[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 176 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7288-H7292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5143, TRANSPARENT INSURANCE 
STANDARDS ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 
     DECEMBER 9, 2016, THROUGH JANUARY 3, 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 944 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 944

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5143) to 
     provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of 
     international insurance standards setting processes, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment recommended by 
     the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-68 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
     designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 
     the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress after December 8, 2016--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 6.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of December 8, 2016, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 944 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 
2016. The resolution provides for a structured rule. This legislation 
is an important effort to protect the U.S. model of insurance 
supervision, provide for improved oversight,

[[Page H7289]]

and keep the U.S. insurance industry strong and competitive.
  For over 150 years, individual States have successfully regulated 
insurance and coordinated their activities. This model has worked and 
ensured that the focus remains on the consumer.
  Well, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act back in 2010, the 
Federal Government assumed a new role in the regulation of the 
insurance industry. This change included the creation of the Federal 
Insurance Office, otherwise known as FIO, and charged FIO with 
representing the interests of U.S. insurers--not consumers, insurers--
during the negotiation of any international agreements.
  The change also allowed for both the FIO Director and the Federal 
Reserve to participate in an international organization known as the 
International Association of Insurance Supervisors. Previously, 
insurance regulators from the individual States participated in the 
international discussions. Remember, the State insurance regulators are 
there to protect consumers.
  The International Association of Insurance Supervisors is responsible 
for developing regulatory guidelines and best practices for insurance 
supervisors around the world to adopt. Europe and the United States 
have very different regulatory models for insurance.
  Recently, the European Union has developed a regulatory protocol 
known as Solvency II. Solvency II is significantly different from the 
successful State-based insurance regulatory system that has been 
successful in the U.S. for the last 150 years. The fear is that the 
International Association of Insurance Supervisors will adopt Solvency 
II as the gold standard, which would put U.S. insurers and consumers at 
a severe disadvantage.
  More alarming, the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade 
Representative are already engaged in negotiations with the European 
Union regarding a ``covered agreement'' over insurance regulations. If 
based on the Solvency II model, this could severely hurt the U.S. 
insurance industry and consumers.
  That is where our legislation comes in. The Transparent Insurance 
Standards Act simply enhances Congress' oversight of international 
deliberations relating to insurance standards. The bill sets reasonable 
requirements that must be met before the United States can agree to 
accept, establish, or enter into the adoption of any international 
insurance standard. The same requirements would be followed throughout 
any negotiations over a covered agreement with the European Union.
  To be clear, this bill would not stop the international process. It 
simply will ensure that the United States is leading on the issues 
instead of being led by foreign governments.
  This bill also requires that the Federal Insurance Office and the 
Federal Reserve report and testify before Congress at least twice a 
year about ongoing negotiations.
  I appreciate Mr. Luetkemeyer and Chairman Hensarling for their 
leadership on this very important issue, and I hope we can come 
together to pass this very important legislation.
  I just don't understand why anyone would be opposed to greater 
congressional oversight over such an important issue. Adoption of these 
standards or entering into an agreement with the European Union could 
fundamentally alter the U.S. insurance industry and, yes, hurt 
consumers. It only makes sense for the democratically elected Congress 
to play a role in the process.
  This legislation is simply about improving oversight and protecting 
the State-based model of insurance regulation that has held up so well 
in our country over the last 150 years and has enjoyed wide, bipartisan 
support. Most importantly, this bill is about ensuring the concerns of 
the American people come first, not the worries of some foreign 
government or group.
  I urge my colleagues to protect insurance consumers across America by 
supporting House Resolution 944 and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding to me the customary 
30 minutes for debate.
  I rise to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 5143, the 
Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016. At best, this bill is 
unnecessary. At worst, it will harm our ability to reach vital 
international agreements to protect our financial system.
  Mr. Speaker, the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Great 
Recession was the worst financial disaster in our Nation's history 
since the Great Depression. Nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, 
doubling the unemployment rate. More than 11 million Americans lost 
their homes to foreclosures. Home values dropped more than 30 percent. 
Our Nation lost more than $13 trillion in economic output. To put that 
in perspective, that is the equivalent of losing a year's gross 
domestic product.
  From this disaster, we learned many lessons and passed the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that we are 
better able to prevent such a financial calamity from occurring again.
  One lesson we learned was the significant risk posed to our financial 
system by potentially unstable, large, globally active insurance 
companies, as demonstrated by the near collapse of AIG. As a result, 
commonsense reforms to the insurance industry were put in place, 
including the creation of the Federal Insurance Office to coordinate 
Federal efforts, develop policy, and represent the United States in the 
International Association of Insurance Supervisors.
  This office, along with new authorities for the Federal Reserve and 
the Department of the Treasury, allow our regulators to work to ensure 
that our unique insurance regulatory regime provides stability in our 
financial system, both nationally and globally. Now, however, the 
majority seems to have forgotten the lessons of the 2008 financial 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, at best, this legislation is unnecessary. Under the 
guise of transparency, H.R. 5143 would require additional public notice 
and comment regarding potential agreements on international insurance 
standards. But such international agreements would only take effect 
domestically after regulations were promulgated in accordance with U.S. 
law, which already includes a notice and comment period. The 
transparency this bill is seeking is already enshrined in our 
rulemaking process.
  Then, at worst, this bill will harm U.S. negotiators by tying their 
hands and making setting workable insurance standards nearly impossible 
to achieve. Mr. Speaker, by requiring our negotiators to seek consensus 
positions with all 50 State insurance commissioners, this bill weakens 
the United States' ability to work with other countries to improve the 
regulation of large global insurance companies. By placing unnecessary, 
counterproductive, and overly cumbersome reporting and negotiating 
requirements on the Federal Reserve and Treasury, we will not be able 
to achieve the global insurance stability we need to prevent future 
financial disasters.

  As we approach the end of the 114th Congress, I am dismayed to see 
that consideration of this bill is how the majority has decided we 
should spend what few precious legislative days remain. I guess my 
dismay carries over from last night's so-called impeachment 
consideration of the IRS Commissioner, who will be gone from office by 
the time they could get through this process. I was pleased to see the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee refer it to his committee, where I 
am sure it will die.
  It just seems that we get to this important juncture and we find 
ourselves caught up in bumper sticker politics, as we have for most of 
the session of the 114th Congress. It appears that, in the final hours 
of this Congress, the majority is attempting to throw up roadblocks to 
prevent commonsense financial regulations aimed at preventing large 
insurance companies from once again threatening the stability of our 
economy.
  The American people--all of them, Republican and Democrat--deserve 
better. Assuredly, we can anticipate that if this measure were to 
become law--and I predict it won't--but if it were to become law, then 
I can see us, at some point, faced with another serious financial 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7290]]

  I have listened to my colleague from Florida's remarks, and I 
certainly understand the concern that we all have with the aftermath of 
the Great Recession of 2008. But there are many of us who believe that 
the Dodd-Frank law, which contains the provision that we are trying to 
affect here, really did things that went way outside of what we should 
have been doing to try to prevent another recession from happening 
again.
  How does ceding control over the U.S. insurance market to foreign 
governments and groups help our economy or help prevent a future 
recession? How does a bill like the underlying bill, that protects 
consumers and provides congressional oversight, hurt our economy? How 
does that not help our economy, help the consumers?

                              {time}  1245

  This bill is necessary because the United States faces losing control 
over our insurance that is so very important to everybody in the United 
States of America.
  My colleague talked about State insurance departments. One thing we 
have seen these last several years is a steady effort to take power 
away from State governments, which is, frankly, contrary to the intent 
of our Constitution.
  Our State governments do very important things, like they are the 
primary providers for public education. But they are also the primary 
regulators for insurance, and they have done a good job of that. We 
have 150 years of experience with that. We have bipartisan support for 
that. Why would we be taking power away from them? Why isn't continuing 
to allow them to have that power and utilize it as each State sees fit, 
why isn't that a good thing?
  Finally, my colleague talked about how, at the end of this Congress, 
we are doing bumper sticker things. Well, I believe that passing, with 
a huge bipartisan vote, the National Defense Authorization Act last 
week was a good thing. If that is a bumper sticker, I want that bumper 
sticker.
  We passed, last week, the 21st Century Cures Act that I really 
believe is going to save lives. If that is a bumper sticker, I want 
that bumper sticker.
  And I predict on the floor tomorrow we are going to take a WRDA bill 
for everybody in the United States that is going to enhance the well-
being of people all over this country. That is another bumper sticker I 
will be happy to have on my car.
  So I appreciate my colleague's remarks. He knows the tremendous 
respect that I have for him, but I respectfully disagree with the 
premise for his arguments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague from Alabama and I do have mutual respect for each 
other, and I agree with him the three measures that he cited, and I can 
cite others during the course of the 114th that were substantive 
legislation that rightly we should have bipartisan support for and did, 
and I agree with him that the WRDA bill will be one that we could 
equally wear proudly on our bumper stickers.
  The point that I was making was that we spent a good portion of the 
114th Congress, number one, doing nothing. We didn't even make any 
bumper stickers because we weren't here that often to undertake to do 
anything. At the very same time, many of the things that we did fell in 
the category, at least as I perceive it, of being bumper sticker 
measures: 60-plus times repealing the Affordable Care Act, knowing full 
well that the sitting President was not going to sign anything, so all 
we did it for was for certain people to have talking points. Now, we 
are entitled; that is a part of what politics is. But make no mistake 
about it: we did a lot of bumper sticker legislation in the last 
session because a lot of it went nowhere, and a lot of it was done 
during a period that we should have been about the business of 
substantive legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would close a tax 
loophole that rewards companies for moving jobs overseas and would, 
instead, provide a tax credit for companies that move jobs back to the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the bill's 
sponsor and my good friend, to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  In the waning days of the 114th Congress, here we are debating a bill 
once again to roll back Wall Street reforms. This is what it comes down 
to.
  How tone deaf can we be? Here is a news flash: the whole country is 
focused on defending blue-collar jobs, bolstering our industrial 
manufacturing base. Folks are zoned in on that, focused on that issue. 
So we need to stop outsourcing now.
  This Congress should start by defeating the previous question and 
bringing up the Bring Jobs Home Act. Around 5 million United States 
manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1994, good-paying jobs. Their 
loss has led to a somewhat demise of the middle class in America. Just 
ask folks in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, who have seen steel 
mills and rubber factories shipped overseas. My hometown of Paterson, 
New Jersey, was formerly the hub of the textile manufacturing industry, 
which no longer exists.
  So why are we subsidizing it? Why are we subsidizing American 
companies to move to other shores? That is what we are doing. Right 
now, when companies move overseas, they can take a tax deduction for 
the cost of the move. That is a huge tax break. How do we defend it and 
why do we defend it?
  So the bill that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) referred 
to eliminates this tax deduction and gives a tax credit of up to 20 
percent of the cost of moving businesses, bringing businesses back to 
the United States of America through U.S. companies. That seems to me 
to make more sense. Why are we paying folks to leave when we could be 
paying them to get back into this country? I don't know how you 
disagree with that.
  The companies would have to add jobs to claim the tax credit. That is 
the caveat. I think it works. I ask you to consider it. Let's stop 
subsidizing companies that ship jobs overseas and start bringing jobs 
back to our shores. Let's stop talking about it. Let's do something 
about it. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
  This is not a new idea at all. President Obama and the Democrats in 
Congress have raised this bill for years, and the Republican Congress 
has blocked the bill at every turn. Senator Stabenow of Michigan leads 
this bill in the Senate, where it cleared a procedural vote 93-7 in 
2014.
  I challenge you today to take up and pass the bill, to stand up for 
American manufacturing and the workers here at home who need help. 
Don't be all talk. Step up to the plate. Take a stand where it counts.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up the 
Bring Jobs Home Act and start bringing jobs back to the United States 
of America, the greatest country in the world.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill, the underlying bill, has nothing to do with Wall Street 
and everything to do with consumers, so I respectfully disagree with my 
colleague from New Jersey. I know that it would be good for them to try 
to characterize this bill as something having to do with Wall Street, 
but it really has to do with you and me and the average people in this 
country.
  I listened to his remarks about his proposal regarding doing things 
to try to keep American companies from going abroad and doing 
everything we can to attract other companies abroad, whether they are 
U.S. based or not, to come back here. That sounds a whole lot like what 
President-elect Trump is saying, and I think it is pretty clear that 
that is going to be a big priority for him when we come back in 
January.
  Now, we had been talking about tax reform here in this House, and 
there is

[[Page H7291]]

a proposal moving forward that is comprehensive that will not only 
provide the appropriate incentives for American companies to stay here, 
but also provide incentives for companies that are in other countries 
to come here and provide jobs for the American people, which is really 
what this is all about.
  Our tax reform proposal would actually lower tax rates for everybody 
in America, and we should be about that as well. Instead, our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, every time we talk about tax reform, 
they want to stick some tax increases in there.
  The American people don't want a tax increase. They are tired of tax 
increases. They are tired of the overextension of the Federal 
Government, and they are tired of ceding control over things in America 
to international governments and groups. What the underlying bill does 
is it keeps control over our domestic insurance market here in America 
and doesn't give that control, doesn't give any of that authority to 
people in other countries.
  I listened with interest to the remarks that were just made. I am 
looking forward to President-elect Trump being President Trump so that 
we can have a comprehensive approach to keeping American businesses 
here and attracting more businesses here for more jobs. I believe that 
is exactly what we are going to see during this very exciting year to 
come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As my friend from Alabama knows, we are currently debating the rule. 
This is a tool used to set the House's agenda and to prioritize 
consideration of legislation. For that very reason, this is, in fact, 
the appropriate time for us to explain to the American people what 
legislation we would like to prioritize and what agenda we would like 
to pursue in this House. That is why we have a previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will also be pleased to learn that our 
amendment does not prevent the House from considering the majority's 
bill. Our amendment simply allows the House to consider our bill as 
well. As Mr. Pascrell pointed out, it is not as if this isn't something 
that hasn't been brought up for the last 2 years; and therefore, I join 
the gentleman in his excitement about the possibilities going forward 
of us being able to address this legislation, but now is the time that 
we can do it if we were to vote the previous question as requested.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me reiterate that the bill before us is 
unnecessary; it is a waste of valuable time; and if it were ever to be 
enacted into law, which I predict it won't, it would be harmful to our 
country's fiscal well-being. Let me go back and put a caveat there. It 
won't become the law in the 114th session. It may very well pass the 
115th session.
  We need to protect and wisely continue to implement commonsense 
regulations and oversight passed in the wake of the 2008 financial 
crisis to ensure it doesn't happen again. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the rule and the underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I want to go back to some remarks I made at the very 
beginning. No one wants to see a repeat of the Great Recession. It 
harmed everybody in this country. But in response to it, by passing the 
Dodd-Frank law, which this provision is going to try to affect, we 
essentially took a liberal grab bag of ideas that have been hanging 
around for years and just threw it into a bill and then tried to 
pretend that somehow that was going to have something to do with 
preventing a future recession.

                              {time}  1300

  Virtually everything that is in the Dodd-Frank law has nothing to do 
with preventing a future recession, and the particular provision that 
we are talking about with the underlying bill has nothing to do with 
preventing a future recession. What it does do is take the bill we have 
right now--not the underlying bill but the law we have right now--and 
take authority away from the American people.
  We have sat back the last several years and watched this 
administration go through negotiation and agreement after agreement 
that were bad for the American people. My colleague and I have agreed 
over and over again that the Iran deal was a bad deal for the American 
people. So why would we continue to cede control to foreign governments 
and groups?
  I think the election that we just had was, in part, about taking 
control of our country back--taking it back from Federal overreach and 
taking it back from ceding authority to people in other countries.
  This bill, the underlying bill that this rule deals with, gets that 
authority back for the American people and gets the control back to the 
States, where it has been successful for 150 years. That is what is 
good for the American people, and that is why we have chosen to bring 
this bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
944 and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 944 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 7. 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. 
     2963) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage 
     domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2963.
                                  ____


        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 lime 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

[[Page H7292]]

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

                          ____________________