September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5785 

AN AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 773 OFFERED BY

MR. POLIS OF COLORADO

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: 

Sec. 3. Upon completion of consideration of 

House Resolution 746 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. 15) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

tax relief to middle-class families. All points 

of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. General debate shall be confined to 

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not 

apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this resolution. 

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this 

resolution, the House shall proceed to the 

consideration in the House of the resolution 

(H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of 

a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die unless a 

law is enacted to provide for the extension of 

certain expired or expiring tax provisions 

that apply to middle-income taxpayers if 

called up by Representative Slaughter of 

New York or her designee. All points of order 

against the resolution and against its consideration are waived. 

(The information contained herein was 

provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 

111th Congresses.) 

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 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 Republican 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 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. With that, 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. POLIS. Madam 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. 

f 

RECESS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair 

declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes. 

Accordingly (at 1 o’clock and 46 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess. 

b 1400 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the House 

was called to order by the Speaker pro 

tempore (Mr. W

f 

ESTMORELAND) at 2 p.m. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings 

will resume on questions previously 

postponed. 

Votes will be taken in the following 

order: ordering the previous question 

on House Resolution 773; adopting 

House Resolution 773, if ordered; and 

suspending the rules and passing H.R. 

4264. 

The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining 

electronic votes will be conducted as 5- 

minute votes. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 5544, MINNESOTA EDUCATION INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT ACT, AND PROVIDING 

FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 

5949, FISA AMENDMENTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 773) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5544) to authorize and expedite a land exchange 

involving National Forest System land 

in the Laurentian District of the Superior National Forest and certain other 

National Forest System land in the 

State of Minnesota that has limited 

recreational and conservation resources and lands owned by the State 

of Minnesota in trust for the public 

school system that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion within 

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important recreational, scenic, and conservation resources, and for other purposes, and 

providing for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5949) to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years, on 

which the yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on ordering the previous 

question. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 232, nays 

177, not voting 20, as follows: 

[Roll No. 560] 

YEAS—232 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE