[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9860-H9868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2396, PRIVACY NOTIFICATION 
 TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
     4015, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2017

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 657 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 657

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2396) to 
     amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to update the exception for 
     certain annual notices provided

[[Page H9861]]

     by financial institutions. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services 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 Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
     designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 
     the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question; and (3) 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. 4015) to 
     improve the quality of proxy advisory firms for the 
     protection of investors and the U.S. economy, and in the 
     public interest, by fostering accountability, transparency, 
     responsiveness, and competition in the proxy advisory firm 
     industry. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-46 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 Financial Services; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity, over the last 
couple of weeks, to bring a number of bills from the Financial Services 
Committee to the floor. We talk so much about regular order and having 
a process where the committees are doing their work, where the 
authorizers are deep into the details, and then we are bringing those 
bills to the floor for the entire House to vote on. We have that 
opportunity again today.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule today brings two bills to the floor: H.R. 2396, 
which is the Privacy Notification Technical Clarification Act, it 
brings that under a structured rule, making in order the only amendment 
that was offered, a bipartisan amendment, offered by Mr. Clay and Mr. 
Trott; and it also brings H.R. 4015 to the floor, Mr. Speaker, which is 
the Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017. We did 
not have any germane amendments offered to that measure in the Rules 
Committee last night, so we bring that under a closed rule today.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues--as is the way of my chairman on 
the Rules Committee--notice was sent out to all Members, and will 
continue to be sent out to all Members, for each set of bills that we 
consider in the Rules Committee soliciting any amendments or ideas that 
folks may have. We sent out that notification, but, for these two 
bills, we received only one germane amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I won't go into great detail about these individual 
bills because we are fortunate to have the sponsors here on the floor 
for the rule today. But what I do want to say is that this is another 
series in a line of commonsense, authorizing pieces of legislation, 
things that move through committee in a bipartisan way, that are going 
to make life just a little bit easier for the American people.
  We have a chance today, if we support this noncontroversial rule, to 
bring these two noncontroversial bills to the floor and make that 
difference together, a difference we all came to Washington to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to consider supporting this 
rule as well as supporting the two underlying pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule that we are 
looking at today has two bills under it, and this is the 56th closed 
rule allowing no amendments that we are bringing to the floor this 
year. Over the past year, we have not considered any legislation under 
an open rule that would allow Republicans or Democrats to bring forward 
amendments here on the floor.
  When the 115th Congress opened, Speaker Ryan promised regular order 
bills would make their way to the floor after hearings and markups. 
Instead, we have seen bill after bill rushed to the floor. Many bills 
haven't even gone through committee or skipped hearings. That is true 
for the failed healthcare bill, and it is also true for the tax bill 
currently in conference, the major bill this Congress.
  This tax bill, that somehow we understand there is a ``deal'' on 
before the conference committee even met, was crafted behind closed 
doors, and no Member was able to offer their ideas on the House floor. 
I offered several bipartisan amendments in the Rules Committee, but 
they were locked out, as were amendments from every other Democrat and 
Republican that chose to offer amendments.
  The tax legislation would explode our debt. It is a giveaway to 
wealthy corporations and does nothing to help the middle class.
  Now, the benefit of having an open process is creating better ideas: 
having Democrats and Republicans bring forward those ideas, see who can 
muster a majority of votes here on the floor of the House, and include 
that in a tax bill. We are a legislature. That is how we are supposed 
to work.
  Instead, a bill was crafted behind closed doors to raise taxes on 78 
million Americans and add $1.7 trillion to the debt. When you add to 
the debt, that is a tax on future Americans. Instead of taxing them 
today, you are taxing them tomorrow. The tax-and-spend Republican Party 
continues to add to the deficit and add to the debt day after day after 
day.
  Mr. Speaker, we only have a few legislative days left before the end 
of the year, and we have very important work to do, like reauthorizing 
the Children's Health Insurance Program and funding the government for 
the remainder of the fiscal year.
  There are millions of Americans who have been negatively affected by 
devastating hurricanes and wildfires in Puerto Rico, Texas, Florida, 
and the Virgin Islands, and Congress has not stepped up to the plate.
  There are also over 800,000 aspiring Americans who are at risk of 
being deported from the only country they have ever known as home 
because of the reckless actions of President Trump. Congress needs to 
act to find a real solution so DREAMers can continue to work legally in 
the communities that they live in, and they continue to thrive and give 
back to make our country even greater.
  We have a lot of critical tasks ahead, which is why I am really 
surprised, with all of this work to do, and only 7 or 8 days to do it, 
that here we are considering two bills where we will have our debate, 
but they are not bills of great importance. We are using our floor 
time--very limited, 7 days before the end of the year--when we could be 
debating tax reform and offering amendments, when we could be 
addressing the needs of the DREAMers, where we could actually be doing 
something about the deficit, reining in out-of-control wasteful 
government spending. We are not doing any of that.

  We are doing two minor bills that are favors for public companies, or 
whoever they are. I am happy to talk about them. I am going to do my 
role in debating them. One I am even fairly supportive of. But they are 
completely separated from the actual concerns of the American people.

[[Page H9862]]

  No wonder the approval rating of this institution is under 15 
percent, because we continue to debate these minor bills under a closed 
process, when, this very week, we could have had an open process for 
tax reform. We could be voting on 10 or 20 amendments a day, passing 
some and rejecting some. I have no problem if I bring forward some 
Democratic amendment and it fails. That is the process. That is fair.
  But we have bipartisan, commonsense amendments that should be part of 
tax reform. Representative Schweikert and I have a bill to provide a de 
minimis exemption on taxation for use of cryptocurrencies, to allow 
them to be used for amounts under $600 in everyday purchases and to 
remove the specter of IRS enforcement.
  Let's put it in. Let's have a vote on it. Let's see if a majority of 
Congress agrees with me. I hope they do. If not, I am a big boy. It is 
my job. I can go home. But to not even be able to fight for the issues 
that my constituents have hired me to fight for is not only the 
frustration I have, and not only the frustration many Republicans have, 
but it is the frustration the American people have with this 
institution.
  Now, let's get to these bills. Typically, the Financial Services 
Committee did not hold a hearing on either of these rules. It is a 
closed rule.
  The first one, H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical 
Clarification Act, would remove privacy notice requirements for 
financial institutions to consumers that share or sell a customer's 
personal information with third parties.
  We are all for reducing unnecessary regulations. When I get to the 
next bill, the Republicans are actually trying to add paperwork and 
regulations. This one does, but it picks a very poor one to get rid of. 
It gets rid of privacy notices for financial institutions that tell 
consumers that they can share or sell their personal information. Of 
all of the places to cut paperwork, why would you want to cut the one 
piece that consumers and retail investors actually care about?
  Back in September, 143 million Americans had their personal and 
sensitive information shared widely, as a result of a data breach at 
Equifax. Congress should be looking at ways to better secure our 
sensitive information--a cybersecurity bill, better information 
sharing--instead of actually making it easier for our personal 
information to be shared more widely and giving you, as the consumer, 
less ability to find out where it is being shared.
  A hearing would be helpful to understand the full effects of this 
legislation to see what the unintended consequences are. We do know 
that it would eliminate clear disclosure to consumers about their 
privacy rights--never a good thing, especially in these times--
including a consumer's ability to opt out from having their information 
sold to certain third parties. We can do better.
  The other bill, H.R. 4015, the Corporate Governance Reform and 
Transparency Act, makes a change to how proxy advisory firms provide 
information to shareholders. It would require that they make their 
recommendations available to companies.
  This bill is problematic from a number of perspectives. Here is what 
it does. Proxy advisory firms provide independent advisory services for 
investors and have fiduciary responsibility to their investors.
  Under this legislation, they would actually have to open themselves 
up to lobbying for companies and add additional paperwork. They would 
have to register with the SEC, whereas they now don't, before trying to 
issue vote recommendations or trying to change the corporate board.
  Here is who the players are in this fight: On the one hand, you have 
public companies; on the other, you have investors, which means your 
pension fund, and mine, Mr. Speaker. It means university endowments. I 
know you all don't like those, and you are going to tax them soon. It 
means, perhaps, using an individual investor, through a mutual fund or 
other vehicle. So investors on one side, public corporations on the 
other.
  But the problem is: it is not the shareholders of the public 
companies, it is the insular governance and management structure of 
those organizations. Many of them do need to be shaken up in the name 
of efficiency.
  There are many examples of investor pressure that has been applied to 
good effect: to meaningful reforms and corporate governance; preventing 
conflict of interest, making sure that the board oversees the CEO are 
not just his golfing buddies, and he is on the board, or she is on the 
board, of their companies, too.
  I have generally been on the side of investor empowerment in that: 
not to the extreme, not to make it impossible to be a CEO on a publicly 
traded company, to run a publicly traded company. But, if anything, we 
should make sure that the actual owners of the companies are empowered 
to make the changes they need to increase efficiency.

                              {time}  1415

  This bill goes the wrong way. It adds red tape and paperwork. It adds 
regulations to investors and prevents them from being able to exert 
influence in the same way they do today, adding one degree of 
additional regulation and paperwork to allow them to do the kinds of 
good governance activities in terms of running competitive fights for 
boards of directors.
  Now, I get that there is another side. There can be a steamy 
underbelly to investor engagement as well. There are some investors who 
only care about short-term gains, who try to institute practices or 
bully management around in a way that is not conducive to long-term 
value but, rather, just pump-and-dump schemes that they try to make 
money off of, and I totally get that.
  But in general, it is the owners of a company to whom the fiduciary 
responsibility of the directors and the CEO lie; and we should empower 
them, for better or for worse, to make the changes to increase the 
overall productivity of the company.
  We should not burden investors with additional red tape, as 
Republicans are doing, by creating more bureaucracy and paperwork and 
compliance costs with this bill.
  Frankly, I was surprised to see this bill come out of Financial 
Services Committee because Republicans have been fairly consistent in 
trying to remove regulations from Dodd-Frank. That has generally been 
the approach. I supported the removal of some of those unnecessary 
regulations. Others are important regulations, like this privacy 
disclosure that I don't think is a good idea.
  But here, they are actually adding reporting requirements above and 
beyond Dodd-Frank. They are out ``Dodd-Franking'' Dodd-Frank. 
Republicans are saying there is not enough reporting; there is not 
enough paperwork; there is not enough money going to lawyers and 
accountants. In Dodd-Frank, we are going to require that they file even 
more paperwork with the SEC.
  I think that is the wrong way to go, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist this effort to burden 
shareholders who actually own companies with additional costs and 
paperwork and prevent them from making necessary management 
improvements to the companies that, at the end of the day, are run for 
them, not for the benefit of management.
  That is why I oppose this bill. Shareholders should have a right to 
impartial information about the company in which they have invested. We 
should minimize paperwork where possible. I have been proud to support 
a number of bipartisan proposals to do that. This bill goes the 
opposite way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say sometimes there is a lot of pressure on the Rules Committee. You 
come down here and you have got some of the most knowledgeable folks on 
both sides of the issue, on both sides of the Chamber, and you have got 
to be prepared to refute detail after detail after detail that might 
confuse folks back home.
  It gives me great pleasure today to not have to spend any time 
refuting anything that my friend just said because the important thing 
about developing a reputation is that it is just laughable to suggest 
that Republicans are coming to the floor today to undermine privacy. It 
is laughable to suggest that Republicans are coming to the floor today 
to increase paperwork and red tape. And it is not only laughable,

[[Page H9863]]

but it is inaccurate to suggest that it is Republicans coming to do 
this, Mr. Speaker. These are bipartisan bills coming to the floor 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Trott). His bill passed out of committee 40-20; a huge bipartisan vote 
coming out of committee. It went through a hearing; it went through a 
markup; it was everything that makes this institution work properly. I 
appreciate him for bringing the issue forward to talk about the 
tremendous bipartisan effort that he has put together.
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding 
and for his hard work on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule today, which allows for 
consideration of H.R. 2396, the Privacy Notification Technical 
Clarification Act.
  I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Hensarling for guiding 
this bill through committee, and Chairman Sessions for his work on 
bringing this rule to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Clay for his 
very helpful amendment.
  One of the reasons I came to Congress was to reduce the regulatory 
burden in our country so that businesses could have the freedom to 
grow, thrive, and create jobs for hardworking Americans. This bill is 
about modernizing one of those outdated regulations that has been a 
burden to businesses and consumers alike, the privacy notification 
rules.
  Now, a couple of minutes ago, my friend from Colorado gave a very 
nice speech about DACA, about tax reform, about the public opinion of 
this institution; but the speech had nothing to do with consideration 
of this rule today. When he finally got around to talking about the 
rule, he said we should not allow the rule to move forward because the 
underlying bill, H.R. 2396, in light of the Equifax scandal, we should 
not be eliminating privacy notices and allow banks to circumvent those 
rules because it is going to hurt consumers.
  None of this is correct. This bill is a very simple bill. It deals 
with auto finance companies and it relieves them from the burden of 
having to send out privacy notices to consumers year after year when 
the policy hasn't changed. If the auto finance companies change the 
policy, they have to send out new privacy notices. If a consumer calls 
up and says, ``I know the policy hasn't change, but I would like to see 
the rule,'' they can go on the website or they can ask that the policy 
be mailed to them. This bill in no way harms consumers.
  Now, just last year, we passed the bipartisan bill that allowed banks 
to stop sending privacy notices to consumers if nothing in the policy 
had changed. This noncontroversial measure passed by voice vote, with 
Members on both sides of aisle realizing that companies were wasting 
enormous amounts of paper and money sending out duplicative and 
unnecessary privacy notices year after year.

  The bill achieved its goal. Millions of dollars that would have been 
spent on paper and postage were instead put back into our local 
communities. My bill builds on this success and extends the provision 
to companies lending money to people buying vehicles.
  This means that those who extend credit to consumers who buy vehicles 
from Ford, GM, Harley-Davidson, and other iconic American companies 
would receive the same benefit as banks, and, more importantly, 
consumers would no longer be bombarded with a never-ending stream of 
little print privacy notices and policies that haven't changed.
  This is a bipartisan, commonsense measure. I encourage my colleagues 
to support the rule and allow debate to begin on this legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I include in the Record the Republican bill summary from the majority 
on the Rules Committee for H.R. 4015.

                           Committee on Rules

               Pete Sessions, Chairman--December 11, 2017

  H.R. 4015--Corporate Governance Reform and Transparency Act of 2017

       Purpose: To improve the quality of proxy advisory firms for 
     the protection of investors and the U.S. economy, and in the 
     public interest, by fostering accountability, transparency, 
     responsiveness, and competition in the proxy advisory firm 
     industry.
       Background and Legislative History: Each year, public 
     companies hold shareholder meetings at which the company's 
     shareholders vote for the company's directors and on other 
     significant corporate actions that require shareholder 
     approval. As part of this annual process, the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission (SEC) requires public companies to 
     provide their shareholders with a proxy statement before 
     shareholder meetings. A proxy statement includes all 
     important facts about the matters to be voted on at a 
     shareholder meeting, including, for example, information on 
     board of director candidates, director compensation, 
     executive compensation, related party transactions, 
     securities ownership by certain beneficial owners and 
     management, and eligible shareholder proposals. The 
     information contained in the statement must be filed with the 
     SEC before soliciting a shareholder vote on the election of 
     directors and the approval of other corporate actions. 
     Solicitations, whether by management or shareholders, must 
     disclose all important facts about the issues on which 
     shareholders are asked to vote.
       In general, state corporate law governs shareholder voting 
     rights, including the types of corporate actions that require 
     shareholder approval. However, Section 14 of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) authorizes the SEC to 
     promulgate rules governing the solicitation of proxies for 
     most public companies. SEC Regulation 14A governs proxy 
     solicitations and sets forth the categories of information 
     that must be disclosed in proxy solicitations.
       Largely as a result of the SEC's regulations, proxy 
     advisory firms now wield outsized influence in the U.S. proxy 
     system. In particular, regulators, market participants, and 
     academic observers have highlighted potential conflicts of 
     interest inherent in the business models and activities of 
     proxy advisory firms. For example, as indicated above, proxy 
     advisor firms may feel pressured by their largest clients--
     many of whom are activist investors--to issue vote 
     recommendations that reflect those clients' specific agendas. 
     In addition, proxy advisory firms often provide voting 
     recommendations to investment advisers on matters for which 
     they also provide consulting services to public companies.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the reason I do this is, my colleague from 
Georgia somehow said that it was laughable, this characterization that 
it is adding paperwork.
  That is exactly what this bill does. In fact, in this exhibit, this 
is a Republican summary of their own bill. It says: ``The information 
contained in the statement must be filed with the SEC. . . .''
  The whole bill is about adding paperwork. That is what the bill does. 
You can argue it is paperwork all you want because corporate CEOs want 
it and many existing board members want it. Investors don't want it. 
But we are talking about additional paperwork, and there is nothing in 
that statement that you can refute because the Republican bill summary 
explains that that is what they are doing. I mean, there is no 
disagreement.
  And he is correct. I am sure there are some Democrats who support 
these bills, some Republicans who support them, some Republicans and 
Democrats who might oppose these bills, but that is what the bill does, 
it adds paperwork. That is why I mentioned I was surprised to see it 
come out of the Financial Services Committee that, in general, had been 
more interested in reducing paperwork. Here, they are interested in 
adding compliance cost and paperwork to investors.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Sean Patrick Maloney's 
bill, H.R. 4585, which would block the FCC's rule rolling back net 
neutrality from taking effect to ensure the internet remains open to 
all Americans.
  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. Mitchell). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney) to discuss the 
proposal.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so we can turn our attention to the issue that is so 
critical for this body to address right now. I speak of the Federal 
Communications Commission's decision and its assault on net neutrality.
  The FCC is expected to vote tomorrow to eliminate the rules that 
protect

[[Page H9864]]

our internet. They are about to fix something that is not broken.
  Now, maybe the words ``net neutrality'' make your eyes glaze over, 
but this issue is critical to anyone who uses the internet, which is 
really all of us, and it is not that complicated.
  We call the rules that protect the current internet ``net 
neutrality'' because they, more or less, keep the internet neutral for 
everyone. A neutral internet means we all have access to the same legal 
content and services no matter where or how we get our internet.
  These rules aren't new, and they are working. In fact, when you think 
about it, one of the last places where quality really reigns in our 
society is on the internet. We don't discriminate against the content 
or the intellectual creations of one young entrepreneur versus a big 
business or an established entity. It is one of the few places left in 
America where we are all on equal footing.
  That is the current net neutrality system that we must protect. The 
folks who want to end net neutrality say they need to rewrite these 
rules to spur innovation.
  Really, Mr. Speaker?
  It is hard to look at the internet as it has blossomed in America and 
say we lack innovation. Innovation is everywhere. Look at all the new 
apps, websites, devices, and services that we all rely on every day.
  This innovation exists not in spite of net neutrality. This 
innovation exists, in large part, because of net neutrality. Net 
neutrality is not a bug, Mr. Speaker. Net neutrality is a feature, and 
that is why we must protect it.
  Of course, the real reason that people want to end net neutrality is 
money and profitability. Getting rid of net neutrality would expose 
consumers to all sorts of practices that, right now, are banned; 
practices like throttling, which means the internet company doesn't 
have to provide the same access to all companies. So they don't like 
one company, they can slow down your access to that site. They could 
block the site entirely.
  They could tell a streaming service, like Netflix, that they have to 
pay more or make their site work differently. These extra costs for 
Netflix are going to get passed on to all of us, the consumers.
  While some of us have a few choices when it comes to internet service 
providers, most of us don't.
  How many have more than one option when it comes to internet in your 
home or office?
  These companies have a functional monopoly, so many of them can do 
basically whatever they want and not lose customers. That is why we 
need some commonsense rules in place to protect consumers. These rules 
are called net neutrality.
  So what can we do to stop the FCC from harming this free internet?
  Well, I have introduced legislation in just the last couple of days 
that would block this proposal and protect the internet. H.R. 4585, the 
Save Net Neutrality Act, would simply prevent the FCC from relying on 
this process they have used to roll these rules back. It is really that 
simple. And we know the FCC's rulemaking process was so messed up, so 
corrupted, so screwed up that it is being investigated right now by the 
New York attorney general.
  So I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat 
the previous question so we can move to debate my bill, the Save Net 
Neutrality Act, and address this critical issue. This is our chance to 
protect the internet, as it has always existed, an internet that is 
working fine as it is.
  To the FCC, we say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I agree with my friend. I, too, said to the FCC in 2015: If 
it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  I thought the first 20-plus years of the internet were marked by 
innovation and freedom, and I wanted to keep that innovation and 
freedom flowing.
  The Obama administration wanted to insert itself into the internet 
infrastructure in ways that it had never inserted government in 
infrastructure before. And from the numbers that I have seen--my friend 
may have different numbers--suggests that infrastructure investment has 
declined over those 2 years, first time in the history of internet 
infrastructure investment.
  Mr. Speaker, reasonable men and women can disagree, but, understand, 
internet freedom and innovation is exactly what we all want to protect. 
Unfortunately, it is not what this rule is focused on today. This rule 
today is focused on simplification and expansion coming out of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the gentlemen I had the pleasure of being elected 
with in 2011 is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy). He is one of 
the sponsors of one of these bills we have before us today. He has been 
a leader in the financial services field in his 7 years here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Duffy) to talk about the impact that his legislation will have on the 
process today.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Before I get to my bill, if I could just address a few points that 
have been brought up in this debate, which I am surprised at the fact 
that the Rules Committee doesn't actually talk about the rule. We talk 
about a whole bunch of different issues, but maybe I am new to this 
game.
  I have to say that the gentleman from Georgia is correct. 
Infrastructure investment in the internet has gone down over the last 2 
years.
  I would agree: If it is not broken, why did President Obama try to 
fix it?
  It was working really well for 20 years, and we had great innovation.
  In regard to the tax bill, that is being debated. I think we are 
looking at some unique arguments that are being made. The Democrats are 
over there and they are fighting for the poor middle class American, 
and all Republicans are fighting for the rich. It is a great line. I 
love the line. But let's look to the wealthiest communities in America.

                              {time}  1430

  Go look right outside of D.C. Look in Northern Virginia. Are those 
wealthy communities, those counties in Virginia, are they Republican or 
Democrat? They are Democrat. L.A., San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, New 
York are all really rich communities that elect Democrats.
  The wealthiest and biggest corporations, think of the tech industry 
in California or the biggest in America. What are they? They are 
Democrats. And that is why. When the tax debate comes up, you see 
Democrats fighting for loopholes and preferences for their big, wealthy 
friends.
  And that is why, when Republicans here in this House said maybe to 
write off the mortgage interest on a $1 million home, that might be a 
little too much, maybe we should lower it to $500,000 of mortgage 
interest deductions, my Democratic friends freaked out.
  Oh, no, the poor, middle class people in my community who have a $1 
million mortgage, they are just having a tough time getting by--that 
was the argument that was made, fighting for the loopholes and 
preferences for the wealthiest Americans, while we are fighting for the 
middle class.
  You talk about investment in my bill? You want to talk about pension 
funds? What has happened to pension funds in America? What has happened 
to American 401(k)'s? They have gone through the roof because we are 
lowering rules and regulations in a smart way, and we are going to 
reform our Tax Code to let families and businesses keep more of their 
income because they can spend it better than anyone in this town. They 
do it well.
  So if you want to tank the markets, do what you have been doing and 
tank tax reform.
  I want to get to my bill. This is on proxy advisory firms. I have 
taken awhile to get here, but the role of proxy advisory firms in the 
U.S. economy and shaping corporate governance is profound. These firms, 
they counsel pension funds and mutual funds and institutional investors 
on how to vote the shares of the corporations that they own.
  You think, well, that is pretty benign. That is not a big issue.
  Well, the shares of institutional investors' ownership in 1987 was 46 
percent. Today, institutional investors own 75 percent of American 
corporations, billions of shares institutional investors control and 
look to proxy advisers for advice.

[[Page H9865]]

  There are just two firms that control 97 percent of the market. So 
two companies, basically, are having a huge influence on American 
corporate governance, and they are involved in the writing and analysis 
and reports and voting recommendations that affect fundamental 
corporate transactions like mergers and acquisitions, approval of 
corporate directors and shareholder proposals--a huge impact on 
corporate governance.
  And they are not immune from conflicts of interest. For example, in 
addition to providing recommendations to institutional investors about 
how to vote, proxy advisory firms may also advise companies about 
corporate governance issues, rate companies on corporate governance, 
help companies approve those ratings, and advise proponents about how 
to frame proposals to get the most votes.
  I am going to come back to that in a second, but there was a Stanford 
University study that said institutional investors with assets under 
management of $100 billion or more, they only make 10 percent of the 
voting decisions, which means they offload 90 percent to proxy advisory 
firms.
  So I don't know if you are familiar with the Mafia, but you have got 
the old storekeeper on the block, and he is robbed one night--right?--
gets beaten up and robbed, and the next day, the thugs come in and go: 
Hey, hey, I hear you were robbed last night. You pay a little fee, 
we'll take care of you and make sure you are not robbed anymore.
  That is exactly what proxy advisory firms are doing. They are like: 
Oh, you got a bad recommendation. Let me tell you what. You buy our 
services, and we can help you in the future. Just pay the ransom, and 
we will help take care of you in future recommendations.
  This is not the way corporate governance should work. So my bill 
brings transparency and accountability to proxy advisory firms.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. DUFFY. I thought that is what Democrats want: making them more 
responsive; bringing more competition into the industry; making it 
better for investors; specifically, again, a bipartisan bill. 
Republicans and Democrats voted for this legislation.
  But we will ensure that proxy advisory firms are registered with the 
SEC. Oh, how bad is that, registering with the SEC, a little oversight?
  We are going to disclose potential conflicts of interest. How radical 
is that idea?
  Shouldn't we tell people that we have a conflict of interest, and 
shouldn't all parties be aware of it?
  I don't know why my friends across the aisle, or the gentleman from 
Colorado would be opposed to that.
  Maintain a code of ethics. That is not shocking. I think most people 
would agree to that point.
  And make publicly available the methodologies for formulating proxy 
recommendations and analysis.
  Again, this is transparency. This is a commonsense bill that both 
Republicans and Democrats have voted for because we have recognized--
and again, I am not a big regulation guy, as the gentleman from 
Colorado had pointed out. But when you consolidate a great deal of 
power in two companies that have a huge impact on American corporate 
governance, that makes a lot of people uncomfortable; and to have a 
little more oversight, to have a little more transparency, to have a 
little more accountability is a really, really good thing.
  Some of the smallest companies have been the biggest complainers 
about how these proxy advisory firms have held them hostage. So let's 
support the small innovators, the big job creators in America that are 
complaining about the big proxy advisory firms. Let's stand with them 
and the families that they employ, and the future families, if they are 
successful, that they will employ, and let's give a little more control 
to proxy adviser firms.

  I ask all to support this great bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I can see my good friend, Mr. Duffy, is very excited about this, very 
engaged. It is a hard issue. I don't think many Democrats are that 
excited either way. They are all going to decide where they stand 
because it is just a fight between corporate CEOs and big institutional 
investors. They are both fine. I mean, you have got to pick one or the 
other in voting ``yes'' or ``no'' on this bill.
  I think, as Democrats, we are more interested in how the people are 
doing who are working for those companies. How are we doing about 
sustainable practices over time?
  Yes, every Democrat and Republican will cast their vote here either 
for institutional investors or for corporate CEOs and insular boards. 
Fine.
  It does add paperwork. We talked about that. Mr. Duffy said: Oh, it 
adds paperwork. Democrats should like it.
  Yes, maybe there are some. I think some Democrats voted for it in 
committee. There are Democrats that want to increase paperwork. I am 
not one of them. I want to decrease paperwork and streamline it.
  But, no, I am sure there will be some Democrats who support it. There 
are probably Democrats who, themselves, agree with the corporate CEOs 
over the institutional investors.
  I have taken a company public. I have run private companies. I have 
seen this world. I think it is a good thing that the share of 
institutional investment has increased. I don't have the statistics in 
front of me. The gentleman from Wisconsin said something along the 
lines of 46 to 75 percent of the capital is institutional.
  The big problem in public corporate governance is not too much 
shareholder engagement; it is not enough. When you have a diffuse 
shareholder base, when you don't have institutional investors, when you 
have, proverbially, 200 people who each own half a percent of the 
company or even more and they never talk and don't know each other, the 
ability of management to run amok in their own interests, to the 
detriment of the shareholders, plagues our public marketplaces.
  So to have sophisticated, active investors who own enough and can 
work together, sometimes through these proxy fights when it comes to 
it, to be able to maximize long-term value is a good thing. It is a 
good thing.
  Of course, everybody can point to times that it has been good for 
companies and times it has been bad. Generally speaking, this bill is 
adding paperwork to move the bar the wrong way, to move it towards 
management, away from shareholders.
  I agree you need a balance. I wouldn't support a bill that moved it 
all the way to shareholders either. You are just encouraging agitators 
to get in on a short-term basis and speculative basis.
  But I think we are close to the right place; and if you ask me where 
I would move it, I would move it a little the other way to empower 
shareholders. In fact, I have a bill that does that. It is part of a 
bigger bill, but it is a bill that gives shareholders more of a direct 
say over the pay of top executives because, again, there is a problem 
with insular corporate boards. Part of the answer is empowering 
institutional investors and empowering individual investors.
  So, look, Democrats will hold their nose and vote for either 
corporate CEOs or for big investors, and that is fine. I firmly think 
that the best interests of our economy and the people and 
sustainability lie in moving it toward the investors.
  This bill moves it the wrong way and adds paperwork and costs to the 
investors. So I really think it moves the wrong way, which is why I 
oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  There was also a discussion, Mr. Duffy mentioned why aren't we just 
talking about the rule. It is because, Mr. Speaker, like 56 other 
rules, it is a closed rule.
  What else can we say about closed rules? We have said everything. 
There are no amendments. I could spend an hour complaining about how 
they are not allowing amendments in and it is closed and so are 56 
other rules, but it is more productive to get to the underlying issues 
because we have had the debate on closed rules 56 times just in the 
last 10 months.
  That is a record, Mr. Speaker. You should be proud of presiding over 
a record number of closed rules for a United States Congress. But it is 
not very interesting to talk about for another hour.

[[Page H9866]]

  So they will talk about an interesting bill, a minor bill. I think I 
discussed that. I mean, we have a government shutdown; we have an issue 
with tax reform; we have DREAMers; we have a million things we could be 
doing. This is a minor bill.
  Okay. Let's talk about the merits of giving the current corporate 
boards that might be too insular and the current CEOs and management a 
little more power, like this bill does, by increasing red tape and 
paperwork on investors versus the merits of empowering investors. Fine, 
we will have that discussion. We will cast our ballots. We will see 
what happens.
  Another issue that is very important and timely that this Congress 
should get to is the one my good friend Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney 
raised. When we defeat the previous question, we can bring up an issue 
that, again, is not a partisan issue.
  As the cofounder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, said, the end of net 
neutrality would end the internet as we know it. It is an issue every 
American citizen is looking to us to take leadership on.
  In my time in office, I have had to make a number of controversial 
votes, whether it is for the Affordable Care Act or repeal of this or 
that, and oftentimes I hear from constituents on both sides. I remember 
we got thousands of letters for the Affordable Care Act, thousands of 
letters against it--very typical.

  Net neutrality has been a unique and singular experience in my 9 
years in Congress. We received 1,500 calls and over 5,000 emails about 
the issue, and I asked my staff to double-check this because I didn't 
believe this, and they did. One hundred percent of the emails and calls 
were for net neutrality. That is right. Not a single constituent of 
mine contacted me on the other side.
  In a district that has a plurality of unaffiliated voters and a 
similar number of Republicans and Democrats, they are never shy to 
contact me. So it is not partisan. It certainly united Republicans, 
unaffiliated voters, and Democrats in my district to be unanimously for 
net neutrality, which surprised me. But it also means that Congress 
should not be tone deaf to that, and that is why it is important to 
defeat the previous question.
  Republican Senators like Senator Thune have come together to call on 
colleagues to come together and protect net neutrality. My good friend 
and colleague from Colorado Mike Coffman announced that we should--the 
FCC should delay their vote and that we should protect net neutrality.
  It is common sense, Mr. Speaker, and by defeating the previous 
question, we can get on to an issue that the American people care about 
rather than a fight between CEOs and investors and which side you take. 
It is about protecting your internet in your home so you can access the 
content of your choice--a consumer issue and an issue for small 
businesses.
  We had a digital roundtable last night, Mr. Speaker. I think 
thousands of people from my district watched as I had several experts, 
including several small businesses from Colorado, talk about the 
importance of net neutrality to them in creating jobs and being able to 
have a predictable and sustainable business model, and then being able 
to compete with large, entrenched companies and be disruptive with new 
innovation.
  So I hope that we can defeat the previous question and get on to 
that. If we don't, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the bill that adds paperwork and costs, requiring SEC filings for the 
investors who are fighting bills, who are fighting proxy fights, and 
then I urge my colleagues to look closely at the privacy bill.
  That one, again, I would not characterize as a major bill. I will be 
voting ``no.'' I understand there might be some Republicans and 
Democrats voting ``yes'' on that one as well. But, you know, whether 
they delete that clause or not is hardly the game changer for the 
economy that tax reform will be.
  I have ideas, bipartisan ideas, bills that I have sponsored with my 
Republican colleagues that should be part of tax reform, that would 
help the economy go, that would create far more jobs than a two-
sentence disclosure, whether it is there or not, and, frankly, more 
important, also, than this, whether the proxy fight people have to file 
with the SEC. I mean, I am sure they will be able to do it. I mean, 
yes, you Republicans want to give them more paperwork and create more 
bureaucracy, but I am sure they will survive.

                              {time}  1445

  But let's do something important like open process tax reform. We 
could be debating amendments right now and voting on them like our 
job--you know, like 100 amendments from Republicans and Democrats. I 
would even be open to let's just consider bipartisan amendments, throw 
out amendments that only Republicans support or only Democrats support.
  To be fair, you are in the majority, Mr. Speaker, how about just 
amendments that Republicans alone support or are bipartisan? You don't 
have to do any Democratic amendments only because let's just have an 
open process. Let's allow some amendments.
  Every amendment was locked out of tax reform. I offered like, what, 
16 myself? I remember my colleague Mr. Woodall was there. They were 
commonsense ideas. There was a little fix I did with Mr. Tipton from 
Colorado for Kombucha, that is fermented tea, and it had to do with the 
tax treatment, de minimis. Senator Cory Gardner supports it in the 
Senate, our Republican Senator. Noncontroversial, next-to-no fiscal 
impact, and the Rules Committee still didn't even allow me to debate 
the amendment on the floor for 10 minutes, for 5 minutes, for 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, enough with these closed rules, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a couple problems with this rule. First of all, 
the rule brings to the floor the wrong bills. These are minor bills. I 
will give a recap in a moment, but oh, my goodness. Two sentences of a 
disclosure and a little more filing costs for pensions and investors. 
Okay. We will get past that. They probably won't become law anyway. You 
can blame it on the Senate, you can blame it on the House, but most of 
these things we do don't become law.
  I understand that many of my colleagues are frustrated with the 
Senate, but whatever the case, we just do these things.
  But there is stuff that might become law, that could become law, like 
tax reform; like the fact that the government is shutting down next 
week if we don't continue the funding. We have a clock ticking on our 
debt ceiling. We have 800,000 aspiring Americans who don't even know if 
they can go to work legally, like they can today, in another few months 
because of President Trump's decision to end their provisional status.
  These are real issues--the cost of healthcare going up for my 
constituents and yours. But we are not doing that. We are bringing up 
two bills. I will give you the summary of them. Even these two bills, 
closed process, no amendments. If I was able to offer floor amendments, 
as I said, I could offer an amendment that would actually move the 
balance the other way toward investors and empowering investor 
activism, perhaps even look at giving them a safer pay, if you will, 
over executive pay, and reining in some of the problems of this bill. 
But we are not allowed. We are not allowed to offer any amendments here 
on the floor.
  Again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, 
again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, 
again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, 
again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, 
again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, 
again, again, again, again, again, again. That is 56, by my count.
  That is 56 times Republicans have brought bills to the floor and 
haven't allowed Democrats or Republicans to offer amendments.
  Look, my colleagues can say: Oh, Democrats weren't great on this, and 
they had too many when they controlled it. You know what? First of all, 
Republicans set a record. This is the most number of closed rules ever.
  Secondly, I am not here to defend the Democrats. If the Democrats 
were in

[[Page H9867]]

charge, they should offer more open amendments. There is no question. 
But Republicans, whatever they complained about the Democrats, they 
outdid them by a big factor. Ten months, 56 bills that no single Member 
of the House is allowed to offer an amendment on just to have a fair 
up-or-down vote. It is wrong. It is wrong.
  That is why I hope my colleagues can defeat this rule to say: Enough 
is enough.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to defeat this rule and move on to the issues 
important to the American people, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Colorado is right. Time management is an 
important issue here on the floor, and we have got to manage it, 
whether it is closing statements or whether it is floor time throughout 
the day.
  Every bill we bring to the floor is not going to be the most 
important bill that we bring to the floor, Mr. Speaker, by definition.
  I hope that my colleagues were listening intently to my friend from 
Colorado, not necessarily during his opening statement, and certainly 
not during his closing statement, but during the middle statement where 
he was talking about his vast knowledge of corporate boards and 
corporate structures.
  I have the pleasure of serving on the Rules Committee with Mr. Polis, 
Mr. Speaker, and there are not going to be many Members of this 
institution who have either been more successful in their private life, 
not just talking about it, but doing it, when it comes to leading 
institutions, and Members who work harder to try to find some common 
ground to move things forward.
  I was just telling Ms. Rossi on my staff, Mr. Speaker, that it 
troubles me more when Mr. Polis is on the floor and we can't find 
agreement, because I believe very often he tries harder than most to 
find that agreement here. Mr. Speaker, you see it on the front page of 
the newspaper day after day after day, folks talk about this 
institution as if we will never find agreement with each other.

  There are some issues of principle where finding agreement is hard, 
where we just fundamentally disagree with one another.
  It is not the case today, though, Mr. Speaker. Today, the case is 
that we have two bills that moved through regular order in the 
Financial Services Committee. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the 
committee took up the legislation first, that the committee sorted out 
the legislation first, and, Mr. Speaker, these bills, both of them, 
passed the Financial Services Committee with big bipartisan votes.
  There are many opportunities for us to come to the floor and talk 
about things that divide us that we will never find agreement on. That 
is not today. Today, we have a chance to come to the floor and talk 
about differences that we can make together. Differences that are not 
just bipartisan, but differences that are nonpartisan; good ideas that 
can make a difference one life, one bill at a time.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are coming today under a closed rule for 
one, under a structured rule for the other. That is true. For the 
uninitiated, Mr. Speaker, that means that amendments aren't going to be 
offered. It doesn't mean that amendments weren't allowed, Mr. Speaker.
  We sent out the call to the entire House of Representatives, 435 
Members. We said we have two bills coming before the Rules Committee; 
we want you to send us all of your ideas, all of the different ways 
that you think these two bills can be improved.
  We got back one idea. One. And we made it in order for a vote on the 
floor of the House. Dadgummit, Mr. Speaker, I think it is going to make 
the bill better. I intend to support that amendment that we made in 
order. It is a Democrat amendment. It came from my friend Mr. Clay on 
the other side of the aisle. I intend to support it because I think it 
is going to make the bill better.
  Are there issues that are complex, that are partisan, that are 
structured in such a way that having an open rule isn't the choice that 
gets made? Of course there are. Of course there are.
  I think my friend is right to criticize the majority when the process 
gets closed down in this way. But today, Mr. Speaker, I think my friend 
is wrong to suggest that the process is being closed down. The process 
was opened up to the entire institution. One amendment was received, 
one amendment was made in order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that will be a 
practice that we continue going forward. Two good bills today, Mr. 
Speaker, if my colleagues support this rule: one from my friend Mr. 
Trott, one from my friend Mr. Duffy, and the bipartisan amendment 
offered by my friend Mr. Clay.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, and 
then I hope they will come back to the floor and support the underlying 
bills as well.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 657 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4585) to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
     relying on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of 
     restoring internet freedom to adopt, amend, revoke, or 
     otherwise modify any rule of the Commission. 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 Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Cause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4585.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H9868]]

     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. WOODALL. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________