[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 148 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7882-H7885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6691, COMMUNITY SAFETY AND SECURITY 
ACT OF 2018, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 
                                 RULES

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1051

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6691) to 
     amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition 
     of ``crime of violence'', 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 
     the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of September 13, 2018, 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. BUCK. 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. BUCK. 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. This rule makes in order one bill dealing with 
a pressing legal issue.
  Mr. Speaker, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, an 
immigrant convicted of certain felonies is subject to deportation. In 
order to qualify for this particular provision of the INA, an immigrant 
must be convicted of a crime of violence.
  The statute defines ``crime of violence'' as an offense that, ``by 
its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the 
person or property of another may be used in the course of committing 
the offense.''
  This has been a longstanding and roundly accepted policy of the U.S. 
Government. For years, we have deported dangerous criminal immigrants.
  However, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that how the 
law defined ``crime of violence'' was impermissibly vague. The result 
of the ruling threw all of these kinds of deportation cases into 
question.
  Historically, this realm of immigration law has never been an area of 
law to which the Court has applied constitutional rights. But writing 
the ruling for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan applied due process 
rights afforded by the Constitution to the removal process of criminal 
immigrants. Because the Court applied the Constitution in this manner, 
it concluded that the term ``crime of violence'' could be applied 
arbitrarily and unpredictably.
  Chief Justice John Roberts warned of the path down which this ruling 
could lead as it pertains to other provisions of Federal criminal law. 
In fact, his concerns were justifiable.
  In May, the Tenth Circuit struck down a similar provision in another 
portion of Federal law relating to using weapons in the commission of a 
crime. That particular case resulted in the sentence of a man convicted 
for firebombing a store with a Molotov cocktail being vacated.
  Then again, in August, the D.C. Circuit struck down convictions of 
two men who were convicted for a violent criminal act. This ruling 
opened up the possibility that convictions for criminal acts involving 
firearms can be overturned.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the backdrop against which we consider this bill 
today. This legislation, the Community Safety and Security Act, plugs 
the gaps in Federal law created by these recent court rulings.
  It specifies the circumstances by which a criminal offense should be 
construed as a crime of violence. In particular, a crime of violence 
will include crimes of murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, 
domestic violence, human trafficking, and many other types of violent 
acts.
  By clearly outlining Congress' intent of what constitutes a violent 
crime, this bill will eliminate the Court's concerns about ambiguity 
and will allow our law enforcement agencies to continue carrying out 
their duties to protect the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, law and order is a crucial component of a healthy 
society. We are beginning to see the effects of feel-good policies in 
some locales on the crime rate in those areas, particularly the violent 
crime rate. When law and order breaks down in our communities, the 
residents suffer.
  I am confident there is no intention to erode law and order or 
embolden criminals. However, the effects are just the same. That is why 
this legislation is so critical.
  We need to ensure that there is a clear definition of violent crime, 
so that courts across this country are not boxed in by this Supreme 
Court ruling and do not have to vacate sentences or release violent 
criminals onto our streets.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spent more than 2 decades fighting crime, both at 
the Federal level and in my own community. The impact of crime, and 
violent crime in particular, on victims is heartbreaking. Watching 
someone suffer the worst of societal ills is bad enough when justice is 
served. But watching a victim suffer not just the crime, but the lack 
of justice, is infuriating.
  We need to fix this loophole carved by these rulings and defend our 
communities from criminals. We need to stand up for victims of violent 
crime and see that the justice that we all want for them is served.
  I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate, and I am proceeding under the 
assumption that we will conclude this pretty rapidly.
  Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way 
to govern is through a rushed and closed process, all in an obvious 
attempt to throw red meat to their base. Let's not parse words. This is 
an ill-thought-out bill trying to score cheap political points with the 
Republican base.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill takes up no small feat. It attempts to utterly 
redefine what is meant by ``crime of violence'' in our criminal code. 
Our need to revisit the definition is due to the fact that the United 
States Supreme Court has now twice held that what is known as the 
residual clause under this particular area of our criminal code is 
unconstitutional because it is so broad it violates a person's 
constitutional right to due process.

  Such a reality does not invite this body's attention, but demands it. 
However, with that demand comes a great responsibility, a 
responsibility to take the time necessary to do it right; a 
responsibility to ensure that members of the committee of jurisdiction, 
and other Members of Congress, are consulted; a responsibility to 
ensure that

[[Page H7883]]

we hear from public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and criminal 
justice and immigration reform experts, for this bill touches upon all 
of these areas, and not one person, let alone an expert, has been 
consulted in the drafting of this bill, at least not in the light of 
day.
  Ostensibly, this bill was dropped to address the Supreme Court 
decisions just noted, the most recent of which was handed down in April 
of this year. I presume the composition of the bill was started soon 
after the Court dropped its decision, and, therefore, the author had 
from that time until last Friday to prepare today's bill. I think it 
only fair, then, that we have a similar amount of time to consider such 
an important matter.
  Of course, I know that is not going to happen. No, instead, my 
friends across the aisle have, once again, insisted on engaging in fly-
by-night legislating and, in so doing, shutting out not only Democrats 
but Republicans, and not only Democrats and Republicans, but the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 96th closed rule of this session, and that 
is record-breaking in and of itself. That means that Members don't have 
an opportunity to have input to substantive legislation, and somehow or 
another, with no hearings, or any markup or anything, a measure like 
this is before us.
  While home for the district work period, my constituents didn't talk 
to me about replacing the definition of a ``crime of violence'' in the 
Federal criminal code. They did talk to me about a number of 
circumstances, but they didn't talk to me about liquefied natural gas, 
one of the other bills the House is going to consider this week.
  On the other hand, they did ask about what Congress is going to do to 
address the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country, including, 
regrettably, today, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
  They asked about what Congress is doing to ensure that DACA, the 
Dream recipients, and temporary protected status holders have a pathway 
to citizenship, and they asked what Congress is going to do to address 
the Nation's need for serious and sustained investments in our 
infrastructure.

                              {time}  1230

  And high among the things that I heard from my constituents was about 
the cost of drugs and the rising cost of insurance.
  Let us also include with those very important issues, including 
today, there are nine legislative days until the government runs out of 
money. I had representatives from the National Association of Air 
Traffic Controllers visit me an hour and a half ago explaining to me 
what a government shutdown would do to that particular agency.
  We once again are forced to stare down the very real possibility of 
another government shutdown. And what are my friends across the aisle 
doing to thwart that inevitability? Nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some serious issues to tackle, and so I am 
discouraged to be on the floor today focusing on yet another messaging 
bill. I call on my Republican friends to put their perplexing fear of 
governing aside in the final days before we leave Washington, so that 
we may get to the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry of my friend. I have 
no Members here to speak, and I am prepared to close if my friend is.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We were supposed to have a speaker speak to the previous question, 
and she may not be here to discuss it.
  Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, I heard my colleague, 
Mr. Buck, discuss how one of the root causes of rising crime in this 
country is our broken education system.
  And now I will say to the gentleman that Ms. Bonamici has arrived, 
and like him, she was just a little bit delayed. So she will speak to 
this issue once I finish my comments, and then that will be our only 
speaker, I would urge my friend.
  I also would like to say, it is not often in this body that Members 
say that they made a mistake. In an exchange last night in dialogue 
with my friend from Colorado, he commented that Florida's violent crime 
had gone down, and I mistakenly said to him that he was in error.
  He was correct. It has gone down. I indicated to him last night that 
I would speak with him more about it. And there are some particulars 
that I will share with him, not so much in this particular setting, but 
I will get a chance to talk to him. There are some things where crime 
did go up, and Florida still ranks fifth in the Nation in violent 
crime, but I do want to say to him that I was mistaken when I spoke 
last evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado about 
education, and I believe every Member of this House is concerned about 
the education of our children in this country. We are failing our 
younger generations. We need to make monumental strides in this country 
to better our education system, and I believe that starts with 
childcare.
  And I always make a caveat there, because when I am asked about 
education at home, and my opponent brought it up often in the election 
that I was involved in, and I constantly reminded her that the Federal 
Government only provides less than 7 percent of the budgets of our 
local communities. So this is largely a matter where we talk a lot up 
here, but the local communities are where the rubber hits the road.
  We need to make these strides because of the problems that we are 
seeing. We obviously need more pre-K, we obviously need more Head 
Start, but in the past decade, the cost of childcare has increased by 
25 percent. In 33 States and the District of Columbia, infant care 
costs exceed the average cost of a 4-year in-state college tuition. 
This is a huge financial burden that is only worsening.
  Mr. Speaker, families need access to a system that provides high 
quality, affordable early learning and care that will prepare children 
for success without breaking the bank.
  That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce 
Committee Ranking Member Scott's bill, H.R. 3773, the Child Care for 
Working Families Act. This bill will establish a new Federal-State 
partnership to provide high quality, affordable childcare from birth 
through age 13.
  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 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan consensus that our Nation's 
families, on behalf of our Nation's children, who are our future and 
our future leaders, must be able to access affordable, high quality 
childcare and other early learning opportunities to fulfill their 
potential and succeed in college and career and in life. In fact, a 
recent poll done by the First Five Years Fund found that 89 percent of 
voters, including 82 percent of Republicans, support making quality 
early childhood education more affordable for working families.
  Last year, I joined Ranking Member Bobby Scott and more than 120 of 
my colleagues to introduce the Child Care for Working Families Act.
  This bill would ensure universal access to quality early learning 
programs for all families making less than 150 percent of their State's 
median income.
  Today, the average annual cost of full-time, center-based childcare 
in the United States exceeds the average annual cost of in-state 
tuition.
  In Oregon and other places around the country, lower and middle-
income families are forced to pay up to 30 percent of their annual 
income on childcare, with many of the lowest income families unable to 
afford care at all.

  The Child Care for Working Families Act is a bold solution to fix 
this national problem. The legislation would mean that no family of 
four earning an annual household income below $139,000 per year would 
pay more than 7 percent of that income for quality childcare.

[[Page H7884]]

  This legislation would also ensure that early learning teachers and 
caregivers finally get the time, attention, training, and resources 
they deserve. Whether in childcare, preschool, prekindergarten, or in 
other early learning environments, every child should receive quality 
care.
  Parents are out working hard. They deserve the peace of mind that 
comes from the confidence of knowing that childcare and early learning 
professionals are well trained, and that means well paid. No longer 
would a full-time early learning professional have to enroll in public 
assistance to make ends meet.
  Decades of research shows that properly nurturing children in the 
early years of life is instrumental in supporting enhanced brain 
development, cognitive functioning, and emotional and physical health. 
Research also shows what all of us know: investing in quality early 
learning programming leads to better educational outcomes, stronger job 
earnings, and lower crime rates.
  Quality early learning helps prevent and mitigate academic 
achievement gaps, it provides indisputable long-term benefits for our 
Nation. And nothing returns more money to the Treasury than investments 
in early learning programs. Our Nation receives $7 in economic benefit 
for every $1 invested in these programs. That, my colleagues, is a good 
investment in our future, our children. This bill is not only the right 
thing to do, but also the smart thing to do.
  The Child Care For Working Families Act lays out the path of what 
early learning in America could and should look like. If we want a 
promising future for our children, if we want strong and stable 
families, we must make sure that all families can access high quality 
early learning opportunities. Quality childcare is a national priority. 
This bill deserves immediate attention and, importantly, bipartisan 
support. Our future is at stake.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a 
manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the committees 
of jurisdiction hold hearings and markups, in a manner where experts in 
the field are consulted, in a manner where members of both parties have 
an opportunity to offer amendments and debate the contents of the bills 
that come before this body.
  None of that happened with today's bill.
  Instead, for reasons beyond understanding, we have to vote on a bill 
that no person in this body had sufficient time to understand, let 
alone time to consider the far-reaching consequences it could have on 
people living in this country and on our Constitution. The fact that 
Republican leadership insists on governing in such a manner is, as 
always, as disappointing as, in my opinion, it is shameful.
  Now, listen: 96 closed rules. I am fond of talking about when I first 
ran for Congress in 1992, the then leadership of the Republican Party 
did an effective job saying to the American public that the then 
leadership of the Democrats were having closed rules and closing out 
the process.
  Newt Gingrich was the person that was the author of that, in many 
respects in retrospect, brilliant strategy. That was one of the tenets 
that he put forward, that it was not right for Democrats to have as 
many closed rules as they had at that time. I don't remember the exact 
number, it was a number, but it didn't come close to 96. And now, if we 
flip the script, what we have is 96 closed rules.
  I serve on that Rules Committee with my friend from Colorado. And 
repeatedly, you look around this room, on an ordinary, regular order 
process, we would have at least five or six speakers on either side to 
substantive legislation, or we would have had an opportunity for 
Members to offer amendments that could have been considered in a 
germane or non-germane manner to be able to come out here on the floor.
  The American people are being shut out, not just Republicans and 
Democrats. It is not right, and we shouldn't go forward that way.
  I promise you that we are doing a disservice when we do not allow for 
measures of this consequence. We don't know what the outcome of this is 
going to be.
  I can't disagree with a thing my friend from Colorado said with 
reference to the measure and the clarification that is needed after the 
two Supreme Court decisions, but please know this: the proper way to do 
that would have been for the committee of jurisdiction to hold hearings 
and then to have a markup and then come to the Rules Committee. But 
what we saw was, bam, right straight to the Rules Committee, no 
hearings, no markup, no experts, no prosecutors, no public defenders, 
no input, and the public not having an opportunity to participate. It 
is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate my friend from Florida and his views on open and closed 
rules and the importance of open rules and the importance of amendments 
and the importance to an open process.
  The fact is the Democrats continue to focus on closed rules versus 
open rules, ignoring the structured amendment process, which has 
routinely been used by both majorities.
  If we are going to use that metric for measuring openness, I want to 
clarify a couple of points for the record. Sixteen of the closed rules 
cited by the minority were rolling back regulations under the 
Congressional Review Act, which does not allow for amendments, to 
ensure that only a majority vote is required in the Senate.

                              {time}  1245

  Another 12 closed rules were for bills where the majority put out a 
call for amendments but received no amendments.
  And if my friends from the other side of the aisle believe that open 
rules are the only measure of success, it is only fair that we clarify 
for the American people the Democrat majority's record.
  In the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero 
open rules. However, as we have already stated in the past, comparing 
open to closed rules ignores the structured amendment process. This 
majority has made it a priority to make in order large numbers of 
amendments for floor consideration, a majority of those with a Democrat 
sponsor and/or cosponsor.
  In fact, as of July 24, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress, in 
which we serve now, have provided for the consideration of over 1,650 
amendments on the House floor; over 745 Democrat amendments, or 45 
percent of the total number of amendments; over 630 Republican 
amendments or 38 percent of the total amendments; and over 280 
bipartisan amendments, or 17 percent of the total amendments.
  In the 114th Congress, the last Congress to have served, the 
Republican majority allowed over 1,700 amendments to be considered on 
the House floor.
  In the 113th Congress the Republican majority allowed over 1,500 
amendments to be considered on the House floor.
  And in the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats 
allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.
  I just wanted to make sure that we put into perspective the arguments 
from my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really fairly simple. Law and order is being 
jeopardized as it relates to the term, ``crime of violence.'' This bill 
plugs the gap left in our laws by the court's ruling.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different viewpoints across this 
country about our criminal justice and immigration system, but there 
are two nearly universally held beliefs by Americans: one, criminals 
should receive justice; and two, criminal immigrants should be 
deported.
  While we can debate many aspects of our criminal code, we must not 
waiver in our commitment to protect the American people from criminals 
and to bring justice to victims. There have been numerous cases lately 
of immigrants committing violent crimes against Americans. Some of 
these cases are too recent to even mention by name here today. We must 
stand with victims and their families and remove criminal immigrants 
from this country. It is unjust to do anything else.

[[Page H7885]]

  Our country is great, in part, because of our commitment to law and 
order. It is wrong to pursue a softening of our response to violent 
crime. To do so would invite more crime and produce more victims.
  We must uphold the rule of law in America. Americans want it. 
Americans deserve it. That is exactly what this bill does. It defines 
violent crimes so that our immigration and criminal justice systems 
will have the tools necessary to remove violent immigrants from our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this bill. Uphold law 
and order. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the 
resolution. And vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 1051 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     3773) to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act 
     of 1990 and the Head Start Act to promote child care and 
     early learning, and for other purposes. 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3773.
                                  ____


        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. BUCK. 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.

                          ____________________