[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 150 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11255-H11259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3648, MORTGAGE FORGIVENESS DEBT
RELIEF ACT OF 2007
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 703 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 703
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3648) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross
income, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and
Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3648 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
[[Page H11256]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 703.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 703 provides for consideration of H.R.
3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 under the
traditional closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of
the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule
XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard from countless media reports and I have
seen in my own congressional district, the housing market is in crisis.
Subprime mortgages and predatory lending practices are more prominent
than ever. Home values have plunged 15 to 20 percent this year and
foreclosures in the first 6 months of this year alone have surged 55
percent over the same period in 2006.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, I know these situations all too well. I represent
communities that have been dubbed the Foreclosure Capital of the United
States of America by the national media because of foreclosure rates of
about one in 27 homes. I have seen the joy in families' eyes when they
have been able to purchase their first home and achieve the American
Dream. I have seen the tears when they struggle to make their payments
and their dream is taken away.
Mr. Speaker, losing your home to foreclosure is an unthinkable
ordeal. The way I see it, if you are unfortunate enough to lose your
home to foreclosure because you are struggling, you have suffered
enough. You shouldn't be punished further by being taxed on what you no
longer own. But that's exactly what's happening. Under current tax law,
the IRS counts as income the amount of the mortgage debt that you have
been forgiven by a lender as it is considered a ``gift'' and therefore
subject to tax. This means that when many Americans lose their home to
foreclosure, they are slapped with a tax bill when a lender discharges
the debt on their home. Families are shocked--and frankly so am I--when
they receive a tax bill for something they no longer own simply because
of phantom income that is created when the so-called gift is forgiven.
This double whammy, as Chairman Rangel likes to say, of someone losing
their home to foreclosure, often because of circumstances beyond their
control, and then facing a tax bill on top of that is neither fair nor
equitable, and it has to stop.
The bill before us today, H.R. 3648, addresses this very issue. The
bill is quite simple. First, it exempts forgiven mortgage debt from
being counted as income for tax purposes. This will prevent countless
Americans from receiving a tax bill after they have lost their home to
foreclosure. Second, H.R. 3648 provides for a 7-year extension of the
tax deduction for private mortgage insurance, which is scheduled to end
at the end of 2007. The deduction for PMI, as it is most commonly
known, is critical to many low- and moderate-income families and first-
time homebuyers who lack the traditional down payment. The PMI
deduction allows them to purchase a home at lower cost while avoiding
risky subprime or predatory second loans that would need to be made for
them to make a down payment. Third, the bill makes it easier for owners
of co-op housing units to qualify as a cooperative housing institution.
H.R. 3648 also addresses a tax loophole regarding capital gains
treatment from the sale of certain homes. Closing this unintended
loophole will prevent people from switching back and forth between a
primary and secondary residence to get a double tax benefit that was
never intended.
Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan bill before us today, H.R. 3648, was
unanimously approved by the Ways and Means Committee, and it has the
strong support of organizations such as the National Association of
Home Builders, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National
Association of Realtors. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and the
Ways and Means Committee for their hard and thoughtful work in bringing
this legislation to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, this bill provides more opportunities for people to buy
a home, more options for families to keep their home, and eliminates an
unfair tax bill should they in fact lose their home through unfortunate
circumstances. I am proud to join many organizations and my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle in supporting this commonsense legislation
today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
30 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would
like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for the time
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In August, over 165,000 properties in Florida alone entered
foreclosure, 50 percent more than the previous month. The situation is
most acute in the part of Florida that I am honored to represent.
Miami-Dade County ranks in the top five counties in the Nation among
major metropolitan areas where homes are entering some stage of
foreclosure. Broward County ranks third in the Nation. This great cause
for concern in the housing market has prompted anxiety over the tax
consequences associated with discharges of indebtedness, debt
forgiveness, in connection with restructuring acquisition indebtedness
and home foreclosures.
As the gentleman from California pointed out, under current law, when
a lender forgives some or all of the mortgage debt, Mr. Speaker, the
borrower is required to treat the forgiven debt as taxable income,
taxed at ordinary rates. In today's marketplace, declining property
values have left some sellers in the position of having to sell their
homes for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage. Even if
the loss of value occurs through no fault of their own, if the lender
forgives the shortfall, that amount is taxable income for sellers. This
phantom income tax places a heavy burden on a family that has incurred
a significant economic loss. This legislation will help protect those
homeowners from an unexpected and unfair tax bill.
The bill also extends the deduction for private mortgage insurance
for 7 years. Current law limits the deduction for private mortgage
insurance to payments made prior to the end of 2007. This provision
will be helpful, especially to young families purchasing their first
home.
There is some concern that the bill may go beyond what is needed
during this time. The administration and some in the minority here in
Congress have stated that the relief should be temporary to assist
homeowners during the current mortgage market transition period,
avoiding as much as possible distorting consumer and lender decisions
on new mortgage loans. But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the
underlying legislation being brought forth today for consideration by
this House is an example of what can happen, the good that can happen,
the progress that can be made when the congressional majority decides
to work with the administration, with the President and the minority in
Congress on an important issue such as this. Much of the legislation
that we will be considering today was proposed, the substance of that
legislation was proposed by President Bush. And so this is an example
of what progress can be made on important issues when the congressional
majority decides to work with the minority and the administration.
Now, on process, Mr. Speaker, in a document called The New Direction
for America, the new congressional majority laid out its campaign
promises to
[[Page H11257]]
the American people last year. Included in that document was a promise,
and I quote, that bills should generally come to the floor under a
procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full
amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its
alternatives, including a substitute.
{time} 1030
But with this rule today that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the rule is
what brings to the floor the underlying substantive legislation that
will be considered subsequently by the House; with this rule today, the
majority has broken its own promise in two ways. First, they denied the
minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment. My colleague, the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dreier, offered two amendments
Tuesday in Rules to allow Ways and Means Ranking Member McCrery the
ability to offer a substitute amendment on this legislation. But on a
party-line vote, the majority rejected the minority's ability to offer
a substitute.
The majority claims that they are running the House in a more open
manner than we did in the 109th Congress, but this rule today once
again demonstrates that they are not moving toward a more open process,
but instead moving backwards. This rule closes out all amendments. So
every Member of the House is precluded from in any way offering their
ideas to improve this bill.
So far this year, the majority has offered 34 closed rules on bills,
closing out all amendments, far surpassing the number from the 109th
Congress at this point, as a matter of fact, more than double the
amount of closed rules. At this point in the 109th Congress there had
been 16 closed rules. And remember the promise: the promise was to move
in the other direction, and instead, more than double the amount of
closed rules; clearly, moving backwards.
What this rule today really represents, Mr. Speaker, is a missed
opportunity. If the majority had offered an open rule, the majority
could have doubled their number of open rules on nonappropriations
bills to a whopping two; instead, they've permitted only one open rule
on nonappropriations bills, thus continuously violating their claim to
be a more open and bipartisan Congress.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend and
colleague from Florida that tax bills have traditionally been handled
under closed rules, including when Mr. Dreier was chairman of the
committee and when Mr. Diaz-Balart was the vice chairman of the
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Castor), a distinguished member of the committee.
Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from California, who continues to be
a leader for homeowners across this country as they face very troubling
times.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Mortgage Debt
Relief Act of 2007 and this rule. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel
and the House Ways and Means Committee for moving quickly on this
critical legislation.
Our efforts today will help families across America who have had to
bear the unfortunate burden of their homes going into foreclosure. You
see, under current law, after a homeowner loses their home to
foreclosure, they are forced to pay income tax on that debt
forgiveness. So although the homeowner has lost their assets, they must
suffer the immeasurable strain of a tax bill that they are often unable
to pay.
When a family has lost their home to foreclosure or has been unable
to renegotiate their loan with their lender to reflect the current
value of their home, homeowners under current law are being confronted
with an unfair and, frankly, unaffordable tax bill. Our legislation on
the floor of the House today will help.
This is simply an issue of fairness for struggling families and
homeowners. It is unfair for a family to pay a tax on their income that
they actually do not receive. When a bank forgives some amount of debt
for a homeowner, either to avoid foreclosure or simply to forgive a
debt to a homeowner already in the foreclosure process, the amount of
the forgiven debt is treated by the IRS as income, which is then taxed.
For families already struggling to make ends meet, the phantom income
and resulting tax burden generated by this can endanger their financial
health even further. This bill will fix this double whammy.
With the current housing crisis that exists in our country,
especially from the subprime lending market, it is no wonder that so
many families have found themselves in unfortunate situations when it
comes to their homes. Relieving families of this tax burden is the
least we can do to help our families and all that they are trying to do
in their everyday lives.
My colleague from Florida is correct: in August, the State of Florida
had the second highest total of foreclosure filings, up 77 percent from
the previous month. Florida is ranked third in the United States for
overall foreclosures this year, and nationwide foreclosures up are 115
percent.
In my home district in the Tampa Bay area, over 10,000 of my
neighbors have found their homes falling into foreclosure within the
first 6 months of this year. Well, we are going to extend a lifeline
today, and believe me, it matters.
Last month, I visited with one of my neighbors, Isaline Wyatt. She is
a single mother of two in east Tampa who was very close to losing her
home to foreclosure. Fortunately, she was able to keep her home with
the help of Neighborworks, a community action group. But many of our
neighbors are in similar situations, and they do not have the same
prospects. I promised Isaline and our neighbors throughout the Tampa
Bay area that we would work to ensure that help is within reach.
I am proud to say that today we will keep that promise and help bring
relief to my hardworking neighbors. We will keep them from being faced
with unaffordable, large tax bills as a result of foreclosure or
renegotiating mortgages.
In the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, the talented and caring staff
at the local Neighborworks center work hard every day to keep
homeowners in their home. Since January, they have assisted 65
families. Homeowners like Joann Carnaham of St. Petersburg are working
desperately with Neighborworks so they don't lose their homes. Joann
fell behind on her mortgage payment because she lost her job. The house
she lived in belonged to her parents. She refinanced for $80,000. Her
father was still there, but he passed away, and she had to pay all of
his bills. Due to lack of income and her father's death, she was unable
to negotiate a payment plan with her mortgage company. Under current
law, if Joann's home goes into foreclosure, she will be hit with an
income tax bill that she is in absolutely no position to pay.
Mr. Speaker, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 will
aid families and people like Joann in St. Petersburg and help them get
back on their feet after foreclosure. With the whirlwind of problems in
the mortgage finance system, this bill will help stabilize families in
our neighborhood, and I urge adoption today.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in response to my
good friend Mr. Cardoza's point about the tradition with tax bills,
yes, there has been a tradition to bring tax bills to the floor under a
restricted rule. That has not precluded in the past, as we did often,
the ability of the minority to offer a substitute amendment.
So what I was talking about with regard to process is that there was
a clear promise to move in a more open direction, to move toward more
openness and more transparency and more rights for the minority. And
what has happened is exactly the opposite, a doubling by the majority
of closed rules that absolutely close out, in other words, prohibit,
all Members from proposing amendments on this floor. So that great
contrast between the promise and the performance is what I was alluding
to, that unfortunate contrast.
Now, on substance, again, I think that today is an example of
something very positive. The congressional majority has decided to work
with the minority and the President on an issue that is of importance
to this legislation. And so we see legislation, much of
[[Page H11258]]
which was proposed by the President of the United States, coming to the
floor today to solve a major problem facing the American people.
So while I reiterate the great disappointment that we in the minority
feel with regard to the lack of performance by the majority with regard
to its promise to open this House to more fairness on substance, I
think it's commendable that for once there is an issue of importance to
the American people that the congressional majority has decided to work
with the President on and with the minority in Congress.
I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, Mr.
Speaker, so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider
a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and
enforceability to the earmark rule.
Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of
jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill
or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order
lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last
Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a
question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee
specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order,
they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks
on the rule or on the bill.
I would like to direct our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to
a letter that the House Parliamentarian, the distinguished John
Sullivan, recently sent to the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since
January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his
letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian stated that the
Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all
legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''
House of Representatives,
Office of the Parliamentarian,
Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of
October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on
how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have
advised the committee that language waiving all points of
order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''
should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,
notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to
recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure
requirements of clause 9.
In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order
against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause
9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that
waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the
rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI
does not comprehensively apply to all legislative
propositions at all stages of the legislative process.
Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill
or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or
joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''
to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--
whether they be floor amendments during initial House
consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not
covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule
felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to
immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations
about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one
offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a
member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of
a special rule.)
The question of order on September 25 involved a special
rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment
between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It
had no application to the motion in the first instance.
Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special
rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).
The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule
providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered
as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same
rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no
application to the amendment in the first instance, the
special rule had no tendency to waive any application of
clause 9(a).
The same would be true in the more common case of a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.
In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding
officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a
particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule
XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability
of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure
requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object
of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the
question whether a special rule waives the application of
clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any
application.
In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no
application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all
points of order except those arising under that rule--when
none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its
negative implication would be that such a point of order
might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all
points of order against provisions of an authorization bill
except those that can only arise in the case of a general
appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of role XXI). Both in this
area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use
language that yields a misleading implication.
I appreciate your consideration and trust that this
response is to be shared among all members of the committee.
Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.
Sincerely,
John V. Sullivan,
Parliamentarian.
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restore the accountability and
enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the
109th Congress, to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the
question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I urge my colleagues
to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct my colleague,
the gentleman from Florida, my friend and great colleague on the
committee, that on page 19 of the committee report issued after the
bill was written, I would like to read section G, which reads:
``Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of
Representatives, the Ways and Means Committee has determined that the
bill as reported contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of that rule.''
Further, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned that Mr. McCrery
had offered a substitute and that the majority had denied the minority
the ability to bring that substitute up. That's correct, for good
cause. The substitute was not paid for under the House PAYGO rules, and
in fact violated the House PAYGO rules, and so was not deemed
appropriate to be brought to the floor.
Finally, that same substitute only made these very important tax
loophole corrections and changes enabled for 3 years. We believe that
this particular provision needs to be permanent in Federal law and that
homeowners need to be protected if they lose their homes permanently.
So, Mr. Speaker, we did not make Mr. McCrery's substitute in order.
And, in fact, it has been the tradition that tax bills come to the
floor under closed rules, even when Mr. Dreier and the Republicans were
in charge, because of the complexity of tax law. If you amend that bill
on the floor, we don't know how it will affect other clauses within
that bill. So it has been the tradition, because of tax law complexity,
that bills coming to the floor that deal with the Federal Tax Code do,
in fact, come under closed rules.
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, declining property values and rapid increases in the
number of foreclosures are causing a national housing and mortgage
crisis. This is a commonsense bill. It is a bill that takes key steps
in stabilizing the housing market. H.R. 3648 eliminates the double
whammy of someone losing their home to foreclosure and then facing an
additional tax bill right when they are down on their knees anyway. It
reduces mortgage costs, making it easier for families to purchase a
home while avoiding high-risk loans. Most importantly, it will help
countless families avoid foreclosure and to stay in their homes.
[[Page H11259]]
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3648, the Mortgage
Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, is a necessary bill. Once again,
it shows that the Democratic Congress is committed to addressing the
mortgage crisis sweeping across our Nation. I want to thank Mr. Rangel
and his committee for bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous
question.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, owning a home is part of the
American dream. But it can become a nightmare when homeowners face
foreclosure. In Metro Atlanta we have one of the highest foreclosure
rates in the country--one in every 54 households is in foreclosure.
Too often these are people who have lost their jobs or are dealing
with an illness. They have lost their home, they are out of money and
they are suffering. They should not be hit with a huge tax bill from
the IRS.
Cancelled debt is not income, and treating it like a paycheck adds
insult to injury. Today we change the tax code to protect people who
are losing their home from also having to pay a large tax penalty.
It is the right thing to do and I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 703 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the
Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for
enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion
or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
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 Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will 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 definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
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 Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. CARDOZA. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.
____________________