[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5732-H5737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3438, REQUIRE EVALUATION BEFORE
IMPLEMENTING EXECUTIVE WISHLISTS ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5719, EMPOWERING EMPLOYEES THROUGH STOCK
OWNERSHIP ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND
THE RULES
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 875 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 875
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3438) to amend title 5, United States Code, to
postpone the effective date of high-impact rules pending
judicial review. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5719) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the tax treatment
of certain equity grants. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of September 22, 2016, or September 23, 2016,
for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend
the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or
his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 875, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 3438, the Require Evaluation Before Implementing
Executive Wishlists Act, or the REVIEW Act, and H.R. 5719, the
Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act.
For H.R. 3438, the rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, and also provides for a motion to recommit. The rule also
provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for H.R. 5719
and provides a motion, also, to recommit.
The rule makes in order two amendments to H.R. 3438, representing
ideas from my colleagues across the aisle. Yesterday the Committee on
Rules received testimony from the chairman and ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the
Committee on the Judiciary, as well as testimony from Congressman Erik
Paulsen and Congressman Joe Crowley from the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The REVIEW Act, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Marino), went through regular order and enjoyed a thorough discussion
at both the subcommittee and full committee level. In November of 2015,
the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, of
which I am a member, held a legislative hearing on the bill. The bill
was marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 8, 2016.
Several amendments were considered.
The Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act also went
through regular order. It was passed by voice vote through the
Committee on Ways and Means on September 14. This bill, which has
bipartisan support, would promote employee ownership at startup
companies by addressing the tax treatment of restricted stock issued to
employees.
Both bills represent good governance and provide relief for American
workers and companies. The REVIEW Act is supported by numerous
organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Associated
Builders and Contractors, Forestry Resource Association, the National
Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
and dozens more.
{time} 1330
I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation because it ensures that
American businesses won't have to waste billions of dollars if legally
flawed new rules are thrown out by the courts. The bill is just plain
common sense.
This legislation came about in response to a very real problem. In
Michigan v. EPA, the court held that the EPA's Utility MACT rule was
legally infirm because the EPA decided costs were irrelevant to its
decision to promulgate the rule. Costs of implementing the rule were
estimated to cost $9.6 billion per year, with the intended goal of
achieving benefits of only $4 million to $6 million per year.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Costs of implementing the rule were
estimated to cost $9.6 billion per year, with the intended goal of
achieving benefits of only $4 million to $6 million per year.
It seems that something like this would not be true. Unfortunately,
it is. The EPA issued a rule estimated to cost more than $9 billion per
year, even though the rule was expected to achieve benefits in airborne
mercury emissions of $4 million to $6 million per year. The rule costs
more than 10 times to implement than it brought in benefits.
Even away from the government perspective, there were questions
concerning the actual other benefits as well. You wonder why people are
angry at the Federal Government. Rules like this are a good example.
Even worse, while the court found the rule legally infirm, it failed to
set aside the rule which required businesses to continue to incur
compliance costs, pending remand to the court of appeals.
This rule was not stayed by the courts during a multiyear legal
battle
[[Page H5733]]
to challenge the rule, meaning the whole time the courts were
deliberating, businesses were forced to start implementing the rule and
bear the costs. This is a huge blow to businesses that had to pour time
and money into compliance only to later be told it was a wasted effort
because the legal challenge to the rule was ultimately successful.
To be sure, the successful legal challenge was a victory, but
businesses shouldn't have had to go through years of uncertainty and
billions of wasted dollars while the challenge was pending in the
courts.
The REVIEW Act makes sense. It prevents needless expenditures like
the ones businesses were forced to make while the Utility MACT case was
winding its way through the courts.
You see, the fix is simple. The REVIEW Act requires that, when
agencies promulgate new rules, the rules won't become legally effective
until after the conclusion of litigation challenging them if the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines the rules would impose
$1 billion or more in costs to the economy. Litigants would have up to
60 days after the rule was published to bring litigation, unless
specified otherwise by the particular law the agency rule pertains to.
Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. We aren't talking about this kind
of change for every rule. We are not talking about this kind of change
even for every major rule. We are talking about making this commonsense
amendment for rules that cost over $1 billion to the economy.
Businesses shouldn't be forced to deal with these enormous compliance
costs while it is unclear if the rule will ever even actually come to
fruition. The time and money businesses are currently forced to spend
complying with these rules is time and money taken away from building
the businesses, investing in the community, and creating jobs.
Now, I will admit these billion-dollar rules have been issued by
administrations of both parties in recent years. That is another reason
why Members on both sides of the aisle should support this legislation.
According to the American Action Forum, in fact, from 2006 to 2008,
the Nation averaged two of these rules annually; and from 2009 to
present, the figure has actually increased to roughly three times per
year. This increase in billion-dollar rules should be troubling to all
of us, and businesses run by Republicans and Democrats are suffering
from the effects of complying with these rules even as litigation is
ongoing. Under this administration alone, these billion-dollar rules
are estimated to have imposed total annual costs of $65.1 billion.
According to the American Action Forum, the related paperwork burden
comes out to be about 19.5 million hours.
Since 2005, there have been at least 34 billion-dollar rules, with 24
of those promulgated under the current administration. Thirty-four may
not seem like a large number over the last 11 years, but we have to
remember the extremely high cost of these results and the impact those
costs can have on businesses and the economy.
There may be arguments from those on the other side that affected
parties could receive a stay from the court during litigation, but
stays are hard to obtain and the consequences of not obtaining one can
be very costly.
During a Judiciary Committee hearing on the REVIEW Act, Paul Noe of
the American Forest and Paper Association provided an enlightening
example of the consequences of courts failing to issue stays as the
billion-dollar rule goes forward.
He said in his testimony: ``In 2007, about $2 million in compliance
investments were stranded in the paper and wood products industry when
a court struck down the 2004 Boiler MACT rule just 3 months before the
compliance deadline. When the rules were reissued in 2013, the new
standards had changed significantly, and previous investments proved to
be the wrong approaches to achieve compliance. Wasting limited capital
undermines the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and impedes growth
and job creation.''
Mr. Noe's example is another real-life circumstance of the reason
this bill, the REVIEW Act, is necessary. The last thing we should be
doing is impeding growth and job creation. Instead, we should be
looking to stimulate the economy and getting Americans working.
I know in northeast Georgia, many businesses are struggling due to
the crushing costs of regulations. Many of these are small businesses
that aren't able to employ attorneys and consultants to keep them up-
to-date with the latest edicts from Washington. Instead, they are
forced to spend time and resources figuring out how to deal with the
onslaught of red tape; and that doesn't even take into account the
massive burdens of these billion-dollar regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that not all regulation is bad.
Regulations can help protect public health and safety and ensure needed
worker protections; but regulation that does not make sense, regulation
that has compliance costs that far exceed the benefits, simply doesn't
make sense.
Importantly, in this bill, we aren't trying to prevent more
regulation. We are simply saying that, for rules over a billion
dollars, they shouldn't go into effect until litigation has concluded.
That is common sense. Businesses shouldn't have to waste resources
complying with a huge, new burden for something that might not ever
even come into effect.
This is a narrowly written but important change to the Administrative
Procedure Act that will prevent waste and, hopefully, encourage
agencies to rethink issuing billion-dollar rules.
This is a bill that had plenty of hearing in the Judiciary Committee,
both sides expressing their desires on these issues, and had full
debate and markup.
Both the REVIEW Act and the Empowering Employees through Stock
Ownership Act are smart changes to current law that deserve full and
fair consideration before this House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled to be in session
for 7 days before yet another 6-week-long recess. Instead of addressing
the most pressing issues facing our communities, we are on this floor
with yet another Republican messaging bill to undermine the Federal
rulemaking process.
With all that needs to be done, with all the crises we are facing,
this is what they bring to the floor--a bill, by the way, that is not
going anywhere. It is going nowhere. The President is going to send up
a veto message. The Senate is not even going to take it up.
So what we are spending our time doing, what we are spinning our
wheels about right now is something that, basically, I guess my friends
can use in a press release, but this is not real legislating. And I get
it. Attacking Federal regulations has become a favorite sound bite for
my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are always quick to
remind us of the costs associated with these regulations, but
completely dismiss the very real and typically much larger benefits of
protecting consumers, the environment, public health, and safety.
I am against duplicative regulation. I am against warrantless
regulation or needless regulation. It would be nice if we could
actually function in a bipartisan way to identify where we have common
ground and where there is agreement so that we can make some progress,
but that is not the MO of the Republican leadership in this House. It
is their way or the highway.
H.R. 3438 automatically freezes any covered rule when any lawsuit is
filed, regardless of how frivolous that lawsuit may be, instead of
relying on the discretion and expertise of the courts.
Now, let's be honest with ourselves, Mr. Speaker. This isn't about
good governance and it isn't about ensuring high-impact regulations
pass legal muster. This is yet another election year giveaway to
Republican special interests, and it is that time of year--lots of
fundraisers, lots of political activity. People go home and say they
voted for this bill that is going nowhere. Therefore, vote for them.
This is just yet another Republican effort to indefinitely delay
regulations
[[Page H5734]]
that they don't like--regulations that protect consumers, regulations
that protect public health and that protect our environment.
In fact, one of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it
fails to include any exceptions for rules responding to public health
emergencies.
Can you believe that?
I am disappointed that the Republicans in the Judiciary Committee
rejected Democratic amendments to the bill that would have ensured
lawsuits could not tie up responses to public health emergencies.
Why would anybody be against that?
This is especially troubling as we face major health crises, like the
Zika virus, and rely on our government to protect our public health. We
should be doing everything in our power to find a solution to this
terrible emergency, not passing legislation that can make finding that
solution even harder.
I strongly oppose this misguided and unnecessary legislation, which
does nothing to promote an efficient regulatory process, but delays
regulations needed to protect our public health and safety.
This week the House is also set to consider H.R. 5719, the Empowering
Employees through Stock Ownership Act. By allowing rank-and-file
employees of private companies to defer payments on their stock options
for 7 years, this bill makes it easier for these employees--often
lower-income earners--to receive equity as part of their compensation.
Our economy is recovering, but not for everyone. More and more wealth
is becoming concentrated in the top 1 percent and income inequality is
at its highest levels since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, working
families struggle to make ends meet, often needing several jobs just to
get by.
So I support efforts to allow rank-and-file employees to truly share
in the long-term success of their companies and our greater innovation
economy. I think the majority of us share in that belief. But I do
share the concerns that have been expressed by my Democratic colleagues
during the Ways and Means Committee markup and in the Rules Committee
last night that this bill isn't paid for and adds $1.03 billion to the
deficit. This bill not being paid for adds over a billion dollars to
our deficit.
The Republican leadership in this House routinely refuses to bring up
funding legislation that adequately addresses public health crises.
They demand offsets anytime there is an emergency. When it comes to
increases in our social safety net, we can't do it because we have to
find offsets. But when it comes to tax breaks, there are no limits.
They don't require offsets.
Just last week this House passed an unpaid-for tax cut that, if
enacted, would add almost $33 billion to the deficit. The Ways and
Means Committee has marked up nearly $54 billion worth of unpaid-for
tax cuts just this year.
There was a time when caring about the deficit and the debt was
something my Republican friends would talk about, but I guess that is
no longer the case. So when my Republican friends talk about their
commitment to fiscal responsibility, I have to ask: Why the double
standard?
We can't help the people of Flint, Michigan, but we can pass tax
breaks and tax cuts and not have to pay for them. By the way, the vast
majority of tax cuts that my Republican friends support go to the
wealthiest people in this country, not to the middle class.
We are told we have to fully offset emergency responses, as I said,
to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan; the opioid epidemic; flooding
disasters; and the growing threat of the Zika virus, but yet we don't
have to pay for tax cuts. I just don't quite get it.
Last night, in the Rules Committee, my friends and colleagues, Joe
Crowley and Anna Eshoo, Democratic cosponsors of this bill, offered an
amendment to offset the over $1 billion cost by increasing a tax on oil
barrels by two cents. That is just two cents that they would increase
the cost. But what is important for people to remember is that what
that means for the consumer is five one-thousandths of a penny on a
gallon of gas.
{time} 1345
So in order to offset something that we think is a good benefit, and
to pay for it, it would cost consumers five one-thousandths of a penny
on a gallon of gas. Most people that I talk to I don't believe think
that that is an unreasonable thing, the choice between adding to the
deficit, which, by the way, we all pay for anyway, or basically paying
for things as we go. And so five one-thousandths of a penny on a gallon
of gas, in order to offset the cost of this bill, I don't think, is
unreasonable.
Now, this amendment was not made in order for consideration on the
House floor because my Republican colleagues insisted that the offset
was not germane to the bill.
But the House Rules Committee has the power to waive germaneness and
other rules, and frequently does so, when it suits the needs of the
majority. And during this Congress alone, Republicans on the Rules
Committee have granted 245 waivers; 242, or 98 percent of them, have
been for Republican initiatives. So they do it all the time when they
want to.
So, Mr. Speaker, we had the ability to move the Crowley-Eshoo
amendment to the floor for consideration, but Republicans in the Rules
Committee blocked our efforts to responsibly pay for the costs
associated with this change in tax law.
Now, I appreciate the work of my colleagues in promoting employee
ownership among all of a company's workers, not just those at the top.
But I do have some serious concerns about this majority's insistence
that emergency relief and other priorities be offset while tax cuts are
able to sail through this House without a second thought and not be
paid for. That is the wrong approach.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would just like to make one comment, and then I think my friend
from Massachusetts and I can look around. Nobody is beating our door
down for time here.
There are no billion-dollar public health issues that were brought up
that this--it doesn't waive for a billion-dollar public health
emergency. In fact, probably if we did have over-a-billion-dollar
health emergency, we could handle it better through statutory change
than through a regulatory agency doing this. So it is an argument, but
it is not a valid argument, I believe, in this case.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am going to urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous
question, vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
the bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation that would allow the Attorney
General to bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the
FBI's terrorist watch list.
Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. There have been more than 10,000
gun-related deaths in this country this year alone. The country cannot
tolerate the indifference on this issue any longer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Donovan). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks,
we have only a few days left here before there is another recess, and
we have incredible challenges before us. We have an opioid crisis in
this country. We passed legislation that said all the right things, but
the funding to fund all those nice things wasn't following.
We are confronted with a Zika virus crisis, and the American people
are expecting us to do something, and this House has been twiddling its
thumbs for far too long. The time for action is now.
We have a water crisis in Flint, Michigan; can't seem to get anything
done in this House. Yet, those poor people can't drink the water out of
their faucets and have been poisoned for years as a result of the
indifference on that situation.
[[Page H5735]]
On the issue of gun violence, I mean, every day somebody gets killed
in gun violence. We have tried to bring up a bill that would require
universal background checks. I don't care what your position on guns
is, I think we all should be able to agree that there ought to be
universal background checks.
Right now, if you go into a licensed gun dealer, you have to go
through a background check. But you get around that if you go to a gun
show or buy a gun online.
I think everybody, I don't care what your philosophy is, should want
to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and people who are
dangerously mentally ill. I don't know why that is such a controversy
in this House of Representatives. Yet, we can't even get the leadership
to allow us to bring that bill to the floor.
On the issue that the previous question is about, which is the no
fly, no buy list, I don't think there is anybody in this country who
can understand why we think it is okay to, on one hand, say to somebody
who is on an FBI terrorist watch list: we are concerned about you so
much that you can't fly on an airplane. But, at the same time, say:
well, okay, but you can go out and buy a gun; you can buy an assault
weapon; and you can go out and buy a weapon of war.
That doesn't make any sense. People can't quite get why we can't come
together on that. But even if you don't want to vote for that, you
ought to let us have that debate and that vote.
These are the kinds of issues that we should be talking about. Yet,
we are doing message bills that are going nowhere, again, not just
because the President wants to veto them, it is because the Senate
won't even take some of these things up.
So in these few days we have left, let's do something radical. Let's
actually do the people's business. Let's do something that is going to
help people in this country and improve their quality of life and
protect them.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and
a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think we have made our case
for the rule. I think it needs to be passed--also the underlying bills.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 875 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 875 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House
Resolution 875, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 876; adopting House Resolution 876, if ordered; and
suspending the rules and passing the following bills: H.R. 3957, H.R.
5659, H.R. 5713, and H.R. 5613.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 171, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 524]
YEAS--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
[[Page H5736]]
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--171
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
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)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Bishop (UT)
Brooks (IN)
Capuano
Clarke (NY)
Dent
Deutch
Farr
Garamendi
Grijalva
Higgins
Larson (CT)
Marchant
Meehan
Moore
Neugebauer
Perlmutter
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Tiberi
Walters, Mimi
{time} 1413
Mses. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, GRAHAM, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Ms.
BONAMICI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 524, I was at an Ethics
Committee hearing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 524, I was
unavoidably detained at an Ethics Committee meeting. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted rollcall No. 524, ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 181, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 525]
AYES--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
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
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
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)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
[[Page H5737]]
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Grijalva
Hill
Lynch
Moore
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Tiberi
Walters, Mimi
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1420
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.
Stated for:
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 525, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
____________________