[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8802-8806]
[From the U.S. 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.


[[Page 8803]]


  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 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

[[Page 8804]]

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 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.

[[Page 8805]]

  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 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.

[[Page 8806]]

  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.
  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.

                          ____________________