[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 30786-30790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4213, TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2009

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 955 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 955

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
     certain expiring provisions, 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 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The gentleman from 
New York is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4213, the 
Tax Extenders Act of 2009. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of 
Rule XXI and against the bill itself. The rule provides that the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening 
motion except 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule to assist American 
families and small businesses with needed tax relief in a time when 
American citizens and American small businesses are beginning to turn 
the corner. This rule will allow us to bring legislation to the House 
floor later today that will not only strengthen our economy by 
directing tax relief to middle class families and creating jobs at 
small businesses, but will also do this in a deficit neutral, fiscally 
responsible way.
  Since being elected to Congress, I have repeatedly voted, along with 
my colleagues, to cut taxes for middle class families and small 
businesses. In doing so, we have upheld our pledge to the American 
people, and I have kept a promise I made to my constituents to provide 
much-needed tax relief and incentives for economic growth.
  I know that there are many families and businesses in my district 
that are struggling in the current economic crisis with rising costs of 
everyday items, including food, gas and health care. The legislation 
this rule provides for consideration of will extend a number of 
critical tax-relief measures that are relied upon by middle class 
families and small businesses to improve the quality of life and 
strengthen our economy.
  I am aware that we face harsh realities in addressing the current 
economic crisis. While these are challenging times, we simply cannot 
endlessly borrow our way out of this situation. The legislation we will 
consider under the rule strikes the necessary balance between 
continuing the tax incentives that will help families and businesses 
continue to improve their position while offsetting the cost of 
extending these provisions by tightening tax compliance and making 
commonsense changes to the tax treatment of compensation paid to hedge 
fund managers. This change applies to investment fund managers the same 
rules that apply to real estate agents, waiters and CEO stock options.
  In doing so, we will extend $30 billion of expiring temporary tax 
provisions through 2010, including the existing deductions for tuition 
expenses, the research and development tax credit, and the State and 
local property tax deduction, among others, and we will do so without 
increasing the deficit and without any additional borrowing.
  The American people understand the idea of PAYGO, that Congress 
should have to balance its books just as they do. Mr. Speaker, the 
House of Representatives continues to show a strong commitment to the 
pay-as-you-go rule adopted in January of 2007. I applaud my Blue Dog 
colleagues for their outspoken leadership on PAYGO, and I am proud that 
the House has passed legislation that would create statutory PAYGO.
  All of the incentives that are included in this package will expire 
at the end of the year unless Congress acts to extend them. It is 
vitally important that these tax incentives are extended in order to 
maintain the economic recovery that has slowly started to take hold in 
this country.
  The legislation's extenders create important tax credits for 
individuals. It extends the deductions for tuition and education 
expenses, helping families send their children to college. It continues 
to allow teachers to claim a credit for up to $250 in out-of-pocket 
purchase of classroom supplies to better educate our children, and it 
extends the increased standard deduction for State and local property 
taxes so that working families can keep more of their hard-earned 
dollars for other necessities during these tough economic times.
  The legislation includes an extension of several provisions important 
to businesses, including the credit for a company's R&D expenditures. 
Extending the research and development credit is vital to ensuring that 
American companies remain competitive and on the cutting edge of 
innovation. This credit is of particular interest to the area of New 
York that I represent because its extension will further the expansion 
of the microchip fabrication and nanotechnology industries which are 
beginning to blossom in upstate New York.
  In the past, the R&D tax credit has lapsed, and Congress has had to 
retroactively extend it. American companies rely on this credit and 
upon its continuity so they can adequately plan for their long-term 
research projects. I support this proactive extension to provide that 
continuity, and I will continue to work for a much-needed permanent 
extension that would eliminate concerns for further expirations or 
lapses.
  The bill also extends expiring measures to address the drop in 
charitable giving that has been caused by the current state of our 
economy. It does so by extending deductions for charitable

[[Page 30787]]

contributions of real property, food inventories, books, and computer 
equipment. The bill allows tax-free charitable contributions from an 
IRA account of up to $100,000 per taxpayer per year.
  When I speak with constituents who work and volunteer their valuable 
time with not-for-profit organizations, they tell me this is more 
important than ever today in our struggling economy. These provisions 
help those organizations continue to provide the assistance to those in 
need, which is particularly important today.
  Supporting this rule and the tax-relief legislation we will consider 
later today is simple and common sense. We can provide tax relief and 
incentives to middle class families, spur innovation, retain and create 
jobs, reduce our dependence on oil from hostile nations, and reduce 
greenhouse gases. And we can do it all in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The underlying legislation of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 
2009, extends for 1 year a number of noncontroversial, temporary tax-
relief provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. These 
provisions will benefit individual taxpayers, students, teachers, small 
businesses, and other companies that invest in research and 
development.
  While I support these temporary tax-relief extensions, I believe that 
these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very 
least they should be extended for more than 1 year. For example, the 
bill includes a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction. This 
provision is very important in Florida, the State that I'm honored to 
represent, because without this deduction, Floridians would end up 
paying significantly more taxes to the Federal Government than the 
taxpayers with similar profiles in different States.

                              {time}  1045

  These year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail 
to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses 
and families need to plan their budgets. Leaving these important tax-
relief provisions to the last minute, also, I believe, is most 
unfortunate. It unnecessarily places an additional burden on families 
and small businesses that are already struggling in this economy.
  I also oppose the inclusion in this legislation of a permanent tax to 
pay for temporary tax relief. The bill would raise the tax rate on 
investment gains received from an investment services partnership 
interest, which is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent, to a rate 
as high as 35 percent at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 
39 percent.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this is a tax 
on Wall Street venture funds; but as our friend, Congressman Kevin 
Brady, explained last night when he testified before the Rules 
Committee, about half of that tax will be paid by real estate 
partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our 
communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new 
infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the 
construction industry. Yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they 
may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their 
partnerships for other investments, further hurting our communities and 
hampering possible economic recovery.
  The construction industry has been hit very hard, Mr. Speaker, in the 
community that I am honored to represent, and too many jobs have been 
lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth 
and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are 
doing the opposite with this legislation.
  During his first inaugural address, President Reagan said, It is not 
my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it 
work, work for us, not over us, stand by our side, not right on our 
back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; 
foster productivity, not stifle it.
  The legislation being brought to the floor today will not do what 
President Reagan said we need to do.
  With unemployment at 10 percent and an economy struggling to recover, 
this is not the time to raise taxes, particularly a tax on capital 
investments that help create jobs. This new tax will discourage the 
entrepreneurial risk-taking that our economy desperately needs right 
now in order to create new jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, for centuries the United States prospered because we 
have been the safest place in the world to invest. It was good for 
business to invest in the United States, to create new businesses, in 
other words, to create jobs in the United States. We are moving away 
from that philosophy that made this country the most prosperous Nation 
in the history of the world. Because of that, our economy will continue 
to suffer. We are moving away from that.
  Just yesterday the President, for example, called for increased 
capital investments in small businesses. Yet here we are today, 
ironically, increasing taxes on capital investments that could help 
small businesses grow and provide them the capital to hire new workers.
  During yesterday's Rules Committee hearing, we heard testimony from 
my friend and distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Cao) 
regarding a proposed amendment that he wished to have the House debate 
today. His amendment would extend the time for making low-income 
housing credit allocations under the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act by 2 
years. According to Mr. Cao, this extension is needed to preserve the 
availability of financing for affordable housing projects in the Gulf 
States. This amendment is just another example of Mr. Cao's thoughtful 
efforts continuously on behalf of his constituents.
  Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided that once 
again they would block all amendments from consideration, including Mr. 
Cao's, as well as amendments submitted for consideration by Mr. Brady, 
Mr. Reichert and Mr. Geoff Davis of Kentucky. It's unfortunate the 
majority continuously closes down the process and blocks consideration 
of amendments.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, they campaigned on the promise of openness. They 
said they would open this process as it had never before been opened, 
that there would be a transparency that had never before been seen; and 
what we have seen is exactly the opposite.
  They have closed the process like never before. The majority should 
have allowed consideration of all the amendments to the legislation 
that were submitted before the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Doggett.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  This rule provides for consideration of a $31 billion spending bill, 
including some worthwhile provisions and some not-so-worthwhile 
provisions. Approval of this tax extenders package has become something 
of an annual ritual, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are 
in charge, and the term ``temporary tax break'' has become an oxymoron.
  If today's proposal required the government to write more checks to 
Wall Street and other fortunate Americans, there would be howls of 
protest; but because this involves tax expenditures, not direct 
expenditures, there is no protest, and there is no scrutiny of the 
expenditures. A tax expenditure occurs when this Congress decides to 
award some interest group, usually those with the most powerful 
lobbyists, the right to avoid paying taxes on the same basis as the 
rest of us by writing in some preference, deferral, loophole, or tax 
break.

[[Page 30788]]

  The principal alleged virtue of today's bill is that it changes 
nothing. There is nothing more, there is nothing less than the 
advantages that Congress has repeatedly extended in the past.
  In a modest effort to address the glaring disparity between the 
sunlight of the appropriations process and the shadows of the Tax Code, 
today's legislation does include a new requirement that I authored 
requiring that the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Government 
Accountability Office thoroughly evaluate and report on a set of 
criteria, the cost-effectiveness of each of these tax expenditures.
  The Center for Tax Justice has been an invaluable partner in securing 
this provision. A good example of the urgent need for review was 
provided only yesterday regarding one of the most popular provisions in 
this bill, the research tax credit, that I have long personally 
supported. Calling for its permanent extension has become synonymous 
with being tech friendly and being concerned with economic growth.
  But the Government Accountability Office ``identified significant 
disparities in the incentives provided.'' It determined that ``a 
substantial portion of credit dollars is a windfall'' for some, while 
much ``potentially beneficial research'' receives nothing. That is why 
we should be scrutinizing these tax expenditures, even the most 
popular, at least as closely as we do direct expenditures.
  On the plus side, today's bill does effectively address international 
tax evasion by individuals. On the minus side, it does nothing to stop 
an even more egregious abuse by corporations shifting jobs and tax 
revenues overseas. In fact, while some try to draw a distinction 
between illegal tax evasion and tax avoidance, the only real difference 
between individuals illegally hiding their cash overseas and 
corporations manipulating the Tax Code is that the corporations have 
better lobbyists to obtain a veneer of legitimacy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Similarly, the equitable taxation of carried interest in 
this proposal is belatedly a step forward, but it presents two 
problems. First, the bill fails to distinguish venture capital, which 
is so important in spurring new businesses in the most innovative 
sectors of our economy.
  Second, the Senate is most unlikely to accept the financing that we 
propose here and instead is likely to grab something from our health 
insurance reform pay-fors and begin taxing employer-provided health 
insurance as a substitute, something that so many Members of this House 
have opposed.
  Facing a soaring deficit, to me tax justice means before we ask 
working families to pay any more taxes, we ought to ask why Congress 
has done so little to crack down on those getting special treatment and 
to prevent billions of dollars of tax avoidance. Next year, America 
deserves a little more tax justice and a more level playing field for 
small businesses that cannot take advantage of all the dodges available 
to their multinational competitors.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern 
about gulf coast disaster relief left out of this bill.
  Yesterday I offered an amendment at the Rules Committee to extend 
important tax provisions, tax relief provisions, to help gulf coast 
residents rebuild after the 2005 hurricanes. It's disappointing yet 
again that the majority is bringing this bill to the floor under 
another closed rule, prohibiting amendments to be debated.
  The economic downturn complicated gulf coast recovery and jeopardized 
the effectiveness of Katrina and Rita aid. Residents need more time to 
fully utilize existing disaster assistance programs before they expire.
  Congress should extend the GO Zone low-income housing tax credit for 
an additional year. At risk, currently at risk, are nearly 70 
affordable rental housing projects encompassing over 6,000 units along 
the gulf coast. These projects take time, and this important extension 
will give investors and developers the confidence to move forward on 
these very important projects.
  Congress should also make disaster-related low-income housing tax 
credits eligible for the new exchange grant program. This will provide 
immediate relief to disaster-impacted States as the market for housing 
tax credits rebounds. The bill also cuts short tax incentives for 
businesses to invest in the hardest-hit areas along the gulf coast 
through the special depreciation rules that promote economic 
development.
  My amendment would extend the GO Zone 50 percent first-year bonus 
depreciation through 2010, bringing new capital to communities 
struggling to recover. They were hit twice, I mean, hit basically by 
hurricanes and now the economic downturn.
  Look, gulf coast residents are resilient. They are working hard to 
rebuild, and Congress shouldn't pull the plug on existing disaster 
programs just as they are starting to make a difference.
  What folks need is certainty. Businesses need certainty, and what 
they are seeing is nothing but uncertainty coming out of Washington. 
This is not the way to stimulate a recovery, whether it's from 
hurricanes or from this economic disaster we are facing. We need 
certainty.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
my friend from Louisiana, an extraordinarily thoughtful member of this 
House, Mr. Cao.
  Mr. CAO. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and 
I just want to thank him personally for his continued commitment and 
compassion for the people of the gulf coast.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I offered a bipartisan amendment to the Tax 
Extenders Act of 2009 for myself and my colleague, Charlie Melancon. 
This amendment would have extended the place-in-service deadline for 
low-income housing tax credits under GO Zone for 2 years. If included, 
it would have freed up more than a billion dollars in delayed housing 
projects and supported thousands of jobs in the gulf coast and would 
have contributed greatly to the sustained redevelopment of the 
hurricane-impacted areas.
  The amendment had bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. 
Representatives from HUD, the Obama administration, housing groups and 
private companies called and wrote letters in support of this 
amendment. Yet even with this level of support, the Rules Committee 
voted along party lines not to allow it in the bill.
  I cannot say how disappointed I am that this happened. It is 
disappointing that the committee would choose to act in a partisan 
fashion rather than with the best interests of the people of the gulf 
coast in mind.
  I have spoken before about how Congress is at its best and serves the 
people the best when we put partisanship aside and attend to the 
people's business. It is part of our job description as Representatives 
to represent their issues and concerns to the best of our abilities.

                              {time}  1100

  When we conform to party politics, we fail to make the right 
decisions for the American people. While it is not unusual to mix 
policy and politics in our line of work, there are some issues which 
ought not to be partisan. The development of affordable housing for 
hurricane victims is one of them. Among the projects placed in jeopardy 
by this deadline is the Lafitte Housing Project in New Orleans. It is 
one of the city's oldest and was once made up of 896 units. This site 
was slated for redevelopment with the same number of units to allow any 
resident who wished to return the opportunity to do so. Additionally, 
the site would have had parks, support centers, and homes for sale. Now 
it looks as though it will remain in limbo because of party politics.
  I challenge my Democrat colleagues to look low-income families in the 
eyes and say that the decision that they made was best for hardworking 
families.

[[Page 30789]]

  Low-income families along the gulf coast trying to survive the 
ravages of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita do not care about party 
politics. The only thing that they care about is: Will I have 
affordable housing to shelter my children from the cold? We have to get 
beyond party politics to address the needs of American families. And I 
hope that we can correct the language in the tax extenders bill in 
order to address those who are in need along the gulf coast.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the 
overwhelming majority of Americans do, that Members of Congress should 
have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. It shouldn't 
be an issue, frankly, because the majority and the distinguished 
Speaker during the campaign, the political campaign, said that they 
would have the most open Congress in history and that Members would 
have at least, should have at least, 24 hours to examine bills before 
those bills are considered on the floor.
  But that hasn't been the case. I remember in the Rules Committee one 
early morning at 3 a.m. we were handed a 900-page amendment, called the 
manager's amendment, to energy legislation, the so-called cap-and-trade 
legislation that we considered a few hours later, just a few hours 
later here on the floor of the House. No one had any opportunity to 
vote on that legislation. And then we had similar situations with very 
significant and extensive pieces of legislation. So the American people 
were, I think, rightfully so, outraged when they saw those examples of 
very important and extensive pieces of legislation being brought to the 
floor without Members of Congress being able to even read them. And 
they should really be posted online so that not only Members of 
Congress but the American people in general could read them.
  That's why legislation has been filed by a bipartisan group of 182 
Members that have signed right there, right at that desk in front of 
you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition, it's called. They go up there 
and they sign. I signed. 182 Members have signed the discharge petition 
to bring to the floor legislation saying that Members should have 3 
days, that there should be 72 hours, once it's filed, before 
legislation is brought to a vote on the floor.
  So that's why I am asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, 
so that we can consider that legislation that 182 Members have gone to 
the desk there and signed, bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Baird 
and Culberson. It would not interrupt this legislation that is being 
brought to the floor at this time, the tax extenders legislation, 
because if the motion passes, the motion I'm making, it provides for 
separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we 
could vote on the tax extender bill and then, once we have done that, 
consider that legislation requiring the 72-hour timeframe for Members 
to be able to study legislation and, quite frankly, for the American 
people to read legislation before it's voted on.
  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. Thanking my friend Mr. Arcuri for 
his courtesy, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the 
Rules Committee and friend from the State of Florida for his able 
management of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to point out that the 
underlying legislation will extend a number of expiring tax relief that 
individuals, businesses, and charitable organizations depend on to 
improve the quality of life and strengthen our community and our 
economy. These provisions are relied upon by families and individuals 
struggling with rising costs of everyday items, including food, gas, 
and health care. They encourage companies to hire more workers and 
invest in new technologies.
  As our country is beginning to turn the corner, the naysayers 
continue to oppose any necessary substantial change. As if that is not 
enough, they continue to offer no meaningful alternatives, only more of 
the same policies of incurring more debt, passing it on to our 
children, and saying ``no'' to any responsible policy offered by the 
majority. It should not be the role of the loyal opposition to oppose 
every bill the majority offers. That is the reason partisan divide is 
so wide in this country today.
  This bill, H.R. 4213, is a good bill. It is good for Democrats. It is 
good for Republicans. It is good for all Americans. To say we should 
not pay for it flies in the face of everything Democrats and 
Republicans have been saying for months, that we cannot endlessly 
borrow and increase the debt but must restore fiscal responsibility.
  Just a short time ago, I heard a colleague of mine on the other side 
of the aisle giving a 1-minute speech, saying that we must stop the 
runaway spending and the record deficits. That's exactly what this bill 
does. It makes us accountable and pays for the tax extenders. H.R. 4213 
strikes the necessary balance between continuing the tax incentives to 
help families and businesses without increasing the deficit.
  I don't think the importance of this fiscal responsibility can be 
overstated. We all know that these are challenging times, but we cannot 
endlessly borrow our way out of the situation. And there are only two 
ways to do the tax extenders: either to borrow and pass it on to our 
children or to have responsible ways of paying for it. And that's 
exactly what this bill does, responsibly pays for these very important 
tax extenders.
  For years, borrow-and-spend policies of the previous administration 
have saddled our children's future with $9 trillion of foreign-owned 
national debt, all incurred during relative times of economic 
prosperity. The debt translates into daily interest payments of $1 
billion.
  These tax extenders are paid for. I repeat, they are paid for. H.R. 
4213 represents the dedication to commonsense PAYGO principles that we 
in Congress should have to balance our books even in these tough 
economic times just as our constituents do. This legislation does 
exactly that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the 
rule because the American people are counting on us to extend these 
vital tax provisions in order to continue to improve our economy.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

          Amendment to H. Res. 955 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the house of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto 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 chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

[[Page 30790]]



        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. ARCURI. 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.

                          ____________________