[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18281-18286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1737, REFORMING CFPB INDIRECT AUTO 
FINANCING GUIDANCE ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 511, TRIBAL 
         LABOR SOVEREIGNTY ACT OF 2015; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 526 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 526

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1737) to nullify certain guidance of the 
     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and to provide 
     requirements for guidance issued by the Bureau with respect 
     to indirect auto lending. 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 Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment 
     to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 511) to clarify 
     the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under 
     the National Labor Relations Act. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce 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 Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution--
        (a) the House shall be considered to have: (1) taken from 
     the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1177) to reauthorize the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that 
     every child achieves; (2) stricken all after the enacting 
     clause of such bill and inserted in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of H.R. 5, as passed by the House; and (3) passed 
     the Senate bill as so amended; and
       (b) it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce or his designee to move that the 
     House insist on its amendment to S. 1177 and request a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.
       Sec. 4.  In the engrossment of H.R. 3762, the Clerk shall 
     strike title I and redesignate the subsequent titles 
     accordingly.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from 
Oklahoma is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
my friend, 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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?

[[Page 18282]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of two important measures. First, the 
resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1737, 
the Reforming Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Indirect Auto 
Financing Guidance Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee, makes in order three amendments submitted to the 
Rules Committee which were germane to the legislation, and provides for 
a motion to recommit.
  In addition, the resolution provides a closed rule for consideration 
of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. The rule 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, and 
provides for a motion to recommit.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule facilitates a conference with the 
Senate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
by replacing the text of S. 1177 with the text of H.R. 5, as passed by 
the House, and provides for a motion by the chair of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce to request a conference with the Senate.
  Finally, the rule directs the Clerk to strike a provision from the 
reconciliation bill which was already enacted into law in the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, facilitating consideration of the bill 
by the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1737 passed out of the Financial Services Committee 
by a vote of 47-10. It nullifies a guidance put forward by the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau which the CFPB was specifically exempted 
from making in the first place. In addition to the CFPB's disregard for 
its statutory limitation, the CFPB's methodology is severely flawed. 
According to a study by Charles River Associates, the CFPB's 
methodology overestimates minorities by up to 41 percent, leading many 
to question the reliability of these results.
  In addition, and more importantly to me, Mr. Speaker, the rule 
provides for consideration of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty 
Act of 2015. When Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in 
1935, it specifically recognized all governments were excluded. 
Subsequent regulations and case law further recognized this exemption 
applies to territories, possessions, the District of Columbia, and 
State-operated port authorities. From the 1970s until 2004, the NLRB 
recognized that tribal governments are exempt from the NLRA as 
sovereign governments. Unfortunately, in 2004, the NLRB decided to 
reverse 69 years of prior precedent and strip tribes of their ability 
of self-government.
  In our first terms in Congress, Chairman Kline and I both worked to 
try and restore the sovereignty this board had stripped away. While 
unsuccessful at that time, I am happy we are now able to rectify this 
injustice.
  H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would unequivocally state 
that tribal governments are not subject to the National Labor Relations 
Act. I respect my friends who hold different opinions, but in this 
case, they are simply wrong. In the NLRB's 2004 decision, they made an 
arbitrary distinction between commercial activity and government 
activity. If you are a tribe and it is commercial activity, they said 
the NLRB could regulate it. But that same standard isn't applied to any 
other government exempted from the NLRA, regardless of whether it 
engages in commercial activities or not. Their nature, as a government, 
precludes their regulation under the NLRA.
  Practically every county and city in this country has a golf course. 
Most States have a lottery. The National Park Service operates hotels. 
Virginia and other States sell alcohol. Many cities operate convention 
centers. All of these activities are not regulated under the NLRA. It 
should be the same with tribes.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule sets up a 
process for us to go to conference on an ESEA reauthorization. The last 
time we considered an ESEA reauthorization was 13 years ago. It is far 
past time to reauthorize this critical program.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, on January 5, 2011, newly elected Speaker John Boehner 
announced: ``To my friends in the minority, I offer a commitment: 
openness, once a tradition of this institution but increasingly scarce 
in recent decades, will be the new standard . . . You will always have 
the right to a robust debate in an open process that allows you to 
represent your constituents, to make your case, offer alternatives, and 
be heard.''
  What we were promised was openness, but what we got was absolutely 
the opposite.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the breaking of a record, perhaps 
the worst kind of record: this has officially become the most closed 
session of Congress in American history. We are living it now.
  Today marks the 45th closed rule in this session of Congress, and 
with each new closed rule that the majority approves, we will break the 
record anew. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the 
House floor, which limits debate and silences half of the American 
people who are represented by the minority of the House.
  It is true that the trend toward more closed rules has been growing 
over the past 20 years under the leadership of both political parties, 
but my Republican colleagues have taken the trend to new heights. The 
Republican Congress, for example, passed more closed rules in 1 week in 
October of 2013 than in an entire year under Democrat control.
  It is the work of the Rules Committee to report each rule that comes 
to the floor, and according to our statistics, in this session of 
Congress, the majority has chosen a closed rule more times than any 
other kind of rule.
  Under this regime, the majority has wasted taxpayer money on their 
obsession with taking health care away from millions of people and held 
more than 60 votes to repeal or dismantle ObamaCare. They have spent 
over $5 million of taxpayer money on a duplicative, politicized 
Benghazi special committee even after nine other House and Senate 
committees and one State Department committee had found nothing 
nefarious nor illegal. Benghazi was, yes, a tragedy, but it was not a 
conspiracy. To continue with their wasteful, politicized special 
committees, they created a special committee to investigate Planned 
Parenthood, even after grilling the president of Planned Parenthood, 
Cecile Richards, for 5 hours in a hearing and the chairman later 
declared that no law had been broken.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you get here for your taxpayer 
dollars.
  While Americans are riding over rutted roads, traveling over unsafe 
bridges, using crowded and outdated airports, and our schools are 
crumbling around our children, this majority insists on wasting 
millions of dollars and our time not on governance, but on purely 
political goals. These distractions keep true regular order nothing but 
a mirage. This is the work that we got under Speaker Boehner's promise 
of openness.
  As it turns out, Speaker Ryan promised the same openness for his 
tenure. On November 5, 2015, just after taking office, he said to a 
gaggle of reporters: ``I want to have a process that is more open, more 
inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory, and that's what we're 
trying to do.'' We have heard that before.
  He even explained the importance of an open legislative process and 
said: ``So that every citizen of this country, through their elected 
Representatives, has the opportunity to make a difference. That is the 
people's House. This is the branch of government closest to the 
people.''
  Will we get that openness? Today gives us very little reason for 
hope.

[[Page 18283]]

  Let me remind us that while we may have a new hand wielding the 
gavel, no amount of good intentions can overcome the dynamics in the 
radical Republican Conference because it remains the same.
  Mr. Speaker, for this body to function as the Founding Fathers 
intended, we need debate and we need openness. For our constituents to 
be heard and for our institutions to thrive, we need debate and we need 
openness.
  Democrats have always been willing to provide the votes to move the 
country forward on any bill that would come to the floor, and I would 
like to extend my well wishes to our new Speaker, Paul Ryan, and 
express again our willingness to work together for the American people, 
because that is why we have been sent here.
  Let me mention, if I may, that today, when we are concerned about 
bringing refugees and immigration, that we have been begging for 2 
years or more for this House to take up an immigration bill, and the 
majority has refused to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I would differ from my good friend 
on whether or not we have an open process here. Frankly, I think we can 
all point to times in the past where each of us believe the other has 
been less than open. I recall, during the Democratic majority, we 
literally would bring appropriations bills to the floor with absolutely 
closed rules, something that violates the tradition of this House.
  In terms of this legislation, I hope I am forgiven, but again, I find 
very little relevance of discussions of Benghazi and Planned Parenthood 
to this particular debate. I don't think it has anything to do.
  The legislation in front of us really deals with two bills: H.R. 
1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bill, actually seeks to 
simply restrain an agency from exercising authority that it is 
prohibited from exercising under the legislation, and all the 
amendments that were germane to that piece of legislation were indeed 
made in order.
  H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, frankly, is just simply: 
Does the NLRB have this jurisdiction or not? It doesn't take a lot of 
amendments. It is just a straight question. Our assertion is, 
obviously, that it does not. It has claimed authority it should not 
have, and we are simply restoring that to tribal governments.

                              {time}  1245

  So I actually think the rule in question facilitates the debate, 
allows those who have different ideas to present them if they are 
relevant, and I think we will end up with a good result.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 430, a bill to clean up the secret money in 
politics and give the American people the fair and transparent 
political system that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), to discuss our proposal, the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, who began the discussion here by pointing out that here we 
go again. We say there is new leadership in town on the Republican 
side, but it is the same old closed process: closed rule, limit 
democracy, don't allow a full debate, and don't allow the people's 
House to decide on important questions for the country. When you have a 
closed rule, you are starting to close down democracy; you are limiting 
the ability of this House to make decisions on behalf of all the 
American people.
  So we have, as part of the previous question, if you defeat the 
previous question, a proposal to also improve transparency and openness 
in the full political process, because this is the people's House, and 
we would hope that it would do the people's business. But we also know 
that there are a lot of special interests out there that are spending 
millions and millions and millions of dollars trying to get their way 
and substitute their special interests for the public interests. They 
are spending millions of dollars to try to elect candidates who will do 
their bidding.
  What this proposal does is just say we need to be transparent and 
open about who is spending all that money. People in those interests 
can continue to spend money to try and elect candidates, but don't do 
it secretly. Do it openly.
  So what we are asking is for this House to take up what is called the 
Disclose Act. The Disclose Act simply says that voters have a right to 
know which special interests around the country are spending millions 
and millions of dollars to try to influence their voting decision, 
because we believe that sunlight and transparency helps build 
accountability and that accountability helps build a stronger 
democracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  So after the Citizens United decision, that terrible decision, what 
happened? Special interests were able to spend millions and millions of 
dollars at a time. They weren't constrained by any limits on what kind 
of contributions they could make. So we got a lot more money, but we 
also got something else. We got essentially a political underground in 
spending. We had this system now where people try and channel their 
moneys in secret ways to hide themselves from the public.
  So if we get to vote on the Disclose Act, we will see where we stand 
on the simple question of whether this body supports transparency, 
because, honestly, if you have got nothing to hide, you have got 
nothing to fear.
  Right now we have these commercials out there. They say, ``Paid for 
by Committee for a Better America,'' ``Paid for by mom and apple pie,'' 
but the people who are paying for them don't want the voters to know 
who they are. They want it to be a closed process. We are asking that 
they disclose their identity.
  In fact, in the Citizens United case, eight of the nine Supreme Court 
Justices said they were for more disclosure. And, in fact, recently, 
Justice Kennedy, who was one of the five in the 5-4 majority, said that 
the disclosure that he thought would work is not working. But they said 
the legislature can always act on this issue and improve the 
transparency and disclosure of the political process. Even Justice 
Scalia said that would be good for the political process.
  We want to know who is spending all that money to try and influence 
decisions of the people's House. What is wrong with a little sunshine? 
What is wrong with transparency? Doesn't that improve accountability, 
and doesn't that strengthen our democracy?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I understand that we are going to continue to have these closed rules 
apparently that are not going to make this an open process here, but 
for goodness' sake, Mr. Speaker, let's at least allow the American 
people to know who is spending all that money to try to influence 
voting decisions and, ultimately, influence the kind of legislation 
that comes to the floor of this House, because we need to be focused

[[Page 18284]]

on the people's business, not the business of secret special interests.
  Let the sunshine in. Let's allow transparency. Let's defeat the 
previous question so that we can vote on the Disclose Act and give the 
voters the right to know that they deserve.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the debate so far because my good 
friends on the other side said absolutely nothing about H.R. 1737 and 
H.R. 511, so I assume that they support these bipartisan pieces of 
legislation.
  Just to reiterate, with all due respect to my friends, we are not 
here to talk about campaign finance reform, always a worthy subject of 
discussion. I remember a number of years bringing up campaign finance 
reform, trying to get rid of taxpayer subsidies for political 
conventions. We finally got that done and redirected that money to 
research for pediatric diseases but could never get it made in order 
when my friends were on the other side of the aisle, so I understand 
the frustrations. But again, we have got two important bills to 
consider, and I think that is where we ought to focus our attention.
  In H.R. 1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has literally 
gone beyond the mandate laid out in Dodd-Frank. So I must say I am 
mystified that I am up here defending a provision of Dodd-Frank, but in 
this case, it is actually the right thing to do. They have tried to 
extend their authority into auto lending, which is specifically 
prohibited under the statute, so we are trying to make that crystal 
clear.
  H.R. 511 does something that, frankly, this House can be very proud 
of. It recognizes and extends and restores tribal sovereignty in a very 
important area. That has actually been an area of bipartisan 
cooperation.
  We worked together in the Violence Against Women Act across party 
lines to extend tribal sovereignty with respect to domestic crime and 
domestic violence committed by non-Indians on Indian land against 
Indian citizens. Now we are trying in the labor area to once again 
restore tribal sovereignty to what it was before 2004 when the National 
Labor Relations Board, frankly, acted outside of its authority and 
seized jurisdiction it simply doesn't have under any statute ever 
passed by Congress.
  I would invite my friends to focus on those two areas, hope they do, 
and certainly look forward to working with them in a bipartisan manner 
to pass both of those bills.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, it really is a shame that the only way we can talk about 
campaign finance is to put it in our previous question because it is 
never a subject for debate here. That really is a shame because we have 
terrible situations going on in campaign finance unaccounted for, which 
is something that we have never had before in this country, certainly 
since the Watergate issue, where we cleaned up campaign finance 
considerably and did well with it. But now all that is gone and 
anything goes.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule we are doing today strikes a provision of the 
reconciliation bill that the House passed last month in the latest 
futile Republican attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. This 
provision is unprecedented, is unacceptable, and we oppose it. The 
stricken provision eliminates an auto enroll requirement that employers 
who offer health insurance automatically enroll new employees in the 
health plan. The rule strikes this provision from the reconciliation 
bill because it became law as part of last month's bipartisan budget 
agreement.
  My Republican colleagues may describe this as a simple housekeeping 
measure, but no matter what is done, the reconciliation bill will not 
become a serious piece of legislation.
  The bill passed by the House would add 16 million people to the ranks 
of the uninsured, would increase health insurance premiums by up to 20 
percent for millions of others, and would reduce women's access to 
important health services by ending Medicaid funding to Planned 
Parenthood clinics.
  The best piece of housekeeping that Congress could do on the 
reconciliation bill is to set it aside and put an end, once and for 
all, to this fantasy of repealing affordable health coverage for 
millions of Americans. Instead, let us focus on the policies that 
actually help American families, such as improving access to education 
and to good-paying jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that people paid some attention to this debate 
today. There is so much going on in the House that one wonders if we 
have.
  Let me just reiterate that this is the most closed Congress in 
history. At every turn, the majority has chosen to shut out debate and 
silence the will of Members. We have heard again this morning the 
minority party, our constituents, and the democratic process itself are 
ailing, Mr. Speaker, and we must do something about it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous 
question so that we can take up Mr. Van Hollen's good measure here and 
try to clean up, as even the members of the Supreme Court who voted to 
give us Citizens United would like to see us make some change there 
because they recognize that what they did has been a complete failure. 
Somehow they had this awesome wonderland idea that everybody would just 
continue to put their name down on their contributions, and we have 
certainly found that that is not the case. We don't even know what 
country a lot of the money is coming from.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and also to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat mystified by the debate that my friends on 
the other side have offered. It has got a lot to do with campaign 
finance reform. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the legislation 
before us that deals with that.
  I beg to differ in terms of whether or not the rules here are closed 
or inappropriate. Frankly, every amendment offered to H.R. 1737 that 
was germane was actually made in order; and, frankly, amendments on 
H.R. 511 simply aren't necessary. It is a yes or no type of question. 
Either the NLRB has jurisdiction that we think it has claimed 
inappropriately over Indian tribes and labor matters or it does not, 
and we think that clarifies things considerably.
  So again, we also are a little bit surprised to see what we do think 
is a housekeeping matter in terms of striking something out of the 
reconciliation bill objected to. I just remind my friends they voted 
overwhelmingly for the budget deal itself that included that measure. 
There is nothing untoward going on here. We are just trying to move 
forward legislation that we think is important and remove things that 
have already been enacted into law. So it is, indeed, as suggested, a 
housekeeping matter.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support 
the rule. H.R. 1737 undoes a regulation that should never have been 
made in the first place, and H.R. 511 restores a right, the right of 
self-governance, that should have never been taken away from tribal 
governments.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 526 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. 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. 
     430) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
     provide for additional disclosure requirements for 
     corporations, labor organizations, and other entities, 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 chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Administration, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary,

[[Page 18285]]

     and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 430.
                                  ____


        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. COLE. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 526, if 
ordered, suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1694 and H.R. 3114.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 178, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 629]

                               YEAS--245

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard

[[Page 18286]]


     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     DeFazio
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Moore
     Payne
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruppersberger
     Takai
     Titus

                              {time}  1329

  Messrs. SIRES, VELA, and LARSON of Connecticut changed their votes 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during rollcall No. 629 on 
November 17, 2015 due to an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.
  I would like to reflect that on rollcall No. 629, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 630]

                               YEAS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     DeFazio
     Hinojosa
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruppersberger
     Takai
     Titus


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1337

  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

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 629 and 630, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' and ``no.''

                          ____________________