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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for 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 purposes of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1051.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1051 provides for consideration of H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Science and Technology Committee. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science and Technology Committee now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule further makes in order only those amendments printed in the report. The amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. All points of order against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are waived.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee or a designee. Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the threat of cyberwarfare cannot be overstated. Cyberattacks target everything from classified government information to business and trade secrets to individual financial records. The motivation for these attacks can range from immature harassment to illicit financial gain. The scope can be similarly broad, from an individual computer or Web site to an entire network.

Investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our generation. The only difference is that when we were doing the Manhattan Project, we were the only power with the technology. This time around, we are facing far more enemies that have the same level of technology that we do. In fact, nearly every high school hacker has the potential to threaten our unfettered use of the Internet. Just imagine what a rogue state committed to disrupting our cyberinfrastructure could do.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is responsible for setting cybersecurity standards for nonclassified Federal networks. The bill tasks NIST with developing cybersecurity awareness programs to educate individuals, small businesses, State and local governments, and educational institutions on how to implement cyber best practices. It is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of all cyberbreaches could have been avoided with this type of cybersecurity training.

The legislation also directs NIST to conduct research related to improving the security of information and network systems that support so many aspects of our day-to-day life, which many of us take for granted.

The most troubling cyberthreat may be the very real prospect of state-sponsored cyberattacks against sensitive national security information. Cyberexperts believe China is effectively targeting our government networks and that these attacks have resulted in at least one breach of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program.

It is estimated that the Federal Government alone needs to recruit between 500 and 1,000 more cybersecurity professionals each year in order to address these threats. The Upstate New York district that I represent is on the frontline of defending our Nation in the cyberwar in which we are engaged. Utica College offers a bachelor of science degree in cybersecurities. Graduates of this program are employed across the country, working to secure the networks of government and private business alike. However, this program currently only graduates about 50 students per year into the cybersecurity field.

Clearly, simply maintaining the status quo will not be enough. Media reports of new attacks by cybercriminals are becoming more frequent and alarming. Just last week, following the State of the Union address, hackers, suspected to be from Brazil, defaced 49 House Member Web sites. Each day, 400,000 new ``zombies'' are activated. These are computers that are taken over by hackers and can be remotely controlled without the owner knowing it, and 1.5 million new malicious Web sites are identified each month. There are more than 1 billion new endpoints added to the Internet; 50 percent of those will be in China and 35 percent will be in India.

We are locked in a technological arms race with our cybercompetitors. In order to win that race, we must train individuals to look at warfare from an entirely new perspective. This effort goes to the heart of our national security because it requires us to create opportunities in our colleges and universities to train this new type of warfighter to defend our Nation from cyberthreats, a warfighter every bit as important to our security as a traditional armed soldier in the field. The training for this new generation of warfighters that defend us, not from land, sea, or air attacks, but from cyberattacks, is every bit as important as boot camp is for our soldiers. In fact, that is what this bill does, creates a boot camp for our future cyberwarfighters.

H.R. 4061 sets that course by authorizing funding for a Scholarship for Service program through the National Science Foundation that will provide scholarships for students pursuing cybersecurity fields. The scholarships would be provided for up to 1 to 2 years for students pursuing a bachelor's or master's degree and up to 3 years for students pursuing a doctoral degree in the cybersecurity field, provided that the recipient serves as a cybersecurity professional in government agencies for an equal amount of time. This investment in cybereducation is necessary to meet our enemies on the cyberfrontlines and repel their attacks.

Through increased workforce development and continued strengthening of our public-private partnerships, we can and will ensure that the IT systems, on which so much of our way of life depends, are safe from cyberattack. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act contains the strategic plan necessary to focus our resources to meet these challenges.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to say that my colleague talks about bipartisanship. And I want to say I can't understand how she can talk about a bipartisan bill, a bill that came out of the Science and Technology Committee with support from both sides of the aisle, and turn it into a partisan political fight. She is right, that is what Americans are tired of. And yet, during her statement she mentioned Democrats at least six times. I lost count after the sixth.

This is not a partisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill that is necessary for the security of our country. That is what people sent us to Washington for. They send us to Washington to make sure that we take steps to ensure that their way of life continues and that they are safe and secure.

This bill strategically places money into education so that we can educate the next generation of cyberwarfighters to protect the Internet and to protect people to be able to use the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is exactly what the American people are so tired of. My colleague talks about what the race in Massachusetts meant. It meant that people are tired with the partisan bickering. She

just squandered all of the time that we could be here talking about cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill with talking about politics. Of course she fails to point out the fact that much of the debt was incurred under President Bush, fails to point out the fact that now two wars are on the books.

But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about cybersecurity. And I want to read a quote for you. Just yesterday Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. And he said, ``Malicious cyber activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary sophistication.'' He went on to say, ``Sensitive information is stolen daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining confidence in our information systems, and in the very information these systems were intended to convey.'' These statements make clear that we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.

In order to meet our enemies on the cyber front lines and repel their attacks, we must create a boot camp for our future cyber warfighters. The investments contained in H.R. 4061 will increase our cyber workforce development and continue to strengthen the public-private partnerships to defend the IT systems on which so much of our daily life relies. That is what the American people have sent us here to Washington to ensure. Cybersecurity enhancement contains the strategic plan necessary to focus our resources to meet the challenges which Director Blair spoke of yesterday.

H.R. 4061 will also strengthen partnerships between the Federal Government and the private sector to guarantee a secure and reliable infrastructure. The benefit of existing public-private partnerships is also on display in Upstate New York, in my very district. The Air Force Research Laboratory Rome Research Site, the Rome Lab as we call it, hosts the main offices of the Air Force Research Lab's Information Directorate.

Located at the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, Rome Lab's scientists and engineers use the latest electronic and computer technology to demonstrate new ways to defend our information networks against attacks. In concert with Rome Lab, the Mohawk Valley is home to a number of companies that are engaged in cutting-edge cyber research, companies that will use the graduates who come out of college with degrees in cybersecurity. Large companies such as PAR Technology, BAE Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, and smaller, home grown companies, such as Dolphin Technology, Black River Systems, Assured Information Security, New York State Technology Enterprises Corporation, Syracuse Research Corporation, and Research Associates of Syracuse.

Together, the AFRL and these companies account for thousands of jobs in central New York; men and women doing critical research on our Nation to help fend off cyberattacks. There is no doubt that these companies and the critical public-private partnerships that they have formed with the Air Force Research Laboratory will benefit from this program. But, more importantly, it's the American people that will benefit from this program.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act requires the White House Office of Science and Technology policy to convene an industrywide nongovernmental task force of businesses and universities to explore potential public-private collaborations on cybersecurity research and development. This will ensure that these collaborations continue to strengthen our Nation's cyberdefenses. That is what we are here to debate. That is what the American people sent us to Congress for. And that is what we need to pass today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the first rule that they teach you in trial advocacy class, and that is when you're trying a case and you don't have the facts on your side, talk about everything but the facts. And I feel that's what my colleague from North Carolina is doing today. Rather than say that we can work together in a bipartisan way on a bill that is good for all Americans, she would rather talk about everything else that there is. Well, we're not here to talk about everything else today. We are here to talk about cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill for the American people.

As I said earlier, investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our generation. Cyberthreats and attacks are real, and they threaten our financial and defense networks every day. Nearly every aspect of everyday life in our global society is dependent on the security of our cyber networks. We rely on these systems to carry virtually all our business transactions, control our electric grid, emergency communication systems, and traffic lights.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act reauthorizes and expands the programs aimed at strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity, including a new scholarship program to train the thousands of cybersecurity professionals that are needed to defend our Nation. In requiring a cybersecurity workforce assessment, this bill will also give us a clearer picture of our current cybercapabilities and identify what new skills and educational advances are needed in both the Federal Government and the private sector to combat future attacks.

H.R. 4061 requires NIST to undertake research and development programs to improve identity management systems, which include health information technology systems, in order to improve interoperability, authentication methods, privacy protection, and usability of these systems. These systems hold great potential for streamlining the delivery of services and care to individuals, but they must be secure in order to function properly and efficiently. This legislation will ensure that they are.

From the perspective of my district in upstate New York, it plays a critical

role in our Nation's cybersecurity, and this research and development work is often discussed publicly. Yet, the work done by contractors, subcontractors, and universities, in conjunction with Federal agencies, employs thousands across New York in cutting-edge R&D. But, more importantly, they are essential to defending America from cyberterrorist attacks and espionage. It is essential these public- private partnerships continue to flourish and they have the necessary manpower in place to protect our Nation from these threats.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will make that happen not just for New York, but across the Nation. This is not a program for which we can afford to ask, How can we do this, but a program for which we must ask, How can we afford not to do this?

H.R. 4061 is supported by numerous organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Software Alliance, Software and Information Industry Association, National Cable and Telecommunications Association, U.S. Telecom, TechAmerica, and Computing Research Association. This legislation enjoyed bipartisan support in committee, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule that restricts my colleagues from offering amendments to the bill. We certainly are concerned about cybersecurity, but nothing is going to matter if we don't get our fiscal house in order.

The Democrats are basically wasting the American people's time by bringing this bill, which they know has widespread support, to the floor today, as it could, instead, have been on the suspension calendar for this week, leaving us more time to debate legislation that

would address the major problems facing the American people and my constituents in North Carolina, such as the status of our economy and what are we going to do about dealing with the national security issues that are facing us in this country. Instead of using the suspension calendar productively, Democrats have consistently used the majority of our time debating legislation that is not relevant to the challenges that American families are facing on a daily basis.

Democrats have spent the majority of our time debating suspensions such as H. Res. 784, which honors the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius. In doing so, the Democrats have set a higher priority on the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius over solving the problems of the American people. I have nothing against Confucius, Mr. Speaker, but this resolution is not helping American families get back to work or put food on their kitchen tables.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, so far this year the Democrats have spent the majority of our time debating resolutions such as H. Res. 1020, which honors the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain National Park Act, and H. Res. 981, supporting development in Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, again, I have nothing in particular against these resolutions, but I would be remiss if I did not address the fact that Democrats are making these resolutions higher priorities of these topics than bringing forth commonsense solutions that will help Americans who are suffering across the Nation.

While the bill before us today authorizes several important programs, it also authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for activities to improve cybersecurity.'' When American families are facing tough economic challenges, Congress should be tightening its own belt and setting funding limits rather than authorizing blank checks on the backs of the American taxpayers. We can do better than this, and we owe it to the American people to do better than this.

This bill also provides for annual increases in authorization levels. At a time of record budget deficits, it is crucial that we hold the line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal restraint, but we have yet to see those words put into action. In fact, talk of fiscal restraint is nothing but talk.

This bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed back by keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing them each year. But the Democrats refuse to allow such restraint and instead continue to govern as though they are not aware of the fact that our Federal deficit is growing each day. Perhaps they are not aware. So many have been in Washington for so long that they are out of touch with average citizens and the common sense that our citizens represent.

My colleague, Mr. Sessions, offered an amendment that would maintain fiscal year 2011 authorization levels in the bill for 3 years instead of increasing them annually, but the Democrats on the Rules Committee rejected the amendment and did not allow for debate on it on the floor today.

This bill is also being brought forth today under a structured rule, adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority. Even though an open rule was requested for this bill, Democrats have chosen to stifle and control the debate today, and so we have another structured rule before us, eliminating both Republicans' and Democrats' ability to offer important amendments affecting their constituents. With this structured rule, the Democrats in charge have blocked at least 13 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee last night. If we had an open rule today, I am certain we would be debating many more.

After promising to have the most open and honest Congress in history, why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the Democrats, who are in charge and have a large majority, shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues from both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their members from tough votes?

Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow their representatives to offer amendments on the floor of the people's House. The American people want to hear debate and are tired of the backroom dealmaking of the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I certainly agree with my colleague from New York that the bill itself is not a partisan bill. I am not talking about the bill. I am talking about the rule. This is a very partisan rule. It didn't need to be a partisan rule. All the majority had to do was allow for amendments on the floor and it wouldn't have been a partisan rule. So I need to remind him that that is where the partisanship comes in. We are here debating the rule.

Mr. Speaker, while debt limit increases have been passed under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses, the acceleration in the accumulation of the debt that brought us to this point merits examination. In January of 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, the statutory debt limit stood at $8.965 trillion. In less than 3 years, the debt limit has increased by more than 33 percent, representing an additional $1 trillion of debt per year. By comparison, the statutory debt limit, which stood at $40 billion in 1940, did not cross the $1 trillion mark until 1981.

And it has been only 7 weeks since the Democrats voted to increase the debt limit by $290 billion on December 16, 2009. In that time, House Democrats have passed seven resolutions congratulating sports figures or teams; passed 23 resolutions honoring individuals, entities, or causes; passed five bills naming post offices; authorized $50 million to construct a new national park in the Virgin Islands, but passed zero bills to reduce spending or lower the deficit. Clearly, they are not serious about this serious issue facing this country.

Since taking office just 1 year ago, the President has increased the public debt by $1.47 trillion, or 23 percent, from $6.3 trillion to $7.78 trillion. Under the administration's budget, the public debt will triple, jumping to $17.5 trillion by 2019. Before President Obama's budget and stimulus were enacted, the CBO estimated that the public debt in 2019 would be $9.34 trillion, or $8 trillion less than it is now projected to be under President Obama.

While the President touts his commitment to fiscal responsibility, he is encouraging Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion increase in the national debt limit, allowing the government to keep borrowing in order to keep on spending. The Senate has done it last week, and it is probably going to be brought to us tomorrow, where the Democrats will pass this. And I mention the Democrats being in charge and the Democrats doing this because it is important for the American people to know that the Democrats are doing this alone.

While the decline in Federal revenue as a result of the economic slowdown has contributed to the increase in the debt, the significant increases in Federal spending have also contributed to reaching the debt limit faster than anticipated. Record government spending in the form of both the first stimulus bill and increases in appropriations bills has been a recurring theme of the majority, and it is their responsibility alone because they have done it alone.

The record amounts of debt are a direct responsibility of a spending binge in the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. In 1 year of controlling Washington, Democrats increased the annual deficit by 308 percent, from $458 billion to $1.4 trillion.

A quick review of Democrats' spending increases in 2009 shows why the deficit exploded. In that year alone, House Democrats passed $787 billion in, quote, ``stimulus'' spending, in addition to paying $347 billion in interest on borrowing money we don't have, two omnibus spending bills totaling more than $855 billion, and increased non- defense spending by 12 percent. Again, totally alone.

Faced with declining revenues, Democrats have pushed forward with the most irresponsible option by increasing spending and deficits rather than by lowering Federal expenditures. According to the House Appropriations Committee Republican staff, when all appropriations spending increases are combined, the Democrat majority has pumped over half a trillion dollars in additional spending into non-defense discretionary programs in three short years. This is over $512 billion, or 127 percent more money for non-defense discretionary programs than they received in the last year of GOP control of the Congress.

In fact, the fiscal year deficit for just 2009 of $1.417 trillion is the largest ever, and three times the size of the previous record- setting deficit, last year's figure of $458 billion. It is no wonder that we hear Democrats such as the House majority whip, who recently proclaimed, ``We have got to spend our way out of this recession.'' Statements like this make clear that the Democrats in charge have absolutely no concept of the value of money or how to meet a budget. It really is stunning that despite the economic turmoil caused by government spending too much, the ruling Democrats can't comprehend the consequences of spending money we don't have.

Although some rigid partisans may choose to ignore the election of Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown and try blaming the current spending largesse on George Bush, it is true that since President Obama's inauguration, the U.S. has had an average monthly deficit of $122.6 billion. By comparison, from the year 2000 until 2008, the average annual deficit was $196 billion, and we were fighting a war. So the Democrats' solution for a terrible problem is to make it much worse and just blame it on the other guy.

To that sentiment, Charles Krauthammer responds, ``Let's just get this straight: The antipathy to George Bush is so enduring and powerful that it just elected a Republican Senator in Massachusetts. Why, the man is omnipotent. And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda.''

Unfortunately, the trend of increased Federal deficits will not come to an end under the President's new fiscal year 2011 budget. According to the President's own estimates, his budget and spending plan will cause deficits to average $905 billion for each of the next 10 years. Budget shortfalls incurred by the government fuel the rise in the Nation's debt because the government is forced to borrow money to meet the shortfall. In 2009, the budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, the first time in history the deficit exceeded $1 trillion, and the first time the deficit exceeded 10 percent of gross domestic product since World War II.

The consequences of this kind of reckless spending are worth highlighting. Today the cost of the national debt is $39,870 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. According to the December 2009 Monthly Treasury Report, the Federal Government is projected to spend $465.444 billion paying interest alone on the national debt in this fiscal year 2010. That amounts to $1.275 billion per day, or $1,530.75 for every one of the 304 million people living in the United States today. Just like paying interest on a credit card, these amounts are recurring and do nothing to actually reduce the debt principal.

Ironically, in March of 2006, then-Senator Obama warned his colleagues of the danger of raising the debt limit without addressing the underlying cause, explaining that, quote, ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better.'' President Obama was against raising the debt limit before he was for it. We agree with then-Senator Obama, but we disagree with President Obama.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

It's time for our colleagues to accept accountability. They've been in the majority for 3 years but they continue to blame George Bush in the same breath that they accuse me of being partisan. 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, saying, ``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' That quote is quite fitting today, considering that as we speak the majority has been drafting, behind closed doors, no sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every American. What is going on behind these closed doors? We really do not know. We don't even know who is at the table. The American people deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors. We need to bring in the sunlight to a process that is shrouded with secrecy.

That's why I, along with a bipartisan group of 171 other Members, have cosponsored H. Res. 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that any meetings held to determine the final content of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not behind closed doors.

In order to help bring 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 that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will give Members of the majority the chance to live up to their promise, as Speaker Pelosi said, ``to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize consideration of the bill under consideration today, but I want to make clear: The motion I'm making provides for separate consideration of the transparency resolution within 3 days so we can vote on the bill before us today, and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 847.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1017 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I appreciate how well my colleague on the 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. 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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 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.