[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 310-314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1130
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3254, TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER 
     RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT; FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3342, AAMODT 
 LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT; AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1065, WHITE 
     MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1017 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1017

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3254) to approve the Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights 
     Settlement Agreement, 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 of the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, 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; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by 
     Representative McClintock of California or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, 
     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 division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3342) to 
     authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, to develop water infrastructure 
     in the Rio Grande Basin, and to approve the settlement of the 
     water rights claims of the Pueblos of Nambe, Pojoaque, San 
     Ildefonso, and Tesuque. 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 of the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, 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; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules, if offered by Representative McClintock of California 
     or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI, 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 division of the question; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1065) to 
     resolve water rights claims of the White Mountain Apache 
     Tribe in the State of Arizona, 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, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part C of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules, shall be considered as adopted. The 
     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, and on any further amendment thereto, 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; (2) the further amendment printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by 
     Representative McClintock of California or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and

[[Page 311]]

     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for 
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1017.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1017 is a single rule 
that provides for separate consideration of three measures dealing with 
water rights settlements. Each bill is to be considered under a 
structured amendment process.
  The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo 
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act; H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation 
Settlement Act; and H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water 
Rights Quantification Act of 2009. Each bill has 1 hour of general 
debate, to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The 
rule for H.R. 1065 self-executes an amendment to ensure that the bill 
is PAYGO compliant. Each bill allows for the consideration of a 
separate amendment by Representative McClintock, which is debatable for 
10 minutes. The rule also allows a motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions, for each of the three bills.
  H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 
Quantification Act of 2009; H.R. 3254, the Taos Pueblo Indian Water 
Rights Settlement Act; and H.R. 3342, the Aamodt Litigation Settlement 
Act are all bipartisanship pieces of legislation, and they are all 
sensible pieces of legislation. Each of these bills will approve, 
ratify, and confirm carefully negotiated settlement agreements between 
tribal representatives, non-Indian water users, and the United States 
Government.
  These agreements will provide both the tribes involved and affected 
communities in Arizona and New Mexico proper access to clean water. 
These three bills will provide critical funding for the development of 
drinking water supplies for people who have been hauling their water 
for years in the back of their pickup trucks. We know how critical 
clean drinking water is for the human body's health and development. 
These bills will improve the health of young Native Americans by 
providing clean drinking water, and certainty to non-Indian people that 
the water will be available to them for development and use.
  H.R. 1065 provides the required congressional approval for the 
agreement between the White Mountain Apache tribe and water users 
throughout Arizona. This legislation boasts the support of the entire 
bipartisanship Arizona delegation.
  H.R. 3254 and H.R. 3342 each approve water settlement agreements in 
New Mexico considered critical to clean water access to the Taos Valley 
and Rio Grande watershed. Both of these bills were favorably reported 
by voice vote out of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has taken decades to work out these 
settlements. Congress has a responsibility to approve these settlements 
now and provide clean drinking water access for the affected tribes and 
the non-Indian people, and for their generations to come. I believe it 
is time for Congress to move on these bills, and I am pleased that 
Chairman Rahall and the Natural Resources Committee has worked in a 
bipartisan way to move these bills through the process.
  Now, there is some concern on the other side of the aisle that the 
Justice Department has not commented formally on any of these bills. 
Our colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) believes the Department 
of Justice should formally respond to each of these bills before they 
take effect. The gentleman from California has legitimate concerns, and 
these concerns deserve to be considered on the floor today, and that is 
why we made this amendment in order on each of these bills.
  This is a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support it today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the next 2 days, the House is set to consider three separate 
bills that would approve and ratify tribal claims to water rights made 
by the White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona and the Pueblos of 
Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos in New Mexico. The bills 
would also restore and protect some environmentally sensitive land and 
watersheds, and require the maintenance of the water systems in 
question until they are conveyed to the respective tribes.
  I support these bills when the McClintock amendments are included 
because I believe that the settlements will bring long-term certainty 
and stability to the respective tribes and water users in the affected 
areas.
  Mr. Speaker, last night the majority in the Rules Committee decided 
to allow for consideration all three of the amendments submitted to the 
three bills we are set to consider this week. I wish to thank them for 
their uncharacteristic generosity in allowing minority amendments. 
These important amendments would prevent the bill from taking effect 
until the Attorney General assures Congress in writing that the 
settlements in these bills would represent a net benefit to the U.S. 
taxpayer based on the costs and risks of litigation and the odds the 
tribes would prevail in the litigation. I believe these amendments are 
important because they require the Attorney General to conduct a cost-
benefit analysis of the settlements and make sure that they are 
fiscally responsible before the settlement funds can be paid.
  Now, I assume that the other side of the aisle will highlight that 
this rule allows debate on all of the amendments which were submitted 
to the Rules Committee, but it restricts any and all possible further 
amendments from consideration. It is not an open rule. The majority 
campaigned on a promise to allow open and bipartisan debates in 
Congress, yet this year they have yet to allow even one open rule. That 
is correct, not one open rule. And that, Mr. Speaker, includes even the 
traditionally open appropriations process.
  They could have changed that glaring and unfortunate statistic by 
allowing an open rule on the underlying, uncontroversial bill, but the 
majority in the Rules Committee decided to continue to make this the 
most closed Congress in history.
  Now, let's look at the possible reasons the majority on the Rules 
Committee decided to vote against an open rule for these bills. Could 
it be that there is not enough time on the House schedule this week? 
Well, the House, until last night, was scheduled to be in session until 
Friday. And this rule, as proposed, only allows for a total of 3\1/2\ 
hours of total debate time for all three bills and all three 
amendments.
  Even though we are now scheduled to leave on Thursday, we still have 
more than enough time to complete the three bills with an open rule. I 
sincerely doubt that an open rule would garner more than a handful of 
amendments. It would allow the majority to say for the first time, and 
to prove, at least offer some evidence, that they are living up to 
their pledge to run an open Congress.
  I believe the real reason is that the majority is afraid of an open 
debate even on uncontroversial bills, and so they restrict debate 
consistently. It has become their standard operating procedure to close 
debate in the House. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how well my colleague on the

[[Page 312]]

Rules Committee adheres to the Republican talking points, but I will 
again reiterate that all the amendments that were brought to the Rules 
Committee last night were made in order. And I think this is a good 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Well, it is not a question of 
talking points, it is a question of fact. We will move on.
  I at this point yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to my distinguished 
friend from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida. I 
appreciate the opportunity.
  My simple resolution requires that all negotiations on the health 
care bill be conducted under the watchful eye of the American people. 
The American people are angry, and for good reason. Washington is not 
listening.

                              {time}  1145

  Last night I think is a perfect example: It's not about Democrat and 
Republican, it's about the American people wanting to have more input 
into the process.
  Even worse, Washington is not even letting the American people into 
the room to discuss or hear the health care reform debate. Secret 
deals, backroom deals on the health care bill should not be tolerated. 
In the State of Florida, we have the toughest sunshine laws in the 
country. You can't have two city commissioners, two county 
commissioners, two State senators--no one can go in the back room 
together and cut a deal or a secret deal and then lay that on the 
American people. We want to bring that sunshine to Washington. I am 
pleased that we have over 165 Members that have joined me in this cause 
and cosponsored this bill, this resolution, Democrats and Republicans.
  Also, I introduced, and we have 111 Members that have signed, a 
discharge petition to force a vote on the floor. We want to get a vote 
to the floor on this sunshine resolution, and we feel confident that 
we're going to be able to do that.
  C-SPAN has offered to publicly broadcast the health care meetings, 
and congressional leaders should accept that opportunity. Even the 
President said during the campaign eight different times that he wants 
this to be the most open, transparent administration in history. He 
said eight different times he wanted C-SPAN in the room. C-SPAN has 
agreed to be in the room during these negotiations. I don't want to, as 
a Member of Congress, end up with a 3,000-page bill at the end of the 
day that nobody has had a chance to read and you've got a day or so to 
look at it.
  I think there is a good reason why Speaker Pelosi doesn't want the 
negotiations in public, because basically it's a bad bill. In my area 
of Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida, we have the most seniors, almost 
300,000 in our district, more than any other district in the country. 
They want to cut Medicare $500 billion. I've seen the cuts. They're 
very real. They want to raise taxes on small business.
  I know the biggest issue we've got is the economy and jobs. Working 
families want to get back to work, but yet they want to charge 8 
percent on payroll. I've been in business for 30 years; I'm not a 
career politician. I can tell you that will kill more jobs than 
anything. That's a fixed expense, 8 percent on payroll.
  They want to charge another 5.4 percent tax on businesses. Most 
businesses have pass-through income, whether they're a Sub S or LLC or 
a partnership, or whatever kind of business. They want to raise the 
taxes from 34, let Bush's tax cut sunset, which will take it to 39, 
then another 5.4, which will take it 45 percent in Florida. In many 
States like California that have a State income tax, or Oregon or New 
York, of 10 or 15 percent, it could take it up as high as 60 percent. 
So these small businesses have a lot of pass-through income. They're 
not going to have the capital. They're going to be sending the money 
here. That's going to cut more jobs.
  It's time to bring some sunshine to Washington that we've got in 
Florida.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, aside from the fact that the gentleman's 
comments have absolutely nothing to do with the bill that we're talking 
about here today, I find it ironic that any Member on the other side of 
the aisle would talk about jobs with a straight face given their 
record.
  In the last 3 months of the Bush administration, the economy was 
losing, on average, 673,000 jobs per month. In the last 3 months of 
2009, the average job loss was 69,000 per month, an improvement of 
nearly 90 percent. That is not acceptable, but we are trying to bring 
this economy in a different direction.
  They drove this economy into a ditch; let's not forget that. Let's 
not forget the economy that President Obama inherited. Let's not forget 
the record job losses and the stock market crash and all the special 
deals on Wall Street.
  I've heard enough from the other side about the issue of jobs. They 
nearly ruined this economy. They are responsible for the massive job 
losses that we see now that we're trying to fix. So enough about that.
  I will go back to what we are talking about here today, and that is a 
rule to consider these important bills dealing with clean water for 
Native American tribes. I again would reiterate that this is a good 
rule, everything they wanted they got, and I hope it will pass 
unanimously.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, we saw last 
night that the blame game no longer works. And if we want to look at 
the past, we will see that when we cut taxes, we made it a reality; the 
recession after 9/11 was the shortest recession in history.
  Now, unfortunately, the policies that are being followed now are 
totally different. They're increasing debt massively. The deficit as a 
percentage of GDP after TARP--that I opposed, but it can be said that 
it was a bipartisan decision, TARP--after TARP, the deficit as a 
percentage of GDP was 4 percent. Today, 1 year after the Democrats took 
the Presidency and they had already taken the House and the Senate, the 
deficit as a percentage of GDP is almost 12 percent, Mr. Speaker.
  We are running in a dangerous direction, heading toward a collision 
with a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportion. But, Mr. Speaker, the 
Democrats just don't get it. They don't see it. The American people 
sent a message last night that they had better, but it still remains to 
be seen if they received the message.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my distinguished friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Today, the press is reporting that a backroom deal has been cut with 
Democratic leadership to create a deficit-cutting commission by 
Executive order. There are also reports that instead of putting every 
spending program and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending 
controlled by the Democratic-controlled Appropriations Committee would 
be exempt.
  I oppose creating this panel by Executive order, and the American 
people will oppose this sleight of hand also. Press reports suggest 
that the Democratic leadership intends to bring the commission's 
recommendation up for a vote in Congress, but a vote that is not 
mandated as it would be if Congress passed similar legislation 
statutorily. More important, the vote that could take place under the 
administration's plan would happen after the midterm elections and 
before the newly elected Congress begins. It would be basically a lame-
duck Congress vote. Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could 
vote on a set of recommendations with regard to entitlement spending 
and tax policy but never be accountable to the American people. Is it 
right for an outgoing Member of Congress to consider proposals that 
could affect every single American, knowing that days or weeks later 
they will no longer answer to voters in the district they once 
represented?
  Between the Democrats and the Republicans in both Chambers, over 30 
Members have already announced that they are retiring or running for 
another office. It is not appropriate for

[[Page 313]]

outgoing lawmakers who may eventually lobby for a special interest that 
has a vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission to 
then vote on that recommendation. Any recommendation put forward should 
be considered by the newly elected Congress, who will have to publicly 
stand by their vote on the commission's recommendations, Members who 
have been elected and are accountable to the American people. A deficit 
commission established through Executive order amounts to nothing more 
than political cover.
  This Congress has run up the country's credit card to a point of no 
return, and now the administration wants to be able to tout a 
bipartisan solution to spending that will conveniently help them 
survive the upcoming election cycle. All of a sudden, the Obama 
administration has found deficit-cutting religion. The same 
administration that pushed through a $787 billion economic stimulus 
promising that unemployment would be held under 8 percent now wants to 
get our Nation's financial house in order. The same administration that 
promised an open and transparent process on health care reform, which 
is now being negotiated behind closed doors and could cost taxpayers 
nearly $1 trillion, now wants credibility on spending issues.
  The FY 2009 budget deficit registered at an unprecedented $1.4 
trillion. I believe the American people understand the depth of our 
financial problems, recognize the spending gorge that Congress has 
embarked on, and won't be fooled by a fig leaf commission established 
by an Executive order.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the American people will be cut out of the 
process under this plan. The bipartisan commission process I've talked 
about, and many Members on both sides have talked about for 4 years, 
includes a legitimate public engagement mandating public town hall-
style meetings throughout the country. Now there will be no input from 
the hardworking people in our neighborhoods and communities. That is 
not right, and everyone knows it.
  If lawmakers were serious about the debt and the deficit issues that 
Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress would halt the 
budget gimmicks, the slick talking points, and muster the political 
will to have an honest conversation with the American people about 
where we are, where we're heading, and what changes need to be made to 
get back on track. But an open process that allows the American people 
to weigh in will never happen through a commission established by an 
Executive order all done here in Washington.
  This morning, Congressman Lamar Smith, our colleague from Texas, in a 
1-minute speech on the floor offered a series of lessons to be learned 
from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He said, All 
true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people will not 
have a voice in a deficit commission established through an Executive 
order.
  He also said that common sense triumphs partisanship. A commission 
through Executive order negotiated by one party is the height of 
partisanship. Republican leadership in the House and the Senate have 
not been involved in this effort.
  He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where is the 
voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the Beltway?
  In closing, Mr. Smith correctly, and I say correctly, noted that one-
party control leads to arrogance. We are seeing today an arrogance of 
power by a party that forecloses the minority from a seat at the table. 
And to be fair, Republicans were just as arrogant at times. Hopefully 
we have learned a lesson and will never go back to those times.
  Mr. Smith concluded that we should be listening to the American 
people, not defying them. The people of Massachusetts spoke yesterday. 
We would be wise in this Congress to heed that lesson.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as we wait for the 
Republican leader, let me say that I have enjoyed this debate. These 
are noncontroversial bills that are being brought to the floor, and yet 
they're important. And, also, there are issues that have been brought 
out and that will be brought out now. I will oppose the previous 
question to bring out the issue that Mr. Buchanan talked about and 
bring it to a floor vote this morning.
  Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard 
a number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court 
Justice Brandeis that sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant. I 
think that quote is fitting. It's fitting today considering, as Mr. 
Buchanan pointed out, that as we speak, the majority is drafting, 
behind closed doors with no sunshine in sight, health care legislation 
that will affect every American.
  So I think the question is begged, what is going on behind those 
closed doors? We don't know. We do not even know who is at the table. 
The American people deserve to know what is going on behind closed 
doors.

                              {time}  1200

  We need to bring sunlight, sunshine, into a process that is shrouded 
with secrecy. That is why I, along with a bipartisan group of 163 
Members of this House, have cosponsored House Resolution 847, a 
resolution by my friend and colleague, Representative Buchanan, that 
expresses the sense of the House that any meetings held to determine 
the final contents of sweeping health care legislation be held in 
public view and not behind closed doors. Mr. Buchanan pointed out the 
fact that C-SPAN has offered, in fulfillment of a campaign promise by 
the President, to be present at the negotiations.
  Now, in order to help bring in sunshine to a process that the 
majority continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a 
``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and 
allow the House to continue the Buchanan transparency resolution. This 
vote will give Members of the majority a chance to live up to their 
promise, as the distinguished Speaker said, ``to lead the most honest, 
most open and most ethical Congress in history.''
  Madam Speaker, I know that Members are concerned that this motion may 
jeopardize consideration of the water rights bills and of the 
settlement bills that are being brought to the floor today; but I wish 
to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate 
consideration of the Buchanan transparency resolution within 3 days so 
we can vote on the water rights bills and then, once we are done, so 
that we can consider the Buchanan transparency resolution, H. Res. 847.
  I have been informed that the Republican leader will not be coming 
down to the floor at this time.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me say a couple of 
things.
  One is that this is a good rule and it should be approved. Secondly, 
and I say this with respect to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, when they talk about sunshine, it's laughable. When you compare 
the transparency and the openness of this Democratic Congress to the 
way this place was run when they were in charge, there is no 
comparison.
  I remember one night, after a conference report was completed and 
when all of the signatures were on the conference report, when they 
snuck in a special provision to provide special immunity to drug 
companies. That's the kind of transparency and openness that existed 
when they were in control.
  On the health care bills, they've been on the Web. The House bill has 
been on the Web, and the Senate bill has been

[[Page 314]]

on the Web. Even the Senate read it verbatim. So there has never been 
as much openness and transparency in any Congress as we've seen in this 
Congress.
  When my friend from Florida talks about the deficit, boy, what a 
short memory. When Bill Clinton left office, he had eliminated the 
deficit, and we had started paying down the debt, and we left George 
Bush, Dick Cheney and my Republican friends with a surplus. Through 
their reckless policies--tax breaks for millionaires, special 
privileges for Wall Street and drug companies and all that they did--
they racked up a record debt, and they did nothing about it. In fact, 
when they were in charge, they used to argue on the floor that somehow 
the deficit and the debt didn't matter anymore. They tried to say it 
wasn't a big deal.
  So they left this President with a mess. I guess it's sometimes fun 
to make a mess, but it's not so fun and not so easy to clean up a mess. 
The Democrats in Congress and the President of the United States have 
to clean up the mess that they left. It's a little bit ironic that 
those who drove this economy into a ditch are complaining about the 
size of the tow truck.
  The fact of the matter is we have to make some tough decisions. We 
have to create the conditions for jobs to grow. We have to invest in 
industries where there is a future, and we are trying to do that.
  Again, in the last 3 months of the Bush administration, the economy 
was losing, on average, 673,000 jobs per month. In the last 3 months of 
2009, the average job loss was 69,000 per month, which is an 
improvement of nearly 90 percent. We on the Democratic side have 
pledged to do everything we can to help create more jobs in this 
country and to focus on the issue of jobs, because that's where the 
concern amongst the American people really is.
  In the stock market, stocks have seen significant gains since the 
beginning of March 2009, following the passage of the Recovery Act, 
which they all were opposed to. The Dow is up 58 percent. The S&P is up 
64 percent. The Nasdaq is up 75 percent.
  The GDP has grown. In the first quarter of 2009, the GDP was negative 
6.4 percent. By the third quarter of 2009, the GDP was on the rise, 
increasing plus-2.2 percent, the best quarter for growth in 2 years. 
Forecasters predict steady GDP growth throughout 2010.
  We see home sales are now rising. We see manufacturing beginning to 
rebound. U.S. manufacturing activity rose 55.9 from 53.6 in November, 
reaching the highest level since April of 2006. It is a positive 
indication of broader economic growth.
  So it is difficult to sit here and to listen to lectures from Members 
on the other side of the aisle who created this mess, which is the 
worst economy since the Great Depression. That's what they gave to 
President Obama. We have to fix it, and we have pledged to do whatever 
is necessary to help put people back to work, to help people be able to 
stay in their homes, and to help nurture growth in future industries.
  So, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. Given their abysmal record, it's hard to 
believe they come here with straight faces to talk about these things; 
but we're going to fix the mess that they made.
  Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I would 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

          Amendment to H. Res. 1017 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 4. 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. 847) expressing the 
     sense of the House of Representatives that any conference 
     committee or other meetings held to determine the content of 
     national health care legislation be conducted in public under 
     the watchful eye of the people of the United States. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 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 chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which 
     may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall 
     not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 847.
                                  ____

       (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 from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. 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.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.

                          ____________________