[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 154 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7047-H7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1937, NATIONAL STRATEGIC AND 
                CRITICAL MINERALS PRODUCTION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 481

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1937) to require the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop 
     domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of 
     strategic and critical importance to United States economic 
     and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. 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 Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the good gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
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 Washington?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, just yesterday, the Rules 
Committee met and reported a rule for House Resolution 481, providing 
for the consideration of an important piece of legislation--H.R. 1937, 
the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015.
  This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1937 under a 
structured rule, with five amendments made in order, four of which, I 
might point out, were offered by Democratic Members of this body. 
Therefore, this rule provides for a balanced, deliberative, and open 
debate if we focus our remarks on the merits of the National Strategic 
and Critical Minerals Production Act and don't go off on unnecessary 
tangents.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support both House Resolution 481 and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 1937. I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for sponsoring this legislation, and 
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Rob 
Bishop, for his leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider the National 
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, an important bill that 
will streamline our country's mine permitting processes to remove 
unnecessary and burdensome bureaucratic hurdles, which can delay some 
mining activities and projects by up to a decade--10 years--which is an 
outrageous amount of time that is indicative of the problem we seek to 
address here today.
  The permitting system the Federal Government currently uses to 
provide for the extraction of rare earth minerals in the U.S. is 
outdated, unproductive, and, more often than not, hinders our ability 
to extract these critical resources. This red tape has a devastating 
impact on communities across the country and in the West, particularly, 
that rely on the ability to obtain and develop these minerals for 
economic growth and our Nation's security.
  Our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth minerals that are 
increasingly used to manufacture high-tech equipment as well as many 
other everyday applications and products. Many countries around the 
world are already working to improve their infrastructure, providing 
the United States with an exceptional opportunity to play a major role 
in the growing minerals marketplace by supplying foreign countries and 
businesses, as well as domestic companies, with the resources necessary 
to remain competitive in the international economy. However, a lack of 
communication between local, State, and Federal permitting agencies 
exists, and it creates a bureaucratic backlog of applications that 
delays mining activity by approximately, like I said, 7 to 10 years, 
which, if not addressed, will impede the ability of U.S. mineral 
companies to increase their share of the global marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, due to onerous government red tape, the frivolous 
lawsuits that result, and a burdensome permitting process, good-paying 
jobs in the United States mining industry have moved overseas and have 
put domestic manufacturing jobs at the mercy of our foreign 
competitors. H.R. 1937 would fix

[[Page H7048]]

our outdated and uncertain bureaucratic permitting system, which 
negatively impacts investment in our economy by discouraging domestic 
companies from extracting and developing these critical minerals.
  This is especially unfortunate given that we have only begun to 
scratch the surface of what we can potentially develop from our 
abundant natural resources, which have played such a critical role in 
making the U.S. a leading world economy and industrial power. Our 
Nation has vast energy potential from sources such as coal, oil shale, 
and natural gas, as well as numerous critical minerals that we should 
be developing. Yet the development of our domestic minerals resources 
has been obstructed time and time again under this administration, 
which, unfortunately, places the political goals of special interests 
over the welfare and well-being of hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Federal Government should promote 
investments in the U.S. and in American companies by creating a 
regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of domestic 
resources. If we are going to address the growing mineral trade 
imbalance--with more U.S. mining jobs moving overseas and higher energy 
and commodity prices here at home--we must first put a stop to the 
bureaucratic delays that are at the root of the problem.
  This legislation does just that by telling Federal agencies to make a 
decision about whether a project should move forward or not--a simple 
``yes'' or ``no''--and do it in a timely manner. Give people certainty. 
We have streamlined and improved this process for other domestic 
industries, and it is now time to do it for our rare earth minerals 
sector, which is responsible for some of the highest paying middle 
class jobs across the country. It is illogical and irrational that red 
tape and delayed permit approvals can lead to 10 years of deliberation 
over whether or not to approve a mining permit or project. Actually, it 
borders on insanity.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the 
consideration of an important piece of legislation that will provide 
the U.S. with a unique opportunity to tap into the growing global 
marketplace for rare earth minerals by supplying both foreign and 
domestic companies with the resources they need to remain competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleagues 
to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill--the so-called Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act.
  My colleague from Washington mentioned what is not being discussed 
here today. Again, to be clear, it feels like we are at Groundhog Day 
here. We have 8 legislative days until we hit the debt limit and 
default on our Nation's debt. In 6 legislative days, the Federal 
transportation authorization will expire. In 22 legislative days, we 
will be on the brink of yet another government shutdown. To a certain 
extent, I feel like we are fiddling while Rome burns. Here we are, 
talking about an issue which, I am sure, deserves its day in the Sun. I 
will talk about some of the deficiencies in this bill, but we are 
tackling a recycled bill that in similar form has already passed this 
body and that doesn't address any of these urgent deadline items that 
we are actually facing.
  In fact, as I travel across my district in Colorado, I don't hear a 
lot of my constituents crying out for access to sand and clay. I do 
hear them saying, ``Don't default on the national debt.'' ``Do 
something about the budget.'' ``Make sure that we prevent another 
government shutdown.'' Yet all of those deadlines are looming while we 
are fiddling here with other bills that aren't going anywhere and 
aren't becoming law and have already passed this body in similar form. 
So, for the fourth time in three Congresses, we are going to consider a 
nearly identical measure that the Republicans have brought to the floor 
despite the Senate's unwillingness to pick it up and the President's 
opposition.

  The so-called Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act promotes 
industry interests over the American people's health and welfare. The 
biggest conceptual problem with it is the definition that it gives of 
``strategic and critical minerals.'' The bill not only expands the 
mining companies' ability to mine on public lands for minerals like 
gold and copper, but also materials that one would think, by no stretch 
of common sense, are rare, like sand and clay.
  If we include sand from the beach or from my kids' sandbox as a 
mineral of critical development and if we include the gravel from my 
driveway as a mineral of critical development, I am not sure what we 
are excluding. I think this applies to almost everything. In fact, I am 
not even sure how we are even saying the term ``critical and 
strategic'' can even apply here when we are talking about sand and 
gravel and some of the most common natural resources that we have.
  This bill permits nearly all mining operations to circumvent the 
important public health and environmental review processes that are 
required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  Instead of maintaining a reasonable threshold to ensure that we focus 
on resources and developing resources that are actually critical for 
our defense or for our economy, this bill expands our definition of 
``strategic and critical,'' effectively making it worthless. By 
including everything and by saying everything is strategic and 
critical, you are effectively saying that nothing is strategic and 
critical. That is what this bill does while we are 8 days from hitting 
the debt limit, while we are 6 days from expiring on the Federal 
transportation authorization.
  By the way, I have to talk about how these ``days'' work because we 
are 8 days from the debt limit and 6 days from the transportation 
authorization. Those aren't real days that Americans know. That is 
because the Republicans always send this Congress on vacation nearly 
every week. So it might be 6 legislative days. I think it is, actually, 
15 or 20 days, but Congress isn't working for most of those. While 
these deadlines tick, Members of Congress are actually at home most of 
the time because the Republican leadership won't let us work. They 
won't let us come here. They are adjourning the session. That is why, 
when something is 20 days off, we are sounding alarm bells, saying it 
is 6 days off--because they are only letting us work 6 of those 20 
days. I would be happy to show up for the other 14, Mr. Speaker, but 
you wouldn't be here to gavel us into session.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. What would happen if I showed up and you were not here to 
gavel us down into session?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to a hypothetical 
question.
  Mr. POLIS. Maybe we will just have to try that sometime when we are 2 
or 3 days from the expiration of our transportation funding or from 
defaulting on our national debt. I will be happy to come here to an 
empty Chamber.
  I recall one time, Mr. Speaker, when you and the Republican majority 
accidentally left the cameras on, and our Democratic whip, Steny Hoyer, 
was on the floor, demanding why we couldn't bring up a bill. Maybe, if 
I am here and if you are not here, Mr. Speaker, we can get those C-SPAN 
cameras turned on when we are 2 or 3 days from a deadline so that the 
American people understand this funny math, where somehow 20 days is 
only 6 legislative days because you don't let us work the other 14, 
when hardworking Americans have to go to work every day to support 
their families.
  This bill's impacts are far reaching. As drafted, it makes the term 
``critical and strategic'' meaningless. The legislation would increase 
the pollution of our water resources for States dealing with extreme 
drought conditions and deadly blazes. The last thing we need is to 
jeopardize our already scarce sources of water. We can't afford to do 
any more harm to the quality of our limited water supplies and to risk 
the jobs that are created across the West

[[Page H7049]]

through outdoor recreation, leisure, and agriculture.
  Why the House Republicans see a need for legislation to further 
promote mining interests at the expense of public health continues to 
be mystifying. The industry already has free rein to extract mineral 
resources. Under the antiquated 1872 mining law, Federal land managers 
are actually barred from denying hard rock mining proposals. The Bureau 
of Land Management and the Forest Service have almost never denied a 
large mining process. Why exempt them further from all environmental 
review for sand and gravel, which aren't even rare elements?
  This bill fails to update the antiquated legal framework. It fails to 
address the reforms needed. It fails to protect our environment. It 
doesn't change the fact that mining companies currently enjoy--guess 
what, Mr. Speaker. What do you think--a 3 percent royalty rate? What do 
they pay--a 2 percent royalty rate? Do they pay a 1 percent royalty 
rate? No. They pay a zero percent royalty rate on Federal land. This 
bill fails to address that. It doesn't change the fact that mining 
companies have left an estimated half a million mines. That is nearly 
one for every person in my district, Mr. Speaker. Half a million mines 
all across the country have been abandoned, most of which are in dire 
need of cleanup or restoration, which this bill fails to address.
  I had the opportunity to introduce a bill with Ranking Member 
Grijalva earlier this year that would have addressed many of these 
ongoing failures in mining accountability, but it hasn't been brought 
up before the committee. Instead, legislation like this, the so-called 
Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, is rocketed to the 
floor even though it has passed four times in the last three sessions.
  Instead of confronting real challenges facing our economy, facing 
American families, we continue to line the pockets of the mining 
industry, which already has one of the fattest profit margins of any, 
while risking the health of the American people and exploiting our 
natural resources without adequate return and royalties to the 
taxpayers, who own our public lands.
  I oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would permanently 
authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water 
Conservation Fund supports the protection of public lands and waters, 
such as natural parks, forests, and recreation areas.
  Many conservation organizations from my district and nationally have 
been in to meet with me on this important topic, and I know they have 
reached out to other Members on the Hill as well.
  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, the Strategic and Critical Minerals 
Production Act--again, it is hard to say that name with a straight face 
when they are defining strategic and critical minerals in such a broad 
way that it involves basically the dirt under our feet, the sand under 
our feet, the gravel in our drive. When you define something like that 
and try to mean everything, you wind up meaning nothing.
  Rather than actually doing something to protect minerals that are 
critical for our defense, for our economy, this bill waters that down 
by expanding this access to sand and dirt and gravel, maximizing mining 
companies' profits at the expense of our health, our water, our land, 
and our natural resources.
  Furthermore, the underlying bill would damage our economy by placing 
the use of the mining industry above the many other important economic 
uses of our public lands. I will give you some examples. How about 
hunting? angling? hiking? biking? These are the economic drivers in my 
district, Mr. Speaker.
  If we didn't have an environmental review process and large gravel 
pits and silver mines were put in place with wild abandon, we would 
lose jobs. We would lose most jobs in Eagle and Summit Counties which 
relate to the tourism industry. The beautiful, pristine, outdoor public 
lands that attract visitors from across the country--probably from your 
district, Mr. Speaker--Vail, Breckenridge, Winter Park, and Rocky 
Mountain National Park, we would love to have you; but you better come 
quickly before this bill becomes law, because there won't be much to 
see if it does.
  When visiting my constituents in Colorado this summer, expanding 
mining access was not one of the issues that they brought up. In fact, 
they asked me to ensure that mining companies are held accountable to 
greater levels of accountability and transparency. They asked me to 
develop environmental safeguards to make sure that disasters and 
tragedies don't occur and that abandoned mines are cleaned up and that 
our extraction industry can be done in a thoughtful way, and to make 
sure it doesn't destroy jobs by conflicting with other higher and 
better economic uses of some parcels of public land.
  Look, Members on both sides of the aisle support the development of 
rare earth and critical mineral policy. There is no disagreement about 
that. I would be happy to work with my colleague, Mr. Speaker, from 
Washington State and others on putting together a commonsense bill that 
defines rare earth and critical minerals in a commonsense way. Not the 
dirt beneath our feet, not the sand in my kid's sandbox, but in a 
commonsense way where we look at the needs of industry, our supply, we 
define it, and we come up with a targeted access plan, including access 
to our public lands in appropriate ways, that is expedited for national 
priority items. That is not what this bill does.
  We could work together, Mr. Speaker. And this body needs to work 
together, not just on this bill, but to avoid defaulting on our 
national debt, to continue to fund our highways and infrastructure, in 
fact, to keep government open. We might only have 11 legislative days 
to try to keep government open.
  By the way, I think that is 30-some actual days for most Americans, 
Mr. Speaker. As we talked about, you won't be here, Mr. Speaker. If 
there is a way that I can be here and advance an agenda of keeping 
government open, I would be happy to, but I am afraid it requires a 
Speaker to gavel us in.
  Now, there are bills that seek to balance the challenges of mining 
with its impact on surrounding communities, but, unfortunately, Mr. 
Speaker, my colleagues weren't interested in discussing those. Instead 
we are discussing a recycled bill for the fourth time that would 
eliminate environmental review, allow for the unfettered mining of 
public lands, define critical minerals in such a way that it means the 
dirt between your toes and the sand in your kid's sandbox. It would 
likely not be brought up by the Senate and dead on arrival at the 
President's desk.
  This is a job-destroying bill that the American people are not even 
asking Congress to take up. It takes a simple concept--preserving 
access to critical resources, which would have strong bipartisan 
support--and contorts it into a divisive job-destroying, health-
destroying, commonsense-defying issue that doesn't appear anywhere on 
the priority list of struggling families across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 is a fair rule allowing for 
balanced, deliberative, and open debate, just as my colleague is 
asking, as well as numerous amendment opportunities from both parties.
  It provides for the consideration of a bill that is critical to the 
economic

[[Page H7050]]

well-being of mining communities across the country, which are reeling 
from the continual impacts of Federal regulation and the bureaucratic 
permitting process we have in place.
  This regulatory environment has led to lost jobs and wages in the 
mining industry, ultimately hurting the middle class families that many 
of these rules and regulations claim they are intended to protect.
  H.R. 1937 streamlines our country's mine permitting process by 
removing unnecessary and onerous hurdles, which can lead to decades-
long delays for mining activities and projects. The current Federal 
permitting system for the extraction of rare earth minerals is 
outdated, unproductive, and often impedes our ability to extract these 
critical minerals.
  You know, our country is blessed with a myriad of rare earth 
minerals, but this Federal red tape has had a devastating impact on the 
mining communities in our country whose livelihoods depend on the 
ability to obtain and develop these resources.
  We must stop punishing middle class Americans with these heavyhanded 
and poorly considered regulations that more often than not have 
unintended consequences and serious negative economic impacts.
  Mr. Speaker, already many countries around the world are looking to 
improve their infrastructure, which provides the U.S. with the unique 
opportunity to tap into this growing global market. Due to strong 
international demand for rare earth minerals, allowing for greater 
development of domestic resources also creates a unique opportunity to 
further American trade relationships and decrease our trade deficit.

  Additionally, by increasing the available supply of these rare earth 
minerals, manufacturing companies will be able to more efficiently 
produce their products, which could reduce consumer costs and open the 
door to greater innovation. Further, our outdated permitting system 
negatively impacts investment in our economy that hinders our ability 
to take on this expanded role in the global marketplace for these 
mineral resources.
  The Federal Government should be promoting investment in the U.S. by 
creating a regulatory framework that encourages the safe development of 
domestic resources. If we want to address the growing minerals trade 
imbalance, as we see more and more U.S. mining jobs moving overseas and 
higher energy and commodity prices here at home, then we must fix these 
delays which are at the root of the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of an important piece 
of legislation that will address the burdensome permitting and 
regulatory hurdles that are harmful to this vital industry. Yet, while 
this legislation allows for greater utilization of domestic resources, 
it also maintains important environmental safeguards designed to ensure 
the health of our constituents and ecosystems, striking an important 
balance that has been absent far too long.
  While my colleague from Colorado and I may have a few differences of 
opinion, I firmly believe this rule and the underlying bill are strong 
measures that are critically important to our country's future, both 
for my State as well as his and many, many others in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleague 
to support House Resolution 481, and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 481 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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. 
     1814) to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund. 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 Natural Resources. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1814.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

                          ____________________