[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.
____________________