[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

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio

[[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.

                          ____________________