[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 97 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7390-H7398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2996, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 578 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 578

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 2996) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. 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 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
     11 of rule XVIII, except as provided in section 2, no 
     amendment shall be in order except: (1) the amendment printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution; (2) the amendments printed in 
     part B of the report of the Committee on Rules; (3) not to 
     exceed three of the amendments printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Flake of Arizona or his designee; (4) not to exceed one of 
     the amendments printed in part D of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Campbell of 
     California or his designee; and (5) not to exceed one of the 
     amendments printed in part E of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules if offered by Representative Hensarling of Texas or 
     his designee. Each such amendment shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 
     9 or 10 of rule XXI and except that an amendment printed in 
     part B, C, D, or E of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     may be offered only at the appropriate point in the reading. 
     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. In case of 
     sundry amendments reported from the Committee, the question 
     of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and 
     without intervening demand for division of the question. 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.
       Sec. 2.  After consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro 
     forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which 
     shall be controlled by the proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 2996, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from Colorado 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady

[[Page H7391]]

from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of 
the rules is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 578.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 578 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010.
  I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2010. I thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Dicks and the Appropriations 
staff for their hard work and dedication in bringing this bill to us.
  Madam Speaker, I am a lucky man. I am truly blessed to represent 
communities in Colorado like Vail, Breckenridge, and Boulder, some of 
the most awe-inspiring forests, mountains, and wilderness that our 
country has to offer and I had the opportunity to witness as a kid 
growing up to this day.

                              {time}  1600

  Visitors from across the globe come to my district in Colorado and 
others like it across the Nation year-round to get a taste of what we 
experience every day. Amidst this beauty, Coloradans grow up 
understanding the great responsibility we all share to protect our 
precious natural resources for generations of Americans to enjoy.
  This bill, I'm proud to say, reflects that great responsibility and 
priority by providing a total of $32.3 billion for the Department of 
the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, 
the Indian Health Service, and related agencies--an increase of $4.7 
billion over the 2009 enacted levels.
  These funds are absolutely critical in addressing the problems that 
have come with historic underfunding and have a tangible impact not 
only on communities in my district, but across the country. This bill 
also keeps its foundation in fiscal responsibility and contains over 
$320 million in program terminations for programs that simply don't 
work, reductions in other savings for the fiscal year 2009 level, and 
over $300 million from the budget request. Included in this amount is a 
$142 million recission from EPA prior year STAG account funds based on 
an inspector general report of unliquidated obligations and $18 million 
in reductions from a number of requested increases for EPA 
administrative functions.
  This bill also terminates $28 million for a new initiative in Federal 
aid in wildlife restoration programs due to concerns about 
implementation of this program.
  Our natural environment plays such a critical role in the quality of 
our lives not only in my district, but across the country, and this 
bill will help continue the proud tradition of Federal stewardship of 
our public lands.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. I appreciate my colleague 
yielding time and, like my colleague from Colorado, I feel extremely 
fortunate to live where I live in my district--I think the most 
beautiful area of this country.
  But, Madam Speaker, the underlying bill we have here today, the 
Interior Appropriations Act, that most of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle are being denied the ability to offer amendments to, is 
filled with wasteful spending. The bill itself is a 17 percent overall 
increase in funding from last year's bill, and most programs are 
increased not only above the 2009 levels, but also above the levels the 
President requested.
  This does not reflect the hard economic times our country and our 
constituents are experiencing right now and is instead spending 
borrowed money that we do not have.
  This bill contains an astounding 38 percent increase in funding for 
the Environmental Protection Agency. When combined with stimulus 
funding approved earlier this Congress, which I did not support, the 
EPA will receive more than $25 billion in a single calendar year, which 
is the equivalent of three-quarters of the entire Interior 
Appropriations Act we have before us.
  This kind of excessive spending does not reflect but it mocks the 
economic challenges our constituents are experiencing.
  The money that Speaker Pelosi and the Obama administration want to 
spend today is all borrowed money. We do not have this money. Our 
constituents do not have this money. And the Federal Government does 
not have this money.
  The Democrat leaders have made the irresponsible decision to borrow 
in order to spend it at their whim. This bill will increase the deficit 
even more by borrowing and spending money we don't have.
  We can no longer blame the deficit and economic difficulties today on 
the previous administration because the Democrat leaders are continuing 
to dig America into a bigger and bigger hole with more reckless 
spending.
  This borrowed money is all being spent by Speaker Pelosi and the 
Obama administration and, as a result, the unemployment rate continues 
to rise and the deficit continues to rise also.
  This bill contains also several hundred earmarks. The earmark system 
is flawed. And we know that even some of the earmarks in this bill have 
had questions raised about them.
  This legislation contains several giveaways for and preferential 
treatment to green companies in order to promote the green climate. 
This bill applies Davis-Bacon, which will create wasteful spending that 
we do not need to have.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule in 
order to allow this body to appropriately and adequately offer their 
ideas and engage in the debate that our constituents deserve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. This bill has several cuts that I went into in a number of 
different areas showing strong fiscal discipline in this difficult 
fiscal environment. And I would agree with the gentlelady that we need 
to ensure that we return to fiscal responsibility and indeed balance 
our budget and certainly preserve our national heritage as an important 
part of long-term fiscal responsibility.
  I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado, my 
colleague on the Rules Committee, for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here in support of this rule and 
of the underlying legislation. This Interior Appropriations bill is a 
bill that respects our environment. I'd especially like to thank 
Chairman Dicks for his leadership, and I want to thank him also for 
accepting my amendment to increase funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Stateside Assistance program by $10 million and for 
including it in the manager's amendment.
  The LWCF Stateside Assistance program is one of the most successful 
Federal-State-local partnerships in the history of the Department of 
the Interior. The LWCF Stateside Assistance program matches funds to 
assist communities in creating new public parks, creating open space, 
and developing public resources and creating jobs.
  The States, cities, counties, and towns that apply for and accept 
Federal funding from the LWCF Stateside Assistance program agree to 
match the Federal investment on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and often 
match significantly more than the Federal share.
  Since its inception, it has provided funding for over 41,000 State 
and local projects in 98 percent of all U.S. counties. There is not a 
congressional district that has not been impacted in a positive way by 
an LWCF stateside project.
  Having said that, Madam Speaker, I also want to rise in strong 
opposition to an amendment that will be offered by my colleague from 
Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, later on today, which would eliminate, which would 
eliminate the LWCF Stateside Assistance program.
  Madam Speaker, as I have already stated, the LWCF Stateside 
Assistance program has supported projects in 98

[[Page H7392]]

percent of all United States counties, including the counties that are 
included in the State of Utah that are in the district of my friend 
who's offering this amendment.
  This program serves a vital, national need, which helps fulfill 
conservation efforts while promoting healthy living for all Americans. 
LWCF funding provides critical funding to protect and enhance our 
parks, protect our wildlife, and retain the quality of our conservation 
spaces.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Dicks for working with me on this 
issue, and I look forward to continuing efforts on behalf of the LWCF 
Stateside Assistance program.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. I will now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I come to this side 
of the well because I fear the distance between us has grown so great 
that we can no longer hear each other from the chasm that divides us. 
It's time to stop talking at each other and start listening to one 
another.
  When I first read this rule, I wasn't so much angry as I was deeply 
saddened. I was saddened by what we have allowed this institution to 
devolve into--little more than a Third World dictatorship. And we are 
all to blame because we have all allowed this to happen.
  We can point fingers at one another ad nauseam, claiming, We did this 
to you; you did that to us; et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, 
pointing fingers has never solved a problem.
  I was also saddened because the Rules Committee had it within their 
grasp, within their power to pull us back from this precipice that we 
find ourselves on. But they chose not to. They took a pass.
  As I said at the Rules Committee hearing last night, History is 
replete with people who found an excuse to do the wrong thing. It takes 
a little courage to do the right thing.
  It's time for us to stand up and show the courage to do the right 
thing--not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Members of 
Congress. It's time to restore this House to the time-honored 
traditions of open debate, which we inherited from those who came 
before us, when Members had the right and the ability to represent 
their constituents.
  I find it ironic that around the world people hope for, pray for, 
even die for the simple right to have their voices heard. They look to 
us not because they want to be Americans, but because they want for 
themselves what we have, or at least what we had--the right to be 
heard. Yet here, in this penthouse of democracy, we are going exactly 
the opposite direction by trying to silence all opposition.
  We all know this rule is wrong. We all know it damages this 
institution. I know in my heart that Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, 
knows this rule is wrong. I know in my heart Mr. Obey, the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, knows this rule is wrong. I know that Ms. 
Slaughter, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, knows this rule is 
wrong.
  Yet here we are, all in the name of expediency, silencing the voices 
of the Americans who elected us to Congress to speak on their behalf. 
We are sacrificing what is right to just get the job done.
  There will come a time when Republicans will once again become the 
majority party. We don't know when that will be. It might be 2 years, 
it might be 10 years, it might be 20 years. But it will happen--and we 
all know that. I will tell you that members of my party will want to 
use the actions today, your rules, as a precedent--a precedent to shut 
you out of the process, a precedent to silence your voices, a precedent 
to deny your ability to represent your constituents, a precedent to 
take the easy road instead of doing the hard work of democracy.
  I want you to know here today that I won't be a part of using this 
precedent against you. I will stand up for your rights as a minority 
when you find yourselves in the minority. It's the very heart of 
democracy. And I'll do it because I care more about the integrity of 
this institution than I do about sticking to an arbitrary schedule 
scratched out on some piece of paper.
  I fear, I truly fear that you know not the damage that you do to this 
institution with these rules.
  Mr. POLIS. This proposed rule makes in order 12 Republican amendments 
and indeed only one Democratic amendment, a manager's amendment, which 
includes two Democratic amendments. I think it is fair to both parties. 
Included in the allowed amendments are five earmark amendments.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Polis, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the 
Committee on Natural Resources, I do rise today to express my strong 
support for the fiscal year 2010 appropriation bill for the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies.
  For many years, many programs in the Department of the Interior were 
severely underfunded, leaving us with a legacy of tired visitor 
facilities and a backlog of needs for many natural resources programs. 
The legislation before us today funds the most important programs 
harmed by years of starvation budgets. I'm very supportive of the 
funding increases for our public lands.
  Madam Speaker, I do wish to commend the Subcommittee on Interior 
Appropriations chairman, my classmate, Mr. Norm Dicks, and Ranking 
Member Simpson for the work that they have put in on this legislation. 
They have provided a needed increase to U.S. Forest Service for both 
wildlife prevention and wildlife suppression. The legislation also 
provides the necessary funding for the National Park Service to ensure 
that park visitors can experience our national parks in their full 
glory. I'm also pleased to see an increase in funding for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  Further, I applaud the spending items contained in the pending 
measure for Indian Country. Through treaties entered into many years 
ago, the United States has a trust responsibility and moral obligation 
to provide for our Native Americans.
  The unmet needs of Indian Country can never be addressed by a 1-year 
spending bill. However, we are making good progress with the increased 
funding for law enforcement, health care, and education in this 
legislation. These funding levels show our commitment to meet both our 
legal and moral obligations to Native Americans.
  From the standpoint of our natural resources, the preservation of our 
heritage and keeping faith with Indian Country, this is a very good 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. FOXX. I now yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I need to stand and congratulate our Rules 
Committee for all the hard work they are doing in creating precedent 
around here. Until last year, in the history of this House the ability 
to limit speaking rights and amendments was always done by a unanimous 
consent agreement. So the Rules Committee must indeed be working 
overtime to establish which issues will never be discussed on this 
floor.
  When the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the ranking 
member of two of the subcommittees can go 0-9 in proposed amendments, 
it must be truly an effort on the part of the Rules Committee to guard 
free speech on this floor--as long as the topic is something on which 
they agree should be discussed.

                              {time}  1615

  For, indeed, we are not simply debating about dollars here. We are 
debating about dollars to create national security, for dollars have 
consequences to them.
  There was one proposed amendment, which I proposed in there 
obviously, that dealt with the border security and border guards. Our 
border guards right now are concentrating their efforts on urban areas. 
Their efforts are working. But what that is doing is funneling the 
traffic of illegal immigrants into this country through side lands that 
are all owned by the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, 
which constitutes 41 percent of our borders. Madam Speaker, 80 percent 
of all drugs smuggled are going through those lands. The foot traffic 
is destroying those wilderness areas. In 2002 alone, eight major 
wildfires were established

[[Page H7393]]

by the foot traffic in that area. The Goldwater training range was shut 
down because of illegal immigrants trespassing upon that land. Some of 
those areas are controlled by drug cartels. Some are subject to 
violence. And one of the problems that we face is, the Border Patrol 
actually has to pay money to the Interior Department to have access to 
some of those lands.
  One of the Border Patrol agents was threatened with lawsuits and even 
arrests by a Federal land manager for attempting simply to enter a 
wilderness area and land a helicopter to pick up a wounded victim. The 
Border Patrol has to notify land managers if they ever change 
procedure, even if they are in hot pursuit of an individual. All those 
issues should be addressed in this particular area.
  This device, which I have right here, is one of the listening devices 
that the Border Patrol needs to communicate with each other. It is 
placed in jeopardy simply because the Department of Interior now wants 
it to have limitations. A threat of a lawsuit by an environment group 
indicated that a memorandum of understanding has to be used to put 
restrictions on this even though this technology is important and even 
though environmental assessments said this has no impact. It is 
temporary. It is mobile. It does not leave a footprint. And if any of 
these areas were to be created as wilderness, this would have to be, by 
the memo of understanding, moved.
  This picture is of a cactus illegally cut down. It's a crime scene. 
The illegals who cut this cactus down used this to stop a passenger, 
then to rob and beat him and then leave him on the scene. The irony is, 
by the laws we have, if the Border Patrol were to try to move this, 
that violates the Endangered Species Act if this was one of the 
endangered species. If it is protected, to take it at all becomes a 
Federal crime.
  Now those are the issues that are at hand. Those are the issues that 
should be discussed. Those are the issues that are important to 
America, and those are the issues the Rules Committee decided are not 
worthy of being discussed on this floor. Good job.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
Chair of the subcommittee whose hard work brings us this bill here 
today, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.
  I just want to say to my colleagues that I believe this is an 
extraordinarily good bill. Mr. Simpson and I worked together on a 
bipartisan basis to craft this legislation. Our staffs worked together 
very effectively; and we had an open process, an open subcommittee 
markup where any member could have offered any amendment that they 
wanted. We had a full committee markup where any member of the 
Appropriations Committee could have offered an amendment, either side 
of the aisle; and many were offered.
  I just want you to know that I understand Mr. Simpson's statement 
here. He feels badly that we don't have an open rule. I would have 
preferred an open rule. But when we took control of the House, all of a 
sudden we had an extension of time on these bills. I can remember the 
last year I was the ranking member, Mr. Taylor was the chairman. I 
think we went about 8 hours. The next year when I became chairman, it 
was over 20 hours, and it was an exhaustive process.
  I just think we have to remember that we've got to get these 12 bills 
passed. The greatest sin, in my judgment, is to not do our work; and 
there are some people in this House who don't want to see the work get 
done because then they can point the finger of failure at the majority. 
I have to support my leadership because they have offered their hand--
they went over and they talked to Mr. Boehner. They talked to Mr. 
Lewis, who is here on the floor. And they said, We would like to work 
out an agreement on these bills on how we can proceed. And they were 
rebuffed.
  So we started out, and we found that there was going to be, on the 
first bill, a huge number of amendments. There was going to be a long-
term delay in getting the work done. So we had no choice but to go to 
the Rules Committee and get a structured rule. I would have preferred 
an open rule, but I support what our leadership has done. I think until 
the leadership gets together and works out a different way, we're going 
to be doing it this way. It takes both sides here to cooperate and to 
realize that we have to limit the number of amendments, either by an 
agreement or by a structured rule.
  Now this is a very good bill. I hope that this dispute about the 
procedure doesn't get in the way of the fact that this is one of the 
best--maybe the greatest--Interior appropriations bill that has ever 
been enacted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield an additional minute 
to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to say something. Over the last 8 years, between 
2001 and 2008, during the previous administration, the budget for the 
Interior Department was cut by 16 percent. The budget for the EPA was 
cut by 29 percent; and the budget for the Forest Service, if you take 
fire out, was cut by 35 percent. These were huge cuts in these 
programs. The Park Service was in trouble. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service was in trouble. We had to step in, and we did this on a 
bipartisan basis. In fact, when I was in the minority, Mr. Taylor and 
I, Mr. Regula and I worked to try to increase the funding for the Park 
Service so we wouldn't see it deteriorate. Now we have a better budget, 
and it helps us correct some of the problems. Still we have huge 
backlogs of work that have to be done in the Park Service, in the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, at the BLM. So even with a better budget, we 
still do not have enough money to take care of all the issues that we 
need to address.
  But this is a good bill that deserves our support, and this rule 
deserves support.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I think it's important to point out to the 
American people that there are only 60 members on the Appropriations 
Committee, which means that only 60 out of 435 Members in this body had 
the opportunity to amend the bill that's under consideration here. If 
we had an open rule, every Member would have had that opportunity.
  I'd also like to mention that my colleague from Colorado said, Only 
one Democrat amendment was accepted and 12 Republican amendments. But 
that reinforces the point that even Members of his own party were 
turned away from offering amendments, and that isn't right.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield now 2 minutes to our 
distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, 636 days and counting. This is the number 
of days that have passed since I asked the Democrats in this body to 
take direct action and avoid destruction of the San Joaquin Valley. 
Instead, we've had 636 days of inaction, 636 days of a man-made 
drought, a California dust bowl.
  Last week there was a close vote, apparently too close for the 
Democrat leadership. The bipartisan amendment I offered would have 
stopped the Obama administration from taking additional measures to 
starve the people of the San Joaquin Valley of water. The Democrat 
leadership will not risk the possibility of defeat again. No mistakes 
this time. No vote will be allowed on the House floor this week on my 
new amendment to the Interior bill.
  The hypocrisy of this situation is that the Democrat majority 
champions working families but in reality is just backing the radical 
environmental element in this country. For the San Joaquin Valley, the 
Democrats in this House have chosen the 3-inch minnows over working 
families. What we are witnessing is the greatest elected assembly in 
the history of the world starving its citizens of water, acting like a 
despot who tortures the innocent just to stay in power. Make no 
mistake--raw power is what we're witnessing, power that injures and 
wounds, exercised at the highest levels of this government, straight 
from the Obama White House and the Democrat leadership in this 
Congress. They will say anything and do anything to keep power. Their 
victims are my constituents, the people of the San Joaquin Valley, who 
have done nothing to deserve this cruelty at the hands of this 
government. The clock is ticking. There's very little time left. This 
Congress must act and act now.
  At this moment, Madam Speaker, Members of this body are at the White

[[Page H7394]]

House having a luau; and in the meantime, there's 40,000 people without 
jobs in the San Joaquin Valley because of the inaction by the Democrats 
and this Congress. Come back. Stop the luau. Stop the partying, and 
come back, and vote ``no'' on this rule and allow an amendment on this 
bill to bring people of the San Joaquin Valley.
  Come back. Stop the party. Come back now.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, to address the gentleman from California--
in a previous discussion at the Rules Committee, we talked about the 
fact that the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar, has agreed 
to visit San Joaquin Valley and learn more about the situation 
firsthand to address the very legitimate concern that the gentleman 
from California has raised.
  As a fellow Coloradan, I can attest to the savvy ability of our 
former Senator, former Attorney General, former water lawyer, one of 
the most knowledgeable minds and best minds that we have in the area of 
water law, water rights and water. I know that the gentleman from 
California shares our desire to address the legitimate issue raised by 
his constituents. I have every degree of confidence that the Secretary 
will play a constructive role in doing that.
  The health of our communities is our most precious resource. This 
bill provides a historic and much needed investment in the 
Environmental Protection Agency, $10.5 billion, a large portion of 
which will improve our water and wastewater infrastructure. As a 
westerner, I understand the vast challenges we face with water. 
Establishing the water infrastructure that encourages and promotes 
conservation is of incredible importance for regions that will only see 
their water sources become fewer and farther between as demands grow.
  In Colorado, we rely on clean water not just for municipal and 
agricultural use--many of our communities are supported by visiting 
kayakers, fly fishermen and outdoorsmen from across the country who 
flock to our pristine rivers and in doing so, are a key driver of the 
success of our economy. Our environment, communities, industries and 
businesses all stand to gain under the water provisions of this bill. 
Without significant infrastructure investment and improvement, our 
water quality could be further compromised, endangering the future 
health and economic viability of our communities nationwide and our 
environment. Building upon the job creation and stimulus of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this bill will provide loans 
and assistance to more than 1,500 communities across this country and 
will also create as many as 40,000 new construction jobs to help get 
our economy going again. Moreover, Madam Speaker, wildfire season has 
grown exponentially over the last decade, and it is just beginning in 
Colorado and across the West. The cost of fighting fires has continued 
to increase. The House recently passed the FLAME Act, and I hope the 
Senate will move quickly to do the same. The communities in my district 
are growing increasingly worried about another fire season that has the 
potential to be very dangerous to both property and to people. We've 
been hit hard, as have many communities across our country, by the 
mountain pine beetle epidemic, an epidemic that has killed millions of 
acres of trees. Hard-hit counties in my district, like Grand County and 
Summit County, have had their mighty lodgepole pines felled across the 
district, turning the area into a potential powder keg for forest 
fires, bringing the threat of wildfire literally to our backyards. Over 
the past 10 years, this outbreak has spread, and it is devastating the 
Mountain West. There is a strong correlation between previous outbreaks 
of mountain beetles and forest fires 10 years after the event. We are 
now coming upon the 10-year time frame when the risk of forest fires is 
at its maximum.
  This bill is of particular note to my home State of Colorado as it 
reinstates a vital program, the good neighbor authority, which is 
currently helping to protect communities from wildfire threats with 
collaboration at both the State and Federal levels. Collaboration is 
key to forest fire prevention. Climate modeling predicts a large change 
in the frequency of precipitation and intensity of drought in the area, 
which will only add to our increasing wildfire risk.
  This bill provides a significant increase for programs that address 
wildland fire mitigation and suppression at both the Forest Service as 
well as within the Department of the Interior, and that will directly 
aid our communities that are most at risk. In past years, Federal 
wildfire accounts have fallen dangerously low. This bill provides $3.6 
billion to address wildfires, including $1.49 billion for suppression 
and $611 million for hazardous fuels reduction. It also provides $357 
million for wildland fire suppression contingency reserve funds, which 
are critical to protect the health of our communities and health of our 
public lands. This bill is an important part of our overall strategy to 
prevent forest fires across the West and on public lands across our 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleague from California made an 
impassioned plea in the Rules Committee and again here on the floor 
today, and I have to ask the question: The Secretary of the Interior 
has been there to see the situation in the San Joaquin Valley. What 
more does he need to see? What is it going to take to take action to 
turn this water back on? How much more damage needs to occur before the 
Obama administration needs to take action or will take action on the 
needs there? As a person who grew up without water, I am very, very 
sensitive to this issue, and I know what a devastating thing it can be 
not to have water.
  Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague 
from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge opposition to this undemocratic rule. 
The majority is apparently unwilling at best or afraid at worst of 
debating whether the Environmental Protection Agency should have the 
authority to change the Clean Air Act without congressional opinion.
  I went to the Rules Committee last night and asked them to make in 
order my amendment that would prohibit the EPA from using funding to 
implement or enforce its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking finding six 
greenhouse gases constitute a threat to the public's health and 
welfare. On April 24, 2009, the EPA issued a proposed rulemaking that 
it had found six greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride--
pose a significant threat to the public's health and welfare. This 
endangerment finding is a precursor for the EPA to regulate these 
gases' emission, with or without explicit authority from Congress to do 
so.
  My amendment would have simply returned this explicit authority to 
Congress to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this amendment, the EPA 
could threaten sweeping changes without giving any consideration 
whatsoever to its effects on the economy since the EPA's mandate is 
environmental and public health. Passing this amendment could have 
removed a threat so that we can consider climate change legislation in 
an open, deliberative process.
  If the majority's national energy tax scheduled for debate later this 
week gets signed into law, eventually the EPA can move forward on 
enforcing this explicit action by Congress. But there has been no 
action taken yet. Rather, the courts have decided the EPA has the 
authority to make such a determination, which is hardly what Congress 
intended when it passed the Clean Air Act.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee blocked this amendment. 
Furthermore, Congressman Lewis and Congressman Blackburn had similar 
amendments, and the Rules Committee denied all three. If we had an open 
rule, we could not be debating all three of our amendments. We would be 
debating one. Unfortunately, because of the Democrats' unprecedented 
lockdown rule, we don't get a chance to debate at all. This is a 
travesty for democracy.
  I urge all Members to reject the Democratic leadership's attempt to 
stifle debate and impose its will on the House by defeating this 
embarrassing rule.

[[Page H7395]]

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, the economy of Colorado and many other 
States rely on the health of our public lands. Our public lands draw 
visitors every year to explore Rocky Mountain National Park, hike the 
Collegiate Peaks Wilderness, or enjoy skiing on our hundreds of world-
class slopes.
  To protect the historic and natural beauty of our State and our 
country, this bill includes much-needed increases for both the national 
parks as well as the wildlife refuges. The $2.7 billion provided for 
the National Park Service includes a $100 million increase to operate 
the parks and $25 million for the Park Partnership Program.
  I was lucky enough to have grown up in Boulder, Colorado, hiking in 
Mount Sanitas, the Flat Irons, and Flagstaff Mountain, areas under 
public management. This bill will protect and defend some of America's 
truly great public lands so that children all across the country can 
grow up enjoying our environment and interacting with it every day just 
as I and many of my colleagues did.
  We provide over $500 million to operate the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, $20 million above the request. These funds will provide 
critically needed staff for many areas, implement climate change 
strategies and improve conservation efforts. Currently more than 200 of 
the 550 National Wildlife Refuges have no on-site staff. This bill also 
provides $386 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
including an $11 million increase for the stateside land acquisition 
account in the National Park Service.
  Colorado's landscape goes hand in hand with its character. All of us 
define where we come from by the character of our natural heritage. 
We're lucky to have as many beautiful places across our country set 
aside as public lands. Over half of the State of Colorado is held in 
public trust as a national forest. My district is home to the Indian 
Peaks Wilderness and the White River. The White River is the single 
most visited national forest in the Nation, and we have many other 
marvelous attractions as well in the public trust.
  This bill invests in public land management, State assistance, and 
science programs at the U.S. Forest Service. The nonfire Forest Service 
budget is $2.77 billion, including $100 million for the Legacy Road and 
Trail Remediation Program at the Forest Service to protect streams and 
water systems from damaged forest roads. This effort is a key part of 
our effort to protect the national forests and grasslands.
  American arts and artists, not to mention their invaluable impact on 
education and recreation, are another important American resource which 
we must protect. Under this bill, the National Endowment for the Arts 
and the National Endowment for the Humanities will each receive $170 
million, a $15 million increase above 2009 for each endowment. This 
bill also supports the Smithsonian Institution here in Washington, D.C. 
and across the country, the world's largest museum complex, with an 
increase of $15 million above the President's request and $43 million 
above 2009 levels.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I love our national parks. My husband and I 
visit them whenever possible because we believe that they are crown 
jewels in our environment in this country. But by putting this and 
future generations further into debt, we are making it less likely that 
the population of this country is going to be able to visit these 
wonderful national parks.
  I offered an amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee that was 
intended to save taxpayer money that was also not made in order; so we 
will not be debating it on the floor of the House today, much to my 
disappointment and all of our constituents' detriment. My amendment was 
a commonsense amendment to H.R. 2996, the fiscal year 2010 Interior 
Appropriations Act. It would save taxpayers $10 million by eliminating 
proposed funding for local climate change grants.
  During a time when families across America are making sacrifices in 
order to keep food on their tables, Congress should be finding ways to 
reduce unnecessary spending. My amendment would have taken a small step 
in the right direction by removing $10 million in taxpayer funds for 
local groups to come up with ambiguous projects to counter climate 
change.
  The Federal Government has increasingly entrenched the American 
people in trillions of dollars of debt. It is irresponsible and 
negligent to continue spending Federal taxpayer funds on frivolous 
projects that should be funded locally such as the one that I tried to 
take the money from. Unfortunately, in blocking debate on my amendment, 
the majority did not side with the taxpayers to eliminate this wasteful 
grant project. Instead, the majority has worked to frivolously and 
unnecessarily spend the public's money without listening to any of 
their input or ideas.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, with regard to fiscal responsibility, this 
is an issue that we all care about for this generation and future 
generations. Americans across the country are tightening their belts in 
response to our financial meltdown, and the government is doing the 
same.
  Opponents of this bill may claim that the $4.7 billion increase over 
2009 is extravagant or unwise. But the programs in this bill are 
expected to return more than $14.5 billion to the Treasury next year. 
The Department of the Interior alone has estimated to return more than 
$13 billion to the Treasury through oil, gas, and coal revenues, 
grazing and timber fees, recreation fees and the revenues from the sale 
of the duck stamps, not to mention the secondary impact of tourism on 
economies like the one in my district in Colorado. And the EPA's 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, which is financed by a 0.1 
percent tax per gallon of gas, has a balance of more than $3 billion 
that offsets the deficit.
  The provisions in this bill have been built with strong bipartisan 
support and were designed to pay for themselves. And by protecting the 
health of our Nation's drinking water, boosting support for our 
beautiful parks and wild lands, and, in turn, our national tourism 
industry, and reducing the threat of global climate change, I can't 
think of a wiser investment to make or a better time to make it than 
now.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues have spoken so eloquently 
before me about the process by which this rule has been brought to the 
floor by the majority, I want to talk again about what's wrong with 
this closed process.
  Never before in the history of this Congress have we seen this kind 
of action by the majority party. As my colleagues have expressed during 
today's debate on this rule, as well as the past two appropriations 
debates, bringing appropriations bills to the floor under a closed rule 
is unprecedented. It's very important that the American people 
understand that. It does an injustice to both Democrats and Republicans 
who want to have the opportunity to offer amendments and participate in 
debate with their colleagues over pressing issues of our time.
  By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has cut off the 
minority and their own Democrat colleagues from having any input in the 
legislative process. By choosing to stifle debate, the Democrats in 
charge have denied their colleagues on both sides of the aisle the 
ability to do the job that they have been elected to do. That job is to 
offer ideas that represent and serve their constituents. The Democrats 
are denying Members the ability to offer improvements to legislation, 
and this is an injustice to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Article I, section 9 of the Constitution places the responsibility to 
spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. This is a 
great responsibility given only to this congressional body with the 
expectation that we will engage in rigorous debate over how to best 
appropriate taxpayer funds. However, the majority has chosen to refuse 
Members any participation in this decisionmaking and instead has 
anointed itself as the sole appropriators in this legislative body. The 
Democrats in charge are limiting what ideas can be debated on the floor 
and what constituents can be adequately represented in this House.
  Our constituents in both Republican districts and Democrat districts 
are

[[Page H7396]]

struggling to make ends meet, are facing unemployment, and yet are 
simultaneously being shut out of participating in a debate of how their 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent by the Federal Government.
  Why is the majority blocking debate on such an important legislation? 
Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough 
votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process?
  After promising to make this Congress the most open and honest in 
history, Speaker Pelosi has time and time again worked to shut out both 
Republicans and Democrats from participating in debate and taking part 
in the legislative process. And I would like to give one quote from the 
Speaker when she was trying desperately to take control of this House. 
This is her quote:
  ``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.''
  This is exactly the opposite of what the Speaker is doing. Why is she 
going back on her word? Is she afraid that the American people will 
disagree with her? Is she keeping other Democrats from having to make 
tough decisions on difficult votes? Is she afraid of democracy, the 
very principle upon which our country was founded?

                              {time}  1645

  Madam Speaker, it's very concerning to me that the Democrats in 
charge have chosen to silence the minority yet again. In doing so, they 
have chosen to keep the millions of constituents the minority 
represents from having a voice on the floor of the people's House.
  Several of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, offered 
amendments to the Rules Committee, amendments which were arbitrarily 
not made in order by the majority.
  These amendments included asserting Second Amendment rights on 
Federal lands, protecting private property rights, preventing excessive 
regulation of greenhouse gases, eliminating excessive earmark spending 
across the Nation, increasing our ability to produce energy 
domestically, and cutting unnecessary funds in order to save our 
constituents money.
  The list goes on and on, but these amendments will not be heard on 
this floor because, for some reason, the majority is afraid of allowing 
debate on these topics.
  And we fear it's going to get even worse because they are working 
very hard to bring to the floor a bill on climate change. They stopped 
calling it global warming and now are calling it climate change.
  This bill, H.R. 2454, is a $646 billion tax that will hit every 
American family, small business and family farm. Speaker Pelosi's 
answer to the country's worst recession in decades is a national energy 
tax that will lead to higher taxes and more job losses for rural 
America and small businesses.
  It will shift jobs to China and India. The bill will result in an 
enormous loss of jobs that would ensue when U.S. industries are unable 
to absorb the cost of the national energy tax and other provisions, 
like sending jobs overseas. There is little debate that the tax would 
outsource millions of manufacturing jobs to countries such as China and 
India. According to the independent Charles River Associates 
International, H.R. 2454 would result in a net reduction in U.S. 
employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year of the policy 
through 2030.
  Higher gas prices. The American Petroleum Institute reports that the 
cost impacts of H.R. 2454 could be as much as 77 cents per gallon for 
gasoline, 83 cents per gallon of jet fuel, and 88 cents for diesel 
fuel.
  The Heritage Foundation has estimated that as a result of these 
increased prices, the average household will cut consumption of 
gasoline by 15 percent, but forcing a family of four to pay at least 
$600 more in 2012. It's going to be a huge impact.
  It's also going to unfairly target rural America. Rural residents 
spend 58 percent more on fuel and travel 25 percent farther to get to 
work than Americans living in urban areas.
  Farm income would drop as a result of H.R. 2454, according to a 
Heritage Foundation study, $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and 
over $50 billion in 2035; decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 
percent, respectively.
  More importantly, 25 percent of U.S. farm cash receipts come from 
agricultural imports. U.S. farmers would be at a severe disadvantage 
compared to farmers and nations which do not have a cap-and-tax system 
and correspondingly high input costs. Over 100 State and agricultural 
groups oppose the cap-and-tax bill.
  Madam Speaker, what it appears is happening here in this House is 
nothing less than a tremendous power grab and an attempt to control 
every aspect of our lives.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to our 
colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I rise to 
enter into a brief colloquy with my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  In this bill, in the underlying bill, there are monies for land 
acquisition, national forest land acquisition. I know that the 
gentleman and I have a little different view on that. I am not 
necessarily in favor of land acquisition for the Federal Government, 
and I know you have a different view on that.
  But there is a provision in this bill that allows for land 
acquisition within my district, and I have specifically said in the 
past that I don't want to have any more land acquisition in my 
district.
  My understanding, and the way the language is is that there would be 
some allowance for that land acquisition to happen in other Members' 
districts, principally in western Washington, until--at least we have 
an opportunity in my district. Counties are concerned about that 
because it takes land off the tax rolls.
  So I would wonder if the ranking member would work with me on this 
land acquisition so that we can at least satisfy the counties' concerns 
should this land acquisition move forward.
  With that, I would yield to my friend from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you for yielding. Is this the Cascade ecosystems in 
Mount Baker, Wenatchee?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is the land I am talking about, yes.
  Mr. DICKS. And this is in the Forest Service?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Yes, that's correct.
  Mr. DICKS. This is the first I have known of this. My colleague from 
Washington State, I understand your very long and very principled 
position on this issue. I would be delighted to take a look at this and 
report back to the gentleman on what I have found out and see what the 
situation is with the Forest Service.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Good.
  Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. Again, the basis of that is I 
have heard from my local county commissioners, smaller rural counties 
than what is on the other side of the mountains, and they are concerned 
about the loss of revenue, rightfully so. And so I want to make sure 
that on anything like that they are at least made whole.
  And I appreciate the gentleman taking a look at that, and I look 
forward to working with him. And I would yield if he has more to say on 
that.
  Mr. DICKS. Yes. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to our 
attention, and we look forward to working together, as we have on many 
projects throughout the years.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Good.
  I thank the gentleman for taking that and for his work, and I look 
forward to working with him.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington, the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Dicks.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to point out that in this bill, at the request of 
the local cities and counties of our country, we have appropriated some 
money that will be used for climate change and to deal with the impacts 
of climate change.
  And I would just point out, since this issue was raised on the other 
side of the aisle, that if we were going to do meaningful work on 
climate change, it's going to take our local communities to be 
involved, to work with their transportation systems and their energy 
systems and do all the other work that's necessary to deal with the

[[Page H7397]]

consequences of climate change. So I think this was a very wise 
investment. The local communities, the League of Cities, the counties, 
are all very enthusiastic about this.
  Administrator Lisa Jackson put out an announcement the other day 
about this program. I am sure there will be hundreds of applications 
from all over this country. Climate change is one of the most serious 
issues facing our country.
  We held hearings and brought in representatives from all the Federal 
agencies, and they all tell us unequivocally that they can already see 
the impacts of climate change on the Federal lands across the country. 
I mean, people are talking about bug infestation and they are talking 
about the effect of this bug infestation, which has a devastating 
effect on our forestry and our trees.
  And then we have the fire issues that relate to this. The fire season 
now is 1 month longer on each end. So we have drought, bug infestation. 
We have longer fire seasons. So we have all these things that are 
happening because of global warming and climate change, and we have to 
deal with that. And we have to have our communities involved. We have 
to have our rural communities involved.
  So I think the investments that we are making here and the research 
that we are doing is very necessary. There are still some people, it's 
amazing to me, who still have some doubts about this from a scientific 
perspective. So that's why we are doing all these things in the 
Interior bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Colorado a moment ago said 
this bill is going to create jobs. I love that old saying, ``Fool me 
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.''
  I wonder if this bill is going to create jobs like the stimulus 
package has created jobs since our unemployment has gone up 
significantly since the stimulus package was passed. I would also like 
to point out that Spain, which counted on having so many jobs from 
green issues, has the highest unemployment rate in Europe right now.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow all Members of 
Congress the opportunity to offer his or her amendment to the Interior 
Appropriations bill under an open rule.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX: Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, the jobs that this bill creates are very 
real: repairing our roads, doing trail work. Over 40,000 jobs are 
created, just as real as the jobs that are created under the American 
Recovery Program.
  As I was driving through the mountain area of my district just last 
week, I saw signs alongside the road that these jobs are created by the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There were men and women at 
work making necessary improvements in our infrastructure and preparing 
it for the next generation. This bill provides crucial investment in 
America's resources, natural and human.
  As representatives of the people and land of this great Nation, it's 
our responsibility to protect our resources and be good stewards of our 
forests, our parks, our wild lands, and our waters. This bill 
reinforces that imperative and makes sure that we keep our resources 
safe and take great steps to ensure that future generations will be 
able to enjoy them for years to come.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

         Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 578

                 Offered By Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:

       Resolved, That immediately upon the 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. 2996) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, 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.
                                  ____

       (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 
     on 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. POLIS. 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.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H7398]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________