[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1013-H1015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 400, THE ANAKTUVUK PASS LAND 
           EXCHANGE AND WILDERNESS REDESIGNATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 52 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 52

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 400) to provide for the exchange of lands 
     within Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each 
     section shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 52 is a very simple 
resolution. It is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate. 
After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule. The rule provides one motion to recommit.
  The open rule demonstrates that the new majority intends to honor its 
commitment to have a more fair and open legislative process, providing 
the House with an opportunity to review the bills, debate them, and 
yes, if necessary, to amend them.
  The legislation is noncontroversial. It was reported out of the 
Committee on Resources by a vote of 40 to 0 and is identical to H.R. 
4746, which passed in the House during the 103d Congress by voice vote. 
It settles a longstanding dispute between the local residents of 
Anaktuvuk Pass and the Park Service over the use of all terrain 
vehicles [ATV] for access to subsistence resources. the Park Service 
contended that the ATV's injured the landscape. Both sides of this 
issue have reached an agreement on the lands which may be 
[[Page H1014]] used for ATV access, and H.R. 400 will merely ratify the 
agreement the parties have reached. Without congressional approval, the 
agreement will become null and void.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and the 
underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle for bringing this bill to the floor under an open rule. I 
am a fan of open rules because I think the American people deserve full 
and fair debate on issues of importance, and issues on which there are 
areas of disagreement. I plan to support this rule on the floor.
  However, I feel compelled to point out that at yesterday's Rules 
Committee hearing there appeared to be no opposition to this bill. A 
bill identical to this one was included in last year's omnibus public 
lands bill--H.R. 4746--which passed the House by voice vote on October 
3, 1994. The current bill under consideration--H.R. 400--was favorably 
ordered reported from the Committee on Resources by a unanimous 
rollcall of 40 to 0 on January 18, 1995. There were also no witnesses 
in opposition to this bill before the Rules Committee. It would seem to 
me, therefore, that this bill could have been moved through the process 
in an expeditious way by simply suspending the rules or perhaps by 
asking unanimous consent.
  Mr. Speaker, even though this bill is a noncontroversial one, it is 
nevertheless an important one for Alaska Native landowners and the 
people of Alaska. The bill provides for the exchange of lands within 
the Gates of the Arctic Park and Preserve. It also settles a 
longstanding and difficult dispute between the National Park Service 
and Alaska Native landowners over the use of all-terrain vehicles 
[ATV's] by the local residents of Anaktuvuk Pass.
  As I indicated, we do have an open rule on this bill which I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, what concerned me a little bit is listening 
to the debate on the previous rule, and I have not heard the debate on 
this mixup when I just walked in, but I was a little bit concerned, and 
some of us who may have that concern, it may not amount to anything for 
the future. But I just want to say that my concern is that these bills, 
which are noncontroversial, and like, as has been said, have been 
utilized on the Suspension Calendar, or even by unanimous consent, 
because there is no controversy; but to use a rule procedure in an open 
rule procedure leaves some of us to concern ourselves about the future, 
that since there was a statement made by the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules early on in this session that when we got rid of this 2-year 
cycle, when we looked back over the 2 years, that we would find that 70 
percent of the bills were under an open rule.
  Now what concerned me is that we are going to see little-bitty bills 
that are not of any controversial nature at all under open rules, and 
we can have a whole bunch of those, and then we see a very 
controversial bill come along that does not have an open rule, and then 
when we look at the average out and a percentage, the percentage is 
what the chairman said.
  Now I am not saying that that is going to happen. I am just saying 
that is a concern of mine as the utilization of the rule process rather 
than using unanimous consent or rather than using suspensions, and only 
time will tell.
  I do not plan to do anything today. I just want to alert the other 
side to my concern, and I see the chairman of the Committee on Rules is 
on his feet, and I would be glad to listen to him talk here, listen 
because that is the only concern I have. I am not here to offer any 
amendments or do anything like that, just to express the concern that I 
and, I think, several of our minority Members have as to what is going 
to happen in the future if we go along in this 2-year cycle.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
McInnis] for yielding this time to me, and I could just say to my good 
friend from Missouri, as my colleagues know, he says, ``Now I'm not 
saying this,'' and, ``I'm not saying that,'' but it is the inference 
out there, and the gentleman knows that really does bother me.
  But as my colleagues know, there are three reasons why these bills 
were scheduled, and I would just like to take a minute to tell the 
gentleman.
  First our leadership, the Republican leadership, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our Speaker, has committed to fewer suspensions 
since the process does prohibit amendments, and we all know that, and 
we have to keep in mind that there are, as my colleague knows, half of 
us here today that are new Members in the last 2 years, half of us, and 
those Members, if they want to offer amendments, we want to try to open 
up this process. We want to be as open and as fair and accountable as 
we possibly can.

                              {time}  1640

  We want to be open. We want to offer open rules whenever we can.
  Second, to ensure that the suspension process is not abused, the 
leadership has erected more procedural requirements before a chairman 
can even request that a bill be considered under suspension, and that 
is very important.
  Third, there are some measures which may be even non-controversial 
enough to consider by unanimous consent, not even on the suspension 
calendar. We have one of those. One of them was naming a building after 
one of the most respective Members of this body, Bob Lagomarsino. That 
ought to be brought up under unanimous consent, just to show we all 
agree. So we did not put out a rule on that. So we are being selective.
  Last, we just went through a process on the unfunded mandate bill. 
There were 171 amendments offered in that bill. There were some 
stalling tactics involved, some dilatory tactics, which the gentleman 
knows, striking the enactment clause, moving to rise, things like that. 
But the House came back to its senses, there was good comity, and, 
because of that, we now will have a rule of the floor tomorrow morning 
on one of the most important issues coming before this body, the line-
item veto, and it is being brought here under a completely open rule. 
So, Members, whether you are Republican or Democrat, conservative or 
liberal, you are going to be able to work your will on the floor of 
this House, which is very important to some Members, especially the 
more liberal Members perhaps, because they have concerns about it.
  So let us not try to shoot down the sincerity on our part in offering 
these open amendments. We are going to do that as often as we possibly 
can. I just had to say that, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a point. I appreciate the concern of 
the gentleman from Missouri. I must add since 1989, 10 natural 
resources bills have been killed on suspension. This is my first 
opportunity to get up here and present a rule like this, and I 
appreciate the fact that the chairman of the Committee on Rules has 
allocated an open rule. One, it offers protection and certainly the 
elements of being offered that the chairman of the committee has talked 
about. But it is also an opportunity for those of us who like these 
open rules to get an opportunity to participate in this process, to 
participate.
  So while I appreciate the gentleman's concern, I wanted to make those 
points.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I do not mind that, if that is the way it 
is going to go, not only on these types of bills, but also the 
controversial bills. It is not this bill and not the next bill. If you 
want to do open rules, I could care less, because I know there is not 
going to be any amendment. I am more concerned about with regard to an 
open rule, the gentleman says line-item veto, we are going to have all 
kinds of crime bills, I would like to see open 
[[Page H1015]] rules on those. I can add some amendments to those. I 
would like to see open rules on those. I can add some amendments to 
those. I would like to see those open rules. To me an open rule on 
those bills is a lot more important than an open rule on these bills. 
The bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], nobody wants to 
touch that. It has been worked on, he has done a good job, and I think 
it should be passed. And I do not care if you put it under unanimous 
consent, or suspension, or an open rule, he is going to get his bill 
passed today. So I am not concerned about those. I am only concerned 
about the future.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate those comments, but I should say 
in closing that I have complete confidence in the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and his decision on how the rules should be open.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________