[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4529-4533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1206, NO HIRES FOR THE DELINQUENT 
 IRS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4885, IRS OVERSIGHT 
             WHILE ELIMINATING SPENDING (OWES) ACT OF 2016

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 687 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 687

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1206) to 
     prohibit the hiring of additional Internal Revenue Service 
     employees until the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that 
     no employee of the Internal Revenue Service has a seriously 
     delinquent tax debt. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-47 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; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
     designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 
     the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4885) to 
     require that user fees collected by the Internal Revenue 
     Service be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-50 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for H.R. 1206, the No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act, 
and H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act 
of 2016.
  House Resolution 687 provides a structured rule for H.R. 1206 and a 
closed rule for H.R. 4885.
  The resolution makes all germane amendments offered by Members in 
order.
  Additionally, the resolution provides each bill 1 hour of debate 
equally divided between the chair and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Speaker, each April, Americans send a large portion of their 
hard-earned income to the Internal Revenue Service. Often, they don't 
get a good return on their investment from the agency tasked with 
collecting their tax dollars.
  Since I joined Congress in 2011, I have heard from countless 
constituents struggling to understand how to comply with the complex 
Tax Code or with other directives from the Internal Revenue Service. 
Often, they turn to my office because they have no help within the 
agency and nobody willing to give them help.
  I know that these problems aren't new and they aren't issues just 
contained in my district. They impact all Americans who have 
representatives here in Congress, from both the Republican and the 
Democrat side.
  We owe our constituents improvements in customer service from all 
Federal agencies. In the end, everybody who works for our government is 
in the job of customer service to provide a service for our citizens.
  And, of course, this week is tax week, so it is a natural week to 
advance some bills aimed at restoring our American people's confidence 
in their public institution and improving the taxpayer experience with 
the Internal Revenue Service.
  This rule makes two bills in consideration: No Hires for the 
Delinquent IRS Act, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Rouzer), and IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending (OWES) Act, 
sponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

                              {time}  1230

  Under current law, the IRS is required to terminate any employee who 
willfully fails to file his Federal tax return or intentionally 
understates his tax liability. A report from last year by the Treasury 
Inspector General for Tax Administration found that the IRS 
consistently reduces penalties for current employees who violate tax 
laws. The Treasury Inspector General reported that, of the 1,580 
employees who were found to have willfully violated tax laws between 
2004 and 2013, only 39 percent were terminated, resigned, or retired.
  The No Hires for the Delinquent IRS Act would prohibit the hiring of 
additional IRS employees until the Secretary of the Treasury can 
certify that current IRS employees do not have serious delinquent tax 
debt. The vast majority of Federal employees pay their taxes in full 
and on time, but this bill would give the American people and American 
taxpayers the confidence in knowing that Internal Revenue Service 
employees are following the same laws that the American people follow 
and that the agency is tasked with enforcing.
  The other bill under consideration under this rule is the IRS 
Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act, which would repeal a 
provision of the current law that enables the Internal Revenue Service 
to spend user fees that are collected by the agency without any 
congressional approval or without an appropriation. Under this bill, 
these fees would be directed to the Treasury's general fund, helping to 
ensure the agency operates in a transparent and accountable manner. It 
would also help us as we are trying to close in on our deficit spending 
and are trying to balance our budget.
  The funds from these fees have historically supported taxpayer 
services, but in fiscal year 2015, the IRS spent only 10 percent of 
this money for that purpose. It diverted the other 90 percent for other 
purposes. In fact, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight found 
that the IRS is purposely diverting these funds away from taxpayer 
services and towards other functions, like the implementation of 
ObamaCare and other items.
  Together, these bills would take important steps toward improving the 
IRS' customer service to taxpayers, and it would give Americans the 
peace of mind that the Internal Revenue Service and its employees are 
following the same laws that the American people and taxpayers are 
required to follow.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes for debate.

[[Page 4530]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the closed rule providing for the 
consideration of both H.R. 1206, the No Hires for the Delinquent IRS 
Act, and H.R. 4885, the IRS Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act of 
2016.
  Mr. Speaker, when we began this Congress, we were told that it would 
be the most open Congress that we have had in our great Nation. The 
general public does not quite grasp, at least I believe, the 
significance of rules being closed or rules being open.
  When there is an open rule for whatever the subject matter is, then 
every Member of the House of Representatives has an opportunity, if he 
or she chooses, to make potential amendments to the subject matter that 
is before the House. My colleagues on the other side have chosen a 
different tack. I might add, at other times--in my opinion, wrongly--
Democrats have done the same thing, and that is to have closed rules 
and shut out the rest of the people who may have interesting and 
necessary proposals with reference to whatever the subject matter is.
  In this particular instance, we are now numbering, with these two 
bills, 55 times that we have come here to the floor with closed rules. 
I bring that to the attention of the general public with an eye toward 
hoping that there will be some pressure, as there was when I came here, 
on the majority body to begin to open up this process so that all 
Members can participate. These bills are nothing more than partisan 
messaging bills that the majority hopes to use to score cheap political 
points during the tax season deadline, which was yesterday.
  H.R. 1206 would freeze hiring at the IRS until the Treasury Secretary 
certifies that there are no IRS employees with seriously delinquent tax 
debt. I agree--and I believe Democrats agree--that IRS employees should 
pay their taxes. In my view, that is common sense. The good news is 
that the IRS' department, the Treasury, has the lowest tax delinquency 
rate--at 1.19 percent--throughout the entire executive branch. So, 
instead of solving the actual important problems that are facing our 
Nation, my Republican friends--and the presenter of this measure is my 
friend--have, apparently, decided it is more important to try and 
invent problems to solve.
  There is then H.R. 4885, yet another one of these grab bag proposals 
that we bring here with more than one rule at a time. This bill would 
prohibit the IRS from supplementing its annual appropriations funding 
through user fees, but what it really amounts to is an end-around 
attempt to cut an additional 4 percent from the IRS' budget. We already 
cut that budget, rather substantially, previously. Now we seek, under 
this measure, to cut even more.
  In other words, the majority often complains that the IRS is not good 
at its job, and in their wisdom, the answer to this concern is to cut 
the agency's budget even more and make it harder to hire the people it 
needs. The IRS is already drastically underfunded and understaffed, so, 
naturally, my friends on the other side think the solution is to cut 
more and hire less. This counterintuitive logic is not making the IRS a 
more successful agency. No. Instead, these proposals will simply make 
the IRS' already difficult task of enforcing the tax law and serving 
the American people even more difficult.
  Mr. Speaker, more importantly, last week, I asked my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle: Where is the budget? I had the pleasure of 
working with my friend from Ohio in presenting yet another rule that 
was going nowhere like this one is. I asked him to have a colloquy with 
me regarding the budget. I won't bother him with that this week. I am 
sure that, doubtless, he and I will be back here next week and will be 
talking about the ongoing negotiations, as he told me last week, on the 
side of the majority.
  This week, now that we have blown past the statutorily mandated 
deadline to pass a budget resolution, through my colleague on the other 
side and you, Mr. Speaker, I will just ask my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle: Where is the budget? Perhaps the American people 
would like to ask them the same thing: Where is the budget?
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just the fact that we have no budget; it is 
the fact that we are not addressing, for example, Puerto Rico's debt 
crisis, that we are not funding a response to combat the risk posed by 
the Zika virus. Let me footnote that particular situation.
  My understanding is that, yesterday, in the Rules Committee, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee indicated that he thought that there 
were 20 States that had this problem but that he felt that Texas didn't 
have the problem. He did assert, with all of the horrible rain and 
flooding that occurred in certain areas of Texas yesterday, that the 
residual from that likely will allow, as summer proceeds, for added 
mosquitos.
  What has transpired that is little understood by the public is that 
this matter is now affecting as many as 20 States, according to the 
chairman. My recollection, from just the news alone, indicates that 
there may be as many as 33 States in which this pronounced virus has 
shown up. There are now 80 examples of its having occurred in the State 
of Florida--7 of them in the congressional district that I am 
privileged to serve. This particular virus that affects pregnant women 
and their children is likely to mutate, and scientists signified--the 
NIH department testified here earlier this week--that this may now be 
something that we are going to have to look at with adults, who may 
very well wind up with this problem.
  If this thing blows up, then we are going to have a crisis in this 
Nation, and that needs to be addressed right now, not at such time as 
many people are affected. We can reasonably expect that, with what has 
occurred, the President has requested nearly $2 billion to address this 
problem. The Republican majority sent back to the President: take it 
out of Ebola, and take it out of other areas. The NIH indicates that 
they would then have to go into other funds, which they are going into, 
including the fund for tuberculosis.
  Here again, we have a similar example as to what we have going on 
here. Rather than addressing a real crisis, we are addressing matters 
that are going nowhere fast. We are not taking steps to ensure that men 
and women are paid the same for the same work. We are not working to 
reform our criminal justice system or our broken immigration system. In 
fact, under the leadership of this Republican majority, we are not 
doing much of anything here to solve any of the problems that are 
facing our country--a broken infrastructure that we have been begging 
about right here in the Nation's Capital. Aside from all of the 
potholes, the Memorial Bridge may very well be shut down as well as 
thousands of bridges in this country; yet we cannot do the things that 
are vitally necessary that we should be doing in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Conference's inability to govern means, 
instead of addressing the many important problems that are facing this 
great Nation of ours, we are here today, attacking an already 
underfunded and understaffed agency so that the majority can score 
political points. Sadly, this has become the status quo with my friends 
on the other side of the aisle.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to address a few issues with regard to the rule on the two 
bills.
  The Rules Committee did approve every amendment that was found 
germane. There were many amendments that were found not germane to 
these bills. For example, there was an amendment filed that would have 
declared that water district rebates are not taxable, but because 
neither of these bills actually amends the Tax Code and defines what is 
taxable and what is not, that was not germane. Of every amendment the 
Rules Committee actually found germane, we included it to be voted on. 
One of these bills has an amendment, and the other one had no germane 
amendments filed. The rule did include some opportunities for that.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's impassioned plea on things 
like infrastructure and Zika, on which

[[Page 4531]]

we do have bipartisan agreement--the gentleman is correct--and we need 
to work to solve those problems.

                              {time}  1245

  In this rule, we have two bills from the Ways and Means Committee. It 
is tax week. Frankly, it is a week for us to increase the transparency 
and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service, and that is what 
these two bills do.
  Frankly, the IRS has 100,000 employees. So by the gentleman's own 
math, Mr. Speaker, of 1.5 percent, that is 1,500 employees with serious 
delinquencies in the IRS, working to process other people's taxes.
  There is some work we need to do to, again, to give some belief to 
the American people that the employees of the Internal Revenue Service 
play by the same rules that the American people do and that the 
American taxpayers do. I think that is the purpose of the bill.
  As soon as the Treasury Secretary can verify that we have weeded out 
those with serious delinquencies from the IRS, then they could continue 
to hire. So there is nothing that gets in the way there.
  The other bill from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) makes 
sure that, when there are user fees that aren't appropriated, they 
can't be used. They have to go back to the Treasury.
  Frankly, Article I of our Constitution says that Congress will 
appropriate money for government services and government agencies. When 
we have unaccountable fees that are not used through the appropriations 
process, it creates a problem. It is a constitutional problem. It is 
time we stand up for the Constitution, and that is what we are doing 
today with Mr. Smith's bill.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the 
distinguished chair of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Stivers), who is a member of the Rules Committee, for not only yielding 
me the time, but also for the service that he gives to the Rules 
Committee, the hours of deliberate work, reading, and thought process.
  I also want to address, if I can, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Stivers) did, with great admiration not only to Judge Hastings for 
always constantly staying with issues and ideas that not only affect 
his district in Florida, but that really address the entire country.
  I was delighted yesterday when the gentleman brought up in a most 
thoughtful, genuine way: Where is the answer to these important 
questions?
  What we are here today, Mr. Speaker, to do is--as the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Stivers) talked about, we are here to have, I think, once 
again a thoughtful debate about some problems that we think we see.
  The role of the United States Congress, on behalf of the American 
people, is to make sure that we provide proper oversight, that we fund 
well and faithfully the running of the government.
  As we see things that happen from time to time, it is our role to 
make sure that we are providing the debate, the argument, the facts of 
the case, and that is what we are doing today about the IRS.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) did talk about H.R. 4885, IRS 
Oversight While Eliminating Spending Act. There is more to the story 
about fees that are being collected by the IRS.
  I am going to read here directly about what they have done. Mr. 
Speaker, traditionally, the IRS has used this money that they collect 
in fees, that they collect for work that they do that goes directly 
back into customer service, sustaining themselves in the eyes of the 
public, taking calls, answering questions, trying to be of a service 
nature.
  We understand the IRS is an organization that is there to collect 
taxes and very few people want to pay certainly more than what they 
have to. But in doing that, in complying with the law, it is not 
unusual that a taxpayer would want to contact the Service to learn more 
about paying their taxes, properly reporting their taxes, and properly 
doing things.
  So, historically, the user fee account has primarily supported 
taxpayer services in the past. However, the Ways and Means Subcommittee 
on Oversight found that, in fiscal year 2015, the IRS deliberately 
diverted resources away from taxpayer services toward other agency 
functions, including implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  So they took their eye off the ball that they had previously done to 
change that. In fiscal year 2014, the IRS spent $183 million in these 
user fees on taxpayer services, which was 44 percent of the user 
account fees. That is what they used it for: 44 percent.
  In fiscal year 2015, however, the agency spent only $49 million--from 
$183 million to $49 million on taxpayer services and only 10 percent of 
user fees from those accounts that came in. That decision amounted to a 
73 percent reduction in user fee allocation.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to say today to the IRS--because 
this is how we give them oversight. We hold a hearing. We do a markup. 
We bring the ideas to the Rules Committee.
  The Rules Committee notifies all the Members that, if you have an 
idea about how you would like to talk about this bill, there is an 
amendment process. For both the rules that we are doing today, we made 
all of the amendments in order that were germane.
  What we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that we disagree with the 
IRS. We are going to force the IRS to begin using these user fees in 
the way that they have historically done so that the public, which are 
taxpayers, have a chance to comply with the law, to get their questions 
answered, and to do business as is necessary.
  The IRS has intentionally changed the way they do business to the 
detriment of the customer. Republicans all the time argue we ought to 
be more like customer services or a business-type organization.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. STIVERS. I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, so what we are trying to say today, which 
we would like to do on a bipartisan basis, which we would like to do 
straight up and look right at the IRS, is say: We would like to meet 
you in a way to where you know what we think. We would like to be very 
specific. We would like to show you exactly what we are talking about. 
We would love to have you comply.
  In this case, it is taking a piece of legislation that we think is in 
the best interest of the IRS--because we are helping them protect 
themselves--and Congress that has oversight and an administration that 
we would welcome this opportunity. This is not some sneaky attempt to 
do something wrong. This is the right attempt.
  The second part of the rule is H.R. 1206, No Hires for the Delinquent 
IRS Act. That simply says that we want to make sure that the 
Commissioner of the IRS understands that they should not hire any new 
employee if they have a tax problem.
  I would think that would be part of the agreement. I would think that 
an employee of the IRS would understand that, to be faithful to their 
job, they should not be given an extra status better than any taxpayer 
who pays their taxes, has done what they are supposed to do, and 
follows the law.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why Republicans are on the floor of the House of 
Representatives today. I am proud of what Congressman Stivers is doing. 
I support this rule that is a fair and logical rule for the best 
interest of us working with the IRS, with our colleagues that are 
Democrats and Republicans, and with the administration.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I ask the chairman if he would remain just a moment to engage in a 
colloquy with me.
  Mr. Chairman, with great respect, do you agree with me that, between 
the years 2010 and 2015, Congress cut the IRS budget by 17 percent?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in 
a colloquy.

[[Page 4532]]

  In fact, on a bipartisan basis, that was achieved, and the President 
of the United States signed the legislation. That was because of the 
gross examples of the IRS' conduct as it was related to 
politicalization. That would be correct.
  Mr. HASTINGS. So, then, having cut their budget by 17 percent and 
then not allowing them to undertake the user fees under the measure 
that is before us in a manner as you assert to undertake a mandate that 
they had, do you agree with me that the IRS, under the Affordable Care 
Act, is mandated to implement that act?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, sir. In fact, I do. But I also recognize--and the 
gentleman knows this. You are making a very, very good point. They did 
not use it for something they were not authorized to do.
  My point is that I think what we are trying to say is we would like 
to get the IRS to answer more questions. Some of the people who might 
be asking questions, it might be related to the Affordable Care Act 
because, in fact, it is a new portion of the law. And the IRS, I 
believe, has a duty to at least balance what they do, sir.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Then, for all of our edification, not needing a response unless you 
care to give one, I said earlier in my remarks that it was less than 2 
percent of the delinquencies that occurred in the executive branch, 
inclusive of the IRS.
  I don't mean to beat up on staff and Congress people, but 
congressional employees have less than 6 percent, about 5.8 percent, 
delinquencies.
  Now, I am not arguing for delinquencies. But if we are going to go 
after the IRS, then we might want to take care of our own.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas, if he cares to respond.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very important 
point. I would respond back by saying it is probably my fault and 
Members' fault. We do not ask that question.
  I do not have a determination. I generally do not do a full 
background check. I do not have access to their records. I would not 
know if they were telling me the truth or not.
  If you were a law enforcement organization or if you were a hospital 
looking for certification, if you were the IRS, you would have pretty 
much data available to you so that you didn't ask a question that you 
couldn't verify. So I think the gentleman makes a point.
  I will tell you that this Member of Congress is now and has always 
been faithful and has not done anything with his taxes. I pay mine 
every year.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am not just talking about 
Congresspersons, I am talking about throughout the bureaucracy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I agree with that. Once again, I don't ask the 
question, but the IRS should.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, I follow you. I don't have a problem with that. I 
thank the chairman for his forthright commentary.
  Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague from Ohio that I have no 
further speakers. I think we have made our time deadline of 1:50. So I 
am ready to close.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further speakers and am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up a bill that would ensure that American 
corporations that enjoy the benefits of operating in our country 
continue to pay their fair share of taxes by closing the tax inversion 
loophole.
  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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  These partisan messaging bills are not what the American people want 
or deserve. These bills are what the extremists in the Republican Party 
that didn't come here to govern want.

                              {time}  1300

  Instead of debating and passing a budget, we are here today ignoring 
the important work of governing so the majority can try and score 
political points and appease the insatiable extreme wing of their party 
that turned down their party's own budget proposal.
  By the way, the Republican budget proposal, the one they couldn't get 
enough votes in their own conference to pass, would have ended the 
Medicare guarantee for seniors. It would have made $6.5 trillion in 
cuts, the sharpest ever proposed by the House Committee on the Budget. 
It would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and dismantled the 
affordable health care of 20 million Americans.
  And yet, that Republican proposal, as extreme as I view it to be, was 
still not enough to get the extremist wing to agree to it. When I say 
``the extremist wing,'' we are talking about roughly 40 Members of the 
House of Representatives. Maybe it flows as high up as 47 or as low as 
35. They seem to be the tail that is wagging this elephant.
  So here we are. No budget, and we aren't addressing any of the real 
pressing issues facing our country. Rather, we are debating partisan 
messaging bills with no hope of becoming law. I don't think that there 
are companion measures in the United States Senate, and I can pretty 
much assure everybody that when we finish the discussion here today and 
the Republicans pass this measure--and a handful of Democrats may vote 
for it; I doubt that--but when we pass it, that will be the end of it 
and tax season will go on. We will have made the measure look like it 
is something that the American people are going to have as law.
  The House of Representatives is not just some messaging platform that 
the majority can use to try and score transparently cheap political 
points. It is a place where the issues facing our Nation should be 
addressed and solved in a bipartisan manner.
  I want to lift from Roll Call--and for purposes of those in the 
general public of our great country that do not know, we have two or 
three little papers here inside the beltway, inside the capital, and 
Roll Call is one of them. They, today, say the following:
  ``Governing by crisis has become the norm in Congress in recent 
years, but so far this year even that hasn't happened.
  ``Puerto Rico is on the verge of economic collapse, an average of 78 
people are dying every day from opioid overdoses,'' and 90-plus people 
from gun violence, accidental or otherwise, ``and mosquitoes carrying 
the Zika virus have been found in 30 States. But Congress has shown no 
urgency about addressing those issues.
  ``Maybe that's not surprising from a Republican majority that can't 
even adopt a nonbinding budget resolution after months of `family' 
discussions.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Conference has cowered to the extremists 
in their party, which is truly shameful and not doing one thing to help 
the people of this great Nation that we have been elected to serve.
  Let me make a prediction. This measure will pass. Both these bills 
will pass the House of Representatives, and tomorrow we will be back 
here talking about some more measures that are not going to pass as 
law. Several reasons why. The Senate, first, is not likely to take it 
up, and even if they did, the administration policy is widely known 
that the measures would be vetoed.
  So why are we doing this instead of Zika? Why are we doing this 
instead of equal pay for women? Why are we doing these things instead 
of dealing with our infrastructure? Why are we doing these things 
instead of giving us a budget so that the appropriations process can do 
more than end with a measure that will throw everything together at the 
end of this session? Why are we doing these things and where is the 
budget? That is what I ask my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's points on 
things

[[Page 4533]]

we should be doing, and I agree and hope we can get a budget agreement 
in the next coming days or weeks, hopefully as soon as we can get it 
done. There are other pressing issues that face this country: issues of 
infrastructure, the Zika virus and how we are ready for it.
  But today we are here on two bills that can increase the transparency 
and accountability of the Internal Revenue Service. I believe both of 
those bills are well intentioned. I think they would both bring more 
accountability and more taxpayer confidence to that agency, and I would 
urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 687 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     415) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the 
     rules relating to inverted corporations. 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 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 415.
                                  ____


        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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. 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.

                          ____________________