[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5040-5047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 622, STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAX 
  DEDUCTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
1105, DEATH TAX REPEAL ACT OF 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 H.R. 1195, BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARDS ACT

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 200 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 200

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 622) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
     deduction of State and local general sales taxes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified 
     by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1105) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and 
     generation-skipping transfer taxes, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  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. 
     1195) to amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
     to establish advisory boards, 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 amendments 
     specified in this section 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 amendment printed in part C 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the 
     bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in 
     part D of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     further 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 further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 
hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. STIVERS. 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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for three important bills: H.R. 622, the State and 
Local Tax Deduction Fairness Act of 2015; H.R. 1105, the Death Tax 
Repeal Act of 2015; and H.R. 1195, the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection Advisory Boards Act.
  House Resolution 200 provides for a closed rule for consideration of 
H.R. 622 and H.R. 1105, and a structured rule for the consideration of 
H.R. 1195.
  The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chair

[[Page 5041]]

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means for H.R. 
622 and H.R. 1105, and 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services for H.R. 1195.
  The resolution also provides for consideration of the two amendments 
offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) on H.R. 1195 
and provides a motion to recommit for each bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution and the 
underlying legislation. Each of these bills is important to providing 
fairness and certainty for our Nation's Tax Code, ensuring our Nation's 
small businesses and family farms are able to pass on to the next 
generation and ensuring our Nation's community banks, credit unions, 
and small businesses are able to work with Federal regulators and have 
their voices heard.
  Today is April 15. It is tax day. Millions of Americans are filing 
their taxes today. They go through this annual process, and many 
Americans are frustrated today because sometimes the Tax Code is 
frustrating.
  Unfortunately, many Americans are also frustrated by the fact that 
millions of Americans have to wait until the last minute to find out 
what the Tax Code will be because so many provisions in our Tax Code 
are temporary.
  Last year, the so-called tax extender package, which was a batch of 
tax provisions, was retroactively applied for the entire year of 2014, 
but it didn't get signed into law until December 19. That is less than 
2 calendar weeks from the end of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, we are determined to provide a little more certainty and 
a little more fairness in our Tax Code for the future, and that is what 
these bills are about today. We are moving forward with important 
legislation that permanently extends a couple of sections in the Tax 
Code.
  H.R. 622 is a very straightforward proposal. In our Tax Code today, 
American taxpayers have the option to deduct their State taxes. They 
can deduct their income taxes. Of course, that provision is permanent. 
It is in law permanently.
  But if they want to deduct their sales taxes, that is an annual 
provision that has been--it was part of the tax extender package last 
year, which wasn't even renewed until December 19. This is an issue of 
fairness.
  Some States, like Ohio, where I happen to reside, have an income tax. 
Other States have a sales tax in its place. For the States that have 
sales taxes, having this uncertainty is patently unfair, and it pits 
one State against another. It advantages States that have an income tax 
and disadvantages States that have a sales tax.
  States like Texas and Florida, where millions of Americans live, do 
not have an income tax, and Arizona, they have a sales tax. So we 
should treat these two tax systems the same. We should be fair and say, 
if the income tax deduction is permanent, the sales tax deduction is 
permanent as well.
  Certainly, I know the gentleman from Colorado brought up some good 
points yesterday in the Rules Committee meeting. While you could move 
to make the income tax deduction temporary, and that would also provide 
certainty, I think, until we can do tax reform, we should make these 
provisions permanent because of Congress' inability to, in a timely 
way, provide certainty to the American public.
  In tax reform we can have the discussion about deductible as an 
overall concept, and I think that is a fair debate to have. But if we 
are not going to renew it until December 19, 12 months into the year, 
that does not create a fair and certain system for our taxpayers.
  We want to ensure that taxpayers across the country are treated 
equally and fairly by our Tax Code. This underlying legislation would 
permanently extend the sales tax deduction, just like the income tax 
deduction is permanently in law.
  H.R. 1105 is a proposal to repeal the death tax. The death tax 
conflicts with the American Dream, and it is inherently unfair.
  The death tax hurts family businesses, family farmers, and ranchers. 
In fact, according to the Joint Economic Committee, the death tax hurts 
economic growth and activity by discouraging savings and small business 
growth. It represents a tiny fraction of Federal revenue, but its 
impact on families is enormous.
  The death tax violates the basic premise of the American Dream that 
if American individuals work hard and provide for their families, that 
they will get to keep some of that money.
  Many Americans spend their entire life working hard to build a nest 
egg for their families, and yet, through the Federal Tax Code, the 
Federal Government can take up to 40 percent of certain estates just 
because somebody was unfortunate enough to die.
  In my district, which covers parts of rural Ohio, this is often a 
problem for small family businesses and family farms. As the price of 
land continues to go up and the price of farm equipment, it is a 
capital-intensive business, and unfortunately, when you have the power 
to tax something, you have the power to destroy it.
  When these assets trigger the tax in the death tax, what many times 
happens is part of the family farm or part of the family business has 
to be sold and liquidated, taken away from the family, just to pay the 
tax collector.
  In fact, the death tax is one of the reasons that some family 
businesses have been lost from one generation to the next. I don't 
think it is fair at all for family businesses to have to pay that type 
of price.
  Family businesses and farms should be able to pass on what they have 
worked so hard for and what has already been taxed to the next 
generation, instead of giving 40 percent back to the government.
  The death tax represents double and sometimes triple taxation, and it 
further penalizes people from saving and investing in their family or 
their business and their family farm. I am glad we have an opportunity 
to move forward on this proposal and repeal the onerous death tax.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1195 would create a small business 
advisory council for the CFPB and codify two other councils that the 
CFPB did create on their own.
  These councils can advise and consult the CFPB in the exercise of its 
functions under the Federal consumer financial laws and provide 
information on emerging practices in the consumer financial products 
and services industry.
  H.R. 1195 provides for a small business council to advise the CFPB 
regarding small business concerns. It is important that the CFPB 
receive this input from people who are close to the action, who know 
what is going on in consumer finance, and it is critical for small 
businesses and community-based financial institutions to have that kind 
of input and dialogue with the CFPB.
  Small business is the engine of our economy, and we need to ensure 
its viability in the future by making sure that our Federal regulators 
are well-informed of the issues affecting small business as they move 
forward with important regulations.
  I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues, and 
I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The rule here today provides for consideration of three bills, all of 
which I oppose in their current form. I want to talk about each of 
those.
  We also have, under this rule, a closed process. This resolution 
contains the 19th and 20th closed rules of this Congress.
  Instead of having an open debate about taxes here on tax day, we see 
nothing more than recycled partisan measures and attacks on consumer 
protections that are disguised and under the guise of a small business 
advisory board, which had historically been a bipartisan effort.
  While discussing tax legislation on tax day may not seem the most 
exciting piece of legislative news to our constituents, I hope they are 
watching today, Mr. Speaker. This rule and this

[[Page 5042]]

bill we are bringing under it really demonstrate the gulf that exists 
between our two parties when we talk about things like middle class 
economics.
  This is a $296 billion tax cut. So if we have $296 billion in taxes 
cut, who are we going to cut taxes for?
  This bill affects 100 families in Colorado. With the same amount of 
money, $296 billion, we could cut taxes for every American adult by 
$1,000.
  That $1,000 would mean a lot to middle class families, Mr. Speaker. 
It might help pay for your kids' college tuition. It might help pay for 
a family vacation.
  But instead of directing money there, we are directing it to the very 
wealthiest Americans, namely, those who die with more than a $10 
million estate for a married couple. I think we see a stark contrast on 
priorities.
  While I disagree with the policies and tactics that are under 
consideration, I think it is important to talk about what a Democratic 
majority would do here on tax day. We would certainly not be about to 
consider a bill that applies to literally zero percent of taxpayers, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Let me clarify, because that may seem strange to some people that 
this applies to zero percent of taxpayers. But the bill we are 
considering with regard to the inheritance tax on estates over $10 
million would apply to 0.15 percent of taxpayers. That can be rounded 
down to zero.
  It doesn't even apply to those taxpayers. It applies to them after 
they are dead. So it applies to zero living Americans.
  Mind you, we won't have a debate about the broken immigration 
policies that impact over 11 million immigrant workers who would grow 
the tax base.
  We won't have discussions on reducing taxes for the middle class, but 
we are having policies that affect a few thousand dead people, a few 
thousand rich dead people, I might add.
  If there were a Democratic majority on tax day, we would be working 
to provide tax relief to middle class families, rather than offering a 
bill that would gut one agency whose sole purpose is to protect middle 
class consumers and delivering a tax break to rich, dead families.
  We have another bill under this rule, ostensibly about a small 
business advisory board. This is a worthwhile effort to provide a small 
business advisory input to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Unfortunately, it is a minimal cost, $9 million, but the Republicans 
are offering a way of paying for it that guts the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. They are effectively cutting off your arm to remove 
a splinter in your pinky.
  Well, look. If the majority was consistent when they say the deficit 
matters and we must pay for legislation--but we are dealt with two 
bills that are mutually exclusive.
  On the one hand, they are handing out $269 billion in deficit 
spending through providing tax cuts to 1,000 Americans who are already 
dead. And on the other hand, they are saying this $9 million dollars, 
somehow we have to figure out a way of paying for, and they are 
effectively gutting the financial protection agency to do it.
  That is because this $9 million is apparently a step too far, even 
though they are offering two bills, one that adds $269 billion to the 
deficit, and the other adds $42 billion to the deficit, which I will 
talk about in a minute.
  In this year alone, the House Ways and Means Committee has given 
Congress nine tax expenditure bills, at a cost of $317 billion, all 
unfunded; $317 billion in tax expenditure spending, not even including 
this $269 billion that they are looking at doing today.

                              {time}  1300

  And what bothers me most about this rule today is where we say to 
ourselves: Look, we will spend $269 billion for a tax expenditure for 
dead rich people, $42 billion on a tax reform that will ultimately make 
tax reform harder, but we can't spend $9 million on a bill to help 
small business.
  I am sure that we all have a lot of ideas on both sides of the aisle 
about how we can spend money. If we have $269 billion in tax 
expenditures to use, why don't we direct that to a tax cut for small 
businesses or to reducing the corporate tax rate, which is one of the 
highest in the world, or reducing the middle class tax rate? But 
instead, it is being directed entirely to approximately 100 dead people 
in Colorado, rather than allowing businesses to keep more of their 
money so they can reinvest in their infrastructure and create jobs, 
this precious tax break we are giving to 100 dead people in the State 
of Colorado.
  We should be talking about tax reform today. We should be talking 
about how to reduce taxes for the middle class. Instead, we are having 
a closed debate about another set of bills that will likely not pass 
the Senate, and if they got to the President's desk, he would veto.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. The repeal of the estate 
tax is very hard to explain to our constituents. That is because it is 
$269 billion that benefits almost no one--less than 100 people in the 
State of Colorado.
  Now, when my friends call this the ``death tax'' or somehow say this 
will help small business, let's keep in mind, you don't even pay 
inheritance tax on the first $5 million of your estate, $10 million for 
a married couple. So you can die with a $5 million small business, a 
$10 million small business for a couple, and your heirs pay zero tax on 
that--zero tax.
  What we are saying now is that the very limited number of families 
that might have estates of $50 million or $60 million, instead of 
paying tax on that, should pay zero tax on that and just have the costs 
of that added to the deficit.
  There are a lot of ideas about spending $269 billion. We could say, 
oh, we could spend it on schools or science and research. Or even, if 
we limit ourselves to what we want to do with taxes, why aren't we 
lowering taxes on business? Why aren't we talking about reducing the 
marginal rate? Why aren't we talking about reducing all the tax 
brackets across the board? Why aren't we talking about a tax refund to 
middle class families? Instead, we are spending $269 billion on a few 
hundred dead rich people. From a tax policy standpoint, that has got to 
be one of the least productive ways to attempt to cut taxes.
  You want to cut taxes on small businesses? No argument here. Give it 
to them while they are living.
  I was a small-businessman before I got here. I would have loved to 
have been able to keep more of my own money to be able to invest in the 
growth of my small business rather than receive a tax break when I am 
already dead. This makes no sense in the world.
  Look, we would all love to get rid of every tax, wouldn't we--estate 
tax, business tax, income tax--but we all agree that government needs 
so much money to function.
  We have a House budget. The House budget that this body agreed to 
stipulates a certain amount of tax breaks. It is up to our body to 
decide how to deliver those tax breaks.
  I honestly think that almost every businessowner would rather see 
lower rates while they are alive so they could grow their companies 
faster, creating growth and employing people, rather than a tax break 
after they are dead.
  Proponents of this bill tell stories about how many businesses or 
farms are harmed every year by the estate tax. Well, how many of those 
same farms and businesses are harmed by the hard-earned money that they 
are forced to turn over to the government every year? Why aren't we 
saying: Give less of your hard-earned income to the government every 
year?
  But no, the Republican tax-and-spend approach continues to oppress 
small businesses with higher and higher taxes, oppress the middle class 
with higher and higher taxes, while they are only concerned with 
delivering a tax break to dead rich people. I simply disagree that this 
is an efficient way to use our Tax Code to spur economic growth.
  Chairman Ryan knows full well that I am enthusiastic about having a 
discussion about our Tax Code: how to cut taxes for business, reduce 
the burden on small businesses, simplify and

[[Page 5043]]

streamline the Tax Code by reducing tax expenditures, and bringing down 
tax rates to ensure that the capital expenditures by businesses and 
reinvesting in businesses are determined by businessowners rather than 
by lobbyists here in Washington.
  These bills are a step in the wrong direction, away from tax reform, 
and are detrimental to the American middle class and to American small 
businesses.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
because I have three quick points in response before I yield to the 
gentleman from Tennessee.
  First, with regard to the death tax, it is important to remember 
whose money it is in the first place. This money has already been 
taxed, and it is being taken. Some small businesses, like the 
gentleman's from Colorado, grow to be big businesses, and we are for 
that in America, and that is great. But just because somebody has the 
misfortune to die doesn't mean the government should take up to 40 
percent of their assets.
  Second, with regard to the CFPB, this bill was bipartisan, and I hope 
that we can get it back to a bipartisan bill because the input from 
small businesses and credit unions and community banks is something 
that both sides of the aisle agree on. The disagreement is on the pay-
for.
  Unfortunately, the gentleman from Colorado and his side of the aisle, 
when they were in charge, when they passed the Dodd-Frank bill, did not 
subject the CFPB to the appropriations process. Therefore, anytime we 
make any change that requires money, it requires an offset.
  So this offset simply says, beginning in 2020, it reduces the cap of 
the amount that the CFPB can take from the Federal Reserve as an exact 
offset. It was done by the CBO, was what the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee said to us, and they did it as an exact offset for 
exactly the $700,000 a year it allegedly, according to the CBO, will 
take to run these three advisory committees. It doesn't apply any cap 
until the year 2020. It does apply a cap exactly offset by the amount 
that it will have cost to run these committees for the budget window, 
and that starts in the year 2020.
  I am really disappointed that we didn't find a bipartisan offset. I 
know that the chairman of our Financial Services Committee did say in 
the Rules Committee that he talked to the minority whip's office when 
he did the offset. Obviously folks on the other side of the aisle are 
upset about that. I am really sorry about it because I do want to 
acknowledge that it started as a bipartisan bill that passed our 
Financial Services Committee, which I happen to sit on, on an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. In fact, I believe it was unanimous.
  So my last point to the gentleman from Colorado is, on comprehensive 
tax reform, we completely agree. America needs comprehensive tax 
reform, and nothing in these underlying bills would preclude us from 
doing comprehensive tax reform.
  But it is important that the American people know that we want to end 
the death tax. They know that we want to create a situation where there 
are permanent deductions that are the same for income tax States and 
sales tax States, and they will be treated fairly. Both those bills are 
about fairness. And of course the CFPB advisory committee bill is about 
input and making sure there is a real dialogue with small business 
before the CFPB creates regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the combined rule, bringing 
all three of these very important bills to the floor today. However, I 
rise to speak primarily about H.R. 622, the State and Local Sales Tax 
Deduction Fairness Act, which is so vitally important to the people of 
my home State of Tennessee.
  Some people refer to today as tax day, the day on which individual 
income tax returns are due to the Federal Government. But actually, Mr. 
Speaker, for most Americans, every day is tax day, counting sales 
taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, all of the taxes that people pay 
directly, and then all of the hidden indirect taxes we pay on 
everything in the cost of goods, taxes that are passed on to the 
consumer in the form of higher prices because, to stay in businesses, 
businesses have to pass their taxes on to the consumer in the form of 
higher prices.
  We are an overtaxed nation, Mr. Speaker. Most taxpayers will pay more 
in taxes of all types this year than on food, clothing, and housing 
combined. Per person, the Federal Government collected a near record 
amount in revenues over the past 12 months: $3.3 trillion just to the 
Federal Government, and another $1.5 trillion, or perhaps even more, to 
State and local governments.
  Despite what some people say, Washington does not have a revenue 
problem; it has a spending problem--and higher taxes won't solve it. 
Tennessee is a prime example of that. It is an example for the Nation, 
leading the way, because it is a low-tax State.
  The State and Local Sales Tax Deduction Fairness Act is especially 
important to my State because it will help Tennessee families make ends 
meet by keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working individuals. 
This deduction is a matter of fairness for Tennesseans to ensure that 
they are treated the same way the Federal Government treats those in 
States with State income taxes.
  The State and local sales tax deduction allows residents in States 
with no State income tax, such as Tennessee, to deduct their State and 
local sales tax payments from their Federal income tax. This puts 
Tennessee on equal footing with taxpayers in other States who can 
deduct their State income taxes from their Federal tax obligation.
  This is a matter of fairness, Mr. Speaker. As the gentleman from Ohio 
just said, Tennesseans shouldn't pay a larger share of taxes than other 
taxpayers simply because we pay sales tax and we rely on sales tax 
instead of income tax. Making this deduction permanent will provide 
certainty to Tennesseans who itemize their taxes and allow them to plan 
their family budgets.
  People all over the country, Mr. Speaker, are moving from the high-
tax States to the low-tax States. Tennessee benefits from this. Jobs 
are being created. Our State's economy is one of the strongest in the 
Nation because we keep our taxes low. This is an example the Nation 
should follow and certainly not one that the Nation should penalize in 
any way.
  I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, before further yielding, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume to address some of the points of my colleague, 
the gentleman from Ohio.
  He asked, Whose money is it? I think if you ask any small-
businessperson, any person whom we are talking about here--people that 
are worth over $10 million--and you say, ``Look, would you rather pay 
higher taxes while you are alive or after you are dead?'' I would bet 
almost everybody would rather hold on to more of their money. Whose 
money is it? Let them keep more of their own while they are alive and 
pay it after they are dead. I certainly would. I would much rather pay 
the government after I am dead than while I am alive, if we have to pay 
them at all.
  Number two, he said, Why can't we come up with this pay-for? Well, 
look, this body, at its very best, just came together around a package 
over $100 billion for SGR.
  This is $9 million. It is not that hard to pay for $9 million for the 
U.S. Government. We probably spent $9 million of U.S. Government time 
just having this debate right here, keeping the lights on and C-SPAN 
flowing and the Chamber going. For goodness' sake, $9 million--it is 
easy.
  If you allowed this to come up under an open rule, Mr. Speaker, 
plenty of Members could have offered $9 million

[[Page 5044]]

pay-fors. Take it out of almost any account; it is such a relatively 
small amount of money. You could take it from almost any government 
agency you want, and I am sure you can find $9 million to agree on to 
fund this rather than a backdoor attempt to gut the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau.
  Finally, the gentleman from Ohio said nothing in here precludes tax 
reform. Of course he is right; nothing precludes tax reform. We are 
just moving further and further away from tax reform by making 
permanent special interest tax cuts that we all agree are part of the 
discussion for tax reform to eliminate in order to bring down taxes. So 
it is moving further and further away. It doesn't preclude it. It makes 
it harder.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Equal Pay Day. If we defeat the previous 
question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the 
House to consider H.R. 1619, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by 
Representative DeLauro, which I am proud to cosponsor.
  I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to defeat the previous question so 
that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) can offer an amendment for 
the House to immediately consider the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Yesterday we marked yet another Equal Pay Day. What is Equal Pay Day? 
That means that it took 104 days for the average woman's earnings to 
catch up with what the average man made last year--104 days. That is 
exactly 104 days too long.
  It has been 52 years since the Equal Pay Act became law, and a woman 
still makes only 78 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by a 
man.

                              {time}  1315

  That is almost $10,000 a year or almost half a million dollars over 
the course of the average career. The gap has barely changed in over a 
decade. Even in nursing, a profession that is more than 90 percent 
female, a study last month showed that men earned $5,100 more per year 
on average than women, when you control for education, experience, and 
other factors.
  Clearly, we must do more to close the gender pay gap. That is why, 3 
weeks ago, I reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. My bill would 
finish the job started by the Equal Pay Act. It would end pay secrecy 
across the board.
  It would require employers to prove that pay disparities are not 
based on gender. Passing the bill would give real teeth to a very 
simple principle: men and women in the same job deserve the same pay.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act enjoys bipartisan support. It has passed 
the House twice already and came just two votes shy of passing in the 
Senate. President Obama has called on us to pass it.
  More crucially still, the American people know the importance of 
paycheck fairness. In October, a Gallup poll asked Americans to 
identify the top issue facing women in the workplace. Equal pay was, by 
far, the most common response among men as well as women.
  All across the country today, working families are in trouble. Wages 
are stagnant. The single biggest issue that we face today in our 
economy is that men and women are in jobs that do not pay them enough 
money to live on.
  Many are struggling--struggling--to feed their children and to heat 
their homes. It is time that we look at equal pay because equal pay is 
a crucial part of the solution to this problem.
  Women are half of the workforce. Two-thirds of us are breadwinners 
for our families. Lower pay for women means less gas in the car; less 
food on the table; less money in the college fund; and, yes, less 
spending to support our economy.
  President Obama and the Department of Labor have shown the way by 
taking action to protect women who work for Federal contractors. It is 
high time that we in the Congress acted to extend real, enforceable pay 
equity protection for all women.
  Equal pay for equal work is the right thing to do; it is the smart 
thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do. It is time to make it a 
reality for all Americans.
  For those of us who are in the Congress, we all come to this 
institution from different parts of the country. We come from different 
skill sets, different educational backgrounds, and different 
philosophies, yet we are in the same job, and men and women in this 
institution get paid the same amount of money. That ought to be 
extended to every woman in this Nation.
  That is why we should defeat the previous question here so that we 
can introduce the paycheck fairness bill. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Texas, I don't think we are going to solve necessarily the 
philosophical disagreement we have on the death tax because, clearly, 
we think death is bad enough, it shouldn't be a taxable event; and the 
gentleman from Colorado thinks it is a preferable tax.
  On the other one, I would just ask the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Speaker, whether he thinks that having a temporary deduction for sales 
tax States like Texas--the gentleman from Texas is about to speak--is 
fair when we have a permanent deduction for income taxes for States 
like Ohio.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. As we talked about yesterday in the committee, it seems 
like the answer that would move us toward tax reform would mean making 
the deduction of income tax temporary rather than make them both 
permanent, moving us away from reform.
  Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Colorado.
  It appears to me it doesn't matter which we choose. We need to 
equalize the treatment, and neither one takes us further away from tax 
reform because, in tax reform, we are going to have the entire debate.
  Whatever we do, we just need to move to a system that is fair, and I 
don't think it is fair today to States like Texas that we are not going 
to let you know whether you can deduct your sales tax until December 
19. It just does not make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio 
yielding. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Ohio makes a great point. It 
is not right to have some States given preference versus other States 
when their States have different methods of taxation.
  I want to focus my remarks primarily on the death tax. I want to 
first commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the sponsor 
of the underlying legislation.
  I have had a bill to deal with the death tax and supported doing away 
with it completely since I have been in Congress. I want to express 
appreciation for the 79 Members who have cosponsored my bill in this 
Congress, which is substantially similar to the bill we will vote on 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason this issue is so important is because the 
death tax has a huge effect on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses 
of all kinds, including those in my district. It is one of the issues I 
have heard the most about.
  It hangs like a cloud over business growth and job creation. Now, 
what we often hear is: Well, the thresholds are so high that it really 
doesn't affect anybody but the very rich.
  I just want to make two points. Number one is we see continual 
efforts to increase taxes on estates. Even the President's budget 
request this year had a different method of increasing taxes. It makes 
it very difficult for any farmer, rancher, or small-businessowner to 
plan because you never know what the government is going to do next.

[[Page 5045]]

  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to levy a tax on what someone 
tries to leave to their children after they have already paid taxes on 
it when they earn it and then have the government come and want them to 
pay taxes on it again.
  It is wrong for an estate of $100, and it is just as wrong for an 
estate of $100 million. We pay taxes when we earn it the first time. We 
should not have the government come in after death when we are trying 
to leave it to our heirs, our children, and then take another bite out 
of it.
  There are too many farms, ranches, and small businesses who have had 
to sell just in order to pay the tax. If there is one thing we want 
people to do in this country, it is to work hard, to save, and to leave 
something for our kids so that they can have a better life.
  The death tax punishes you for doing that. That is why it is so 
fundamentally wrong, regardless of whether you are leaving a farm, a 
ranch, a small business, or a lifetime of savings.
  It is time to get rid of it completely so it does not hang over us in 
this country. I support the rule and the underlying legislation. I hope 
my colleagues will as well.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his 
very lucid explanation of where we are today.
  Let me say that I hope my colleagues will join me in eliminating 
sequester. We can put that on the floor today that would in actuality 
provide more funding for education, for military pay, and for the 
infrastructure. We need to be doing serious work here.
  Let me join my colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro, in opposing the rule 
and the previous question in order to be able to assure that we pass 
pay equity. Today, in 2015, whether we have the death tax or the sales 
tax, we have women who are making 75 cents on a dollar and cannot make 
ends meet. We are having women who are not in the body of this august 
House and Senate working every day and getting 75 cents on the dollar. 
It is time for pay equity now.
  Let's hear the voices raised up to be able to support the working 
women of America who over almost a century ago--not yet--were fighting 
for the right to vote. We have gained the right to vote, but we are 
still in an unequal economic circumstance. I want my colleagues to be 
as energetic about providing for pay equity.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say something that is sort of bifurcated. I 
will say to you that, on the death tax, there is an equity in that. 
There is an equity in that because the ability to build that estate has 
been through the gracious laws and hard work of the people, a 
combination that you are in the capitalistic system that is here in 
America and, therefore, the death tax is simply the transfer tax that 
goes on the basis of all of this money that you have made to be able to 
help run this government.
  I don't really think that that is offensive at all because there are 
many tax breaks that have come to the individuals with these huge 
estates through their lifetime: capital gains tax; many different taxes 
that they have; R&D taxes, research tax that gives them a benefit. It 
is not like we are taking money. It is an investment in America.
  Let me also add that I do come from Texas, and I do think equalizing 
of taxes is very important. I really do. What I would like to say to my 
friends is let us have a comprehensive tax reform. Let's get rid of 
sequester. Let's pass pay equity. Let's address the tax problems of 
people who make $50,000 a year, and that does impact those who pay 
sales tax. That is a reasonable approach.
  Let's look at everybody in the circle of life, if you will, and make 
sure that, when we leave this floor tomorrow, we have addressed the 
concerns of all. Let us look closely at the death tax and the fact that 
they are not being punished; it is a transfer based upon the bounty of 
wealth that has been gained over the years and invested because of a 
capitalistic system that allows that wealth to grow.
  I don't think anybody can challenge that when you have become a 
Rockefeller.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Rockefellers were most notorious, positively, 
for giving money back because they realized that they had gained money 
through the system here in the United States, their hard work--I am not 
denying that--but, in the overall system that we have, allowed their 
money to grow.
  I would just make the argument that we can do well together in doing 
a comprehensive system. I certainly will not ignore the fact that the 
equalizing of taxes through the sales tax deduction is an important 
step, but I would like to take many steps.
  I would like my colleagues to join me in relieving the sequester but 
also not voting for the previous question so that pay equity can come 
to the floor. Vote for the women.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding. I rise in strong support of the rule and especially in strong 
support of the underlying legislation to repeal the death tax in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, if you look at what the death tax is, this is an attack 
on family-owned businesses. You are talking about people who have built 
up, as part of the American Dream, built up businesses that are 
creating jobs across this country.
  These people, by the way, paid taxes all along the way as they were 
building up that business. The business has already been taxed multiple 
times in some cases by the Federal Government; yet because of the death 
tax, when the businessowner dies, the first thing the Federal 
Government does is Uncle Sam shows up not to issue condolences to the 
grieving family, but to send them a massive tax bill that, in many 
cases, Mr. Speaker--in many cases--threatens the very existence of that 
business.
  What we hear from small-businessowners all across the country and 
family-owned businesses is that, in many cases, when their loved ones 
die, while they are trying to figure out how to grieve and how to take 
care of the family from there, in many cases, they have to spend those 
first few weeks figuring out how or even if they can keep the family-
owned business.
  In many cases, we see people having to sell their family-owned 
business that they wanted to pass on to the next generation just to pay 
the death tax.
  This is morally wrong, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government taxes 
people on their death after they have already paid taxes building up 
their businesses, wanting to pass on the American Dream.
  Part of the American Dream is not just to own a home or to create 
good jobs for people, but to be able to pass that on to your kids so 
that they can experience and live that same dream as well and continue 
to grow and create jobs.
  What we see so many times because of this death tax is that many 
businessowners spend so much of their time and their resources trying 
to figure out how to shield their business from the death tax.
  A lot of people aren't paying this tax. They are paying a lot of 
accountants and attorneys to figure out how to avoid the death tax so 
they can pass it on to their kids. That is money--millions and billions 
of dollars--that they could be spending growing their business, growing 
jobs, and creating more opportunities for other people not only to have 
that first job, but to then go out and create their own small business.
  But, lo and behold, if they are too successful, Mr. Speaker, and they 
grow that business big enough and they have kids they want to pass it 
on to, eventually, they are going to die, and the one constant they 
know is that their kids will have to face that same decision of whether 
or not to sell the family business just to pay the Federal Government 
over their death.

[[Page 5046]]

  This is morally wrong. It is time we repeal this death tax and 
preserve the American Dream for those family-owned businesses all 
across this country.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have a hard time understanding why the Republicans, of all the 
parties, support H.R. 622, which incentivizes States and Governors to 
increase their taxes. This is a State and local tax extender. It is a 
step away from tax reform. It adds billions to our deficit.
  Do my Republican colleagues realize that this bill and its sister 
policy deducting State and local income tax simply subsidizes high-tax 
States? That is what this does.
  You are saying to Governors, Raise taxes as much as you want, Ohio 
Governor. Raise taxes as much as you want, Colorado Governor. Don't 
worry, the Federal Government will bail you out. We are going to have a 
Federal bailout for your own high taxes.
  That is what this bill does, and you cannot dispute that. They are 
saying, Oh, it treats it the same. Oh, well, let's give this same 
bailout to Texas that we give to Ohio. Okay, let's bail out Texas for 
their high taxes and Ohio for their high taxes--brilliant, brilliant.
  It seems like it is at odds with everything the Republican Party 
pretends to stand for while, here in this body, they are actually 
advocating to bail out States with high taxes.
  For me, in some ways, that is actually the most troubling bill we are 
considering under this rule not because it is the worst policy of the 
three--that great distinction is owned by directing an enormous tax 
break to dead people rather than living people--but because the 
underlying policy of deducting State and local taxes can be defensible.
  This signals that the majority has no interest in comprehensive tax 
reform. It moves us further away from tax reform by enshrining one of 
the tax loopholes that incentivizes States to raise taxes permanently 
in the Tax Code rather than including it as part of a package that 
brings down tax rates for American businesses and American individuals.
  Here on tax day, why aren't we debating tax reform and reducing our 
tax rates? I am sure to say that there has been someone here on the 
House floor saying those exact words since 1986, the last time this 
body took on tax reform, but instead, the House Ways and Means 
Committee has given us these ``extender'' bills that all the ones 
passed this year have moved us $317 billion away from tax reform, away 
from cutting rates for American families and businesses.
  Each billion that is put in the Tax Code represents an additional 
billion-dollar hurdle to ever getting a bipartisan tax reform deal 
done.
  Now, look, I understand tax reform will be hard. No one agrees on 
what the final product should look like, even though the President and 
Chairman Ryan and others have indicated their support for the concept, 
but it should be and needs to be the goal of this Congress.
  We can simplify the Tax Code and bring down tax rates. We can 
streamline the code. We can make sure that businesses invest wherever 
their productivity is most enhanced rather than optimize their 
expenditures to fit the Tax Code that lobbyists have inserted here in 
Washington, D.C. We can champion small businesses and middle class 
taxpayers rather than dead rich people and States with high sales 
taxes.
  These discussions about tax extender policy move the baseline further 
and further away and make tax reform harder and harder to ever get 
done. Again, it is not adding any certainty to taxpayers.
  If you listen to the majority, the folks who understand how these 
numbers add up at the end of the day, they know they can't take tax 
extenders that cost tens of billions of dollars completely ``off the 
table.'' You can't shield that money and still lower rates in the way 
that they are promising. The numbers just don't work.
  If extenders like this are ``still on the table,'' why are we even 
calling this permanent? We are just further confusing people and 
injecting uncertainty. Republicans are telling Governors: go ahead and 
raise your sales taxes; we will bail you out.
  At the same time, they are saying it is not off the table that some 
day we might cut that for tax reform, but they are moving further and 
further away from tax reform.
  This bailout of high-tax States is simply a step away from tax reform 
and a step towards encouraging Governors to raise their sales tax by 
letting them know that the Federal Government is here to bail them out.
  We will debate this bill today, not pay for it, make it harder to get 
to tax reform, send a message to Republican States like Texas that it 
is okay to raise your sales tax, but my hope is, hopefully, this is our 
last one.
  Maybe we can begin a serious discussion that Chairman Camp started 
with his outline on tax reform that Chairman Ryan has paid lip service 
to, and I hope that we will work on a bipartisan proposal that we can 
begin without haste.
  Finally, I want to address the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection Advisory Boards Act. Again, Republicans took a bipartisan 
bill to add a small business advisory board to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. It came back costing $9 million--not billion, not 
trillion--$9 million.
  Rather than allowing Members of both sides to come up with a way of 
paying for it, rather than cutting some bloated line of Federal 
bureaucracy that both sides could have agreed on to pay for $9 million, 
they are handcuffing the entire agency with effectively a policy rider 
pay-for that effectively restricts the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau in its entirety rather than extending their arm to come up with 
a bipartisan pay-for. It should be easy to find a bipartisan pay-for 
for $9 million.
  These concepts represent a stark difference between our parties: 
Democrats wanting to cut taxes for middle class and businesses, 
Republicans wanting to cut taxes for rich dead people and incentivize 
States to raise their sales tax.
  These rules allow for consideration of a tax bill that only serves 
the needs of a few thousand Americans rather than cutting taxes for the 
middle class. It allows the consideration of a bill that moves us 
further away from tax reform by bailing out States like Texas. After a 
self-executing amendment, this rule would drastically cut the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau.
  We should be having a conversation of comprehensive tax reform. We 
should be talking about how we can make the Tax Code work better for 
the middle class and small businesses and bring down rates. We should 
streamline our Tax Code and make our businesses more competitive.
  I hope my colleagues oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Equal Pay Day. If you defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the 
House to consider H.R. 16, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is unacceptable 
that women are paid significantly less than men for filling the exact 
same role. It is long past time that Congress acted to close the wage 
gap. This bill would do exactly that.
  I join Representative DeLauro in advocating we finally enable women, 
support America's children and families, and end the crippling drag 
created by the gender pay gap on our Nation's economic prosperity.
  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 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bills. Instead of 
talking about providing a tax cut for dead Americans, we talk about 
providing a tax cut for living Americans. Instead of bailing out States 
and encouraging

[[Page 5047]]

them to raise their taxes even more, we give them an incentive to 
reduce their taxes and, at the same time, reduce the Federal tax rate.
  Yes, we can--si, se puede. Si, se puede. Si, se puede.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying rule and bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  These bills today are about fairness. While I certainly agree with 
the gentleman from Colorado about the incentive in the deductibility of 
sales tax, it is really important that we put sales tax States and 
income tax States on a level playing field.
  Because Congress last year and the President did not enact these tax 
extenders until December 19, it is important to create a permanent 
system that creates certainty that does not prevent anything from being 
considered in comprehensive tax reform. In fact, our side of the aisle 
has proposed comprehensive tax reform last year and continues to work 
to enact comprehensive tax reform that simplifies the Tax Code and 
lowers the rates.
  On the death tax, we just have a fundamental disagreement. We think 
that repealing the death tax is fair. Small businesses and family farms 
should not be forced to be sold to pay the tax collector.
  With regard to the CFPB, I think getting input from small businesses, 
credit unions, and small banks will ensure that financial regulations 
passed by the CFPB are thoughtful and understand what the impact will 
be on the overall economy.
  It is unfortunate that the pay-for has become comprehensive. The pay-
for is a simple offset that ensures that the CFPB doesn't spend more 
money than it costs to operate the CFPB, minus the small $700,000 a 
year cost for these three advisory councils.
  It is too bad that that became partisan, but I understand from the 
Financial Services Committee that that effort was worked with the 
minority whip, and it is too bad that it became partisan.
  The differences between the parties are clear. Republicans are for 
fairness in the Tax Code and ensuring we give input from our small 
businesses and Main Street before big Washington regulators crush small 
businesses with oppressive regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 200 Offered By Mr. Polis of Colorado

       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. 
     1619) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
     provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination 
     in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other 
     purposes. 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 
     Education and the Workforce. 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. 1619.
                                  ____


        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. STIVERS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________