[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26626-26630]
[From the U.S. 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.

  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

[[Page 26627]]

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 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

[[Page 26628]]

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 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

[[Page 26629]]

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.
  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

[[Page 26630]]

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.

                          ____________________