[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3405-H3411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5444, TAXPAYER FIRST ACT, AND 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5445, 21ST CENTURY IRS ACT

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 831 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 831

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House any bill specified in 
     section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against 
     consideration of each such bill are waived. The respective 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in each such bill 
     shall be considered as adopted. Each such bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in each such bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such 
     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. 2.  The bills referred to in the first section of this 
     resolution are as follows:
        (a) The bill (H.R. 5444) to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue 
     Service, and for other purposes.
       (b) The bill (H.R. 5445) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 to improve cybersecurity and taxpayer identity 
     protection, and modernize the information technology of the 
     Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 5444, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) await the disposition of H.R. 2901, H.R. 5437, H.R. 
     5438, H.R. 5439, H.R. 5440, H.R. 5443, H.R. 5445, and H.R. 
     5446;
       (2) add the respective texts of all the bills specified in 
     paragraph (1), as passed by the House, as new matter at the 
     end of H.R. 5444;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 5444 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of the text of all the bills specified in 
     paragraph (1) that have passed the House;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (5) conform cross-references and provisions for short 
     titles within the engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition to the engrossment of H.R. 5444 of 
     the text of the bills specified in subsection (a)(1) that 
     have passed the House, such bills shall be laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Harper). The gentleman from Washington 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 831, providing for consideration of 
two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act; 
and H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.
  The rule provides for consideration of these measures under a closed 
rule. Both of these pieces of legislation were introduced with 
bipartisan cosponsors, and both were passed out of the Ways and Means 
Committee with unanimous support on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was not only tax day, but it was also the last 
time the American people had to file their taxes under an outdated and 
antiquated system. Thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law 
by President Trump, Americans have much to look forward to: a 
simplified tax system, lower rates, a doubled child tax credit to help 
everyday families, a doubling of the standard deduction, and the 
freedom to buy the healthcare plan that is right for their families 
rather than be forced to buy government-mandated health insurance.
  As these reforms continue to be implemented, and Americans across the 
country have begun to see their paychecks grow and small businesses 
begin to move forward with less regulatory burden, a bipartisan effort 
in the U.S. House of Representatives to modernize and reform the 
Internal Revenue Service has arisen. The goal is to redesign the IRS 
into a modern, 21st century agency focused on the ``taxpayers first'' 
service--reining in IRS abuses, protecting American taxpayers from 
fraud, and fairly and efficiently resolving disputes within the agency.
  H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, demonstrates a bipartisan, 
comprehensive effort to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue 
Service. This legislation makes numerous changes to reorganize the 
agency in an attempt to focus its efforts on customer service. It 
creates an independent appeals process to improve dispute resolutions 
and requires the IRS to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to 
improve its customer service strategy. It requires the

[[Page H3406]]

agency to maintain the IRS Free File Program, equipping low- and 
middle-income Americans with free individual tax preparation and 
electronic filing services.
  This legislation also requires the IRS to improve efficiency, enhance 
cybersecurity, and better meet the needs of taxpayers. By ensuring the 
agency sends notice to the actual taxpayer before contacting friends, 
neighbors, or clients when conducting an audit, we can ensure Americans 
receive fair notice and treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, the mission statement of the IRS is to provide America's 
taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their 
tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to 
all. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, the IRS fails to provide the 
quality customer service they claim to strive for.
  The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported in 2015 
that the IRS had no strategy in place to define what quality and 
customer service should look like, nor did the agency have any plans to 
develop one. This is unacceptable, so I am pleased that the Taxpayer 
First Act requires the IRS to work to fulfill their mission statement.
  The 21st Century IRS Act similarly seeks to modernize the IRS by 
specifically focusing on improving cybersecurity and taxpayer identity 
protection as well as reforming the information technology systems 
within the agency. The IRS relies heavily on an aging, antiquated IT 
infrastructure to administer the tax system. This infrastructure, some 
of which dates back to the 1960s, is unreliable and is not keeping up.
  As we just saw yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the web page for paying tax 
bills using personal bank accounts crashed, leading to Treasury 
Secretary Mnuchin having to provide Americans with an extra day to file 
their returns. We must bring the IRS's infrastructure into the 21st 
century in order to prevent negative impacts on taxpayers seeking to 
comply with their tax responsibilities as we witnessed yesterday.

                              {time}  1230

  Unfortunately, these potential threats can include much more serious 
threats as well, including potential cyber attacks and fraud schemes 
that seek to exploit stolen taxpayer information.
  The 21st Century IRS Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
work collaboratively with the public and private sectors to protect 
taxpayers from identity theft tax refund fraud. This legislation also 
requires the Secretary to submit a written report to Congress 
describing how the IRS can utilize new payment platforms to increase 
the number of tax refunds paid by electronic funds transfers, thereby 
streamlining the final leg of the filing process for taxpayers.
  It provides for further recommendations regarding methods to prevent 
identity theft and refund fraud and requires that State, local, or 
Federal agencies conduct on-site reviews every 3 years of all 
contractors or other agents receiving Federal returns and return 
information.
  These reforms are common sense and will prevent frustrating, 
prolonged interactions with the IRS that could be much more easily and 
seamlessly resolved online.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward and bipartisan rule, allowing 
for consideration of two bills that will require the Internal Revenue 
Service to put customer service needs of the American taxpayer first, 
and to reform, modernize, and improve the agency's infrastructure.
  The IRS must prioritize cybersecurity and taxpayer identity theft 
protections. The underlying bills in this rule will do just that, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation to continue our historic efforts to reform our Nation's tax 
system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 5444 and H.R. 
5445. I support the underlying bills, but the problem is these rules 
don't allow any amendments.
  We suggest an open process. I offered three amendments myself to 
these bills. My colleague Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to improve 
the bill. Unfortunately, we have been denied a vote, and instead this 
body is having a debate on, frankly, issues, just like yesterday, there 
doesn't even need to be that much debate on. I would think these bills, 
like the one yesterday, could have been put on something called the 
suspension calendar, which means they are not too controversial.
  Usually the reason we do a rule is we allow amendments. That is why 
we do that, and yet all the amendments that were offered were rejected. 
So we are kind of drawing out the time it takes to pass these 
bipartisan bills instead of spending the time on issues that the 
American public want us to address.
  Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, are clamoring 
for debate around what is called an AUMF, an authorized use of military 
force, bill to address the authority of the President with regard to 
Syria, with regard to ISIS and other operations.
  We are now 4 months into 2018. The House still has not considered a 
bill to protect our Dreamers, our young aspiring Americans.
  So inaction, inaction, inaction. And even where we are moving forward 
with a bipartisan bill, we are shutting out ideas from Republicans and 
Democrats that could actually make the bill better.
  I, as I mentioned, offered a couple of those to this bill, and the 
majority blocked those amendments on a party-line vote. One of my 
amendments would have provided clarity to consumers and the IRS around 
providing a window for immunity on filings for use of cryptocurrency, a 
bipartisan bill with Mr. Schweikert. Another amendment would have 
provided tax relief for kombucha manufacturers, a bipartisan bill with 
Mr. Tipton. Another would have eased tax burdens on small businesses in 
States that have legalized marijuana.
  All three have bipartisan support. The Rules Committee could have 
granted the necessary waivers, as they do on many amendments when they 
choose to, and allowed them.
  Mr. Sherman's amendment was actually germane to the underlying bill. 
There wouldn't have needed to be any additional waivers that were 
granted. We simply could have advanced it to the floor to debate.
  So, again, these bills are largely noncontroversial. What is 
controversial is why won't the Republican leadership allow Democrats 
and Republicans to amend and improve these bills? And two, why we are 
wiling away our time on bills that we could have done Monday on a 
suspension voice vote instead of really working on a bipartisan 
Authorization for Use of Military Force or the other prescient issues 
our country faces?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, sit on the Rules Committee, and 
what we witnessed Monday was an amazing thing, coming together in a 
bipartisan fashion on some very important bills to bring reform to the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  And I might respond to the gentleman's comments.
  It was a very open process through the Ways and Means Committee. It 
was, as far as I recall, at least a 3-year process, working 
bipartisanly, very cooperatively, in a comprehensive fashion in order 
to get the work done that was brought together and culminated with the 
work that we see here today.
  So, as far as an open process, I don't know what could have been more 
open. It was one that we can be proud of, one that we should see more 
of in this institution, frankly, and I am very proud that we are able 
to be here today, following a long history of using the closed rule 
process when we are considering these kinds of bills as it pertains to 
revenue.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), whose amendment was rejected in a party-line 
vote by the Rules Committee and not even allowed to be debated for a 
moment on the floor of the House.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule for three reasons:
  First, it is a closed rule. You should always vote against a closed 
rule.

[[Page H3407]]

  But second, it is the embodiment of a pernicious tradition of always 
having closed rules on tax bills. That is outrageous. Why would we not 
apply that to everything that Congress deals with?
  We are told: Well, if we don't have a closed rule, we have to have an 
open rule; we don't want an open rule on a tax bill.
  You could have a structured rule. You could have germane amendments.
  What does a closed rule on every tax bill mean? It means that over 
400 of us can never offer an amendment about taxation, and it also 
means that, if an amendment is hotly debated in the Ways and Means 
Committee and prevails or is defeated by one vote, then the entire 
House cannot chime in on that issue. The second reason to vote against 
this rule is to break this ironclad tradition of closed rules on tax 
bills.
  There is a third reason, and that is, my amendment to strike section 
202 was not allowed. I am an old CPA. I headed the second largest tax 
agency in this country. I am very interested in easing the burden on 
taxpayers. This bill generally does that. But section 202 is designed--
doesn't actually do this, but it pushes in the direction of locking in 
the free file system. That is a contract that the IRS has with TurboTax 
and H&R Block that is supposed to allow everyone with an income of 
under $66,000 to file for free. But with TurboTax, you have to have an 
income under $33,000; with H&R Block, you have to be under 50.
  I, personally, resent that.
  The Free File Program isn't free even if you don't have to pay for 
the software because you have got to gather your 1099, your INT, your 
1099-DIV, and your W-2, and you have to correctly interpret that and 
enter it into the system.
  There is a better system. It is called the pre-prepared tax system. 
It is being used in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Japan, Chile, and 
the United Kingdom, not to mention Norway and Finland. The IRS would 
send you the return. It is already filled out. They already have all 
the information from your 1099s and your W-2s. You could just hit 
``yes'' or you could make changes there on the screen, or you could 
throw away the IRS' version, go get TurboTax, go to H&R Block, and fill 
out your own return the way you do it now.
  This provision, section 202, pushes the IRS against going to the pre-
prepared return system, a better system, a system that was explored in 
1998 by a Republican Congress, and the IRS was told to develop that 
system by 2008. The IRS never did.
  So there should be an amendment to strike section 202 and push the 
IRS toward a pre-prepared return system where you could literally be 
done with your tax return in 1 minute and not have to keep track of all 
these pieces of paper and try to interpret them.
  There is a solution because this bill will pass. This bill should 
pass. All the other provisions are pretty good.
  You can cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act. By doing that, 
you would override section 202, tell the IRS that they have to go to a 
pre-prepared return system.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SHERMAN. We would catch up with Spain and Norway and Denmark and 
Japan and really have a tax system where you don't have to keep track 
of all the little pieces of paper that the IRS already has, and you 
wouldn't have to interpret them and figure out where to put them in the 
complicated software when the IRS already knows how to do that.
  I realize that TurboTax and H&R Block might lose some money, but this 
is a chance for taxpayers around the country to have an easy system.
  If you can't vote against the rule--and I wouldn't vote against the 
bill--cosponsor the Tax Filing Simplification Act.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Ways and Means Committee put out a discussion draft on March 26 
entitled, ``The Taxpayer First Act.'' The committee provided 2 weeks to 
collect input from Members, stakeholder groups, and the public. I would 
say to my good friends across the aisle that there were a number of 
substantive comments received, and my understanding is the committee 
considered them prior to introducing this bill that we have today.
  So I would say let's honor that work. Let's move forward with this 
important piece of legislation, and I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will point out, like every committee, you 
can always send a letter to any committee I serve on or the Ways and 
Means Committee. But to take away from Members their right to come to 
the floor and offer an amendment and get a vote is to relegate us to 
the same position as all 320 million Americans, all of whom can send a 
letter to the Ways and Means Committee.
  I will also point out that the act I talked about, the Tax Filing 
Simplification Act, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, has a 
number of cosponsors, and has never received a hearing or half a 
hearing or any discussion.
  So to say that the Ways and Means Committee will accept our letters 
and, therefore, we should have closed rules on tax bills, apply that to 
every other issue we have--every committee in this House will accept a 
letter from any other Member, let alone any constituent--means we 
really want closed rules on everything.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time, the bipartisan effort in this bill 
is reflected in a very, very good way, and I urge respecting that 
process, respecting the comprehensive, collaborative work that was done 
on this bill, and I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on tax day, the White House made 
an announcement about President Trump's taxes, but it wasn't the 
announcement that Americans were waiting for.
  Instead of releasing his returns, President Trump was actually just 
requesting an extension to file his 2017 income tax return, which still 
would not be made public if or when he files it. It is a good reminder 
that President Trump has broken with decades of tradition when, as a 
Presidential candidate, he did not disclose his tax returns.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, the 
Presidential Tax Transparency Act, which would require Presidential 
nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was tax day. Today is tax day. I 
call upon House Republicans to allow review of the President's tax 
returns. Now it is tax day again, so I want to reiterate and give my 
colleagues a vote for transparency.
  It was reported yesterday that the President filed for an extension 
on his returns, but while every President going back to Richard Nixon 
released his tax returns to the American people in the name of 
transparency and accountability, this President continues to keep his 
own finances shrouded in secrecy.
  He was told to disinvest at the very beginning of his administration 
by the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Shaub. The President has not.

                              {time}  1245

  Since February of 2017, I have been calling on the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, of which I am a member, to request the 
President's tax returns, which they have the power to do under section 
6103 of the Tax Code. I called up resolutions, but 18 times the 
committee and the House have voted against seeing the President's tax 
returns--just seeing them.
  Today, I renew my call for this Congress to act to review the 
President's tax returns and out his conflicts and self-enrichment while 
in office.
  Why did President Trump support giving the wealthy and big 
corporations a giant tax cut in the tax scam just passed in the 
Congress in December?

[[Page H3408]]

  Why is he letting lobbyists for Wall Street and Big Oil write their 
own rules?
  Candidate Trump promoted himself as a successful businessman who 
would run the government like he ran his businesses. Well, let's take a 
look at the business.
  In Azerbaijan, he did business with the likely money launderer for 
Iran's Revolutionary Guard. This is a fact. In the Republic of Georgia, 
his partner was being investigated for bank fraud and money laundering. 
In Indonesia, his development partner was deeply involved in ``dirty 
politics.'' In Brazil, there were criminal investigations into his 
deals. The FBI is reportedly looking into his Vancouver hotel where one 
of the Trumps worked with a Malaysian family that admitted to financial 
fraud. And in New York, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka were investigated for 
financial crimes in their dealings with the Trump hotel in SoHo.
  When he became the President, he did not divest himself from his 
business. Since then, there is no question that Mr. Trump has profited 
from the taxpayers and from their government positions, as have the 
members of his Cabinet. The examples of self-dealing and quid pro quos 
are too myriad to recount. Here are just a few.
  January 23, 2017, Saudi Arabia held a party at the Trump hotel after 
renting rooms for lobbyists for 5 months.
  I know this is unpleasant to listen to, but we have a right.
  And I return you to April of 2014, when the Speaker of this House 
presently was the head of the Ways and Means Committee and dictated to 
us how they had a right, as a legislative branch of government, to go 
into the backgrounds, if not the tax returns, of Lois Lerner, who was 
being investigated at that time, and nothing happened to her, of 
course, but we argued the point on 6103. And he said, very 
specifically: This is our duty to oversee the executive branch of 
government.
  Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is, 
period, and that is what he said.
  So Saudi Arabia, on January 23, 2017, held a party at the Trump 
hotel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. February 28, Trump, who owns 12 golf courses, rolled 
back a rule limiting water pollution by golf courses.
  April 4, the State Department ran an online ad for Mar-a-Lago. Isn't 
that nice?
  September 19, reports reveal that the Pentagon spent more than 
$130,000 a month to rent at the Trump Tower, more than twice as much as 
the other tenants.
  I have got a whole list of these, Mr. Speaker. I won't bore you, but 
I will tell you this: We are going to enter them into the Record. This 
is not the America I know, and this is not the America you know. We 
have a right to put sunlight on the disinfection. That is our job. This 
is a checks-and-balance system, Mr. Speaker, and we need--not to take 
advantage of it, but we need to follow the rules. There are no 
personalities here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President of the United States.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the many groups that are 
supporting H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, as well as the group 
supporting H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act.
  For the Taxpayer First Act, the Americans for Tax Reform, the 
Coalition for Effective and Efficient Tax Administration, the National 
Foreign Trade Council, and the App Association support the Taxpayer 
First Act.
  As far as the 21st Century Act, H.R. 5445, Citizens Against 
Government Waste, the Electronic Transactions Association, the 
MarketPlace Lending Association, the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Taxpayers Protection Alliance, FreedomWorks, the Institute for Policy 
Innovation, 60 Plus Association, the Institute for Liberty, the Council 
for Citizens Against Government Waste, Less Government, and the Small 
Business & Entrepreneurship Council all join us in supporting not only 
the underlying rule, but the underlying legislation, as I would urge my 
colleagues to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), our final speaker.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule, and I want to 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous 
question so the House can vote on my bipartisan--I want to emphasize 
that, bipartisan--legislation entitled, the ``Presidential Tax 
Transparency Act.'' This bill codifies the longstanding bipartisan 
tradition of Presidents and Presidential nominees disclosing their tax 
return information to the American people.
  Now, as was said previously, yesterday was tax day, and it is an 
important reminder that, as millions of Americans fulfill their duty to 
file their income tax returns, the President of the United States of 
America still refuses to release his tax returns to the American 
people.
  I think holding the highest office in the land demands transparency, 
yet the President refuses to honor what promotes trust with the 
American people.
  And as I said, both Republican and Democratic Presidential 
candidates, going back to Richard Nixon, all voluntarily put their tax 
returns out to the American people. Why? To establish trust that they 
were transparent and that the American people could see whether there 
were any potential conflicts of interest and many other things, because 
tax returns are highly instructive. As I said, that has gone on for 
decades.
  I wrote this legislation because, in 2016--and I wrote it in 2016--
there were two candidates, one from each party, who refused to put out 
their tax returns, and I did not think that that was honoring the 
American people. Now, by refusing to make his tax returns public, the 
President implies he is hiding important information from the American 
people.
  So what this legislation does--and, again, I want to reiterate, it is 
bipartisan--it places into law disclosure by requiring the current 
President and all Presidential nominees of both parties to release 
their tax returns because, again, in a democracy, truth and 
transparency should be the gold standard. Presidents and Presidential 
candidates should be held to the highest standard of transparency to 
ensure that the interests of the American people are met.
  Now, tax returns contain vital information: whether the candidate has 
actually paid taxes, what they own, how much they have borrowed, who 
they have borrowed from, whether they have made charitable donations, 
and what tax loopholes have they taken advantage of and exactly what 
they are, if they have. They are also highly instructive as to any 
conflicts of interest.
  The current President has 564 financial positions in companies 
located in the United States and around the world, according to the 
Federal Election Commission, making him more susceptible to conflicts 
of interest than any President in our history. Only a full release of 
his tax returns will provide the public with clear information as to 
his potential conflicts of interest and his potential entanglements 
with foreign governments and foreign businesses.
  This legislation, again, is bipartisan because transparency and good 
governance are not partisan issues.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, according to a recent poll, 67 percent of 
Americans believe the President should release his tax returns just as 
all of his predecessors since Richard Nixon have done.
  During the campaign, the President even promised he would do so 
before falsely claiming that he couldn't release his tax returns 
because of an audit. There is no such thing.
  Yesterday's editorial board of the Washington Post wrote: ``The 
President is setting a precedent--that Presidents can promise one 
thing, do another, and end up dismissing essential

[[Page H3409]]

standards of disclosure. Congress should not accept this erosion of 
good-government practice.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. And, again, I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Your constituents will reward 
you for this because this is about transparency, about our democracy, 
about transparency being the gold standard.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask is the gentleman prepared to close?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to defeat the previous 
question and call up a bill to increase transparency with regard to the 
President. We also have an opportunity to reject a rule that excludes 
good ideas, where Members of Congress, in good faith, offered 
amendments to improve the bill and they were denied.
  Of course, the two underlying bills are fine bills. What is broken is 
the process, a process that doesn't allow a meaningful floor debate on 
improvements to a bill and a process that doesn't allow any floor time 
for an Authorization for Use of Military Force or addressing the needs 
of our Dreamers. Unfortunately, these bills are brought to the floor 
under a closed rule.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have come together to work on the important issues covered in both of 
these underlying bills. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 
5444, the Taxpayer First Act, as well as H.R. 5445, the 21st Century 
IRS Act.
  The IRS currently lacks a comprehensive customer service strategy, 
nor does it have any system in place to measure metrics and benchmarks 
for success within customer service. Additionally, the IRS has not 
undergone organizational restructuring in the last 20 years.
  H.R. 5444 requires the agency to develop a comprehensive strategy for 
customer service and to submit such plan to Congress no later than 1 
year after the enactment of this legislation. It provides for the 
equitable treatment of every American taxpayer, including ensuring 
proper notice when the IRS seeks further information from an 
individual.
  Mr. Speaker, the IRS spends $2.4 billion, annually, on information 
technology, technology that, in some cases, dates back, I understand, 
to the 1960s. The agency struggles with undertaking and completing 
large IT modernization efforts to update its legacy systems, which, 
therefore, can put American taxpayers in a frustrating or even 
dangerous position.
  With the rise of tax refund fraud, a modern IT system must be enacted 
to ensure taxpayers can successfully comply with their tax 
requirements. H.R. 5445 modernizes and improves the ease and efficiency 
of the taxpayer experience when filing taxes, retrieving information, 
resolving issues, and making payments.
  This legislation includes a number of provisions to strengthen the 
IRS' ability to proactively combat identity theft, tax refund fraud, 
and ensures IRS accountability for secure online taxpayer processes.
  In light of the historic tax reform legislation initiated by this 
representative body, the people's House, and signed into law by the 
President, President Trump, just last year, it is vital the Internal 
Revenue Service undertake its own important reforms.

                              {time}  1300

  No one enjoys receiving an envelope stamped ``Internal Revenue 
Service.'' Far too often, taxpayers find the IRS to be inaccessible, 
intimidating, and unaccountable. American taxpayers deserve a robust 
and efficient agency with important oversight protections and 
modernized systems to keep their private information protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favor of this bipartisan rule, 
and I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 831, and both of 
the underlying bipartisan bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 831 Offered by Mr. Polis

       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. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and 
     Government Reform. 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. 305.
                                  ____


        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. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H3410]]

  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 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 189, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               YEAS--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barletta
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Comstock
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Keating
     McCaul
     Moore
     Scalise
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1325

  Mr. SCHRADER, Mses. DelBENE, FUDGE, Messrs. BROWN of Maryland, 
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. SUOZZI, Mrs. CAROLYN B. 
MALONEY of New York, and Mr. CRIST changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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. POLIS. 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 177, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lawson (FL)
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

[[Page H3411]]


  


                               NOES--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barletta
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Comstock
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Keating
     Nolan
     Scalise
     Scott, David
     Simpson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1332

  Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 143 and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 144.

                          ____________________