[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.
____________________