[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3458-H3465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 113-415 AND AN
ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES.
565, APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 568 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 568
Resolved, That if House Report 113-415 is called up by
direction of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform: (a) all points of order against the report are waived
and the report shall be considered as read; and
(b)(1) an accompanying resolution offered by direction of
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall be
considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of
order; and
(2) the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
such resolution to adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except: (i) 50 minutes of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform or their respective designees; (ii) after
conclusion of debate one motion to refer if offered by
Representative Cummings of Maryland or his designee which
shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (iii)
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 565) calling on Attorney
General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to
investigate the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by
the Internal Revenue Service. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the resolution to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except 40
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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. NUGENT. 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, H. Res. 568.
House Resolution 568 provides for consideration of two important
resolutions. Both resolutions are critical to getting to the bottom of
the IRS' targeting of conservative nonprofit groups, and they are
critical to holding this government accountable.
The groups who are discriminated against deserve to know the full
truth and so do the American people. To this day, Mr. Speaker, no one
has been held accountable for the actions of the IRS.
I wish that the underlying resolutions weren't necessary; but, once
again, the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in
history'' hasn't been helping much in providing the answers to the
American people that they so rightly deserve.
For example, one of the underlying resolutions, H. Res. 565, calls
for the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate
the targeting that took place.
Again, it is frustrating that this House even needs to take this
step, Mr. Speaker; but as we have come to find out, the Justice
Department chose a Democratic political supporter to lead their
investigation into the IRS' actions. This attorney donated over $6,000
to President Obama's election campaigns, and if that is not a conflict
of interest, I don't know what it is.
That is extremely disappointing to me because this administration had
the opportunity to give Americans assurances that they wouldn't stand
for the IRS' conduct, they wouldn't allow an agency to be a tool to
punish people for their political beliefs and would work diligently to
root out this behavior and hold the appropriate people accountable.
Instead, the administration severely undermined the credibility of
the investigation at every turn. We need impartiality and objectiveness
from this administration; and, Mr. Speaker, we just didn't get it.
We have hit a wall, Mr. Speaker. It is time we had a special counsel
to look into the issue so we can fully understand the depths of the
targeting.
What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that all signs point to Lois Lerner
as a central figure in this scandal. Ms. Lerner has been unwilling to
answer questions before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
despite giving testimony to two other bodies.
Her actions to this point beg the question: What is she trying to
hide?
Ms. Lerner has roughly a year--she has had a year to work with the
committee and ample time to comply with this subpoena. Unfortunately,
she has refused to do so.
When called to testify before the committee, Lois Lerner
simultaneously asserted her innocence, while depriving the American
people of the opportunity to get their questions answered.
Ms. Lerner made 17 separate factual assertions before invoking her
Fifth Amendment right--17, Mr. Speaker.
In the words of my colleague from South Carolina, that is a lot of
talking for someone who wants to remain silent.
{time} 1230
Some people believe--me being one of them--that you can't do that.
You can't make selective assertions and still invoke your Fifth
Amendment right.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mrs. Lerner's conduct shows contempt for
this body. I certainly do. I truly believe that. But that is what we
are here today for, to have a debate, to see what the majority of this
body believes.
This rule allows for the debate to happen and a vote to happen. It
allows Congress to do its job, providing oversight of the executive
branch.
If the contempt vote passes, it will place the issue into Federal
court. It will be up to them to decide if we are accurate or off base.
Let the court decide that. That is the appropriate step, because that
is where the dispute between these two branches is supposed to reside.
The judicial branch is the arbitrator between the executive branch and
the legislative branch when it comes to issues like this. That is how a
three-branch system works. We should let the process take place.
I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, welcome to witch-hunt week here in the
United States House of Representatives. Our economy is slowly
recovering, slower than any of us would like. Millions of unemployed
Americans have been left behind because their unemployment benefits
have expired. Our immigration system is broken. Millions of Americans
are living in poverty because they don't earn enough to make ends meet.
And we have a pay equity issue where women, on average, earn less than
men for doing the same job. I mean, climate change is a real issue and
is getting worse.
So what is the response from the House Republican leadership? A jobs
bill? No. A fully funded transportation bill? No. An extension of long-
term unemployment benefits? No. Comprehensive immigration reform? No.
An increase in the minimum wage? No way. A pay equity bill? No. A
sensible energy policy? No. Of course not, not from this leadership.
[[Page H3459]]
You know, when it comes to jobs or improving the economy, my
Republican friends have no ideas. And here is the deal: they are afraid
the American people are going to figure this out. And so what do they
do? They create distractions and diversions, more investigations, more
investigations.
Mr. Speaker, instead of tackling the issues that actually matter to
people, House Republicans are once again playing to cheap seats with
hyperpartisan political witch-hunts.
Now, this rule before us today contains two bills. One would hold
Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations in
contempt of Congress; the other would appoint a special counsel to
investigate the targeting of nonprofit groups by the IRS. And that is
just today. The House Republican leadership will be doubling down on
the crazy later this week by creating a select committee to exploit the
tragedy of Benghazi. It is shameful.
This is ridiculous. The IRS clearly overstepped in the way they
identified and targeted nonprofit groups. That is not an issue for
debate. But an issue of this magnitude and importance, potential abuse
by the Internal Revenue Service, deserves to be handled in a bipartisan
and professional manner. That standard has not been achieved during
these investigations.
I say ``these investigations,'' plural, because multiple committees
have spent nearly a year looking into this. From nearly the beginning,
Republicans have operated on their own and not in a bipartisan and
professional manner. To date, 39 witnesses have been interviewed, more
than 530,000 pages of documents have been reviewed, and the IRS has
spent at least $14 million of taxpayer money cooperating with all of
these requests and investigations.
And what do we have to show for all this work? We have had a circus
in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform--a circus. We have
seen Ms. Lerner assert her Fifth Amendment rights, and we have seen
Chairman Issa literally cut the mic while Ranking Member Cummings was
speaking. In all my years as a Member of Congress and as a staff
member, I have never seen such behavior in a committee before, ever.
And during this investigation, we have seen over 30 legal experts
come together and state that Chairman Issa's contempt proceedings--one
of the bills that we are considering here today--are constitutionally
deficient. In other words, more than 30 legal experts--both Democrats
and Republicans, and also including former House counsels--believe that
the courts would throw this contempt resolution out of court. Now, of
course, Chairman Issa is entitled to his own opinion, but we cannot
just ignore the legal opinions of more than 30 legal experts, including
two former House counsels.
Ranking Member Cummings had a great idea, a sensible idea, and I
can't quite understand why my friends on the other side haven't
accepted it. He said let's hold a hearing with many of these legal
experts and get to the bottom of why they feel Chairman Issa's actions
are deficient. But Chairman Issa nixed that quickly and said no way, no
hearings.
This is the Oversight Committee. This is the committee that is
supposed to be nonpartisan, when you think about it. I mean, the
investigations are supposed to have some credibility. But Chairman Issa
nixed that. In fact, he is refusing to hold such a hearing.
And actually, it just baffles me. If Chairman Issa firmly believes
that this contempt resolution has merit and has legal standing, then
what is the harm in holding a hearing and considering these legal
experts' opinions?
The truth is that Chairman Issa and the Republican leadership really
do not care about doing this fairly, and they never have. This is an
exercise in political theater, designed for the conservative media
closed information loop.
Mr. Speaker, speaking truth to power is important. Investigating
abuses of power is even more important. But abusing the process in the
name of investigating abuse is wrong. We have been down this road
before. We have seen this kind of witch-hunt steamroll through this
very Capitol. But not even Joseph McCarthy was able to strip away an
American citizen's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment, as
Chairman Issa is trying to do.
The Congressional Research Service found that the last time Congress
tried to hold witnesses in contempt after they asserted their Fifth
Amendment right not to testify was in the 1950s and 1960s in Senator
Joseph McCarthy's committee, the House un-American Activities
Committee, and others. In nearly every case, the juries refused to
convict or Federal courts overturned those convictions. This exercise
that we are engaged in today is nearly identical to the actions of
Senator McCarthy. It was wrong then; it is wrong now.
This is sad because it demeans this House of Representatives. It may
be red meat for the extreme right wing, but for too many Americans, it
adds to the cynicism that this is a place where trivial issues get
debated passionately and important ones not at all.
Mr. Speaker, the IRS is a powerful agency. The Tax Code, itself, can
be either daunting or beneficial, depending on where you sit. The IRS
and the Code can be used to help people, like through the EITC, the
child tax credit, and the R&D tax credits; or it could be used
punitively, as it was during the Nixon administration.
The IRS, under the Obama administration, must be held to a high
standard. We must keep politics out of the way the IRS is run and the
way it operates. In fact, the hearings, depositions, and investigations
held to date actually show that there was no White House involvement in
this case--none.
The problem here is that the narrative that my Republican friends
have doesn't fit the facts and they are frustrated, so they want to
kick the ball down to the court and have more committees, more
investigations, more special counsels. Maybe they will find something.
In addition, these hearings that were held, these depositions and
investigations show that the targeting of nonprofit groups by the IRS
was not limited to conservative groups.
Unfortunately, this whole process is so political that my friends,
the Republicans on the Oversight Committee, intentionally limited the
scope of what they are focused on to just conservative groups. It
doesn't matter what happened to progressive groups. The truth is that
both liberal and conservative groups were targeted. That is a fact that
is conveniently left out of the arguments and accusations posed by my
friends on the Republican side.
Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Republicans are trying to do here.
It is crystal clear. They do not want to talk about the issues that
matter to people. From the economy to the environment to immigration,
they don't want to talk about those issues because a majority of the
American people disagree with them. They don't want to talk about those
issues because they have no ideas, nothing, nothing to offer. They
don't even want to talk about ObamaCare anymore now that 8 million
Americans have health coverage. They don't know what to do now, so they
are coming up with these desperate attempts to try to create
distractions. So this is what they are left with: sad little scraps of
political nonsense that they keep trying to peddle as leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and resolution are colossal wastes of time.
They do nothing. They do nothing at all to try to ensure that the IRS
is above politics. They do nothing at all to try to achieve any kind of
justice or truth.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to get on with the business
of actually solving real problems that affect real Americans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that those on the other side
of the aisle would say this is trivial. This impacted American
citizens. And I won't disagree that it may have impacted those on the
left; but, to a greater extent, it impacted those on the right. And to
Americans, one of the most powerful organizations there is in America
is the IRS. They can instill fear into your heart when you get that
letter. So when you have one that does something that is so outrageous
as what they have done, it is not trivial, at least not to the people I
represent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding.
[[Page H3460]]
I am reminded of a passage in the Bible that you can see a speck of
sawdust in your neighbor's eye but not the plank in your own.
We are talking about a resolution. Isn't it amazing that we have to
go to a resolution to restore to the American people their faith and
trust that they are quickly losing in the government because we will
not finish the job. We will continue to backpedal. We will run around
the edges, and we will try to put the spotlight someplace else.
This is not gender specific. This is not party specific. This has
nothing to do with anything other than honesty and truth. To sit here
and bloviate about something that doesn't really exist--oh, they are
trying to move the spotlight somewhere else.
Well, I would invite all of you to go back to what it is when we came
in here and took a pledge. It is not just a pledge, and it is not just
a responsibility. It is an obligation to get to the truth. When we have
to have a resolution asking the chief law enforcement officer of the
country to appoint a special committee, how far have we fallen in the
eyes of the people we represent?
Is there an issue here? Yes, there is. Are there things that have to
be settled? Yes, there are.
A year ago, on May 10, I was 65. This Saturday, I will be 66. I have
learned more about myself in the last year than the American people
have learned about what the IRS had done to them. This covers all
Americans. This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat
issue, a Libertarian, or an Independent issue.
Whenever we get to the point where absolutely defending the people we
represent becomes secondary to a political agenda, then we have fallen
far from where we were supposed to be. In this great House, so much has
been decided on policy for the American people. Isn't it time to
restore their faith and confidence in this model? And why we would sit
back and scratch our heads and say: I don't know why our approval
rating is so low. Maybe if we just answered the questions and answered
them truthfully and were truly transparent, the American people
wouldn't cast doubts on who it is that they elected to represent them.
I applaud this issue, and I applaud this resolution. Be it resolved
that we will restore to the American people the trust and faith and
confidence they have to have in their form of government.
Please, to talk about political maneuvering? We are making balloon
animals and are trying to tell people: This is what you need to look
at. Don't worry that we have taken away your personal freedoms and your
personal liberties. That is not the issue. You see, the issue is, this
November, we have got to get reelected.
So let's make it about something else. Let's turn it on gender. Let's
turn it on pay inequality. Let's turn it on everything that we can
possibly do and turn the light away from what the problem is, and that
is the loss of faith and confidence by the people of this great country
in the most remarkable model the world has ever known and who everybody
would love to emulate but they can't.
It falls on our shoulders, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as
representatives of the people of this great country, to get the answers
that they deserve. Let's stop the fooling around about things that
don't really pertain to this, and let's get them the answer.
And again, we have to have a resolution asking the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States to do his job? That is
pathetic.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but I think
he has kind of highlighted kind of the differences between the two
parties here. He mentioned that we are trying to focus attention on
gender inequalities and other issues. We are.
I think there is something wrong when women in this country make 77
cents on every dollar a man makes. I think that is outrageous. I think
women ought to be paid the same as men to do the same job. So, yeah,
that is an issue, and that is something we should talk about. And it is
not just a women's issue, by the way; it is a family issue.
The Senate sent us over an immigration bill that would reduce the
deficit by $900 billion over the next 20 years--$900 billion. They did
it in a bipartisan way. We can't even get a vote here. We can't even
get a vote here in the House of Representatives.
There are millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed and
whose unemployment benefits have run out. We can't even get a vote to
extend unemployment benefits for these people--maybe because they don't
have a super-PAC, maybe because those aren't their natural
constituencies. I don't know what the reason is. But those are
important issues. And, quite frankly, yes, that is what the American
people want us to be talking about--things that matter to them.
The problem with what we are doing here today, this is so blatantly
politically motivated, even in terms of the scope of the investigation,
that it just is laughable. It is laughable.
Listening to the debate in the Rules Committee last night amongst
those on the Oversight Committee, the back and forth, and realizing how
broken that committee is, how partisan that committee has become
because of the leadership in this House, it is really sad.
No one here is defending the IRS. No one here is defending Lois
Lerner. But what we don't want to do is trample on the Constitution,
and we don't want to unnecessarily politicize these proceedings, which
is what is happening right now.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. McGovern from
Massachusetts, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, with whom
I spent 5 hours last night. I wish my friend Mr. Kelly were still here
on the floor because he reminds us we take an oath when we become a
Member of Congress and at the beginning of every new Congress to defend
and protect the Constitution of the United States. We don't take an
oath to look at the best polling for our respective parties and
pursue--no matter what--the issues that rile up our base.
At the Republican retreat earlier this year, two issues polled real
well with their base: Benghazi and the IRS. Sadly, cynically, we are
here today--irrespective of the constitutional rights of an American
citizen who happened to be an IRS employee--bending and genuflecting at
the altar of that polling data to fire up that base.
We are not here defending the Constitution, because if we were, we
would be invoking our own history. There was a sad period known as the
McCarthy era in this very body where constitutional rights of
citizens--Federal employees and non-Federal employees--were trampled
upon. The Fifth Amendment right is one of only 10 enumerated in the
Constitution, and for a reason, because staying in the memories of our
early colonists were the star-chambers that had occurred in Great
Britain, the parent country, and even here. And they wanted to protect
all citizens--innocent and guilty alike--from self-entrapment, from
their own words being used against them in legal proceedings unfairly.
They felt so passionate about it that it was one of only 10 enumerated
rights in the Bill of Rights.
In the McCarthy era, there were some famous cases, U.S. v. Quinn
being one of them, and another one, Hoag, in which the Supreme Court of
the United States and District Courts of the United States found that
an individual did not waive his or her Fifth Amendment rights simply
because they had a prefatory statement proclaiming their innocence. As
a matter of fact, in the Hoag case, Ms. Hoag actually participated at
times in answering other questions, having already invoked her Fifth
Amendment.
The standard is very high. If you have made it crystal clear that you
intend to invoke your Fifth Amendment, it takes a lot to construe that
has been waived. We Members of Congress who take that oath to the
Constitution should err on the side of protection of constitutional
rights, not simple waiver. But, of course, if our agenda isn't getting
at the truth, if it is pandering to those two issues that polled so
well with our base, Benghazi and IRS, then constitutional rights are
incidental to the enterprise, and, sadly, that is what we are
considering here today.
[[Page H3461]]
I don't think you have to be a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or
a conservative, to be concerned about protecting the constitutional
rights of every citizen even for--and maybe especially for--non-heroic
figures such as the woman we are dealing with today, Lois Lerner.
Because when you trample on her rights, you have risked every
American's rights. What is next? Who is next at the docket? While we
are at it, when we are trampling the Fifth Amendment, what about the
First? What about that sacred Second? What about the Fourth? What about
any of those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
This is not a noble enterprise we are about today, Mr. Speaker, and I
urge this House to reject this rule and to reject the underlying
contempt citation as not worthy of this body and not consistent with
the oath each and every one of us takes.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, it is just interesting to hear the argument
on the other side. I have spent 37, 38 years protecting people's
rights. That is what I did. As a sheriff, we did things and lived
within the law. We answered questions truthfully. That is all we are
asking.
This is terrible that we have to get to this point, but at the end of
the day, we are not taking her rights away. We are going to the court
and asking the court, Are we right in our assumption in regards to what
the House counsel had told us? Are we right? If we are not, they are
going to tell us we are not.
So, she has due process. This whole thing about we are taking her due
process away is just ludicrous. It doesn't make sense.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just remind the gentleman that 32 legal
experts have said that my friends are wrong. I would like to yield to
Mr. Connolly to clarify that.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. Thirty-two legal experts have the
other point of view. And, furthermore, I just say to my friend, if the
answer to the House of Representatives is that if you want your
constitutional rights to be protected, hire a lawyer, we will see you
in court, that is not the oath we took.
It starts and stops here. What is the constitutional protection of
citizens here on the floor of the House of Representatives? To simply
say go hire a lawyer is a terrible message in terms of constitutional
rights protection to the citizens of this country.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NUGENT. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not an attorney. That is what
they say on commercials when somebody wants to give some legal advice:
I am not an attorney.
What I will tell you from my past experience is that I can get
attorneys' opinions on either side of an issue. That is what they get
paid to do. Whether they are paid or unpaid, they all have an opinion.
It doesn't mean their opinion is the right opinion. It just means that
they have an opinion.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just so everybody is clear here, we are not just talking about any
attorney. We are talking about legal scholars. Quite frankly, the
overwhelming opinion is that my friends are overreaching here, and,
again, it makes a mockery of this House and especially at a time when
we ought to be doing the people's work.
Millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed can't even get a
vote on the House floor to extend unemployment benefits. These are the
people we are supposed to represent. We are telling them, forget it,
you are on your own. We have all these excuses why we can't bring that
to the floor.
The minimum wage, we have people working full-time in this country
who are stuck in poverty. My friends went after people on SNAP, the
program that they like to target, a program that provides food to
hungry people, and they say everybody ought to get a job. Well, the
majority of able-bodied people on that program work, and they earn so
little because wages are so low that they still are entitled to some
benefit. If you work in this country, you ought not to be in poverty.
So, Mr. Speaker, on both this issue of unemployment and the minimum
wage and on the issue of immigration, those are the things we ought to
be debating here today. That is what the American people--that would be
solving problems, not creating partisan political theater.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask people to defeat the previous
question. If they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
legislation that would restore unemployment insurance and provide much-
needed relief to countless families across this country.
To discuss our proposal, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that we can immediately bring up H.R. 4415, which would restore
unemployment benefits to 2.8 million Americans, people who have lost
their job and are simply trying to find their next job and want to
prevent their families from losing everything they have worked for in
that period.
I heard the gentleman on the other side say that folks on this side
are trying to change the subject to something else. You have got almost
3 million Americans who stand to lose everything they have worked for,
everything that they have built over their lifetime, and this Congress
has the power to act. We could do it today. The Senate passed an
unemployment extension. The President will sign it.
On the other side, we heard that we don't want to take up UI because
it is not paid for. So, we have a bill that the Senate passed in a
bipartisan fashion that is paid for. It does not increase the deficit.
You have got the bill you want. You have got the bill you asked for. It
would save almost 3 million people from losing everything they have
fought for.
Do we bring that to the floor? No vote on unemployment extension. We
can talk about everything else, we can bring political messaging bills
to the floor, but for the 2.8 million people who are losing everything,
no vote for them, not in the House of Representatives today.
For the 72,000 people every week that are losing their unemployment
benefits--hardworking Americans--some on the other side say they want
to be unemployed. Yesterday, we had a group of unemployed citizens. We
intended to have a hearing. We couldn't get a room. The Republican
leadership wouldn't allow it. We went to the steps of the Capitol, and
we heard these stories.
I suggest we take a look at the people in your own district, in your
own districts back home who are unemployed, trying to find their next
job, have lost their unemployment benefits, and look them in the face
and tell them that the political messaging bills that are coming to
this House are more important than preserving the life that these
people have worked hard to create for themselves and their kids.
Some of the issues that we deal with in this House are really complex
questions. Some of them are not so complicated. This is one that is
simple: 2.8 million people could be helped only if this Congress will
act.
Set aside this nonsense. Bring up H.R. 4415, and let's get back to
the business of the American people.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Now, I think
tyranny is worth discussing because when we look at what we are here to
do today, it is to declare Lerner in contempt.
There is nothing more uniquely un-American than abusing the public's
trust to target fellow countrymen based on their political beliefs.
This is something--when you target your political enemies--that Lerner
did and the IRS did, and you reward by expediting the President's own
political operation. So you punish your enemies and you reward your
friends--this is Soviet-style governance.
I would think everyone on both sides of the aisle would be very, very
vociferous in opposition to what the IRS was doing to the American
public. We only hear criticism now from the other side of our
proceeding. My friends on
[[Page H3462]]
the other side of the dais have, no doubt, viewed this as a partisan
witch-hunt. But let there be no mistake: we would not be here today if
Ms. Lerner had not conducted her own partisan witch-hunt.
{time} 1300
What Lois Lerner did is completely un-American, and it undermines the
very fundamentals of the principles of what this country is founded
upon; and if we don't hold Lois Lerner accountable for her actions--and
this is about accountability in the government--then we are sending a
message to future administrations that this type of Nixonian behavior
is acceptable. Let's not send that message.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, wow, when we talk about tyranny, I should
remind the gentleman that you have two bills coming to the floor under
a closed rule--absolutely closed. Nobody can offer any amendments. It
is your way or the highway. They are absolutely closed.
When you talk about tyranny, we can't get a vote on the House floor
on unemployment compensation. We can't get a vote on minimum wage. We
can't get a vote on pay equities. We can't get a vote on immigration
reform.
I don't know what the gentleman is talking about. I mean, it is our
side, those of us on this side that can't get our voices heard. Last
session, you had one of the most closed Congresses in our history,
after you promised a wide-open, transparent process. You have just shut
everything down.
Even the scope of what this bill is focused on is closed in a very
partisan way to focus only on abuses that deal with potential rightwing
groups, conservative groups, but you totally cut out any abuse that
might have happened to a liberal group or a progressive group, so I
don't know what the gentleman is talking about.
This is a closed process. We talk about democracy and that we need to
promote democracy around the world. We need a little democracy here in
the House of Representatives. We don't have any.
Let me just say one other thing here, Mr. Speaker. We had 39
experts--39 witnesses that were interviewed by the committee, 39. Not
one single one indicated there was any link between the White House and
the IRS mess, not one.
I mean, if there had been a few, I guess we could have a debate here
about whether we need to go further, but not one. So here is the
problem: their narrative doesn't fit the facts, and they are upset
about it.
I get it. You were hoping for some juicy conspiracy that doesn't
exist, so you have to create more investigations, more investigations,
all the while, we are neglecting our work, our duty to the people of
this country.
Yes, let's make sure that the IRS is above politics. I am all with
you on that. I don't want them tagging anybody for political reasons,
and I am committed to that, and so is everybody on this side, but that
is not what we are doing here.
This is witch-hunt week. Make no mistake about it because we are
doing this today, and then we are doing Benghazi tomorrow. That is the
theme of the week, and what a tragedy, what a tragedy when so much more
needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), who is on the Rules Committee.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman from
Massachusetts and appreciate his passion for his remarks.
This process is closed. Look, we have something that shouldn't be a
controversial bill, extending the R&D tax credit, helping make American
companies more competitive; and it has a cost, $155 billion, so let's
talk about how we pay for that cost, so we can provide the certainty
that our companies need to hire more people and grow.
We have an idea. I was proud to offer an amendment with Mr. Caardenas
and Mr. Garcia. It had a bipartisan pay-for. It passed the Senate with
more than two-thirds majority. We have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15, in
the House. We were able to use that to pay for this tax cut, over $200
billion.
Not only does our proposal, immigration reform, fully pay for the R&D
tax credit, but it also reduces our deficit by $50 billion, and guess
what, we were denied a vote on our amendment. There weren't even any
ideas from the other side about how to pay for it.
If they voted it down, they voted it, but let's have a discussion. If
you don't like our way of paying for it, find another. No Member of
this House is even allowed to propose a way of paying for things under
this rule. It is a guaranteed recipe for Republican tax-and-spend
deficit policies.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I do have to go back to the comments that my
good friend from Massachusetts mentioned. Now, I wasn't here in 2008,
but if you look back at the history, the Democrats controlled this body
and the Rules Committee in 2008.
When Congress considered a contempt resolution in 2008, the rules
opted to hereby the resolution, preventing Members from even debating
it or holding a vote on the measure on the floor. They just said: here
we are, we are bringing it to the floor for debate and a vote.
It is pretty open to me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding. I can't cover all of the issues that are being
raised here today, but I do want to say this: I spent 7\1/2\ years as a
criminal court judge in Tennessee before coming to Congress trying
felony criminal cases, and so I have interest in this question about
the waiving of Fifth Amendment rights.
Let me just mention what some others have said about this. Alan
Dershowitz of Harvard said Lois Lerner's statement of innocence opened
a ``legal Pandora's box. You can't simply make statements about a
subject and then plead the Fifth. Once you open the door to an area of
inquiry, you have waived your Fifth Amendment right; you've waived your
self-incrimination right on that subject matter.''
Paul Rothstein, a well-respected law professor at Georgetown
University--and both of these gentlemen are very, very liberal
politically. Professor Rothstein said of Lois Lerner, that she ``has
run a very grave risk of having waived her right to refuse to testify
on the details of things she has already generally talked about. She
voluntarily talked about a lot of the same things that lawmakers wanted
to ask her about in her opening statement. In that situation, when you
voluntarily open up the subject they want to inquire into and it is all
in the same proceeding, that would be a waiver.''
Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who specializes in ethics laws stated,
``Lois Lerner came before the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. She gave an opening statement in which she said, `I'm not
guilty, I haven't done anything wrong.' The second way in which she
waived her Fifth Amendment privilege was when she voluntarily,
willingly, agreed to meet with the Department of Justice lawyers. To
me, this is a pretty clear case of how she has waived her Fifth
Amendment rights not to testify and not to answer questions. She just
is being selective, and the one place she will not answer questions is
with anyone that she thinks might ask her hard questions.''
Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation, another legal expert,
said, ``Under the applicable rules of the Federal courts in the
District of Columbia, the interview she gave to prosecutors meant that
she waived her right to assert the Fifth Amendment.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. If we allow somebody to come in and say they
are not guilty--repeatedly say they haven't done anything wrong, if we
allow people to say that and do that in these types of proceedings and
then plead the Fifth, we are making a mockery of the justice system and
making a mockery of the Fifth Amendment privilege in this country.
Last, I would just say this: there has been some mention about some
liberal groups being targeted. There were over 200 conservative groups
audited and targeted and investigated in this investigation. I think
there were three that might have been classified as liberal.
It was so obvious what was intended by the IRS activities in this
situation,
[[Page H3463]]
and so I support this rule and support the underlying resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I respect the comments of my friend, but I
think the talk he just gave supports one of the points that we have
been trying to make here, and that is we have 39 legal experts, former
House counsels, who basically say that what my friends are doing here
today are trampling on Ms. Lerner's constitutional rights.
It would seem to me that, if you wanted this whole circus to be a
little bit more legitimate, that you would have agreed to what Chairman
Cummings had asked for, which was a hearing to bring in legal experts
to actually talk about the merits of this before kind of rushing to the
floor with this purely partisan bill.
The second thing I would say to my friend from Tennessee is, when you
talk about the number of liberal groups targeted, one of the reasons
why we are not talking about liberal groups being targeted here is
because the majority kind of stacked the deck.
They formed the rules. They only want to focus on conservative
groups, so that is why there is even more evidence of the fact that
this is a purely partisan exercise.
I just want to say, so my colleagues are clear, not one witness--not
one single witness interviewed by the committee identified any evidence
that political bias motivated the use of the inappropriate selection
criteria.
The inspector general, Russell George, was asked at a May 17, 2013,
hearing before the Ways and Means Committee, ``Did you find any
evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption
applications?''
In response, the inspector general testified, ``We did not, sir.''
Oversight Committee staff asked all 39 witnesses whether they were
aware of any political bias in the creation or use of inappropriate
criteria. Not one identified even a single instance of political
motivation or bias.
Look, there needs to be reforms to the IRS. We need to make sure that
the IRS is above politics, but bringing this political circus, this
witch-hunt, to the floor purely because it polls well amongst your base
is ludicrous.
It is ludicrous because we should be focused on extending
unemployment benefits for people who have lost their unemployment
compensation. We should be raising the minimum wage. We should be
passing immigration reform.
We should be dealing with the pay equity bill, so that women get paid
the same amount as men do for working the same job.
It is also a family issue. We ought to be focused on getting this
economy going; but instead, because my friends on the other side of the
aisle don't have a clue on what to do, they are asking to look over
here, let's do a distraction, let's do a diversion. I think this is
outrageous.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I love the comments about McCarthyism as it
relates to this particular issue, but really, McCarthyism is the IRS.
The IRS is targeting American citizens who have done nothing wrong, who
merely wanted to express their freedom of expression that is guaranteed
by the Constitution. That is all they wanted to do.
We hear that there is a bunch of liberal groups that were caught up.
I don't believe so. The record will reflect that there was less than
half a dozen, while there were conservative groups of over 200 that
were targeted. I think that is pretty compelling, and those are the
facts. It is not just my thought. It is the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this because facts are
important, Inspector General J. Russell George testified before the
Oversight Committee that his audit did not look at the IRS be-on-the-
lookout list with regard to progressive groups. That is what the
inspector general testified, so let's stop this partisanship.
I would say to my colleagues, if my friends want to do this
correctly, if they want to do this in a way that has some credibility,
they ought to do this in a nonpartisan way.
It is really quite shameful that the Oversight Committee has become
so polarized and so politicized and that this whole issue is being
brought before us in this way that really, quite frankly, I think is
beneath this House.
We ought to do a proper oversight, but not purely because it polls
well or do it in a way that plays well with a political base. We ought
to do it in the right way.
The IRS should not be involved with politics, period. Whether it is
going after conservative groups or liberal groups, that is absolutely
unacceptable, and we ought to make sure that doesn't happen, but that
is not what we are doing here.
What we are doing here is a witch-hunt. This is the first witch-hunt
bill of the week. We have several that we are going to be doing this
week, and I think our time could be better spent on helping the
American people get back to work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the minority is entitled to opinions, but not
facts that just aren't so.
Our committee issued an extensive committee report, a staff report as
to the targeting of conservatives. The minority offered no response, so
the gentleman not on the committee might say something that just isn't
so.
The targeting by the IRS was conservative groups. They were the ones
that got the special treatment. They were the ones that were asked
inappropriate questions. They were the ones that Lois Lerner said she
did nothing wrong about, but she did.
{time} 1315
Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Nugent) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats found out that
there was extensive scrutiny of liberal progressive groups, groups that
had names ``Progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and ``Acorn'' in their name.
That is the Ways and Means Committee. That just goes to show how
partisan this process has become, how politicized it has become. This
is beneath this House.
If you do oversight, it ought to be nonpartisan. This has turned into
a circus. This has turned into a witch-hunt. Enough of this. Let's
start doing the people's work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, again, BOLOs were issued, be on the lookout,
if you will, for conservative groups. Conservative groups were
systematically denied, for more than 2 years, their approvals.
Conservative groups were asked inappropriate and personal questions,
things like where do you pray, things like what are your political
views, and please show us your donor list, even though that was
inappropriate.
The fact that the minority will allude to word searches to see how
many of some application was out there is not about the inappropriate
targeting and systematically withholding and mistreating of groups.
That is what happened. That is what evidence is beginning to show Lois
Lerner was at the heart of.
We are here today about contempt for somebody pleading a number of
cases of what was right or what they did or didn't do, followed by
taking the Fifth, then followed by answering questions having once
waived and, thus, essentially waiving her rights.
Now, you can, after the fact, get 39 people to say one thing and
somebody else can get 39 to say another. Today, we are trying to move
contempt to the court system where an impartial judge can evaluate
whether or not Lois Lerner should be ordered back to testify so the
American people can know the truth about why she did what she did. What
she did was target conservative groups. That is not in doubt. I don't
want people using words like ``circus'' in order to confuse people.
Conservatives were targeted; that is clear. Lois Lerner has things to
answer. She only answers the part she wants to, including before the
Justice
[[Page H3464]]
Department but not before the U.S. Congress.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Florida
whether he has any additional speakers or whether the chairman will
want to say any more.
Mr. NUGENT. I do not have any additional speakers, but go right
ahead.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a circus, and it is really sad that we are here on the floor
debating this.
Just for the record, witnesses testified that progressive groups got
a multitiered review and that liberal groups like Emerge went through a
2-year process before getting denied.
The other thing you ought to know is that the IRS has begun a path to
reform. It has implemented all the inspector general's recommendations,
including going above and beyond by eliminating BOLOs altogether.
Mr. Speaker, if this were done in a fair and professional manner, we
wouldn't be having this controversy today, but the exact opposite
happened in the Committee on Oversight. It was a joke. We all saw it on
TV. Enough of this. Enough of this. Let's start doing the people's
work.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment that I will offer into the record along with 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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. This is on extending unemployment compensation
benefits. It might be nice to do something that might help somebody
around here, that might help the American people, instead of doing this
witch-hunt, this week of investigations, this week of distraction, when
our economy needs our attention, when people need jobs, when people's
unemployment needs to be extended.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, which is a closed
rule, two closed rules. Again, when we do oversight, it ought to be
nonpartisan. This has become a partisan joke.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
We have heard a lot today. It should concern the American people of
what we have heard in regards to the allegations and the operations
within the IRS.
You know, I regret, I really do regret that somehow this turned into
a partisan shouting match. Both sides--both sides--are involved in
this. I regret it because we have lost sight of the real issue: The IRS
constituted a serious violation of public trust.
Mr. Speaker, this goes back to when I was sheriff, and I would sit
there and have parents come in and complain about schoolteachers and
the police officers that arrested their son or daughter for a violation
of law, and they were more concerned about what were perceived as
issues--in regards to how they were handled--versus the actual conduct
of their child. This is the same thing.
We are blowing smoke all over the place trying to obscure the fact
that the IRS--under the direction, we believe, of Lois Lerner, the
involvement of her--violated Americans' rights across the board. Talk
about McCarthyism. They have done it. They have the power to do it.
They have the power to come in. If you remember the questions asked,
they asked people about what they believed and what were their
conversations, who they talked with. Was it an invasion of privacy? I
think so.
The American people--and you have heard this from other speakers
today--really need to have their faith restored that this government
operates in a very open way, that people can trust government again.
No one should have to worry. No one--Republican, Democrat,
Libertarian, or otherwise--should ever have to worry about their
political speech having them singled out by the IRS. No one should have
to worry about that. No one group should have to worry about the
government worrying about their speech and having the ability to
counter it in a way that brings officialness to it. How do you do that?
This is true, though, whether you are Republican, Democrat,
conservative, liberal, or anything else. The point is we should be
alarmed. This is what we are talking about today. We should be alarmed
about the conduct of the IRS under the direction of Lois Lerner. We
should be worried about that in the future, because that is the biggest
single threat to America today is how our own government treats its
people, Mr. Speaker. A Federal Government agency used its weight to
bully Americans. That is not what America is all about, Mr. Speaker.
Make no mistake, though, that is exactly what happened. The IRS
bullied people. We had someone last night testify about constituents in
their district that wanted to promote an organization and do something,
and they were bullied by the IRS until they finally said: You know
what, I give up. I can't take it. I worry about what is going to happen
because I know the IRS has the ability to do other things on my
personal tax return and call it into question.
This is an extreme disservice to the American public. They really do
deserve better. If we are ever going to right this wrong, we have got
to find out what happened. We have to understand all the facts. And so
my friends across the aisle really don't want to hear the facts. They
talk about everything else under the Sun, but they really don't want to
talk about what happened.
You know, my good friend talked about this being trivial, doubling
down on crazy. Well, I guess that you are talking about my
constituents, because my constituents have that concern. They do have
the concern because of what they have seen and what has been reported
in the media by both the left and right media in regards to the
overstepping of Federal investigation--the IRS--on groups.
I heard this called a circus. Well, that is what we are trying to get
away from. We are trying to get away from this partisanship, and let's
do what we are supposed to do. By appointing a special counsel, we are
hoping to take politics out of it, because politics are on both sides
of this issue. So to do that, you would appoint someone, a special
counsel, to investigate. Let's take away the partisanship.
It is also important that people are held accountable for their
actions. Ms. Lerner defied a lawfully issued subpoena, and there ought
to be repercussions for that; otherwise, this is just for show. We
really have no oversight ability if people just come and say: Oh, I am
not going to tell you.
That is not how it works. That is not how it is supposed to work.
This rule brings this question to the floor, not like the Democrats
did in 2008. This rule brings everybody to the floor where they can
have an open debate and question and vote on what they think is right.
So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation. We have the ability to get answers, because whether it is
a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, the
American people need to know that their government is going to be held
accountable if they overreach. If they trample on my rights as a
citizen, we should have the ability to know who is doing it and why,
and there should be some redress.
Today it is really about we don't care. That is what we are hearing.
There are all kinds of other issues, but we don't care about this. It
doesn't matter that we sent numerous bills over to the Senate--we talk
about job creation--that were passed bipartisanly here. The Senate has
refused to take any action on that, has refused to bring it up, discuss
it, debate it, amend it, and send it back. They have done nothing.
So we have the ability today to get politics out of it. Let a D.C.
court make a decision. Let's do the right thing.
I urge all my colleagues to support this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 568 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Amendment in nature of substitute:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
[[Page H3465]]
That 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.
4415) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment
benefits, 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 among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and 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. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4415.
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. NUGENT. 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. McGOVERN. 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.
____________________