[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4678-H4682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4992, UNITED STATES FINANCIAL 
  SYSTEM PROTECTION ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
 5119, NO 2H2O FROM IRAN ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
                 5631, IRAN ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2016

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 819 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 819

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4992) to 
     codify regulations relating to transfers of funds involving 
     Iran, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any 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 
     Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5119) to 
     prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds available to 
     any Federal department or agency for any fiscal year to 
     purchase or issue a license for the purchase of heavy water 
     produced in Iran. All

[[Page H4679]]

     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any 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 Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5631) to hold 
     Iran accountable for its state sponsorship of terrorism and 
     other threatening activities and for its human rights abuses, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any 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 Foreign 
     Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. 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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 819 allows for consideration 
of three very important bills relating to the national security of the 
United States of America. Each of these bills deals with Iran, the 
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
  The conduct of the Iranian Government continues to be very 
concerning. Iran has a clear record of human rights violations and 
mistreatment of its citizens. Iran also has continued aggressive 
behavior, including testing intercontinental ballistic missiles, which 
can be used to attack our allies in the Middle East, like Israel, as 
well as the potential to strike us here at home.
  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in testimony to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services earlier this year: ``The Islamic 
Republic of Iran presents an enduring threat to U.S. national interests 
because of its support to regional terrorist and militant groups and 
the Asad regime, as well as its development of advanced military 
capabilities.''
  Iran is not becoming a better partner or neighbor. Just look no 
further than the capture at gunpoint and detention of 10 U.S. sailors 
earlier this year. A Navy investigation released a few weeks ago found 
that Iran violated international law and violated sovereign immunity 
during that episode. Clearly, they are no friend of the United States.
  So these bills address three different areas where the United States 
can stand up to Iran and encourage them to stop with their rogue 
actions and putting lives at risk. First, the resolution allows for 
consideration of H.R. 4992, the United States Financial System 
Protection Act. This legislation will codify existing requirements that 
prohibit the Obama administration from allowing the U.S. dollar to be 
used to facilitate trade transactions with Iran. These requirements 
will remain in place until the President certifies that Iran is no 
longer supporting terrorism, developing ballistic missiles, abusing 
human rights, or laundering money in support of dishonest activity.
  Iran's financial sector poses a clear risk to financial markets 
around the world, given their track record of corruption and support 
for terrorism. In fact, the Financial Action Task Force, an 
organization created by the G7 to set standards regarding money 
laundering, has labeled Iran as a Non-Cooperative Country or Territory. 
If Iran doesn't want to be subject to these restrictions, then it is 
simple: they just need to stop supporting terrorism and conducting 
other illicit activities. I don't think that is too much to ask.
  The bill also allows for consideration of H.R. 5119, the No 2H2O from 
Iran Act. This straightforward bill prohibits the United States from 
purchasing heavy water from Iran.
  For those who do not know--and until I learned about this, I would 
have been one of those--heavy water is essential to the production of 
weapons-grade plutonium. News reports from just yesterday indicate the 
Obama administration has officially purchased 32 metric tons of heavy 
water from Iran for $8.6 million. That is $8.6 million in U.S. taxpayer 
money that will be going to the largest state sponsor of terrorism. 
That is simply absurd.
  If Iran isn't producing nuclear weapons, then why do they need such 
large amounts of heavy water to begin with? Iran needs to stop with 
their production of heavy water altogether. The last thing the United 
States should do is continue to support and condone their illicit 
activities.
  Finally, the bill also provides for consideration of H.R. 5631, the 
Iran Accountability Act. This bill will ensure strong sanctions remain 
in place against Iran for their support of terrorism as well as their 
human rights violations and continued ballistic missile program.
  Holding Iran accountable is critically important, and it is clear 
that our sanctions against Iran work. Robust economic sanctions will 
force Iran to back down from their rogue activities and stop supporting 
terrorism.

                              {time}  1400

  Just consider the serious threats posed by Iran's ballistic missile 
program. Mr. Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, has also 
written in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that 
``Iran's ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering 
weapons of mass destruction, and Tehran already has the largest 
inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East.''
  The United States cannot stand by and become complicit with these 
actions by Iran. We must stand up for freedom, justice, and good around 
the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly make one other point. I know Members 
of this House have different opinions about the Iran nuclear agreement. 
Personally, I was and am strongly opposed, because I think it makes the 
world less safe.
  But regardless of your views on the Iran deal, can we not all agree 
that Iran should stop supporting terrorism? Can we not all agree that 
Iran should face consequences for the continued violation of human 
rights? Can we not all agree that Iran should stop producing ballistic 
missiles that can be used to attack U.S. servicemembers and our allies 
and us here at home?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up to Iran. Support House 
Resolution 819 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, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule that provides for 
consideration of three bills: H.R. 5631, H.R. 5119, H.R. 4992.
  Mr. Speaker, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is an agreement 
which was the culmination of 2 years of negotiations between the United 
States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Germany, and Iran. 
It was really a turning point in the history of nuclear disarmament and 
prevention of nuclear proliferation.
  We have certifiable assurance from Iran that it will cease to develop 
its nuclear weapons program. It was an historic diplomatic effort. 
Obviously, the jury is still out on whether it works. But at this 
point, we need to move forward on the rigid implementation of this 
agreement.
  While any multilateral agreement, by its very nature, is far from 
perfect, many believe that this deal represented the best shot at 
preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. So far, it is too early to say whether 
the agreement is working.
  There is no doubt--and I think there is agreement--that Iran is a 
destabilizing force in the region. It is a hostile regime. The regular 
regime and their theocracy and the Ayatollah regularly spout anti-
American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-gay statements. They have a 
track record of supporting terrorist activities and have a horrible 
domestic record on human

[[Page H4680]]

rights. But as many renowned experts, including military officials and 
nonproliferation experts and nuclear physicists have recognized, there 
weren't any better options on the table than the JCPOA to prevent Iran 
from developing nuclear weapons.
  The deal is not based on blind trust. It is predicated on third-party 
verification and strong international monitoring provisions that need 
to be fully implemented so that we will know if the Iranians cheat. The 
deal mandates that if Iran violates any aspect of the deal, there are 
tough snapback sanctions that would be employed against the Iranians.
  Keep in mind that there are a number of sanctions that are not 
related to nuclear deterrence. Those are still in place with regard to 
Iran, and will remain in place with regard to terrorist activity and 
human rights. The bill does not remove the military option from the 
table if today's Iranian regime or future Iranian regimes fail to abide 
by the agreement.
  In contrast, the three bills under consideration today are an effort 
to undermine the direction that America and Israel are going with 
regard to rigid implementation of the JCPOA.
  Let's start with the flawed process. None of these bills have had a 
chance to be considered by committee. They just sort of appeared here 
in the Rules Committee. They didn't go through the Foreign Affairs 
Committee or the Armed Services Committee or any other committee. They 
skipped a markup. They skipped bipartisan negotiations. As far as I 
know, I certainly didn't see them. I don't think any Members on my side 
of the aisle saw them--if the gentleman has other information, let us 
know--until earlier this week.
  So I am not aware of any bipartisan negotiations. Certainly, that 
normally occurs in the committee. This leapt over the committee and 
went right to the Rules Committee and, of course, will be considered 
under a closed rule, which means Members of this body, Democratic and 
Republicans, had no chance to amend these bills that mysteriously 
appeared on Monday. They didn't have a chance in committee. It went 
through committee. They don't have a chance here because the Rules 
Committee actually blocked every amendment by having a closed process.
  We have an amendment process for a reason, under regular order. It 
provides Members of this body, the majority and minority party, the 
opportunity for input and debate. It often leads to a better work 
product. Unfortunately, under this rule, it is not being allowed on 
those bills.
  These bills short-circuited the process. They are bad bills. It is 
only through continued engagement and rigid implementation that we can 
continue to make sure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, by 
keeping our voice and the conversation at the table. If we don't do 
that, it would be a critical miscalculation.
  We can agree that the Iranian regime can be untrustworthy, and that 
is why we need rigid implementation of the JCPOA. Getting Iran to the 
negotiating table reduces the risk of adding another nuclear state to a 
secure world. We need to verify, verify. And, of course, all options 
remain on the table.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the gentleman's comments. The reason 
why I know amendments were made in order is that only one amendment was 
received by the committee. It was received after we had finished having 
the testimony before the committee and shortly before the committee was 
going to take up the rule.
  So there really wasn't any reasonable way to consider that particular 
amendment. And since no other Member of the House had offered any 
amendments, there really weren't any amendments to make in order.
  The second point he said is that we are proceeding on the assurance 
that Iran is going to comply with the agreement--the assurance of Iran, 
when we have recent news reports that people in other countries that 
are working on this, particularly in Germany, have found that there 
have already been violations of this agreement by Iran. So there is 
every reason to believe that an assurance from Iran means nothing. 
Nothing.
  He says we need to move forward with implementation. Well, there is 
nothing in the underlying bills that would stop implementation of this 
agreement that the President agreed to and that, unfortunately, not 
enough of us were against to stop. So the agreement is going forward, 
much to my chagrin.

  These three bills deal with specific threats from Iran that have 
nothing to do with the agreement. They deal with the production of 
heavy water. There is no reason for us to buy heavy water. There is no 
reason for them to produce heavy water unless they are producing 
weapons-grade plutonium. And there is no reason for them to produce 
weapons-grade plutonium unless they are producing weapons, which is a 
violation of the agreement.
  They should not be able to use American currency to effect their 
transactions. And we should put very heavy sanctions on them while they 
continue to support terrorism around the world and while they continue 
to support ever bigger, ever longer-range ballistic missiles.
  Let's make no mistake about it. Long-range ballistic missiles are not 
needed to hit Israel. Long-range ballistic missiles are needed to hit 
Europe and the United States of America.
  So these three bills don't get at the agreement that the President 
has already agreed to and that people on the other side of the aisle 
and some others said were okay. These get to the remaining threats 
against the people of the United States.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that these three bills are very much 
important to what we need to do to protect the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, one year ago, America made a momentous 
decision concerning the best way to deal with Iran, a dangerous, 
authoritarian regime with a history of promoting terrorism. We made a 
choice between war and peace. We learned something from the colossal 
failure of the Bush-Cheney go-it-alone, war-of-choice in Iraq. We 
wisely chose the path of diplomacy.
  Now, one year after these very difficult negotiations with Iran, we 
should recognize that success has been achieved. And even though we 
have not limited every danger from Iran, we have limited the most 
significant danger, the development of a nuclear weapon. Whereas 
before, Iran could have developed a nuclear weapon within a few months, 
it now would take a year or more, if Iran made that horrible decision 
to produce a nuclear weapon.
  Before the agreement, Iran's nuclear program was cloaked in secrecy. 
Now we have inspectors and the opportunity for rigorous examination of 
their sites on a regular basis.
  Tomorrow, if Iran were to decide to produce a nuclear weapon, not 
only would it take four to six times longer than before, we would 
quickly be aware of it and would be able to take appropriate action.
  Iran has shipped over 8.5 tons of enriched uranium to Russia. It has 
disabled more than 12,000 centrifuges and poured concrete into the core 
of a reactor at Arak designed to produce plutonium. Now, it is the 
United States that is acquiring some of Iran's heavy water that might 
have gone to nuclear production.
  Each of these steps carries us further on a long and important road 
toward eliminating Iran's short-term uranium and plutonium pathways to 
a nuclear weapon. That is progress, by every measure. America and our 
key allies are safer today than we were a year ago, and before that--
safer than if we had followed their path of confrontation and war. 
Continuous, intrusive monitoring is the key to keeping our families 
safe and avoiding war.
  An impressive bipartisan group of some 75 high-profile signatories--
Nobel laureates, generals, diplomats, and legislators--have approved 
this accord, advising the President and Congress yesterday that this 
agreement is ``providing greater security to our friends and partners 
in the region and to the world,'' noting that ``all pathways to an 
Iranian nuclear weapon have been blocked.''

[[Page H4681]]

  After doing everything they possibly could think of to subvert and 
undermine the negotiations while they were underway with Iran--even an 
outrageous letter from a Republican group of Senators telling the 
Iranians to believe them and not the President of the United States--
the Republicans today continue to interfere with and refuse to accept 
peace as the better course to safeguard our families.
  Through today's debate, they launched yet one more partisan attack on 
this agreement. In all, they have authored more than 20 pieces of 
legislation attempting to undermine this agreement.
  While the administration properly focuses our energy on enhanced 
verification, Republicans focus theirs instead on how to destroy the 
agreement. It is much like the debate we had over the Affordable Care 
Act. All they are concerned with is one vote of repeal after another, 
and they offer no viable alternatives. That is the case here. Instead 
of focusing on how to make us safer, their goal is to undermine the 
President of the United States and destroy this agreement.
  As usual, my colleagues are choosing inaction over a Plan of Action. 
They know the President has issued a veto threat. In the unlikely event 
that this regressive legislation were to be approved in Congress, it 
would never become law.
  Today they are adopting a procedural rule so that this House will 
waste a full day discussing how to destroy the Iran nuclear agreement. 
It will not address gun violence. It will not address the failure to 
fund research for a vaccine to prepare and prevent the Zika virus from 
spreading. It will not do anything about voting rights or a host of 
other issues this Congress should be considering. Instead, it is 
raising three bills going the wrong direction.
  Some of those that reject diplomacy today are the same people that 
were backing the go-it-alone invasion of Iraq, a debacle second to none 
in the history of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. One country, more than any other, benefited from their 
wrong-headed decision, and was empowered. That country was Iran. Today, 
diplomacy, the opposite of war, is hard to start and easy to end. Let 
us continue on that path.
  The path ahead remains difficult. Iran will be challenging. We must 
watch it like a hawk and monitor it, but we need not yield to the hawks 
who reject peace.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that the decision made 
last year was a momentous decision. I agree with him. It was a 
momentous decision and I fear it is a decision that our children, our 
grandchildren and great grandchildren will come to regret, a decision 
that will give us not only a nuclearized Iran, but a nuclearized Middle 
East.
  He said there was a choice between war and peace. That was a false 
choice. There was a choice between keeping the sanctions in place to 
get a better deal or giving in, and we gave in. So the truth of the 
matter is that we had a real option out there, and that was to stick to 
our guns and get a better deal. We didn't do that.
  We could sit back and watch what is happening, or we can do 
something. These bills do something that don't undermine the agreement 
that has already been reached and already been basically approved by a 
number of people in this House.
  What we are looking at is a nuclearized Middle East, unless we take 
some steps now, and these underlying bills do that. We are not safer 
today because of what we did. The world is far more dangerous.
  I sit on the Armed Services Committee. I can tell you that that 
decision last summer has destabilized further the Middle East, not 
further stabilized it.
  Finally, the gentleman brought up the Zika virus. We passed a 
responsible bill through this House that dealt with the Zika virus and 
sent it to the Senate and Democrats in the Senate are blocking that 
bill from coming up.
  So who is being responsible about Zika? The Republicans are being 
responsible about Zika and the Democrats are being irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has 
any additional speakers.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I do not, and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be offering a motion in a moment that, if we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to bring up the 
bipartisan ``No Fly No Buy'' legislation, so this will give Members of 
this body another opportunity to vote on bringing up the bill that 
would bar the sale of explosives and firearms to terrorists, and help 
make sure that terrorists don't assemble arsenals in our country to 
commit terrorist acts against our country. The time to act is now.
  To discuss our previous question, I yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous question is extremely 
important because Republicans, just as they fled in the middle of the 
night from discussing gun violence before the July 4 break, have now 
decided not to consider a gun bill at all, even an NRA-backed proposal 
they have rejected.
  But I want to ask the gentleman specifically about the comments that 
were just made about the Zika virus and the possibility of an epidemic, 
because it is so important. Am I correct that that proposal that he 
says they passed is the first one in the history of my time here, and 
perhaps in the history of this body, where they prohibited even one 
minute of debate of the way that they were funding Zika by taking the 
funds away from Ebola and threatening our public health system?
  It is not a question of Democrats having blocked something. It has 
been their refusal to deal with and recognize the public health 
challenge, denying $4 of $5 asked for by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to deal with Zika, even threatening the 
possibility of developing a vaccine.
  Is that correct, this has been the history of their failure to come 
to terms with a major public health crisis and listen to the scientists 
and the physicians and the public health experts and, instead, pursuing 
this ideological crusade to take away money from public health?
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Texas is correct. Effectively, rather 
than actually find resources to develop a vaccine against Zika, they 
basically said, we are going to be taking the money from Ebola, which, 
by the way, still exists, still is a threat. We need to be ready for 
the next threat of an Ebola or Ebola-like danger to our citizens from a 
public health perspective.
  In addition, the initial Republican attempts included things that 
they long wanted to do, like remove dangerous insecticides from the 
list of insecticides that are prohibited, due to their harm to human 
health as well as ecosystems and animal health.
  The solution is straightforward. We need to develop a vaccine. We 
need to increase our public health infrastructure around this menace, 
and the bill fell short on that account because, effectively, it said, 
we might be able to not deal with Ebola and deal with this instead.
  The truth is, the American people want a public health infrastructure 
that keeps them safe from Ebola and Zika and every other potential 
biological threat that is out there. The American people want to be 
safe. It is a dynamic world with increased travel, increased commerce. 
There are biological threats from all quarters, and we need the public 
health infrastructure to keep up with that.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Those Texas-size mosquitos that are beginning to spread 
around my part of the country, they can't tell a Republican from a 
Democrat. Young women desirous of having a family, people of all ages 
and genders, are threatened by Zika.
  It is just a matter of time before the Continental United States 
faces some of the problems that Puerto Rico already faces, and what we 
need is to

[[Page H4682]]

come together and have a bipartisan solution, not something offered in 
the middle of the night on which all debate is denied, a totally 
partisan approach.
  So just as I am pleased that we have strong bipartisan support for 
the Iran Nuclear Agreement, coming together with this major letter that 
was sent to us yesterday, that is the kind of bipartisan approach I 
hope we can work to eventually, perhaps when we come back after this 
long Republican recess, one of the longest in the history of the 
Congress, to address Zika, and address these other problems that they 
refuse to deal with today.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. If we can defeat this particular 
previous question, we will bring up the bill that prevents terrorists 
from assembling arsenals of weapons.
  We also, of course, want to be part of a constructive discussion 
around combating the Zika menace. I am hopeful that the House will find 
time to do that in the next few days.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 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'' to defeat 
the previous question so that we can keep our country safer. Vote 
``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bills because they 
interfere with our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear 
weapons in the rigid implementation of the JCPOA.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As frequently happens around here, the House passed one version of 
the Zika bill, the Senate passed another version. The Senate version 
contained $1.1 billion in spending. The House, in our agreement to the 
conference committee, agreed with the $1.1 billion, so we, essentially, 
agreed to what the Senate wanted to have in terms of the dollar amount.
  So we brought that conference report to the floor of this House so 
that we could go ahead and move that before we went out for Fourth of 
July recess. But, instead of helping us to pass that, my friends from 
the other side of the aisle blocked the well, tried to stop us from 
bringing it up.
  And I would say this: There was some talk about amendments. We don't 
normally have amendments to conference reports. That is not typical 
procedure around here.
  Perhaps more to the point, we couldn't get to an amendment debate 
because of the way we had behavior on the floor of the House that 
evening which, by the way, was in violation of the House rules.
  So it has been the Republicans that have tried to get something that 
would help with this Zika virus problem, and we have been blocked, 
almost completely blocked here on the floor of the House by the 
Democrats, and then blocked completely over in the Senate by the 
Democrats in the Senate.
  The Republicans are taking a responsible, constructive approach, and 
the Democrats, they just want to block things to try to make some 
political points and raise money or whatever it is they are trying to 
do.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 819 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. 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. 1076.
                                  ____


        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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House 
Resolution 819 and the underlying bill.
  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.

                          ____________________