[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4660-H4664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2213, ANTI-BORDER CORRUPTION
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 374
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2213) to
amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to authorize
certain polygraph waiver authority, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed
in the bill 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 Homeland
Security; (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 division of the question; and (3) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CHENEY. 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
Ms. CHENEY. 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
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 374,
which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2213, the
Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act, and makes in order one
amendment.
H.R. 2213 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill, introduced by Ms.
McSally from Arizona, that will help ensure we have sufficient Border
Patrol agents to secure our border. At this point in
[[Page H4661]]
time, where we are facing tremendous challenges overseas, where we are
facing tremendous national security challenges, our Customs and Border
Protection is understaffed and unable to meet the congressionally
mandated staffing levels for Customs officers and Border Patrol agents.
With these ever-increasing threats to our national security, it is
vital that we ensure CBP can quickly hire capable and trustworthy
individuals to secure our border. Currently, prospective officers and
Border Patrol agents are required to undergo a background check that
includes passing a polygraph test. This process has been very long and
has drastically delayed the CBP's ability to hire officers and Border
Patrol agents.
H.R. 2213 simply provides a limited, voluntary exemption to the pre-
employment polygraph requirement for State and local law enforcement
officers that are in good standing and who have already passed a State
and local law enforcement polygraph test, for Federal law enforcement
officers who are in good standing, and members of the armed services or
veterans who have received or who are eligible to receive an honorable
discharge and have held a security clearance and undergone a thorough
background check in the past 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, this exemption is very narrow and only applies to men
and women that we already trust to protect and defend us at home or
abroad: men and women who have already been through relevant security
background checks. The CBP would not be required to use this waiver
authority; and, if there is anything in any applicant's history that
warrants further investigation, the CBP Commissioner is fully
authorized and encouraged to use a polygraph test to resolve any
outstanding questions.
Mr. Speaker, for years, the CBP has struggled to recruit and vet
potential employees. There is no more urgent need that we have right
now than securing our border and making sure we have the resources
there to be able to do that job.
{time} 1230
H.R. 2213 is a commonsense approach that will help address this issue
and ensure the CBP has the men and women it needs to keep our borders
and our Nation secure. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the
rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2213, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), my
friend, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
H.R. 2213 would broaden the criteria for waiving the polygraph
requirements for certain applicants at U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
Under the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act, the
Commissioner of the CBP would be permitted to waive polygraph
requirements for certain State and law enforcement personnel who have
passed a polygraph examination, Federal law enforcement agents who have
passed a stringent background investigation, and veterans with three
consecutive years in the military who have held a security clearance
and passed a background check.
Mr. Speaker, we understand the importance of ensuring that our
Federal law enforcement agencies are operating at full capacity, but
there are other big-ticket items that we are ignoring in this
institution. So I ask: Where is the Republican agenda?
With control of both Chambers of Congress and the White House, my
colleagues across the aisle have made it through nearly half of their
first year in power without a single major legislative achievement. It
appears that President Donald John Trump is more interested in slashing
old policies than proposing new ones.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump and congressional Republicans have yet
to put forward the promised $1 trillion infrastructure package. Voters
are still waiting for the massive tax cuts promised to them during the
campaign.
The American people have yet to see a single jobs bill, let alone the
supersecret plan to defeat ISIS. And looming over this long to-do list
is the investigation into Russia's blatant attempts to interfere in our
election, an issue that many of my Republican colleagues seem more than
happy to ignore.
Instead, President Donald John Trump and my friends across the aisle
have spent their time rolling back protections for workers, consumers,
teachers, students, and the environment.
Instead of tackling a bipartisan spending deal, addressing budget
cuts under sequestration, and avoiding debt default, the Republican-
controlled Congress insists on dismantling the Affordable Care Act and
replacing it with a plan that will raise deductibles, lessen coverage,
and leave 23 million more people uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, there are still plenty of people without jobs in this
country. We have plenty of families worried that they will be tossed
off of their health insurance plan, and we have plenty of folks who are
pleading with Congress to pass compassionate immigration reform.
Yet President Donald John Trump is tweeting about his travel ban and
attacking London Mayor Sadiq Khan hours after a terrorist attack hit
London which, sadly, killed seven people and injured dozens more.
Mr. Speaker, after being the antigovernment party--and I find it
hypocritical that people in the administration are declaring that we
are obstructionists. They gave, during that period of the previous
President, obstruction absolutely new meaning. After being the
antigovernment party for so many years, it appears that the
congressional Republicans have forgotten how to govern.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I welcome the opportunity to share the floor today with the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend from the Rules Committee. I
just would point out that, as a Congress, as a body, we have actually
passed more pieces of legislation, gotten them on the President's desk,
and gotten them signed at this point in Congress than at any time since
President Truman was in office.
So it may be that my colleague is not in agreement with many of the
things that we have done, but, Mr. Speaker, we have actually been
working very hard to begin the process of recovery from 8 years of
rules and regulations that have really strangled the people of this
Nation.
We have passed, as the gentleman noted, healthcare reform out of this
body. We repealed ObamaCare, and every single day we get more and more
indication about the failures of that healthcare plan, with insurance
companies pulling out of markets and leaving citizens all across this
Nation unable to get access to affordable care. The Republican plan
will change that.
We are also in the process and will, tomorrow, be voting to repeal
the Dodd-Frank legislation, which has had a devastating effect on our
community banks all across this country and on our communities, and
moving away from the really misguided approach of the last 8 years that
centralized power here in Washington, D.C.
One thing that didn't happen in the last 8 years though was the
security of the border. And far too often we saw laws that weren't
enforced. We saw people turning the other way for sanctuary cities, for
example, and the failure on the part of the last administration to do
what was necessary to make sure that we could know who is coming into
this country and that we had the resources necessary to secure our
border.
So I am very proud to be here today, to be able to debate this rule,
to be able to debate the underlying legislation, which is sadly needed,
so that we can get those resources we need.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2213, the Anti-Border
Corruption and Reauthorization Act of 2017.
As someone who has spent their entire career and adult life in law
enforcement, I know full well the importance of being able to hire
quality men and women to provide for the security of our communities
and our Nation at large.
H.R. 2213 simply provides the Border Patrol and U.S. Customs a tool
in their
[[Page H4662]]
hiring toolkit to expedite the hiring of those who have already held
some of our Nation's highest positions of public trust and who have
already undergone the most thorough vetting available.
It allows Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who have
served in good standing for more than 3 years and who have undergone a
polygraph exam to be eligible to have their CBP preemployment polygraph
waived in order to expedite their hiring.
As a former sheriff who mandated--I mandated preemployment polygraphs
in my own department. I have full confidence in thoroughness of the
vetting conducted by State and local law enforcement agencies prior to
hiring an officer. Those exams do not need to be duplicated by CBP in
order to hire a prospective officer or agent who has already been
vetted by their local department and has a proven track record of
performance.
If CBP finds derogatory information on an applicant whose polygraph
has been waived, then they still have the authority to conduct their
standard CBP polygraph to determine whether that applicant should, in
fact, be hired.
This bill does not lower standards. I want to say that again. This
bill does not lower standards. It merely takes a commonsense approach
to hiring by giving CBP the option not to duplicate a polygraph exam
already completed by a highly qualified applicant's previous law
enforcement agency.
I represent the Port of Jacksonville, which moved 82 tons of cargo
last year and is one of only 16 ports of call authorized to move
military cargo through our national security operations.
It is absolutely vital that U.S. Customs and Border Protection are
able to hire enough quality officers to maintain the flow of commerce.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend and a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill. The bill, in fact, does weaken critical screening of
potential CBP officers, and our country actually should be working to
increase the security relative to CBP. CBP is essential. It is our
first line of defense to stop terrorists, to stop drugs, to stop
dangerous persons coming in, and we should not weaken our standards.
Now, the overwhelming majority of CBP officers are honest,
hardworking public servants. Crime and corruption has, however, been a
persistent problem for the agency. Numerous CBP officers have been
found to have strong connections to organized crime, including drug
cartels. They are in prison now.
In many cases, cartels try and infiltrate the CBP by recruiting
people to apply for CBP positions. This results in illicit drug
smuggling and other dangerous activities.
In 2015, the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel found that--and this is a
quote--``arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per
capita basis, such arrests at other Federal law enforcement agencies.''
In 2016, this same panel observed that ``corrupt CBP law enforcement
personnel pose a national security threat.'' And it recommended that
the current polygraph test be expanded, not reduced.
Now, this bill allows for an exemption for local law enforcement and
former members of the Armed Forces from the polygraph requirement. For
example, if a polygraph has been taken in the prior 10 years, I think
it is a mistake to think that that will protect us.
In fact, the Inspector General at DHS, John Roth, advises against
this bill. He explained that the polygraph changes, including this
legislation--and this is a quote--``could put CBP at significant
risk.''
He says: ``While it may sound reasonable to say you could waive
requirements from former military personnel because they have passed a
polygraph, Border Patrol agents work in a different environment that is
not as controlled as the military.''
Now, it is important to note that, of the applicants for the CBP,
two-thirds fail the polygraph test. That may be a concern, but we ought
to be glad that people who are a risk are not actually hired by the
CBP.
I will just note that the Government Accountability Office advises
that, between 2005 and 2012, there were 2,170 reported incidents of
arrest of CBP personnel for misconduct. That is about one arrest a day
of CBP officials.
CBP's own Integrity Advisory Panel, and these are law enforcement
experts, outside law enforcement experts, concluded in 2015 that
``there is data indicating that arrests for corruption of CBP personnel
far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other Federal law
enforcement agencies.'' And in its final report, that panel recommended
that the current polygraph testing be expanded to include
postemployment tests that are best practices at the FBI and agencies in
the U.S. intelligence service.
Now, I will just give you some examples that are real life examples
from CBP, and this is from the agency itself. These are individuals who
could be exempted.
An officer who, when faced with a polygraph, admitted possession of
approximately 100 videos and 10,000 still images of child pornography.
A police officer who admitted to sexual assault.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. LOFGREN. An Afghan veteran who had classified information that he
admitted he had taken out of theater.
An Army officer who would meet the criteria who admitted that he had
removed classified information from Iraq.
A police officer who admitted that he had smuggled marijuana into
detention centers.
It is not too big a burden to ask that applicants have a polygraph
test and be clean.
{time} 1245
The Sinaloa cartel is recruiting people to apply to become CBP
officers. Our protection is to make sure that we completely screen
every single applicant so that the cartel is unsuccessful in
infiltrating our first line of defense at the U.S. borders.
So, with that, I know that the authors are well-intentioned, but this
is a serious mistake for the security of our country, and I urge
Members to vote against the bill.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Rules Committee colleague
for yielding. I am proud to support this rule and the Anti-Border
Corruption Reauthorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, last November, the American people sent a strong
message: They want a secure southern border. Having a strong system of
border security is critical to our national defense and the safety and
the security of the American people. President Trump has asked us to
get more boots on the ground protecting our border, and this bill is an
important step in that process.
U.S. Border Patrol agencies are the ones serving on the front lines
when it comes to border security. These hardworking men and women serve
day at night at the border, at airports, and at sea and land ports in
an effort to keep us safe. We should be grateful for their service and
their sacrifice.
Unfortunately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is
woefully understaffed. In fact, the numbers show that we are short
1,000 officers and 1,800 Border Patrol agents. This shortage is making
it harder to secure the border and help keep bad actors out of our
country.
That is where this bill comes in. It would amend the Anti-Border
Corruption Act of 2010 to provide necessary discretionary waiver
authority to the CBP Commissioner in an effort to reduce the staffing
shortage. The bill specifically would provide the Commissioner with the
authority to waive the polygraph examinations in three circumstances.
The polygraph exam would be waived for current State and local law
enforcement officers who have already passed a polygraph examination,
Federal law enforcement officers who have already passed a stringent
background investigation, and veterans with at least 3 consecutive
years in the military who have held a clearance and passed a background
check. These are three very tailored and specific circumstances, and
these are exactly the
[[Page H4663]]
kind of men and women we want and need when it comes to border security
positions.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the waiver authority
granted under this bill is not mandatory. It will ultimately be the
decision of the CBP Commissioner to decide on a strict case-by-case
basis whether to issue a waiver. The Commissioner can order a
polygraph.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner can still order a polygraph
for any applicant they deem necessary.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that passed out of the
Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, and I hope to see more
bipartisan support here in the full House.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, and I urge all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting a stronger and more robust border
security system.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to be deeply concerned by revelations that
Russia hacked last year's elections. In fact, just this week we learned
that Russian military intelligence engaged in a monthlong cyber attack
against our voting infrastructure, specifically targeting a voting
software supplier and 122 local election officials.
This most recent revelation comes on the back of earlier
determinations by the intelligence community that Russia hacked the DNC
and distributed fake news in order to sway the election in Donald
Trump's favor. This has been made even more troublesome by the fact
that Donald John Trump recently admitted that he fired FBI Director
Comey over the Bureau's investigation into links between the Trump
campaign and Russia.
Mr. Speaker, the integrity of our electoral system is at stake. It is
time the Republican-controlled Congress does its job and acts to defend
our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan bill, H.R. 356, which
would create a nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian
interference into our 2016 election.
This marks the eighth time we have tried to bring this bill to the
House floor. On the previous seven occasions, the Republican majority,
regrettably, refused to allow the House to even debate this important
legislation. But today, they will have yet another opportunity to
redeem themselves. I hope they will finally put country ahead of party.
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, we stand here today with a to-do list a
mile long, and we don't have much time to cross items off that list.
There are only 30 working days before our
5-week August recess. That is not much time, but those of us on this
side of the aisle stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner with our
Republican colleagues in order to make sensible reforms to our Tax
Code, our infrastructure and healthcare system, in short, to work hard
for the American people, because that is what we were sent here to do.
It is far past time for my friends across the aisle to come to the
table ready to work on behalf of the American people in a bipartisan
manner. We on this side of the aisle continue to stand ready to do so,
and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his
participation in this debate today.
I think it is important for the record to be clear and to be
accurate, Mr. Speaker. This House of Representatives, in the time that
we have been in session, has been the most productive House during the
first 100 days of a Presidency in 30 years.
I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not
want to agree to that. They may not want to acknowledge that because
Speaker Pelosi held the record previously when she was Speaker, but I
am very proud of that, that we have done a tremendous amount for the
American people in the time that we have been in session.
We have overturned 14 Obama regulations in this Congress alone, which
has had a tremendous impact on our constituents. We have already taken
steps that will save them $3.7 billion in regulatory costs, 4.2 million
hours in paperwork.
Mr. Speaker, when I think about the communities across my home State
of Wyoming, this relief could not have come soon enough. We are in a
position today where we have faced strangling regulation out of
Washington, D.C., for the last 8 years, regulation that was truly
intended in too many instances to drive businesses out of business, to
drive our community banks out of business, and to create a situation
where Washington, D.C., was creating one-size-fits-all policies. But
those days are over. This is a new day, and we take very seriously our
obligations to put country ahead of party.
With respect to Russia, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is well aware,
there are multiple investigations underway in the Congress. We on the
Republican side--I think this is a bipartisan issue--take very
seriously the sanctity of our electoral process and will make sure that
we get to the bottom of it.
We have got to ensure that we recognize and understand the extent to
which Russian hacking was going on--frankly, not just in the United
States, but around the world--and make sure that we do everything
necessary to stand up against both Russian hacking, to stand up against
the kind of Russian attacks that we are seeing on electoral processes
in Europe, and, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we secure ourselves.
At the end of the day, that is what this debate is about here this
afternoon. We have got to make sure that we all recognize in this body
that there is nothing more important than the security of our Nation.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are at a crisis moment. We are at a crisis
because, for the last 8 years, our military has been strangled. For the
last 8 years, our borders weren't secure. We have had threats growing
around the world.
We have seen the rise of ISIS. We have seen the rise of al-Qaida--the
expansion of al-Qaida around the world into many more countries than it
ever existed before.
We have seen the Iranians make steady progress towards obtaining a
nuclear weapon under what is the most misguided treaty agreement ever
entered into by any American President: the Iranian nuclear agreement.
We have seen Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. We have seen
Russian aggression in Europe.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen North Korea attempting, on a near weekly
basis it sometimes seems, to make sure that it has perfected and
acquired ballistic missile technology, while they also work to make
sure that they are able to put a nuclear warhead on those ballistic
missiles.
Mr. Speaker, we are living in a very dangerous world. We are living
in a world in which America's ability to defend and protect itself is
under threat in a way that it has not been certainly since the end of
the Cold War, and maybe even since World War II.
Defending and protecting this Nation, Mr. Speaker, will require,
both, that we provide the resources our military needs to defend us so
that we can, Mr. Speaker, get out from underneath the policies of the
last 8 years, but it also will require that we secure our border.
This bill today on the floor will provide the relief necessary for
the CBP to do what is necessary to keep us safe. We have no greater
responsibility than providing for our security.
I would remind the gentleman from Florida that this bill passed out
of the Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, on a bipartisan
basis, with sponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is crucially
important that we take this step to provide the relief--and not
mandatory relief, but the relief--that the CBP can use if it needs.
[[Page H4664]]
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the range of accomplishments that we have
had that I am very proud of in this Congress and the accomplishments
still to come, I think that we have to also recognize that nothing is
more important than the security of the Nation. This bill goes to the
heart of that, to making sure that the CBP can do its job. Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 2213.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 374 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign
Interference in the 2016 Election. 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 Foreign Affairs. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 356.
____
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.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________