[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 108 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8306-H8313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1018, RESTORE OUR AMERICAN MUSTANGS 
                                  ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 653

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1018) to amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to 
     improve the management and long-term health of wild free-
     roaming horses and burros, 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. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered 
     as adopted. The

[[Page H8307]]

     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Natural Resources; (2) the amendment printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by 
     Representative Rahall of West Virginia or his designee, which 
     shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for a division of the question; (3) the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Hastings 
     of Washington or his designee, which shall be considered as 
     read and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  All points of order against amendments specified 
     in the first section of this resolution are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

                              {time}  0915

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 653.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 653 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, under a structured 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order a manager's amendment and a substitute 
amendment from the ranking member, my former Rules colleague, Mr. 
Hastings of Washington. The manager's amendment is debatable for 10 
minutes, and the substitute is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also 
provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1018 is a bill that restores important 
protections for wild horses and burros. The bill received full 
consideration in the subcommittee and the full committee. Markups were 
held. Republican and Democratic amendments were offered and accepted 
through the regular order.
  Madam Speaker, this bill will reverse a misguided and controversial 
rider that was adopted as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus 
appropriations bill. The provision was slipped into the bill in the 
dead of night when the Republicans were in control, reversing long-
standing Federal policy that protected wild horses from being sold at 
auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter plants. Last summer, the 
Bureau of Land Management announced that it would consider killing as 
many as 30,000 healthy wild horses and burros in BLM holding centers 
across the United States.
  The ROAM Act, H.R. 1018, introduced by Chairman Rahall, will restore 
long-standing protections by prohibiting the sale and wholesale killing 
of wild horses and burros; prioritize cost effective on-the-range 
management, over-roundups, saving millions of tax dollars; facilitate 
the creation of sanctuaries for wild horses and burro populations on 
public lands; strengthen the BLM's wild horse and burro adoption 
program; and protect wildlife by requiring a thriving natural 
ecological balance on the range.
  Madam Speaker, these wild animals are rounded up in huge numbers by 
BLM only to languish in holding pens, threatened with sale or 
slaughter. H.R. 1018 will minimize these stressful, inhumane roundups, 
and promote adoption for those horses and burros who are taken off the 
range, banning the sale of wild horses and burros by the BLM, as well 
as the transfer of these animals for the purpose of processing into 
commercial products.
  Legislation similar to H.R. 1018 passed the House in 2007 by a 
landslide, bipartisan vote of 277-137. Unfortunately, this measure has 
never been signed into law. It is time we end this inhumane practice 
once and for all.
  This bill is important for the protection of our Nation's wild horses 
and burros. I urge adoption of the rule and the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the 
customary time, and I'm looking forward to our having fun here this 
morning as he promised yesterday.
  I am intrigued by my colleague saying that this is being done to 
correct something slipped into a bill in the middle of the night when 
the Republicans were in charge. It sounds like something very nefarious 
was done. This is sort of news to us. We didn't hear it in Rules 
yesterday, and I need to point out that there was something put in an 
appropriations bill in 2005, as my colleague says, but it certainly 
wasn't nefarious. And it's my understanding that our colleagues on the 
other side have modified that provision several times. So I don't think 
this is really trying to correct something that Republicans did some 
time ago in the dead of the night.
  But be that as it may, I think I need to point out that we are 
bringing this legislation at a time when more than 2 million Americans 
have lost their jobs since the Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus bill 
became law and that it is somewhat of an insult to those people. We 
have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate and a budget deficit of more than 
$1 trillion which is predicted to go to $2 trillion before the end of 
the fiscal year.
  Given those facts, it's a little unclear to know what exactly are the 
priorities of the Democrats in charge of this Congress. Small business 
and middle class families are struggling all across this country; yet, 
the Democrats in charge of Congress are poised to ask them to bankroll 
a $700 million welfare program for wild horses. This is just another 
example of how out of touch Washington Democrats are.
  If Democrats want to join Republicans in focusing on job creation, 
then we should be dealing with our American Energy Act which will 
create new jobs, bring down energy costs, and pave the way for a 
cleaner environment. And we should scrap this job-killing health care 
bill Speaker Pelosi is seeking to rush to a vote before the end of the 
month.
  Now, what this bill is going to do that's underlying this rule, which 
I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote against, it will establish a 
horse census every 2 years. It provides for enhanced contraception and 
birth control for horses. It makes available an additional 19 million 
acres of public and private land for wild horses. It covers a $5 
million tab to repair damage done by horses to other property and 
mandates that government bureaucrats perform home inspections before 
Americans can adopt horses.
  I hardly think this is what the American people expect us to be doing 
these days as they face the many challenges that they're facing.
  And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just in brief response to the gentlewoman's comments, as she knows, 
when the manager's bill is adopted, this bill will have no cost.
  And in response to her question about what the Democratic priorities 
are, they are to create jobs, they are to pass an energy bill to create 
more jobs, and to deal with climate change. Our priorities include 
passing a health care bill that will lower the cost of health care for 
average Americans.
  I don't know about in North Carolina, but I can tell you that in my 
district and everywhere I go around the country, people claim with 
great justification that they are paying too much for health care. She 
may represent a bunch of millionaires, but I think most of us don't.

[[Page H8308]]

  The fact of the matter is health care costs are too high. We need to 
make it more affordable for the average family, for small businesses, 
and so that's what our priorities are.
  I should say to the gentlelady as well that according to 
recovery.gov, in her State, jobs that were created or saved in North 
Carolina are 105,000 jobs.
  I also submit into the Record, Madam Speaker, an editorial from the 
Knox News in support of this stimulus package as it relates to the 
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which includes, I understand, part 
of the gentlewoman's district.

             [From the Knox News, Thursday, July 16, 2009]

          Editorial: Smokies Stimulus: Let the Good Work Begin

       It isn't exactly a birthday present, but no matter. The 
     Great Smoky Mountains National Park can use the infusion of 
     $64 million in stimulus money for a variety of projects that 
     have been needed in the park for years.
       It's special that it will come in time to help those in 
     East Tennessee and Western North Carolina celebrate the 
     park's 75th anniversary. And it is significant that it is 
     about eight times the amount the park usually receives for 
     maintenance work.
       The stimulus funding is expected to create up to 1,500 jobs 
     inside and outside the park.
       The money comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act, and the park officials hope to be able to award the 
     first round of construction contracts by late next month, 
     with work expected to begin after the Sept. 7 Labor Day 
     holiday.
       The Smokies Park is one of 380 national parks to receive 
     funding from the stimulus package. And, as the most visited 
     national park in the country, its share of the federal 
     funding was greater than that for other parks.
       For example, Yosemite National Park received $4.5 million 
     and the Grand Canyon National Park received $10.8 million. 
     Denali National Park in Alaska will get $6.3 million.
       The initial phase of construction will use $7.5 million of 
     the stimulus money to repave Cosby Campground, improve 
     parking at the Sinks waterfalls area and upgrade 34 buildings 
     and five comfort stations throughout the park.
       The park already is using $1.2 million of the federal money 
     to hire temporary workers who will improve 32 miles of eroded 
     horse trails in Tennessee and North Carolina and to restore 
     more than 60 historic cemeteries.
       During the first phase of construction, the Cosby 
     campground will close for the season after the Labor Day 
     holiday. It normally operates through October. The campground 
     is scheduled to reopen as usual in March.
       The work on the parking area at the Sinks will cause that 
     site to close following Labor Day, with completion scheduled 
     for May 2010.
       The project also will include a handicapped accessible 
     masonry platform overlooking the waterfalls.
       A second phase of contracts funded by the stimulus money is 
     expected to be awarded later in the fall; work on these 
     projects will begin in the spring.
       Park spokesman Bob Miller said in May that it was a 
     coincidence that the stimulus money comes during the yearlong 
     celebration of the Smokies' 75th anniversary. However, he 
     added, ``The park was created in large measure as an economic 
     stimulus initiative, so it's timely that we're making such a 
     substantial investment in our infrastructure.''
       We hope those in the federal government, regardless of the 
     impact of the stimulus money, realizes what those in this 
     area have long understood. The Smokies Park is a national 
     treasure--everyone's treasure--and its continued upkeep and 
     improvement need to stay high on the government's to-do list.

  So our priorities are pretty clear, and what we're trying to do right 
now is dig ourselves out of a ditch that her party and the Republican 
President George Bush dug our economy into. It turns out the ditch is 
much deeper than anybody had thought, and it's going to take us a 
little time to get out of it.
  But through the stimulus package, through passing health care reform 
to lower health care costs on families and small businesses, through a 
climate change bill to create thousands and thousands of more green 
jobs, I think we've got to turn the corner, and I think that the 
President of the United States is leading us on the right track.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend is engaged in revisionist history again. We did have a good 
economy under President Bush. After he inherited a recession and after 
9/11, things went south in our economy. The President asked the 
Congress to cut taxes. It was a Republican-controlled Congress. We had 
54 straight months of job creation.
  Then the Democrats took over the Congress in January of 2007--and we 
have charts to show it--all of the sudden the economy really went 
south. Things started going downhill when Democrats took control of the 
Congress and have been going downhill ever since. Now, we have a 
Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House, and 
things are really going badly.
  I think that we can prove with historical facts, not revisionist 
history, that under the Republicans in the House and Senate and the 
Republican President that the economy was in pretty good shape.
  I yield to my friend from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, 5 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity.
  I am from Utah. Out West we actually deal with the horses and burros 
that we will be talking about and debating in this rule.
  Now, for whatever reason, a variety of reasons, this emergency 
meeting had to happen yesterday. Somehow this legislation, which had 
passed out of committee in April, was suddenly at 2:20 yesterday called 
up in an emergency meeting and that the Rules Committee had to meet at 
3:30 in the afternoon.
  Now, I know it's normal and customary and regular that the rule vote 
generally goes down partisan lines, but I would urge my colleagues to 
reconsider this. There is no reason to rush this legislation through.
  I tried to offer an amendment. That amendment was not heard in the 
Rules Committee despite it being delivered and given on time. Minor, 
minor amendment.
  I still have underlying concerns about the overall bill. I would 
still vote against it, but I've got to be candid, I think there's some 
adjustments that could be made. And I'd like to take a moment here and 
just talk a little bit about the amendment that I was trying to make, 
and I would hope that my Democratic friends and colleagues would at 
least allow it to be heard. I think that's the American way, and I 
think there's a pattern here of terrible frustration, not being able to 
be heard on this floor about amendments that we, the people, are here 
to do.
  The amendment I was simply trying to offer is that this board that's 
going to oversee the horses and burros is consisting of 12 people. 
We're trying to add a few more people to that board: two 
representatives from State grazing boards or equivalent State agencies 
who are not State employees; and we're trying to add two 
representatives of Indian tribes who manage wild horses and burros.

                              {time}  0930

  Now, if you're out West in a State like Utah and several of the other 
Western States, you have Indian tribes who have a vested interest in 
the management interest of the horse and burros. For the Democrats to 
actually deny us an opportunity to allow Native Americans to be 
represented on the board is just ridiculous. It shows the arrogance and 
the heavy-handedness of this Congress.
  Time after time, we have offered amendments to appropriations that 
never get heard on this floor. I, too, was elected. I'm a freshman. I 
didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up.
  They tell us a lot in meetings that when we talk about rules and we 
talk about process, it's not that sexy and we're not going to win 
elections based on that sort of thing. But if we don't get the process 
right, we're not going to get the end result right.
  To take a bill that, as introduced, has a $700 million price tag to 
it, rush it through Rules in just over an hour, offer an amendment on 
time, then not being allowed to hear it where we're just simply trying 
to get, for instance, members of Native Americans to participate in the 
horse and burro bill, is just symptomatic of what is wrong and what is 
broken here in this process.
  I have deep concerns about this bill overall. I know there's a 
manager's amendment. I know there's a substitute amendment. But let's 
also understand in this bill that we're dealing with overpopulation 
here. There are over 30,000-some horses and burros that are 
incarcerated or being held, however you want to term it, out in the 
Western States predominantly.
  You know, they talk about save our mustangs as if it's some 
endangered

[[Page H8309]]

species. It's not an endangered species. They are rampant everywhere, 
destroying the land, going onto private landholders' land and 
destroying their crops.
  And now we're offering this $700 million program and, you know what, 
to suggest that there's no cost to the manager's amendment I don't 
think is accurate. We're dealing with an overpopulation here with huge, 
huge price tags to it and a huge burden upon the rural Americans that 
live out West and have to deal with these horses.
  I would encourage my colleagues to look deeply at this rule. Please, 
just because it's offered doesn't mean that it has to be approved. I 
appreciate the opportunity to stand here and share this with you today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my colleague that I appreciate 
his comments, especially after our previous conversation.
  He is complaining about the process, but if I'm understanding this 
correctly, the Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill. There 
was a full committee markup. The gentleman offered a similar amendment, 
I understand, that was rejected.
  He sent an amendment up to the Rules Committee, which he did not 
testify on behalf of, which he is not required to. But if it was so 
important, I would have thought that he would have been up before the 
committee. And I would also say to my colleague that, to the best of my 
understanding, none of his Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee 
offered his amendment.
  So I would just suggest in the future, if there is an important issue 
like that, that there be some more groundwork in advance to it.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from California.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 17, 2009 on Page H8309 the following appeared: Mr. DANIEL 
E. LUNGREN of California. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. McGOVERN. 
I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from California.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I think that it's very interesting to observe that 
there was virtually no notice whatsoever that while we're in the midst 
of this crucial appropriations process that this bill was going to come 
forward.
  One hour's notice was provided to the full membership of this 
institution. Mr. Chaffetz had an amendment. He hurriedly put this 
together, submitted the amendment. Of course he didn't come to testify.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time, Madam Speaker.
  I appreciate the gentleman's observation. But my point was that not 
only did Mr. Chaffetz not appear before the Rules Committee, but no 
member of the minority party on the Rules Committee offered his 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague 
from California (Mr. Dreier) was saying, we are supposedly in the midst 
of an appropriations process, which is so time consuming and has to be 
so tightly controlled that we have not been allowed to offer amendments 
in an open process on the floor on the appropriations bills.
  Yet, here we are today, handling a bill that obviously is not an 
emergency, obviously doesn't need to be dealt with now, and is only 
being put forward because the majority didn't have an excuse to keep us 
in town today, when people could be at home in the real world, meeting 
with their constituents, hearing what they have to say, and being able 
to learn more about the problems that are out there.
  The Democrats in this House believe all the wisdom of the world is in 
Washington, D.C. We Republicans believe the wisdom of the world is out 
in our district, and that's where we ought to be spending more time, 
instead of here, creating problems for the American people.
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to my very 
distinguished colleague and former attorney general, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule. You know, there's an expression 
around here: When we need filler on this floor to keep Members here for 
whatever reason, we bring up the dogs and the cats. Well, I guess we 
couldn't find one so we bring up the horses and the burros today.
  Somehow, those who may never have seen a mustang, who may never have 
ridden a horse that has a mustang heritage, are the experts on this 
floor telling us what we ought to do. They're the experts that tell us 
when government does something, it's not going to cost us anything.
  I'm sort of reminded of ``Bidenomics.'' That's the new word used to 
describe the statements of the Vice President of the United States on 
economics.
  He told a group yesterday, the AARP, that we have to spend more 
money. The Federal Government has to spend more money, the Vice 
President said, or else we're going to go bankrupt.
  Now, let's understand what he said. Unless we spend more Federal 
money, we're going to go bankrupt. We've got news for the Vice 
President. We're already bankrupt. Bankrupt means you're taking in less 
than you're putting out.
  And we just had a magnificent accomplishment in this administration 
this week. For the first time in the history of this Nation, we now 
have in a single year a deficit of $1 trillion. Not a billion with a B, 
but a trillion with a T. This is extraordinary.
  Yet, we have the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, coming up 
and telling us once again: Don't worry; this bill we're bringing up 
here won't cost us any money.
  We heard just a couple of months ago, or maybe it was a month ago, 
the President of the United States said, Pass my stimulus package and I 
guarantee you we won't have unemployment above 8 or 8.5 percent--8 
percent, he said. I'm sorry. I want to make sure we're accurate here 
about what the President said.
  He assured the American people that this stimulus package would 
stimulate the economy, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has just 
cited some statistics about all the jobs being created in North 
Carolina. I'm sure he's looking at the list now so he can get up and 
tell me how many jobs are being created in my home State of California. 
I'll be happy to debate that toe to toe any time. We're losing jobs in 
the State of California. They're losing jobs in this Nation. If the 
gentleman--well, I don't want to refer to the gentleman.
  Let me put it this way. We have funny math here. The statistics that 
we have, the official statistics show that we are losing jobs at an 
alarming rate. We have an unemployment rate at the highest we've had 
in, I think, 26 years; yet we hear from the other side, Hooray for the 
stimulus package. It's creating jobs. And they will cite you State by 
State by State.
  This is the only place I know where you can add up--well, you have a 
total number of losses of jobs, but they come to the floor and they 
will tell you how many jobs they're creating in each State. It's the 
only place I know where I guess you add up all those additions, but the 
net result is a subtraction.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Since my friend began speaking about State by State, he alluded to 
our State of California. The unemployment rate in California today is 
11.5 percent.
  I'd like to underscore a statement that he made earlier about the 
promise that was made. We have a $1 trillion so-called economic 
stimulus bill. It was $787 billion, but we all know with interest 
accrued that it will exceed $1 trillion. And we were assured that if we 
passed that stimulus bill, the unemployment rate across this country 
would not exceed 8 percent.
  Right now, tragically, on a nationwide basis, it is 9.5 percent. And 
yesterday, a report came forward from a wide range of economists 
indicating that the unemployment rate will, within the next few months, 
exceed 10 percent. The projection is 10.1 percent. As I said, in our 
State of California, which is suffering like it has not in modern 
history, we are facing an 11.5 percent unemployment rate.
  This notion of the Vice President indicating that if we don't spend 
more we're going to go bankrupt is preposterous.
  Last night, at the encouragement of my friend from Sacramento, I had 
a

[[Page H8310]]

telephone town hall meeting with literally thousands of my 
constituents, and the resounding message that came through from those 
constituents with whom I spoke is that we need to bring about a 
reduction rather than increase in the size and scope and reach of the 
Federal Government.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If I might just respond to that, 
perhaps that's the reason why they're keeping us here. The Democratic 
leadership doesn't want us to go home and hear from the folks at home 
because somehow they want us to continue with that notion that we know 
best. Because we know best here. We realize that in this difficult 
issue of dealing with wild horses, mustangs, and burros, in our greater 
wisdom, we have decided that there's no reason to have representation 
on the Board that's going to control this by the Native Americans. Why 
would we think the Native Americans would have any interest in this, or 
any knowledge in this, when those of us in Washington inside the 
beltway have superior knowledge.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for his 
contribution.
  Let me just say, Madam Speaker, that one of the things that I think 
that is important to look to is the beginning of the appropriations 
process about which my friend from Grandfather Community, North 
Carolina, was speaking when she began her remarks.
  We were told by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that we 
had critical legislation that had to be addressed before we complete 
our work by the 1st of August. We needed to get the appropriations 
process done. And there's a bipartisan consensus that article I, 
section 9 places on us the responsibility of getting that work done, 
and we did not in any way want to stand in the way of completing the 
appropriations process.
  And so, today, having been told that we did not have time for an open 
amendment process, which has existed for only 220 years in this 
country, throughout the entire history of the Nation, the pattern of 
having an open amendment process, ensuring that Democrats and 
Republicans alike would have the opportunity to offer germane 
amendments to appropriations bills so that they could in fact, if they 
chose, try and do what our constituents at these town hall meetings 
continue to say, and that is reduce the size, scope, and reach of 
government, we have been denied an opportunity to offer those in the 
open amendment process. And what is it that we're doing? We're dealing 
with this wild horses and burros bill on the floor after being told 
there was not enough time.
  Yesterday, we had the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) point to the 
fact that the day before we finished voting at 4 p.m. Yet, here we are, 
trying to responsibly legislate, and on Friday we're being kept here so 
that they can continue to work on the appropriations process in a 
closed way.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would allow me 
to reclaim my time, let me just underscore this. The gentleman 
mentioned the Constitution. The Constitution gives to the House of 
Representatives and the United States Senate the single greatest power 
that we have, which is the power of the purse. The power of the purse 
means the spending policy, the spending authority of the Federal 
Government resides in this body and that across the Rotunda. And when 
we're denied the opportunity to offer amendments, we're denied the 
opportunity to be able to represent our constituents as to how their 
money ought to be spent or how their money ought not to be spent, and 
that is the essential issue that we ought to talk about here.
  We have been sent here by our constituents to represent them, and the 
most powerful tool that we've been given under the Constitution, the 
power of the purse, is being denied individual Members. This goes 
against a tradition that's over 200 years in this House, and we're 
doing it for the purposes of expediency, which is the very argument 
undercut by the fact that we're taking time here to deal with the 
question of horses and burros in the West.

                              {time}  0945

  Now horses and burros in the West are important. I want to tell you 
that. I am from the West. We understand it's important. But it 
certainly is not as important as the appropriations process. And the 
essential question in a democracy of what right do we have to take 
money involuntarily from people--that is the tax--if we then are not 
going to exercise our responsibility to represent them in the decisions 
as to how those tax dollars will be spent?
  I thank the gentlelady for the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  That was an interesting exchange. Unfortunately it didn't represent 
or reflect reality. The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, when Bill 
Clinton left the White House, he left George Bush with an enormous 
surplus. George Bush took that surplus and frittered it away on wars 
that were not paid for and $1.6 trillion in tax cuts that drove us 
deeper into debt. The economy spiraled down. My friends on the other 
side basically turned their backs on what was happening to average 
people all across this country. And in November of 2008 the American 
people spoke; and what they made clear is this: That my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, do not know best. At 
every level of government, they were rejected, they were turned out of 
office because people were sick and tired of their policies that, they 
believed, drove this economy into a deep ditch. What people want are 
answers. They don't want the same old, same old. They don't want more 
tax cuts for the rich. They don't want more indifference toward middle-
class working families or total indifference toward those who are 
struggling in poverty. They want us to try to fix this economy.
  My friends take delight in trying to poke holes in the policies of 
President Obama, saying, Well, you know, he promised that we would 
create X amount of jobs. We are falling short of that. Well, it turns 
out that this ditch that they dug is deeper than many of us thought. 
But by most standards, most economists are actually seeing that things 
are beginning to turn--maybe slower than we would like, but they are 
beginning to turn. We need to continue these policies. We need to help 
working families in this country. We need to fix health care. We need 
to lower costs for families. People are paying too much for health care 
in this country. They're tired of the past Congresses that were more 
interested in pleasing insurance companies than they were in helping 
average families. They want us to deal with global climate change and 
to try to help pave the way for new jobs in the area of green 
technologies. So we're going to move forward.
  I should also tell my friends, and as they know, that as we debate 
this bill, there are committees meeting, there are briefings going on 
on a whole number of issues from health care to the economic recovery. 
I'm sorry that they don't want to stay around and do that work, but 
that's what they were elected to do. We're going to stay here, and 
we're going to do the people's work until it is done.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just would like to say again to my colleague from Massachusetts 
that he keeps saying that the Republicans dug a deeper ditch than they 
expected to have. I just want to point out again that at the end of the 
Republicans' being in the majority in the Congress at the end of 2006, 
the economy was growing. We had 54 straight months of job growth. The 
Democrats took over in January of 2007, and that's when the economy 
started getting in trouble. They dug the ditch. We didn't dig the 
ditch.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
West Virginia, I would just like to point out to the gentlelady from 
North Carolina, who has been a constant critic of the stimulus package, 
that some $8 billion of that total is earmarked specifically for North 
Carolina. Some

[[Page H8311]]

of the money that has already been spent, Madam Speaker, and has been 
used to be able to prevent the firing of teachers. Without receiving 
that money, States and communities would end up firing hundreds and 
hundreds of teachers, which would mean that class sizes would increase 
and in some cases even double, denying our kids the kind of quality 
education that we want them to have. Some of that money went to help 
shore up our law enforcement, our police officers, our firefighters. So 
to the best of my knowledge, the people of North Carolina haven't said, 
Don't give us the relief. Don't give us the aid. We need help because, 
quite frankly, this economy is in such bad shape--and I will repeat--
because of the policies of the Republican administration that held the 
White House for 8 years, that basically turned its back on average 
working people in this country. We are trying to fix the mess that they 
created, and we're going to do that.
  I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do have the honor 
and responsibility of chairing our House Committee on Natural 
Resources. The gentleman from Washington, Doc Hastings, a former Member 
of the Rules Committee, is my ranking member. His amendment was made in 
order under this rule.
  Some allusions have been made on the minority side this morning that 
there are important issues facing our country, but here we are debating 
horses and burros because we couldn't find a cats and dogs bill. Well, 
we take seriously our responsibility on the House Natural Resources 
Committee as stewards of our public lands. We take seriously our 
responsibility to all creatures of this great land of ours, whether 
they be cats, dogs, wild horses, burros, sea otters, turtles, bees, 
birds. You name it, they appropriately come under our jurisdiction, and 
they are important responsibilities that the American people value. 
These are creatures that God has endowed our great country with, that 
have no vast lobbyists here in Washington representing them; but they 
represent good old American family values. They represent recreational 
pursuits. They represent a quality of time that our families can spend 
enjoying with these creatures that God has so richly bestowed this 
country with.
  So for the other side to say that with all these important issues 
before our country--and they are important issues, and this Congress is 
addressing them because we on the majority side as well as this 
administration can, indeed, walk and chew gum at the same time. We are 
addressing those issues.
  As the minority knows, since they were once in a position of 
leadership, we are supposed to be here 5 days a week, working on behalf 
of our constituents. Our constituents, for the most part, work at least 
5 days a week, if not 7 days a week. At least in my district, many of 
them go to work before the sun comes up. They don't go home and see 
their families until the sun has gone down. They work a full 8- if not 
12-hour day; and yet the minority side is noted for their offering 
motions to adjourn after we come in at 10 o'clock in the morning. They 
want to go home at 10:10 a.m. I know this is inside Beltway, inside 
baseball talk; but the American people want to see Congress do its job. 
They recognize the many issues that face our country, and they 
recognize that Congress should be able to walk and chew gum at the same 
time, just like this administration is doing in a very appropriate way.
  So we are addressing issues that affect the American people at the 
same time that we're addressing the issues that affect their daily 
lives. I think that that's what they want us to do, and they want us to 
do it in a bipartisan way. So we should not be up here trying to make 
fun of the matter that we're addressing of wild horses and burros 
legislation on a Friday because we know that work is being done while 
we are still discussing this legislation. The committees are meeting, 
the appropriations committees. The other committees are marking up 
health care reform, a very important issue. We know here amongst 
ourselves that if it were not for us having votes here on the floor of 
the House today, where would Members of Congress be? Some would be in 
their congressional districts, some would be out around the country 
doing things that Members do when we have weekends off. So this is an 
appropriate use of Congress' time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, there is so much to say in so little time. I 
don't think that Republicans need a lecture on how we should be 
spending our time and whether we should be in Washington 5 days a week. 
There is an old saying that nobody is safe as long as the Congress or 
the legislature is in session, and I think most Americans believe that. 
Being here in Washington is not necessarily meaning that Congress is 
being productive, and I think that is the point that we have made over 
and over again. Again, I will say, the wisdom of the world is not here 
in Washington; and I think with what's been happening, particularly in 
the last 6 months, the American people have found that out. I am going 
to be very interested to see how long our colleagues on the other side 
continue to defend their actions and the action of this administration 
as the year goes by.
  In terms of looking after all God's creatures, I am a person--and my 
husband is--who are both owned by a dog and a cat. They live in our 
house. We have farmed all our lives. We have raised horses. We are 
very, very fond of animals. We give a lot of money to organizations 
that look after animals. In fact, there is one organization out West 
that keeps animals until they die a natural death. We feel very 
strongly about that. So questioning my feeling about how we should 
treat all of God's creatures is not going to go very far with me. This 
is also a group of people that wants to provide government-funded 
abortions and kill unborn babies at the same time we're talking about 
saving horses and spending money on that. That argument doesn't go very 
far with me.
  What the difference is between our colleagues on the other side and 
us is that we don't believe in growing government. These are not the 
things the Federal Government should be about. The Federal Government 
should confine itself to the very narrow set of issues laid out for us 
in the Constitution. We should adhere to the 10th Amendment which says 
that if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's a province of 
the States; and that's what we should be doing. So I thought my 
colleague promised me fun today, but you brought up some issues where 
you've gone to meddling.
  I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina. I represent a 
district that's 70,000 square miles. Over half of it is already under 
Federal ownership and control. I wouldn't necessarily say good 
management because it's also home to lots of issues involving poor 
forest management, catastrophic fires, lots of degradation of the 
habitat and lack of management over the years. One of the things that 
troubles me about this legislation is that we're going to spend 
potentially $700 million overall--I've heard figures as high as that--
to apparently buy 19 million acres of land perhaps. And if it is, 
indeed, those levels, all that land, when the government buys it, comes 
off the tax rolls. I have got communities with 20 percent unemployment 
where the government owns 70 percent of the counties. They've shut down 
activity on the forests, and the Federal Government is trying to shut 
down activity out on the range land and destroy things like cattle 
ranching and some of the great economic ways of the West.
  This legislation comes along and apparently is going to have us 
borrow another $700 million from somebody--probably the Chinese or 
whatever government decides they want to buy more of our debt, $700 
million, almost $1 billion--so that we can go acquire more land as a 
government and take it off the tax rolls to deal with this issue. I 
just find it really disturbing. You are going to put a lot of people 
out of work in the rural West. This is not well-thought-out 
legislation. But speaking to the rule, we seem in this Congress, under 
Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership, to have gone into not just 
tax-and-spend but gag-and-spend. I'll be asking soon to bring up a 
privileged resolution that I brought to this floor yesterday to allow 
us the opportunity to offer up amendments.

[[Page H8312]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1000

  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. WALDEN. To be able to offer up amendments on appropriations bills 
as historically Members of this House were always able to do until just 
recently when we have seen a historic and unprecedented gagging of 
Members of the Republican Party by Members of the Democratic Party when 
we have tried to offer up alternatives, positive alternatives, 
suggestions, ways to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion 
and to cut back on this outrageous deficit spending.
  I guess those must be tough votes for the majority. They don't want 
to take them because they won't even allow our amendments to be debated 
on this House floor and considered.
  So I'm sorry we have gotten into the gag-and-spend rules-making 
process around here.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle want to talk about fiscal responsibility and 
they are worried about the deficit. Where were they for 8 years when 
George Bush took this economy and drove it straight into a ditch? He 
inherited a surplus from President Clinton, and he squandered it. And 
nobody, virtually nobody, on the other side of the aisle spoke about 
the fact that Republican economic policies are responsible for this 
economic crisis. This President inherited the worst economy since the 
Great Depression. We need to dig ourselves out of this ditch. And we 
are going to do that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield our colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) 2 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina.
  In response to this point, I have stood here on this floor for hours 
and hours over several years listening to many, many Members of the 
Democrat Party, then the minority in Congress, plead that if they would 
just get the majority, give them the gavels, that the economy of this 
country would be brought back on track again. That happened in January 
of 2007. And it happened prior to any economic decline that anyone can 
describe on any flow chart that they can bring.
  So they claimed that they would fix the economy if they could just 
have the majorities. They won the majorities partly on that claim, and 
the economy went south, and it really tanked in the anticipation of the 
President we have today. And it is getting worse. So I don't think that 
point can be made empirically.
  I came here to rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition 
to this rule for a number of reasons. I wanted to support the gentleman 
from Utah's statement about not having an opportunity, a legitimate 
opportunity, to make his case before the Rules Committee. And it is 
clear that that didn't happen. In a 1-hour window, he got an amendment 
in and filed. That was great staff work. But we have other things to do 
here other than sit outside the door of the hole in the wall on the 
third floor.
  This process has got to change. We need to bring it to the floor 
where the American people can see what is actually being talked about 
in almost legislative code here.
  I also want to point out that this legislation is not legislation 
that comes here because it is well thought out or needed by the 
American people. This is driven by HSUS, the Human Society of the 
United States. They have hundreds of millions of dollars, and they have 
an agenda. They are seeking to take meat off the plates of the American 
people and all around the globe. So we just dance to this tune in this 
Congress because they say so.
  Nobody came from my district and said, what are we going to do about 
too many horses? HSUS contributed to this problem by helping to block 
the harvesting of horses for human consumption. And now we have what 
will accumulate to be 1 million extra horses in the United States. And 
barely do they get that over with and they come back to us and say now 
we need 700 billion American-taxpayer-borrowed dollars to take over 
more public lands in order to put more horses. This will only continue. 
Those horses are eating 1 billion gallons of my ethanol every year.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I want to respond to my friend from Massachusetts. He talks about 
deficits, and where were we? Let me point out to this gentleman, the 
highest deficit under George W. Bush's administration was in 2004, and 
that was right after we built up our forces to go into Afghanistan and 
Iraq.
  It was slightly over $400 billion. Under your first watch, your first 
watch as the majority in this Congress, the deficit was $460 billion. 
This year it is projected to be $1.8 trillion. And here we are today on 
the floor talking about a bill to expand that deficit another $700 
million.
  Boy, talk about--well, I can't say the word. But talk about less than 
truthfulness. It certainly comes from the other side of the aisle on 
this issue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If anyone on the other side of the aisle wants to 
defend the same-old-same-old policies of George Bush, then go ahead and 
do it. But the fact of the matter is that in November, 2008, the 
American people spoke overwhelmingly against and rejected those 
policies. The economic policies of the Republican Party and of George 
Bush drove this country into a ditch, and we are trying to dig 
ourselves out of it.
  I reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 10 
seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman from Massachusetts has over 
15 minutes, and he doesn't even want to engage in a colloquy with 
somebody here that is willing to stand up and at least engage.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it appears as though we are beginning to 
touch a nerve on the part of our colleagues because we are presenting 
the facts, and they can't handle them.
  We know that this economy is in terrible shape. All they can do is 
continue to blame President Bush. As one of my colleagues said, they 
asked for a chance to be in charge. They have been given a chance to be 
in charge. And what have they done? They have increased the debt to 
every American in this country in the first 6 months of this year by 
$9,342.83. We do face the greatest economic problem we have had in 25 
years, not since the Great Depression.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this rule because we don't need to be dealing with this issue now. We 
should be dealing with the American people who are hurting and 
continuing to lose jobs under the policies of Speaker Pelosi and the 
Bush administration.
  I am asking my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
making in order an amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah which was not made 
in order by the Rules Committee.
  This amendment reconfigures the Joint Advisory Board to ensure 
representation by affected Indian tribes and State grazing boards. It 
also ensures that all members of the advisory board have expertise in 
wildlife management, rangeland management, animal husbandry or natural 
resources management and requires that the board members reside in a 
State in which wild free-roaming horses and burros are currently 
located.

     Amendment to H. Res. 653 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, after consideration of the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules it shall be in 
     order to consider the amendment printed in section 4 of this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Chaffetz of Utah or 
     his designee. Such amendment shall be considered as read, 
     shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 5 is as 
     follows: Section 8, strike paragraph (2) (page 17, lines 4 
     through 11) and insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) by striking `Governments' and all that follows 
     through `management.' and inserting `Governments shall 
     include two representatives of the livestock industry; two 
     representatives from State grazing boards (or equivalent 
     State agency) who are not State employees; two 
     representatives of the environmental community; two 
     representatives

[[Page H8313]]

     of the animal protection community; two representatives of 
     Indian tribes who manage wild horses or burros; and four 
     scientists. All advisory board members must have expertise in 
     wildlife management, rangeland management, animal husbandry 
     or natural resources management and must reside in States 
     comprising the current range of wild free-roaming horses and 
     burros.'; and''.
                                  ____

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

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we are here today because we are doing 
the work of the American people. And we are doing what the American 
people asked us to do.
  As we debate this bill on the floor, there are major markups in the 
Education and Labor Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee on 
health care. There are also hearings and markups going on on two major 
appropriations bills. So there is a lot of work going on here, a lot of 
important work, of trying to dig ourselves out of this mess that this 
President inherited.
  It is interesting, again, to hear my friends on the other side of the 
aisle talk about fiscal management and about the need to control 
deficits and debts when they voted for tax cuts for rich people that 
weren't off-set. They voted for wars that weren't paid for. And there 
was silence. And the economy got worse and worse and worse. On November 
2008, the American people said, enough, we need to change course.
  The American people want us to deal with health care. The Party of No 
says, no, can't do health care. They are trying to scare people, again, 
away from a national health care reform bill that will control and 
lower the cost of health care for average Americans.
  People want us to deal with the issue of climate change and creating 
green jobs. And the Party of No says, no, we can't do that. They don't 
want us to deal with that issue. No, no, no, no.
  Well, the reality is the American people want us to deal with the 
issues of law enforcement, with the issues of immigration and with a 
whole number of issues. And the Party of No says no. They vote against 
everything. They are against everything. So here we are. We are dealing 
with this issue today.
  I think this is a commonsense bill. The chairman of the Resources 
Committee explained that there was a hearing and there was a markup at 
full committee. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________