success that could be
adopted by States across the country.
With the adoption of this rule, the House will also provide for the
consideration of H.J. Res. 88, a Congressional Review Act resolution
disapproving of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, a rule that
will otherwise soon take effect and limit the ability of Americans to
receive adequate advice on how to allocate their retirement savings.
If enacted, this resolution will prevent the red tape and other
burdensome mandates that threaten to cut off access to trusted
financial advisers and may result in lower savings rates and returns on
investment.
As Americans are clamoring for more assistance with retirement
savings and financial decisions, we must ensure that they are
encouraged to continue saving and are able to receive helpful guidance.
Stopping the harmful fiduciary rule is an important step in that
direction.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this rule and both the underlying bill and
resolution. I ask my colleagues for their support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today the majority intends to pass a resolution of disapproval under
the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Department of Labor's
recent rulemaking requiring financial advisers who provide retirement
investment advice to abide by a fiduciary standard, meaning that they
must act in the best interests of their clients, which seems perfectly
legitimate to me. That is right. The House majority is disapproving of
financial advisers acting in the best interests of their clients.
Despite the growing importance of individual workers and retirees to
obtain sound investment advice, many financial advisers are still not
legally required to meet the fiduciary standard of acting in their
clients' best interests but, instead, are required only to meet a lower
``suitability'' standard.
This creates a conflict of interest where advisers are permitted to
promote investments that maximized their own returns rather than their
clients' returns as long as the investments were still ``suitable'' for
their clients.
That means a small few--and a very small few--unscrupulous financial
advisers have been legally permitted to steer clients towards financial
products that maximize the advisers' profits through higher fees and
commissions even if investments that would produce greater returns for
the clients are available.
Few financial advisers, I am sure, are taking advantage of their
clients in their saving for retirement. Some experts, however, feel
that this rule is necessary. In fact, the White House Council of
Economic Advisers estimates that the cost to American retirees is $17
billion annually. That is no small sum, and I think it does cry out for
attention.
It is absurd that, due to loopholes in the current system, retirees
do not have a legal right to expect that their financial advisers will
act in their best interests.
When you visit your doctor, you have the legal right to expect that
he or she will prescribe whatever treatment is in your best interest.
You shouldn't have to guess whether or not your financial adviser is
following the same fiduciary standard.
The Labor Department's final rule will close these loopholes, protect
workers' savings, and ensure that financial advisers act in their
clients' best interests.
The final rule is the result of a thoughtful, thorough, and
transparent

[[Page H2077]]

multiyear process that stands in stark contrast to the majority's
decision to rush to judgment and to overturn this rule at a record,
unheard-of pace.
The majority marked up the resolution, H.J. Res. 88, only 13 days
after the final rule had been published. So, in 13 days, it understood
that it was totally unnecessary despite the $17 billion lost to
clients.
This is far shorter than the 55 days that other committees wait, on
average, to ensure that there is ample time to fully understand the
impact of a final rule.
In its rush to judgment, the majority has been blinded by its
ideological opposition to any action taken by the Obama administration
and has missed the many changes that have left industry leaders
optimistic, including many of the major financial houses and many of
the people whose livelihoods are in this kind of advising.
The majority is ignoring the two important protections that this rule
will provide to American workers who are trying to save for their
retirements. The first is peace of mind, and the second is to make sure
that everything is done in their interests.
Mr. Speaker, all of us are sent here to work in the best interests of
the American people, not to shield financial companies. So I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disapproval resolution.
What is more, in yet another grab bag rule that joins two unrelated
measures under a single rule, the Republicans are proposing another
misguided bill to meddle in the District of Columbia's local affairs.
The majority has already tried to overturn the District's marijuana,
gun, and abortion laws, and now it intends to rewrite D.C.'s education
laws in an attack on the District of Columbia's right to home rule.
The D.C. voucher program exempts students from the protection of
Federal civil rights laws that apply to public schools--why in the
world would we want to do that to them?--and federally funded programs
that go with those civil rights laws protections.
Under the voucher program, the Federal funding is considered
assistance to the voucher student and not to the school; therefore, the
voucher program is not considered a federally funded program.
The program is exempt from titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964; from title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972; from
the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974; from the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act; from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
and from titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.
I appreciate that we are not doing anything here that is really going
to affect the government in any way. Undoubtedly, again, this will be a
one-House bill, and we have wasted a week's worth of money--about $24
million--that it takes to run the House. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act is a
program that makes students the priority.
First authorized in 2004, this program has provided significant,
life-changing benefits to students for over a decade. It is no secret
that many students in the District of Columbia have not received the
education they deserve.
Fourth graders in the District scored below all 50 States in average
math and reading scores in 2013, and eighth graders had the lowest
average math and reading scores in the country.
The SOAR Reauthorization Act continues a three-sector strategy to
improve education in the District of Columbia.
First, it provides additional resources to the public school system
for its use in improving student achievement.
An equal amount is provided to the innovative charter schools that
are opening across the District, which provide a valuable alternative
for students who seek a different experience.
Finally, through the Opportunity Scholarship Program, students
receive potentially life-changing scholarships to attend private
schools that offer opportunities that are rarely seen by low-income
students.
We often speak of the States as laboratories of democracy. But, in
this instance, it is the District of Columbia that is providing an
instructive example of the value of trying different approaches, of
studying them, and then of replicating the solutions that work, not the
solutions that benefit entrenched interests.
That is why I am so pleased to see that this legislation includes
important reforms to the program to ensure it performs at the highest
standards and is fully assessed for its effectiveness. It is my hope
that these assessment standards will be applied to many other programs
at the Department of Education and across the Federal Government.
Parents have also expressed a higher satisfaction rate with their
children's schools and have reported that they believe those schools
are safer for their children. Both parents and the community support
the Opportunity Scholarship Program, with 74 percent supporting a
continuation of the program.
It is not hard to understand why that program has that level of
support when you consider that 90 percent of students who are
participating in the program graduate compared to only 64 percent of
students in the schools they left behind.
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. Ninety percent of students who are
participating in the program graduate compared to only 64 percent of
students in the schools they left behind.

{time} 1245

How could our colleagues possibly oppose this opportunity for
students in the District of Columbia? And that 90 percent graduation
rate is even better than the national rate of 82 percent.
It is important to recognize that this legislation has support from
across the aisle at the local level. In March 2016, a majority of the
D.C. Council and Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a letter that ``these
funds are critical to the gains that the District's public education
system has seen in recent years.''
I commend the SOAR Reauthorization Act to my colleagues for their
support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the colleagues who have requested time
have not shown up. I am prepared to close if Ms. Foxx is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is not the first time Congress and the public have debated a
fiduciary rule conceived by the Department of Labor.
The Department first proposed a rule in 2010, but was later forced to
withdraw it due to significant bipartisan opposition. A wide array of
stakeholders, both those saving for retirement and those providing
assistance to savers, raised legitimate concerns that the Department
would be limiting available advice and raising costs.
Unfortunately, the Department chose to ignore the lessons of that
debacle and embarked again in 2015 on a misguided effort to create a
new fiduciary rule.
Mr. Speaker, it may be helpful to explain exactly why the Department
is promulgating rules governing retirement advice whatsoever.
Under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, also known as ERISA, Federal law establishes ground rules for
defined contribution pension plans, which may be 401(k)s, IRAs, or
other tax-preferred savings vehicles.
Anyone who exercises discretionary authority over those plans or
provides investment advice for a fee to those plans is considered a
fiduciary and triggers certain regulatory restrictions that govern
their actions. Since 1975, the Department of Labor has used a five-part
test to determine when a provider of investment advice is a fiduciary.
As I mentioned earlier, the Obama administration first proposed in
2010 and then in 2015 to expand significantly the definition of
fiduciary, which would subject a significant number of new individuals
and firms to fiduciary status and have a chilling effect on the
willingness of them to provide advice whatsoever to those saving for
retirement.
On April 6, the Department finalized its regulation, which will
significantly

[[Page H2078]]

impact the ability of Americans to receive advice on how to save for
retirement and make it more difficult for businesses, in particular
small businesses, to establish retirement plans.
At a time when Americans want to save significantly more for
retirement, the Department of Labor wants to make it cost prohibitive
to offer advice or services to low- and middle-income Americans by
increasing compliance costs and the risk of litigation.
Many of the Department's compliance requirements will be
counterproductive, as those saving for retirement will be forced to
review and sign a number of government-mandated documents instead of
focusing on identifying the best options for their retirement savings.
There are also issues related to specific savings vehicles for
retirement, such as variable and fixed-indexed annuities, which must
comply with the new requirements.
There are also potential class action lawsuits under state law that
could prevent good actors in the industry from taking clients and
impose an additional cost on savers.
Beyond its impact on individuals saving for retirement and those
assisting them, the fiduciary rule will have a negative impact on the
businesses that attempt to offer pension plans that benefit their
employees.
The rule holds large and small businesses to different standards,
with negative implications for those most in need of assistance, which
are small businesses with less than $50 million in assets in their
retirement plan. As with so many other provisions of the fiduciary
rule, that will raise costs and reduce the choices available to small
businesses.
These concerns have been echoed by the National Federation of
Independent Businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Even the Small
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy submitted a comment letter
stating that ``The proposed rule would increase the costs and burdens
associated with serving smaller plans . . . and could limit financial
advisers' ability to offer savings and investment advice to clients.''
In order to stop the Department of Labor's misguided efforts,
Representatives Roe, Boustany, and Wagner introduced this Congressional
Review Act resolution to disapprove of the fiduciary regulation.
The Congressional Review Act provides a special process for
consideration of joint resolutions disapproving of a regulation. Should
a resolution, such as the one we will consider today, be enacted into
law, it will prevent the rule from taking effect or being reissued.
Clearly, if the fiduciary rule comes into effect, millions of
Americans and the businesses employing them will be provided with fewer
investment opportunities and higher costs, limiting their return on
investments and the amount they are one day able to retire with.
That is why I cosponsored H.J. Res. 88 to disapprove of this harmful
rule and enable Americans to continue working with the adviser of their
choice and save for retirement in a prudent and cost-effective way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Hardworking Americans deserve solid advice about how to save for
retirement, not conflicted guidance from financial counselors.
The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule is the product of
thoughtful, long-term planning and research because the estimate is
that $17 billion a year is lost to this industry.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule by voting ``no'' on this
rule we have before us.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would provide desperately
needed funding to combat the Zika virus. We can't put off when the Zika
virus is going to arrive. We make no appointments with it. It shows up,
and the devastation it produces is well known.
We must not in the Congress of the United States turn our backs on
this impending problem facing the United States. It is already here,
and I heard just this morning that this summer they are expecting quite
a lot of infection to spread. The administration requested this funding
more than 2 months ago, and it is reckless to delay the response to
this crisis any longer.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to 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 urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to
defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to say a few additional things on the benefit of the
SOAR Reauthorization Act.
When the Opportunity Scholarship Program, OSP, was first designed,
D.C. public school students had the lowest test scores in the Nation.
D.C. schools have improved since then, but D.C. public school students
continue to test well below national averages. D.C. OSP students are
seeing improved achievement against non-OSP students in reading and in
graduation rates.
In addition, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program does not take
away money from the D.C. public and charter schools nor does it
reallocate D.C. education money. In fact, H.R. 4901 directs additional
Federal resources to the D.C. education system that would not otherwise
be available if not for the OSP.
Finally, there are thousands of families on charter school waiting
lists who aren't able to access the schools their children need. OSP
allows income-eligible families to get into high-quality district or
charter schools who would not otherwise have access to education
alternatives.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes here talking about
precisely what has been going on in this Congress.
Well, 3 or 4 weeks ago the Rules Committee passed out to the House of
Representatives three measures. One was to stop all class action
lawsuits. One was to damage the Clean Water Act. The third one was that
no Federal agency would any longer be allowed to do regulations. It
would be done by a group of people set up to do that. I use that
illustration a lot because it shows what we are doing here in the
House.
Anybody who is familiar with sheet music--and that does go back a
long time--when you are playing the piano, do you remember it used to
said ``vamp till ready'' and you would continue playing until the
singer would start to sing?
We have been waiting here for a very long time for the singer to
start to sing. We have no budget. We don't exactly know where we are
going here. The Zika virus is bearing down on us. We have crumbling
infrastructure that everybody is worried about. Kids are still drinking
lead in Flint, Michigan.
But that is not the only place. In almost every city of the old
cities in the Northeast, they still have brick water conduits and wood.
Believe that. The city that I represent has some very, very old pipes
as well.
So the schools in my district--and I am sure in all the rest of your
districts--are finding out that there is lead in the water in their
schools as well.
Well, we are going to mess around here with things that happen. And
then, when Zika comes and we are not ready, I hope that we will--that
we are sitting in this room with people who could do something about
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are considering crucial legislation today impacting two important
issues, ensuring Americans are able to save for retirement and enabling
the education of our next generation.
As any parent knows, the education of our children is one of our
highest priorities. For far too long, children in Washington, D.C.,
have not received the education they deserve, and have suffered from
unacceptable achievement levels and graduation rates.
The SOAR Reauthorization Act, which this rule provides for
consideration of, continues a successful three-

[[Page H2079]]

sector approach to improving the lives and educational outcomes of low-
income students in the District.
It provides $60 million in funding for students, split equally among
D.C.'s public schools, charter schools, and scholarships for students
to attend private schools that would otherwise be out of reach.
Students receiving private school educations have demonstrated higher
test scores and significantly higher graduation rates, showcasing the
importance of continuing students' access to these institutions.
Students participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program
reauthorized in this legislation have graduated at a rate of 90
percent, besting both other schools in D.C. where only 64 percent of
students graduate and the national graduation rate of 82 percent.
These programs are an important example of the need for innovation
and experimentation in how to best reform our education system to
benefit students, not entrenched interests.
It has been an honor for me personally to witness some of the
students who benefited from the programs included in the SOAR
Reauthorization Act. After seeing the hope for the future those
students have in their eyes, I cannot fathom preventing other students
from receiving their own second chances.
It has also been my pleasure over the past several decades to join my
husband in working with a number of financial advisers on how best to
save for retirement and our other financial goals. Those advisers have
always acted in the best interest of our family and provided useful
advice that has enabled us to meet our goals.
Unfortunately, I believe that not everyone in Washington believes
financial advisers are well-intentioned and skilled. It is my fear
that, as private sector actors, not government employees, they are
suspected by some of being motivated by greed and taking any
opportunity available to take their clients' money for their own.

{time} 1300

That is a disturbing viewpoint that has no place in reality. These
advisers work with their friends and neighbors in their home
communities. The larger companies are brands that have been well
established for decades and are subject to significant regulation and
public scrutiny from customers and the marketplace. If there were
widespread fleecing of those saving for retirement, we would all
rightly hear about it.
The reality is that the vast majority of financial advisers, large
and small, have been and will continue to act in their clients' best
interests. There are laws and regulations in place to ensure bad actors
are identified and punished, and I support those enforcement efforts
wholeheartedly.
What I and other Members cannot support is another effort by the
Department of Labor to vilify an industry with real consequences for
the ability of Americans to save affordably for retirement. We must
strengthen our focus on stopping and punishing bad actors instead of
increasing rules and regulations that hinder the countless good actors
in this industry.
We have a retirement savings crisis in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, and
it is vital that every American has access to high-quality advice and
an array of financial products available at a low cost.
We can continue to trust Americans to make the right choice. The
fiduciary rule takes that right away, and therefore, I am pleased to
have an opportunity today to vote on H.J. Res. 88, disapproving the
fiduciary rule.
Mr. Speaker, I believe both the underlying bill and resolution are
necessary steps on issues of great import to our Nation, and I commend
them and this rule, providing for their consideration, to all of my
colleagues for their support.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 706 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. 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.
5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016
to respond to Zika virus. 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 Appropriations and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5044.
____

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.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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-

[[Page H2080]]

minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 706, if ordered, and the
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5019.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 182, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 173]

YEAS--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
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
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
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
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
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
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--182

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
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
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
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
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
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--20

Bishop (UT)
Black
Collins (NY)
Costa
Davis, Rodney
Fitzpatrick
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanna
Issa
Jeffries
MacArthur
Rothfus
Scott, David
Stutzman
Takai
Torres
Van Hollen
Westmoreland
Whitfield

{time} 1323

Messrs. DOGGETT, BISHOP of Georgia, and NORCROSS changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LUETKEMEYER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 173, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
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 234,
nays 183, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 174]

YEAS--234

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
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
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
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
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
Rouzer
Royce
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
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--183

[[Page H2081]]

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
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Collins (NY)
Fitzpatrick
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hanna
Issa
MacArthur
Rothfus
Russell
Scott, David
Stutzman
Takai
Torres
Van Hollen
Westmoreland
Whitfield

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1329

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.

____________________