[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.''

                          ____________________