[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28197-28204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2781, MOLALLA RIVER WILD AND SCENIC 
                               RIVERS ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 908 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 908

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2781) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
     segments of the Molalla River in Oregon, as components of the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in 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 chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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. CARDOZA. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 908.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 908 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2781, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
segments of the Molalla River in Oregon as components of the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System, under a closed rule.

                              {time}  1030

  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Natural Resources. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The 
rule provides that 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 bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the 
bill, as amended. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 2781, would add two 
segments of the Molalla River totaling 21.3 miles in northwestern 
Oregon to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The two segments, 
15.1 miles on the main stem of the Molalla River, and 6.2 of the Table 
Rock Fork, would be designated as a recreational river.
  The Molalla rises in the Cascade Range, east of Salem. From its 
headwaters above the Table Rock Wilderness Area, the river flows 
through cedar, hemlock and old-growth Douglas fir forests, and basalt 
rock canyons until it meets the Willamette River near Canby. The 
Molalla River is an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker 
and both golden and bald eagles. It is also within an hour's drive of 
the Portland and Salem metropolitan areas and provides significant 
recreational opportunities for fishing,

[[Page 28198]]

hunting, canoeing, kayaking, white-water rafting, mountain biking, 
horseback riding, hiking, camping, picnicking, swimming and diving, all 
wonderful, great traditional American recreational activities.
  These opportunities and a 20-mile hiking, mountain biking area and 
equestrian trail system draw over 65,000 visitors annually. I would add 
that the Molalla River also served as both a trail for indigenous 
Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers in Oregon. 
The river is also where the cities of Molalla and Canby derive their 
drinking water.
  In earlier planning analyses, the Bureau of Land Management 
determined that most of the river and the Table Rock Fork should be 
considered for designation as wild and scenic rivers. In testimony 
before the House Natural Resources Committee, BLM stated, ``the 
designation called for in H.R. 2781 would be largely consistent with 
management currently in place, and would cause few changes to BLM's 
current administration.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) for bringing 
this legislation to the floor today so we can ensure America's beauty 
and natural wonderment is preserved both now and for future 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may resume.
  I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time. I 
am opposed to the rule and the underlying bill for reasons that I will 
make clear and that my colleagues will make clear.
  At this time, I would like to recognize my colleague from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the rule because an 
amendment that was under my name was not admitted in the rule by the 
Rules Committee. However, the issue at hand in both that amendment and 
the underlying bill is very small. It's 400 acres in Oregon. That is 
truly, in the scope of things, an insignificant number. What is 
significant, though, is the concept behind it, because it represents a 
larger, more pernicious issue that simply the leaders of this Congress 
are failing to address or even acknowledge.
  Now, I have to admit that the fact that I am an old public 
schoolteacher is part of the problem. I spent 16 years in the Utah 
Legislature serving on the Public Education Subcommittee. I understand 
how difficult it is for those of us who are in the West, Mr. Speaker, 
the gentleman from the other side, how difficult it is for us to fund 
our public education system. And part of it is from the example that I 
have before me.
  This chart simply shows the amount of Federal land that is owned in 
each State. As you notice, there is a somewhat disproportionate amount 
in the West. The Speaker's State of Arizona has a great deal; my State 
does; the State of Oregon, a little bit less. But nonetheless, there is 
a significant amount of land that is controlled by the Federal 
Government.
  Many of our friends in the East who don't have that same opportunity 
have a hard time understanding what it's like to be a public land 
State. However, the second one, perhaps the more difficult one, is this 
chart which simply shows the number of States in red are the ones that 
have the most difficult time funding their public education system. 
These are the States whose growth in public education funding is the 
slowest, the most difficult.
  You will notice that there is a unique correlation to the amount of 
Federal land that is owned and the inability of States to fund their 
public education system. It's almost a one-to-one relationship that 
happens to be there. So the 400 acres that would be taken out, the 
potential timberland that would be taken out of potential production in 
this particular bill, actually is land that no longer produces timber 
today. That's part of the problem.
  It's one of the reasons why we received a letter from California and 
Oregon county officials who have what's called O&C land. O&C land is 
land that is dedicated for timber production. This 400 acres is not 
considered O&C, but it is the same concept. It is land that could be 
used for timber production.
  What this bill will do in taking this small amount of land is to 
finalize and put in statute the bad administrative decisions of the 
past which have taken it out of production so it no longer can produce 
the revenue that we desperately need in these States to try to fund 
public education. The sponsor of this piece of legislation understood 
that. He got it right. When he came before the committee in our 
hearing, he simply used this statement when he asked the ranking member 
and the chairman to find an offset so that they did not lose the value 
of this small amount, 400 acres.
  Unfortunately, we did not find an offset, and that was the crux of my 
amendment, both in committee as well as before the Rules Committee. 
There needs to be some kind of offset.
  It says something even more disgusting as well, that if the Interior 
Department--of all the vast acreage of land that the Federal Government 
owns, 1 out of every 3 acres in this Nation--cannot find 400 acres as 
an offset for the State of Oregon, there is something terribly wrong in 
the mindset of the Interior Department here in Washington.
  The issue is schoolkids. Are we going to try to help States fund 
their education system or not? I recognize that my amendment was ruled 
nongermane. Our germaneness rule is used more in its absence than in 
its regulation. But the issue at hand is simply, the gentleman from 
Oregon was right in the hearing--he got it right when he wanted an 
offset. The leadership of this Congress was wrong when they decided not 
to heed his warning and not to give his request. Today it's 400 acres. 
Tomorrow it may be 16,000 acres in another bill or 9.8 million acres in 
another bill.
  It simply says, our kids are props for political purposes around 
here, but we really don't care about trying to find a long-term funding 
solution. The Rules Committee made this amendment out of order. I 
recognize that they can justify that on the grounds of germaneness. 
They could have just as easily incorporated the amendment without that 
as well. We do it all the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We justify those kinds of decisions all the time. 
I recognize that the Rules Committee will take its orders from 
leadership. That has to happen. They cannot ignore those things. But at 
the same time, had the Rules Committee followed the wishes of the 
gentleman from Oregon, we could actually be setting a precedent to help 
kids. When the Rules Committee failed to heed the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, when 
he was justified and correct in coming before our hearing, what it 
simply said was that we put kids at a lesser priority than other 
protected kinds of issues.
  Once again, this is the problem. It is this amount of land that 
causes the difficulty of Western States--all of our Western States on a 
State level--to provide for their needs. And that's what our amendment 
could solve. That amendment was not made in order. That is simply 
wrong. Please vote down the rule so that we can put this amendment back 
in place.
  Mr. CARDOZA. In response to the gentleman from Utah, I would say the 
following. Two of the amendments that the gentleman offered to the 
Rules Committee on H.R. 2781--one amendment was nothing more than 
political talking points with zero substance. The second, the other 
amendment, was both nongermane and a violation of PAYGO under the House 
rules.
  Further, I would add in response to the questions with regard to the 
Obama administration that, on November 13, the Obama administration 
reiterated in a letter to Chairman Grijalva, stating, ``There are no 
timber contracts within the Federal lands proposed for designation 
under H.R. 2781.'' I would like to insert into the Record a letter from 
the department indicating that to the chairman.


[[Page 28199]]


                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                Washington, DC, November 13, 2009.
     Hon. Raul Grijalva,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public 
         Lands, House Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the 
     Bureau of Land Management to questions submitted following 
     the Subcommittee's Thursday, October 1, 2009, hearing on, 
     H.R. 2781, ``Molalla River: National Wild and Scenic River 
     System.''
       Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to 
     the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and public 
     Lands.''
           Sincerely,

                                       Christopher P. Salotti,

                                    Legislative Counsel, Office of
                            Congressional and Legislative Affairs.
       Enclosure.

   Questions for Robert Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management, 
                      Department of the Interior.

       Questions from Representative Grijalva:
       1. How does BLM usually manage private land within wild and 
     scenic river corridors?
       Answer. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Federal 
     government has no authority to manage private lands within 
     wild and scenic river corridors.
       2. Are there any timber contracts within the corridor of 
     the proposed designation for the Molalla?
       Answer. The BLM in Oregon informs me that there are no 
     timber contracts within the Federal lands proposed for 
     designation under H.R. 2781, which designates segments of the 
     Molalla River in Oregon as components of the National Wild 
     and Scenic River System.

  Third, with regard to Mr. Schrader's comments, the gentleman said 
that we should have heeded Mr. Schrader's comments. Well, guess what. 
Representative Schrader, who represents this area, expressed a concern, 
as the gentleman indicated, about this issue at the Natural Resources 
Committee hearing in October. He also states in a letter to us, that I 
will have inserted in the Record, that since that time he has 
investigated this concern with the agencies on the ground and wrote the 
committee on November 10 to say that he was totally satisfied that the 
bill will not remove trees from the timber stock because there are no 
timber contracts planned in the area, and there are none now, and there 
are none planned. So I would like to submit for the Record Mr. 
Schrader's letter.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 2009.
     Hon. Nick Rahall
     Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to express my support for the 
     committee's amendments to my bill, H.R. 2781, to designate 
     segments of the Molalla River in Oregon as components of the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       At the October 28th markup of H.R. 2781, mention was made 
     of a statement in my testimony regarding 420 acres of timber 
     management, or ``matrix,'' lands that will be within the 
     river corridor when my bill is enacted. Since the October 1st 
     hearing before the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 
     Subcommittee at which I testified, I have consulted both the 
     Bureau of Land Management and committee staff about those 
     matrix lands. I am satisfied that this designation will not 
     remove trees from the timber stock: there are no timber 
     contracts in that area, and no timber sales are planned.
       I reserve the right to offset logging acreage in future 
     bills I might introduce, but I see no need to add such 
     language to H.R. 2781 at this time. Thank you for your 
     support of this legislation which has overwhelming support 
     within my district and thank you for all your work you do as 
     Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Kurt Schrader,
                                               Member of Congress.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman 
from California, and I think I tried to state those comments earlier 
on.
  The letter we received from the Association of O&C Counties--that's 
Oregon and California--concerned about this particular issue does 
include and specifically mentions these 411 acres in this National Wild 
and Scenic Rivers bill. I also recognize that the gentleman from 
Oregon, who is the sponsor of this bill, has since sent a letter that 
says that it does not have an impact. It does not have an impact 
because of bad administrative decisions made earlier that have already 
taken this out of timber production.
  What we are doing with this bill is now putting that in statute so 
that we cannot at some time reverse that with the ease with which we 
took them out in the first place. We have made bad decisions time after 
time after time, which has impacted the timber industry in these States 
and has impacted their ability to fund their local governments and 
especially their education system. That was the fundamental reason it 
was ruled out of order. It violated PAYGO because, if you actually did 
put that, those funds would have to be shared with the local States.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this, as I appreciate his clarity in moving it forward. 
It is my privilege to represent part of Clackamas County in my 
congressional district. Now while I don't actually have the area in 
question, I have worked very hard with my colleague Congressman 
Schrader to make sure that the interests of this diverse county are, in 
fact, represented. And if one came from Mars and listened to the 
debate, they might be a little confused on this point.
  First, the land in question is not O&C land. It is BLM land. There is 
no fiscal impact here. There is no timber that is involved. I worked 
very closely with this county and have for decades. The county 
commissioners now, as they have in the past, have been very careful to 
heed the balance of resource protection, economic development, the 
environment, and tourism in the broad range of areas. I have worked 
with them on wilderness legislation, in wild and scenic legislation, 
including the one signed into law by President Obama at the beginning 
of this year.
  I have had times when they have been hesitant because they have had 
questions about whether the benefits of economic development of 
tourism, of wilderness protections, would offset potential loss of 
timber production. The county has gone through the process here yet 
again. It is their judgment, and one that I strongly support, that the 
resource protections to have this stretch of the Molalla River being 
granted Wild and Scenic protection is well worth it.
  There is a minuscule amount of land that would not be removed from 
potential harvest, but it's not going to be harvested now. It's not 
going to be harvested in the future. If the gentleman would come with 
me to Clackamas County, Congressman Schrader and I would be pleased to 
show him this precious resource and why there was never any question 
that this would not be harvested.
  So people can go on and confuse BLM land with O&C land. They can talk 
about their disputes with this administration and past administrations 
about timber practices. That's fair game. And they will battle that. 
Frankly, the American public supports wilderness protection. The 
American public wants the protection not just of Wild and Scenic Rivers 
but of our precious watersheds where half the people in my State get 
their water from national timberland. As my friend from California 
knows, this is a very sensitive issue these days.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this rule. I am proud to support 
this underlying legislation. It has been carefully crafted by my 
friend, the gentleman from Clackamas County. He lives in this county 
not very far from the river that would be so designated. It is a 
testament to his quick assimilation into the ways of the House of 
Representatives, to be able to move forward with significant wild and 
scenic legislation, to be able to work with the local 
environmentalists, work with the county commission, to come forward 
with something that not only will protect a natural resource for years 
to come, but it is also going to enhance the local economy.
  This will in fact deal with the future of the children of Clackamas 
County because the economic development potential that will be 
generated by people

[[Page 28200]]

who use this waterway, you come year round and not just in high water 
times, people navigate these waters in Clackamas County. It is a 
growing and thriving area of economic development, of recreation for 
people young and old, and for the character of a unique county in our 
State and in our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of the rule, the 
underlying legislation, and I look forward to passage of both.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, Republicans are getting very tired of being accused of not 
being sensitive to our environment. We are very sensitive to the 
environment. We want to protect water everywhere. We have been very, 
very vocal on that issue, especially this session, especially as it has 
related to the West, and my colleague on the Rules Committee knows 
that.
  However, we are also concerned about jobs for the American people. We 
know that the unemployment rate has recently reached a record high of 
10.2 percent, the highest unemployment rate our country has in 26 
years, and aptly described in a Wall Street Journal editorial this 
week, ``It is no wonder Americans seem to have only three things on 
their mind right now: jobs, jobs, and jobs.''
  If nothing else, the Federal Government should do no harm to the job 
market--that is common sense--but that is exactly what the Democrats in 
charge are doing with this legislation today. They are going to be 
harming American families by increasing unemployment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop), who is going to deal with some of the issues that our 
colleague from Oregon has raised on this issue.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time.
  I am sorry that the gentleman from Oregon came in late during the 
discussion and has left that side of the aisle. I want to make it very 
clear, when I was making my first statements, I did not say that these 
400 acres were O&C lands--I made that very clear--but they are treated 
like O&C lands, which is why the local leaders from Oregon and 
California sent the letter and specifically asked any kind of lands 
taken out of the ability to be used for timber production be offset. 
They specifically requested in a number of other areas this particular 
area that will be made wild and scenic. This is the request that comes 
from the local leaders in California and Oregon which recognizes what 
happens when these lands are taken out of production, and they clearly, 
as I do, understand that there is economic development from tourism. 
There is also economic development from manufacturing and there is also 
economic development from timber harvest, and they each have a 
different role to play. And each have a different amount of money they 
do to help kids.
  These local leaders recognize that fact which is why they supported 
what the sponsor of this bill originally wanted to do. Unfortunately, 
the House leadership has not recognized what his wishes were and has 
not done what the sponsor originally wanted to do. Though he has now 
changed his mind, he says these lands are not now producing timber, 
that is not the issue. The issue is will they ever be useful in that 
particular effort. That is what we are trying to do with the amendment 
which should have been made in order. It should have been part of the 
original bill that came out of the committee. There is no reason why it 
should not have been.
  Now, I recognize there is a significant issue, Mr. Speaker, and let 
me do just one thing very quickly, because what these local leaders are 
talking about is specifically allowing them to have some kind of 
control over their own destiny. We see that played out in bill after 
bill and issue after issue on this floor.
  The other week we passed a small bill, maybe some of you have read 
about it in the papers, about health care. One of the issues of that 
bill is it stops local, creative, alternative approaches.
  The State of Utah started a local approach for health care reform. 
They got it right. It was based on empowerment of individuals by 
employers who would now have a common understanding of what they would 
have to spend on health care, to be able to give that to their 
employees, so the employers go to a State index where they have 
presently 66 options from which to choose. It was an effort to empower 
individuals. It is an effort of States to solve their own problems 
because States understand the unique demographic needs that they have 
in those particular States. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed, if 
it were to go all of the way through the system, stops the States dead 
in their tracks from actually implementing their own local reforms, 
just like this would stop the local areas from implementing their own 
local reforms.
  Now, I hope we understand how significant it is that you can't get 
enough experts here in one particular room to solve all of the problems 
in the world, and we should look at the concept of States and local 
governments having their own ability to experiment and their own 
ability to meet their local demographic's needs and their own ability 
to come up with unique and clear ideas, and we should be empowering 
local governments to make those decisions, not restricting them with a 
one-size-fits-all mentality or telling them what they will and will not 
do on the local level.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, as part of the course of debate, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina indicated that they have been very 
supportive of the environment, and she has indicated that they are 
getting a bad rap, as it were, for not being supportive of the 
environment. I would like to ask the gentlelady how many wild and 
scenic bills have they supported on the floor this session of Congress. 
I know we have had a number, and I don't recall a one that they have 
supported.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding.
  We have voted for all of the wild and scenic bills that have met the 
proper definition of wild and scenic rivers.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Okay. That would raise a further interrogatory with me: 
How many did you deem in your opinion met the proper definition?
  I yield.
  Ms. FOXX. Not the one in Massachusetts, the Taunton River, and not 
this one.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Thank you.
  Reclaiming my time, it is interesting to me, and I represent one of 
the districts most impacted by changes in Federal forest policy and 
suffering some of the highest rates of unemployment in the United 
States, and it is interesting to hear the gentleman from Utah now come 
before us as such a tremendous advocate for local governments with 
revenues created or shared from Federal lands, because when we were in 
a crisis, the Bush administration having made no changes in Federal 
forest policy and still limping along during the 6 years that the 
Republicans controlled the House, the White House and the Senate, the 
guarantees that had been put in place to ameliorate the impact of the 
Clinton forest plan, which I opposed, expired. They just expired while 
George Bush was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the 
House and the Senate.
  Now I wonder about that tremendous concern. At that time when they 
controlled everything, they had an opportunity to continue a program 
that would fund sheriffs and would maintain our jail space and would 
fund our roads, bridges, and highways on the county system, would help 
fund schools, they just walked away from it. They let it die. And it 
took the Democrats 5 months to pass, after we took control from the 
Republicans, despite the objections of the Republicans and the Bush 
administration, to pass legislation to give emergency payments for

[[Page 28201]]

1 year, and then yet again the Democrats in the last Congress extended 
the program for 4 years with a phasedown.
  I actually did bring my bill for authorizing programs to the floor of 
the House last year on June 5, 2008. It was brought up under a 
suspension of the rules, unfortunately. Because of Republican 
opposition to the bill, it was deemed it would have to come up under 
suspension of the rules. We got 218 positive votes; 16 of those were 
Republican, 16, but it was not the gentleman from Utah. He opposed my 
proposal.
  Suddenly, now, over a little 400 acres of land, which does not have 
any potential to produce any large amount of money, if any, under the 
current forest management, he wants to block this bill. But last year 
when the opportunity to vote to extend funding to all of the counties 
and school districts in America, and his State would have been one of 
the greatest beneficiaries outside of Oregon and California, he voted 
``no.''
  So sometimes around here, I think the proof is in the pudding on how 
you vote. I think it is an objection of convenience on the part of the 
gentleman, this sudden, newfound concern for local governments and 
schools for the nonexistent revenue from this very small parcel of land 
as opposed to the benefits that would accrue to that area by the 
protection of this. The local governments and all of the other 
officials in that area support the legislation. They aren't concerned 
about some theoretical, infinitesimal loss of money. They are more 
concerned about protecting the resource and developing that area into a 
recreation corridor that will attract people from around the State and 
perhaps from around the Nation to that area. That is part of their 
local economic development strategy, and that is what the local 
governments want. That is what the Representative for that district 
wants. That is what I support, and I will just say that any specious 
argument that somehow this hurts local government, hurts schoolkids, 
hurts public safety, coming from someone who opposed an opportunity to 
give robust funding for public safety, schoolkids all across America, 
to all of these distressed counties, is a little bit out of line.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, from almost the very first day when I came here, I heard my 
colleague from Oregon blaming George Bush for everything insufficient 
in this country. That started in 2005 and he is still doing that, just 
like many of our colleagues here. But the Democrats in charge can't 
hide from the fact that they now control the House, the Senate, and the 
White House, and what are they doing to solve the problems? Very 
little.
  I want to say that the sponsor of the bill actually brought up this 
issue that our friends across the aisle are trying to say now is our 
issue, but unfortunately the sponsor of the bill has been helped to 
change his mind on the issue by the Democrats in charge because it 
suits their purposes more.
  And actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good 
environmental programs in this country, just as we were the people who 
passed the civil rights bills back in the sixties without very much 
help from our colleagues across the aisle. They love to engage in 
revisionist history.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill could have been 
brought to the floor under an open rule, and we could have been 
debating amendments. But it's been brought in a closed rule. Actually, 
this bill is probably going to pass, the rule and the bill will pass 
overwhelmingly; and the real reason that we're doing this today is to 
kill time again. We've been voting on a lot of things we haven't really 
needed to vote on with a recorded vote because the majority wants to, 
again, kill time in order to be dealing with problems where their 
majority is not going to hold very well.
  What we are going to be voting on a little later today, we think, is 
a bill which our colleagues across the aisle call the ``doc fix'' but 
we call the ``doc trick.'' It's really a Trojan horse. Supposedly it is 
going to take care of the reimbursements for physicians in our country 
that are scheduled to be cut next year by 20 percent.
  But this ``doc trick,'' as I said, is really a Trojan horse because 
it is not deficit neutral, and it is a bill that is going to increase 
spending by at least $209 billion plus another $70 billion that's 
hidden in administrative actions by the Department of Health and Human 
Services. So it's going to really cost $279 billion. When you take the 
``doc trick'' in combination with the health care bill, the combination 
increases the deficit by $100 billion.
  This is unconscionable in a time when we have the largest deficit 
ever in the history of this country, which is the biggest concern of 
the people in this country. They are not as concerned about health care 
as they are about jobs and about the horrible debt that we are 
incurring not only for ourselves but for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Republicans have made a commitment that if we take back the majority 
next year, we will fix this reimbursement for physicians permanently. 
But that's not what's going to happen with the ``doc trick'' shell game 
that is being brought to us. And what they're going to do is say that 
it's going to be compliant with PAYGO.
  You know, every time I hear the term ``PAYGO,'' we know, and the 
American people are beginning to notice, that it is a big joke. It's 
been talked about as a joke by almost every editorial in the country. 
The Washington Post has called it a shell game, budgetary smoke and 
mirrors. It's going to add billions to the deficit even though 
President Obama promised, ``If you're a taxpayer concerned about 
deficits, I want to reassure you that I am too. That's why I have 
pledged I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime 
to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it.'' This was said by 
President Obama in Shaker Heights, Ohio, on the 23rd of July.
  We also know that the Senate has already rejected a bill almost 
exactly the same as the one that's going to be voted on today. Thirteen 
Democrat Senators opposed it. Senator Kent Conrad said, ``I don't agree 
with just adding that amount to the debt.'' He happens to be a Democrat 
from North Dakota. Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat in Indiana, said he 
couldn't support it at a time when we are hemorrhaging red ink. Senator 
Joe Lieberman, independent, but caucusing with the Democrats said, 
``Out of nowhere we're asked to provide $250 billion to cover services 
without any payment for it, increasing the debt by that amount.'' He 
added that if lawmakers pass health care reform that includes a public 
option, the debt crisis will only worsen.
  This is the wrong direction to be going in this country, Mr. Speaker, 
because we're adding debt; and, as I say again, the bill that's going 
to be presented today is a Trojan horse. It is not going to help our 
physicians dealing with reimbursements. It is a trick to say that it is 
being taken care of. It was taken out of the major health care bill.
  Those are the kinds of things that we should be dealing with on this 
floor. We should have open rules, and they should not be doing their 
best to fool the American people on what is really happening with our 
debt and with costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, in the 7 years that I have been here and 
the years that I have watched this Congress beforehand, I sometimes 
watch the floor and I can't believe what I'm hearing. I can't believe 
my ears. Today what I'm hearing on the floor really takes the cake.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina in her statement just now 
indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act 
legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can't believe my 
ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administrations where we passed 
that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people 
like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's State that we passed that civil 
rights legislation.

[[Page 28202]]

  John Lewis, a Member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis 
that he wasn't part of getting that legislation passed.
  I sometimes cannot believe what I hear on this House floor. And I 
will tell you today that I will stand by these statements, and I am 
very proud of what my party has done to advance civil rights 
legislation in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out to the gentleman 
from California that Senator Helms was not elected to the United States 
Senate until 1972 and was not in the Congress when the civil rights 
legislation was passed in the 1960s.
  Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes as it's written right now, 
420 acres of timberland will be lost and along with it local jobs and 
funding for local schools. As Mr. Bishop has suggested with an 
amendment he offered in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, a better name 
for this bill would be the ``School Children and Jobs Left Behind 
Act.''
  Even worse, Oregon's unemployment level in September 2009, the latest 
on record, was 11.5 percent, up almost double from 6.8 percent in the 
same month last year.
  Most of Oregon's economic output depends on the State's timber 
industry. Valuable revenue needed to fund schools has been lost as 
well. According to the Pew Center on the States, Oregon has lost 19 
percent of its revenue in the last year and faces a budget gap of 14.5 
percent in fiscal year 2010. According to the U.S. General Services 
Administration, the Federal Government already owns 53 percent of the 
State of Oregon, 53 percent. Apparently that's not enough to satisfy 
special interest groups to which the Democrats are beholden. This bill 
will lock up 420 more acres that could be used to produce much-needed 
revenue for the State while at the same time refusing to open up an 
equal amount of Federal land to offset more job losses during a 
recession.
  As Ranking Member Hastings described to the Rules Committee, it's 
longstanding tradition that the Natural Resources Committee be 
respectful of the views of those elected to represent a district and 
show deference when a Member opposes an action that's proposed in the 
district that Member was elected to represent.
  In his testimony to the subcommittee, Mr. Schrader specifically asked 
that as this bill moves forward, work be done to ensure that there will 
be no net loss of acres available for timber management as a result of 
this legislation. However, Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee 
blocked an amendment offered by Mr. Bishop to ensure the lost 
timberlands were offset and the health of the local economy be 
maintained. Mr. Bishop again offered an amendment to provide an offset 
for lost timberlands, but it was rejected by the Democrats on the Rules 
Committee.
  In fact, the rule we have before us today is a closed rule, as I said 
earlier. No amendments were allowed by Democrats in charge of the Rules 
Committee. By choosing to operate in this way, the majority has again 
cut off the minority and their own colleagues from having appropriate 
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 
they have been elected to do: offer ideas that represent and serve 
their constituents. They are denying Members the ability to offer 
improvements to this legislation, and this is an injustice to their 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Our colleagues across the aisle are limiting what ideas can be 
debated on the floor and which constituents can be adequately 
represented in the House. Our constituents in both Republican and 
Democrat districts are struggling to make ends meet, are facing 
unemployment, and yet are simultaneously being cut out of participating 
in a debate over how their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent 
by the Federal Government.
  Why is the majority blocking debate on such important legislation? 
Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their Members from tough 
votes? Are they afraid of the democratic process?
  Mr. Speaker, it's troubling to me we're debating this legislation 
today when my constituents and all Americans are confronted with dire 
economic hardships that remain unaddressed. Families all over the 
country are struggling to find jobs to provide for their children and 
keep food on their tables. Yet while Rome burns, this Congress is 
wasting the day talking about whether or not a river should be 
designated as ``wild and scenic'' and trying to pass a policy that will 
do even more harm to the economy.
  We cannot afford to lose more jobs. The U.S. national debt is 
currently $12 trillion. With over 300 billion people in the United 
States today, each citizen's share of this debt right now is $38,800. 
The national debt has continued to increase at an average of $3.88 
billion per day since September 28, 2007.
  We can no longer blame the deficit and the economic difficulties 
today on the previous administration. As I said earlier, the Congress 
and the administration are now controlled by Democrats. They continue 
to borrow money, and it's 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.
  Since the Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the 
national debt has increased by $3.282 trillion. Since President Obama 
was inaugurated just 10 months ago in January, the national debt has 
increased by $1.325 trillion. Almost 1 year after President Obama was 
elected and 3 years since the Democrats took majorities in Congress, 
the Department of Treasury has reported that under the Democrats' 
control, 2009 was the worst fiscal year in this Nation's history. The 
results get more disastrous with each passing day.
  I have opposed all these efforts to raise the debt limit, and we're 
going to be facing that again very shortly. According to analysis by 
the Heritage Foundation, the White House projects $10.6 trillion 
dollars in new deficits over the next decade. That is nearly $80,000 
per household in new borrowing. It's beyond time to stop digging. The 
new budget estimates, including an estimated total national debt of 
$24.5 trillion in 2019 under President Obama's budget, are alarming and 
unsustainable. The result will be the highest level of spending and 
debt in American history.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to be dealing with this. We need to be putting 
people back to work. We don't need to be increasing the debt with every 
passing day by passing bills that will do that and playing a shell game 
with the American people.
  One of the best things that's happened this year is that the American 
people are paying much closer attention to what is going on in the 
Congress. They've learned they can read the bills if the bills are ever 
put out for them to read. They spoke in New Jersey, they spoke in 
Virginia in the election earlier this year, and our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle need to start paying attention, as we have been 
paying attention all year long.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the 
gentlewoman's statement where she talked at great length about the fact 
that the House is being closed down, that the debate is being stifled. 
And I would like to remind the House of an earlier statement that I 
made that there were only two amendments submitted to the Rules 
Committee on H.R. 2781.
  One of the amendments was nothing more than a change of the title 
which consisted of political talking points, added zero substance to 
the bill. The other amendment was both nongermane and a violation of 
the PAYGO requirements of this House, two of the most important rules 
that are part of the conducting of debates in this House.

[[Page 28203]]

  So the gentlewoman is advocating that we break the House rules and 
agree to an amendment that is really de minimis to the grander aspect 
of what we're trying to do here.

                              {time}  1115

  The local community has asked for this designation, the local 
Congressman. In fact, you've heard today that three Members of Congress 
from Oregon all advocate for this bill. I'm sure there are more. The 
reality is that the local folks have determined that this is the best 
way to create economic development, and the 420 acres that are being so 
grandly discussed by the other side as reason to oppose this bill, that 
are going to cause economic devastation for both this area and the 
country--well, the local folks don't believe it, and neither does 
anybody else.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker.
  I'd like to now yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady's concerned about two 
things, the deficit and jobs. I share those concerns. But again, we 
have a little problem with consistency. When she was offered an 
opportunity, just in September, to extend the national surface 
transportation investment, fully paid for through user fees, gas tax 
and other fees, fully paid for, a program that creates millions of 
jobs, construction jobs, she voted ``no.'' She voted to end all funding 
for investment in our national transportation infrastructure, an 
extraordinary vote, unbelievable for someone who cares about jobs and 
cares about the deficit, because it was paid for and it creates 
millions of jobs.
  And on October 1 that program was going down, and tens of thousands 
of people across the United States of America would have been 
unemployed, private sector people, construction workers who are already 
hard-hit in this recession. If the Republicans and she had their way, 
that program would have ended on October 1.
  Now, it's pretty hard to justify that vote. I don't quite understand 
it. But she also has the same consistency problem as the gentleman from 
Utah; that is, when there was an opportunity to help those school 
districts, those local communities fund critical public safety, 
sheriffs and jail beds, she voted ``no'' along with a large majority of 
Republicans against my legislation last May.
  Now, there's this suddenly newfound interest in a community that 
doesn't want her interest. They want self-determination. They support 
this legislation. The elected Representative supports this legislation. 
But, no, the Republicans from elsewhere around the country, they know 
better than the people of Oregon. They know better what would help the 
people of Oregon.
  Except, again, back to the Bush administration and the Republicans 
running Congress, when the Bush administration had an opportunity to 
continue payments to those counties, or change the forest policy, they 
did neither. They didn't change the Clinton forest plan, which I 
opposed, which has devastated communities. And they allowed the 
legislation signed by President Bill Clinton to give assistance to 
those counties impacted by his forest policies assistance--they allowed 
that to expire, too, when they were in charge. And the gentlelady said 
nothing at that time. She didn't help support us in that effort. She 
didn't support that. She didn't support it last year when I offered it.
  So let's not have a false debate here about what's better for the 
people of Oregon, coming from even a near neighbor in Washington State, 
or from the gentleman in Utah, or a woman from back East. Let's respect 
the local will of the people.
  When Don Young chaired the Resources Committee, we kind of had a 
rule. We didn't mess around in each other's districts. I kind of liked 
that rule. We're messing around in someone else's district here. We're 
messing around with the local will. And let's not have newfound 
sympathy for my constituents who've been hit so hard when you didn't 
lift a finger to help them when you ran everything.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I will yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Let 
me just reiterate his last point. I agree with that. In fact, I made 
that observation when we were in committee on this. I just have a 
problem with wild and scenic designations that I've pointed out.
  But I just wanted to correct a little bit because you and I worked 
very hard on the rural school issue. I was on the Rules Committee at 
that time, and I know my friend from California heard me over and over 
on that. Let's just go back in history. It was a Forest Policy Act that 
caused that to happen. It was a Republican Congress that put the rural 
school program in place. So, you know, finger-pointing is not going to 
get us anywhere.
  I know that when you took over, the Senate, for example, had passed 
the rural school bill, something like 92-3. I forget the exact figure, 
but it was overwhelming, and it was never taken up by your House 
leadership. Now, it eventually got done, but it does have a date, and 
we're going to have to come back and revisit it. The point of all of 
this debate is that the end result, this is only a very small acreage, 
but we are going to forever take it out of potential logging. That is 
what the issue is.
  And so I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just wanted to clarify 
that particular point because he and I did work on that rural school 
problem along with our colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden). He is very 
much involved with that.
  So I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We will have more discussion 
on this issue when, if, this rule passed. I certainly hope it doesn't 
pass because then we can, you know, go and do the right thing. But, at 
any rate, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman from Oregon 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is correct, and he did work hard to help 
with the renewal of the county schools, and my colleague from Oregon, 
Greg Walden, was a partner in that effort. But the fact is that, you 
know, when you controlled everything, it died. The program died. And we 
were so desperate that at the end of the Congress Greg and I came and 
sat here on the floor till 2 o'clock in the morning, so at the end of 
that Congress we could offer a unanimous consent request to move that 
program forward and fund it, and the objection came from your side of 
the aisle again.
  So, unfortunately, you know, there are some hard facts here. You are 
right. The original legislation was passed when the Republicans 
controlled the House. Bill Clinton was President. We had a bipartisan 
agreement to help the counties, but when there was a later opportunity, 
nothing happened.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, you said I had 3 minutes. There's so much to 
say in so little time.
  I do want to point out--and it's in the Record, it's easy for people 
to check out--that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee in the 1960s 
defeated bringing up civil rights legislation until the Speaker of the 
House increased the membership on the Rules Committee, so that the 
increased Democrats could vote with the Republicans to bring the civil 
rights legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule would 
provide for separate consideration of H. Res. 554, a resolution to 
require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the 
Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House. It does not 
affect the bill made in order by the rule. The amendment to the rule 
provides that the House will debate the issue of reading the bill 
within three legislative days. It does not disrupt the schedule.
  This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of Congress, we 
ought to agree that, regardless of the legislation brought before us, 
we should always have the opportunity to read and understand the 
legislation before we vote. The American public

[[Page 28204]]

agrees with this commonsense position. A recent survey by Rasmussen 
Reports found that 83 percent of Americans say legislation should be 
posted online and available for everyone to read before Congress votes 
on it. The poll also found that this is not a partisan issue; 85 
percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Democrats, and 92 percent of 
unaffiliated voters, favor posting legislation online prior to it being 
voted on.
  Mr. Speaker, we're elected to Congress to represent our constituents. 
How are we supposed to determine what's right for our fellow Americans 
if we have to vote on something before we even have time to read it?
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have 
this debate and do the right thing for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into 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. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, we've heard quite a debate today. The 
debate was about designating a wild and scenic river in Oregon. But it 
has gone far, far afield from there. We've heard about the deficit. 
We've heard about jobs. We've heard about the Civil Rights Act and who 
was responsible for passing the legislation that did that historic. 
We've heard quite a lot that doesn't have anything to do with the 
reason we are here today, and that, Mr. Speaker, is designating the 
Molalla River as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which will 
help ensure that social, cultural, and economic benefits of the area 
will be preserved.
  For several years, an alliance of over 45 organizations has been 
dedicated to river restoration efforts and protecting the area from 
destructive acts. And the local community around the Molalla has asked 
for this designation. It is now up to Congress to act on behalf of the 
citizens and the communities at hand to preserve the river's historic, 
scenic, and recreational values; to protect the river's water quality 
and its free-flowing character; and ensure that Americans and 
Oregonians can enjoy the original character of this river for 
generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good bill. The bill deserves strong 
support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I ask for that 
support. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the 
previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 908 Offered by Ms. Fox of North Carolina

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

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

        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. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________