[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 123 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8900-H8905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 986, EIGHTMILE WILD AND SCENIC
RIVER ACT
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows
H. Res. 580
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
986) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of
Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, 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, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 986 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
allowed 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 580.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 580 will allow the House to
consider H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act.
Additionally, this rule makes a technical correction in the
underlying bill by replacing a letter ``a'' with a letter ``b'' in the
legislative text.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, H.R. 986, was
considered under suspension of the rules on
[[Page H8901]]
July 11, and received 239 votes, a majority of the House Members voting
in favor of the bill. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, two-thirds majority
is required for the expedited suspension procedure; and because the
Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act was supported by well over half the
Members of the House, H.R. 986 deserves another opportunity for a floor
vote. Therefore, today I urge a favorable vote again for H.R. 986.
Mr. Speaker, with over 150 miles of pristine rivers and streams and
62 square miles of relatively undeveloped countryside in the
Connecticut area, the Eightmile Wild River watershed is an exceptional
natural and cultural resource. This is being championed by House Member
Joe Courtney, a new freshman colleague of mine from Connecticut.
The watershed contains large areas of unfragmented habitat, an array
of rare and diverse wildlife, scenic vistas, high water quality,
unimpeded stream flow, and significant cultural features. The Eightmile
watershed has historic stone walls, churches and homes, and scenic
views throughout, and an abundance of rare and diverse species within
the watershed, including 155 at-risk plant and animal species.
{time} 1730
The overall Eightmile River watershed ecosystem is healthy and intact
throughout virtually all of its range. The Eightmile River is an
exceptional treasure because it is a rare example of an intact river
system. This is especially noteworthy in such a highly populated area
so close to the coast and within the New York-to-Boston corridor. We
must do all that we can to preserve this exceptional natural and
cultural resource. The National Park Service agreed in 2006 in its
study of the area.
And again, I'd really like to salute my freshman colleague, new
Congressman Joe Courtney. He has championed this effort to designate
segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Communities in the area have been working for over 10 years for this
designation, so I congratulate them today and salute the leadership of
Congressman Joe Courtney, who brought new energy and commitment to this
effort.
I also thank Natural Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall for his
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill. It was reported
favorably by the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote in May. It
received the strong bipartisan support of the House with a majority
vote on July 11. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule
and support the act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
completely closed rule and to the underlying big government legislation
to use eminent domain to strip property owners of their rights that the
Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.
This is the first of two closed rules being brought to the floor
today courtesy of the Democrat majority from the graveyard of democracy
and good ideas in the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee. It
represents yet another example of the procedural gimmickry being
blatantly exploited by the Democrats as they continue to completely
ignore their campaign to run the most honest, open Congress in history.
Mr. Speaker, as any 5-year-old could tell you, the opposite of open
is closed, and that's precisely what the American people are getting
from the Democrats once again, another closed rule.
In fact, as compared with last Congress, through the same date, as of
July 30, the Democrats have brought exactly twice as many closed rules
to the floor as Republicans did when we held the Speaker's gavel.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a document prepared by the
Republican staff of the Rules Committee comparing the Democrats' awful
record of reporting out closed rules in the 110th with last year's
record of those controlled by the Republican Congress.
COMPARISON OF 110TH TO 109TH TYPES OF AMENDMENT PROCESSES FOR BILLS CONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE THROUGH JULY 30,
2005 (EXCLUDING MEASURES CONSIDERED BY SUSPENSION OR UC) CURRENT AS OF JULY 30, 2007
Percent Percent
109th--Through July 30, 2005: \1\ 110th--To Date:
Open................................... 12 23.1 Open........................... \2\ 1 14.1
0
Modified Open.......................... 0 0 Modified Open.................. 7 9.9
Structured............................. 26 50 Structured..................... 26 36.6
Closed................................. 14 26.9 Closed......................... 28 39.4
----------------- ----------------
Total.............................. 52 100 Total......................... 71 100
109th--Through July 30, 2005: \1\ 110th--To Date:
Open................................... \2\12 27.3 Open \2\ 1 14.1
0
Restrictive............................ 40 72.7 Restrictive.................... 61 85.9
----------------- ----------------
Total.............................. 52 100 Total......................... 71 100
\1\ Through H. Res. 399 adopted on July 29, 2005.
\2\ Including approps.
Prepared by the Committee on Rules Republican Staff.
The closed rule that we are debating is also a function of an overall
sloppy and rushed approach to handling this particular bill. Because
the Democrats' leadership failed to pass this poorly drafted
legislation on July 11 under suspension of the rules, after rushing it
through the legislative process, they're bringing it back to the floor
today with no improvements, just a closed process that chokes off
thoughtful debate and provides a reduced hurdle for the number of votes
they need to cram it through the House over substantial objections of a
number of Members.
This legislation would designate a 25-mile stretch of the Eightmile
Wild River as part of the National Park System's National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. To accomplish this, what would otherwise be a
noble goal, this legislation includes language that leaves the door
open for the Federal Government to use eminent domain to seize private
property in this new designation.
This is especially offensive because the stretch of the river where
this dispute is taking place is the same congressional district where
the Kelo v. New Haven case originally originated, another controversial
piece of litigation that recently and correctly sparked a great deal of
outrage from property rights advocates all across the country.
I remind my colleagues that many times the Federal Government uses
just the threat of condemnation to frighten property owners and to
bully them until they become so-called willing sellers. As Members of
Congress, it is our duty to protect our constituents from this wanton
abuse of power, and we could have done so by making our intent clear in
this legislation.
However, rather than making congressional intent clear, the Democrat
majority has refused to allow a simple, clarifying amendment that was
offered in the Rules Committee last Friday by my good friend and former
Rules Committee colleague, Rob Bishop, to be debated here on the floor
today.
Mr. Bishop's amendment was plain and clear. It simply inserted a
sentence in the legislation that Congress would not empower the Federal
Government to condemn land and pressure owners into selling.
Shockingly, these efforts
[[Page H8902]]
were rebuffed by Democrats throughout the process, both on the Natural
Resources Committee and on the Rules Committee.
It is still unclear, at least to me, why the majority wants to expose
property owners to the threat of eminent domain. The only reasonable
conclusion is that they believe that the Federal Government should, and
must, confiscate private property.
I believe this is the wrong message to send to property owners, and
I'm at a complete loss as to why the Democrat leadership is so fearful
of allowing the House to debate openly and to take a vote on a simple
clarifying amendment to protect the taxpayers and residents of
Connecticut who would be adversely impacted by this legislation.
Presumably, it is to protect some of the more vulnerable Members having
to take a public stand on whether they believe that property owners
deserve this protection or not. This triumph of politics over policy is
not only bad for residents of Connecticut along the Eightmile River, I
think it's also bad for America.
I strongly oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation to
increase the Government's ability to strip property owners of their
land without even providing with the appropriate compensation through
heavy-handed big government tactics.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
standing up for property rights and by opposing this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) if he has any remaining speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentlewoman's inquiring about our
intent. We have at least two speakers who would wish to speak on this
issue at this time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
completely closed rule for the consideration of the Eightmile Wild and
Scenic River Act.
This bill is a controversial one because of the chilling effect it
will have on the private property rights of citizens located in the
same area affected by the infamous Kelo decision. In Kelo v. City of
New London, the Supreme Court gave State and local governments broad
authority to seize private property and give it to another private
entity under the guise of economic development.
When citizens believe that their land can be snatched up by the
government for nearly any reason, then the principle of private
property rights becomes meaningless.
The bill before us today will severely restrict the property rights
of individuals who happen to live near the Eightmile River by
tightening zoning restrictions on private land and prohibiting any
physical alteration to private property.
Furthermore, and perhaps most troubling, the bill leaves the door
wide open to actual condemnation proceedings against private land.
The majority already tried once to ram this controversial bill
through the House without an opportunity for amendments. That attempt,
fortunately, failed to garner the two-thirds vote necessary to pass on
the suspension calendar. Now the majority is back at it again.
It's bad enough that the majority is bringing this bill back to the
floor with no improvements to protect private property rights. However,
it is worse that the majority has made the decision to suppress debate
on this controversial bill and deny Members the opportunity to correct
the land-grabbing provisions with constructive amendments.
Private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our
prosperity and is a basic principle embedded in our Constitution. No
one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their
home, farm, church or business.
I introduced legislation earlier this year, the STOPP Act, along with
Representative Herseth Sandlin to rein in State and local governments'
abuses of their eminent domain powers.
Unfortunately, H.R. 986 goes in the opposite direction and sets a
precedent for more land-grabbing by government entities. I urge the
Members of this body to oppose both this rule, which bans debate on
protecting private property rights, as well as the misguided underlying
bill.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is being brought forward
today, I believe, is yet another example of the Democrat majority's
attack on what I would refer to as constitutional balanced authority in
this country. By virtue of bringing this bill forward, it means that
what we will be doing is not allowing what I think is a fair process
for people dealing with their own private land.
And I'm sure that you'll have lots of people who are my friends who
are Democrats say, well, this is so important that we've got to have
this land for the interest of all of the people, so we can have this
pristine land. But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about private property.
And private property rights are those things under which this country,
one of the things that this country is founded under that makes us
entirely different than other countries. Other countries, many of them,
all around the world, do not extend to their citizens the right for
private property.
And so today, once again, what we're seeing is an assault, an attack,
using Congress to come and use the powers of the Federal Government
against private landowners. I'm sure if their story were being
presented today, these private landowners may tell the story about how,
for many, many years, I don't know the stories, but how many, many
years, being from Texas we could tell the same story, in Connecticut it
might be even longer, how people have passed these pieces of property
down through generations.
But the fact of the matter is that any time that private property is
being taken as a result of a force or a threat, in this case, to make a
scenic wilderness area pristine and to preserve that as opposed to a
single property owner keeping what they had, making those choices
within the law and looking up and seeing the Federal Government staring
down at them with all the resources of the Federal Government, knowing
that the United States Congress brought this action on them, is
regrettable.
It's regrettable that it had to happen this way. It's regrettable
that we could not at least, through the Rules Committee, make a simple
amendment in order that would say, why don't we clarify that we're not
going to force this issue, that we'll hope that some compromise
happens, but that we're not going to allow this condemnation.
Not at all. Can't have that kind of debate here.
And this Congress had claimed that we were going to be open and
honest, and it would be the most open and honest Congress in the
history of the United States Congress.
So that's what's regrettable. That's what's regrettable that here we
find ourselves on a Monday at the end of July trying to help the big
Federal Government to grab the land from private landowners. And I
think that's wrong. I think it's wrong. I think it's wrong for this
House to do that without being on record of saying we're not going to
sick the Federal Government on these people who might be private
landowners.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote for the previous
question for this rule. And if the previous question fails, I will ask
the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration
of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.
{time} 1745
Our country is facing a very serious problem, and I said this on the
floor of the House twice last week, that must be addressed before the
House adjourns in August. That means last week we had two weeks to get
it done; this week we have one week to get it done. The majority
Democrats continue to shirk their responsibilities to keep Americans
safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.
[[Page H8903]]
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 11 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico, the ``Land of Enchantment'' (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Texas for yielding, and I thank him for being here tonight.
I would urge all of my colleagues to defeat the previous question on
the rule here tonight.
We now have 4 legislative days before the Congress recesses in
August. In the middle of April, the Director of National Intelligence
wrote to this body with draft legislation saying we needed to change
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He wrote a letter to this
Congress last week saying that there is an ``intelligence gap.'' We
have an intelligence gap, and we need to fix it. He has proposed a much
smaller piece of legislation which he sent to the Congress last Friday
night, saying it is critical that we fix this problem before the House
goes on recess for the month of August.
If the previous question is defeated, we will immediately bring
legislation to the floor to solve this intelligence gap.
Technology has outstripped the law in the field of signals
intelligence. We are now in the odd situation where we require our
intelligence community to go to judges in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to get warrants on foreigners in foreign countries.
This doesn't make any sense, and it wasn't what the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to do. The Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act was written in 1978 to protect the civil
liberties of Americans. It wasn't intended to be a barrier for American
intelligence to protect terrorists overseas who are plotting to kill
us. But because of changes in technology, that is where we find
ourselves today.
The Director of National Intelligence has told us the situation is
critical, that we must fix this intelligence gap. And yet for over 3
months now, this Congress has done nothing.
We cannot afford to wait. We must act and fix the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act so that we do not require a warrant to
listen to foreigners in foreign countries communicating with other
foreigners and plotting to kill us.
Mr. Speaker, all of us remember where we were the morning of
September 11. We remember whom we were with, what we were wearing, what
we had for breakfast. None of us in this room, I would wager, remember
where we were when the British Government arrested 16 people who were
within 48 hours of walking onto airliners at Heathrow Airport and
blowing them up over the Atlantic. The reason we don't remember it is
because it didn't happen. It didn't happen because the British,
American, and Pakistani intelligence services detected the plot before
it was carried out.
Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror, and
our Director of National Intelligence has told us in black and white
that we have an intelligence gap, that there are things we should be
listening to that we are missing.
It is up to us in this House to act this week to close that
intelligence gap and protect the country.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from California
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to inquire of my friend, as she began this
explanation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, as
it is called, as we look at where we were in 1978, the way she has just
explained it is that if you look at the fact that what we are trying to
do is ensure that we can go after foreigners in foreign countries to
ensure that we are protected, why in the world would we in any way want
to actually restrict our ability to go after foreigners in foreign
countries who are terrorists and trying to do us in? We are today
restricted because of the existence of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act from doing that?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that is
the anomaly of the law. In 1978 your telephone was hooked to a wire on
a kitchen wall. Blackberries grew on bushes, the Internet didn't exist,
and almost all long-haul communications went over the air. They were
bounced off satellites. And those are completely excluded from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because we wanted to protect our
ability to collect foreign intelligence, but you were required to have
a warrant if you touched a wire in the United States. Almost all short-
haul communications were over wires.
Now the situation is completely reversed. The majority of local calls
now are over cell phones, 230 million cell phone users. They are all
radio, or the equivalent. Almost all long-haul communications,
international communications, are now over wires or over fiber-optic
cables.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield,
I would like to ask her, if, in fact, Mr. McConnell, the Director of
National Intelligence, has used words like we are ``blind'' and
``deaf'' when it comes to our need to try to interdict these
communications, and, in fact, we are in a position today where,
tragically, because of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
the fact that it is so antiquated, we are allowing information to slip
through and not be, in fact, monitored. Am I correct in concluding
that?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. You are correct. We are doing everything
we can to collect information overseas. We spy on these guys. We try to
find out what they are going to do to stop them before they attack us.
But the irony is we are hamstrung here in the United States to collect
any foreign intelligence information on any facility, wire, or whatever
here in the United States. So you need a warrant.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman further yield?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. The reason I am pursuing this, Mr. Speaker, is that we
feel very strongly about the need to take action. And the gentlewoman,
in her statement, has just talked about the imperative for us to act.
Now, we for months, because there has been no legislation forward, we
have been working on this notion of saying that on virtually every rule
that we bring to the floor, we are seeking to defeat the previous
question so that we can finally take some action to ensure that we are
going to be able to intercept conversations not taking place in the
United States of America but among foreigners in foreign countries who
want to kill us.
Am I correct in assuming that?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. That is absolutely correct. And to me, Mr.
Speaker, the thing that bothers me most is that for 3 or 4 months now
we have been talking and I have been talking to my Democratic
colleagues and to leadership here and my colleagues on the Intelligence
Committee, and I have begged them to take up this issue, to do it in
their own way, figure out their own bill. But for God's sake, let's fix
this problem because all of us know that American lives are at risk
because this Congress fails to act.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would further yield, Mr. Speaker, I
know that the goal that Mr. Sessions has just put forward here is the
one that managers in the minority in the past have, and that is we are
urging all of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
that we will be able to take the very thoughtful piece of legislation
that the gentlewoman from New Mexico has introduced and make that in
order. After delaying for months and months and months, after these
warnings that have come not only from Mike McConnell, the Director of
National Intelligence, but from the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Secretary Chertoff, who has talked about the fact that the chatter
level is unusually high, and we all know that he said that rather
famously in an interview before the editorial board of the Chicago
Tribune, so we have continued to receive these warnings; yet because of
the fact that this Congress has failed to act on our need to update
that nearly 30-year-old law when we have seen such dramatic changes
take place in technology over the past three decades, we have been
forced to this position where we have to continually try to urge our
colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can make this
legislation in order.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that is
the circumstance in which we find ourselves, and it is a tragic one
because I
[[Page H8904]]
think people ignore problems until there is a crisis and then they say,
Why didn't you do something? Why didn't you fix it when you knew there
was a problem?
I pray that we will never have to have another 9/11 Commission. We
passed a 9/11 Commission bill last week that had the remaining elements
of pieces of legislation we have been working on for 5 years, and in it
we didn't take care of the most pressing problem that is squarely in
our lap, which is that we know that technology has outpaced the law.
Now, there have been amendments to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance law since 1978, but the basic structure of the law and the
problem has not changed, which is if you touch a wire in the United
States, you have got to get a warrant. That is the irony here.
We are taking tremendous risks overseas to keep this country safe and
to spy on our enemies. But we are tying our hands when we own the
infrastructure. They are using the communications systems that we
built, as the greatest country in the world, to plot and plan and
target to kill us, and this body will do nothing about it.
We have 4 days, 4 days, until we are out of town for another month,
another month being deaf and blind in a time of heightened threat.
I would ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question on the
rule, to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule, and to
immediately take up this critical piece of legislation so that we can
protect this country
Ms. CASTOR. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of
my time until the gentleman from Texas has made his closing statement.
Mr. SESSIONS. By prior agreement, I will close at this time, and I
thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, if the Rules Committee wants to spend special time on
the House floor debating these closed rules, I believe that we can do
better than the Eightmile Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
However, for some reason this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find
time to schedule consideration of legislation that was just spoken
about by the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from
California that clarifies one very specific thing, and that is that the
United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to
listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United
States of America.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have got time to pick on private
landowners and to take their land by the use and force of the Federal
Government, but we don't have time to schedule legislation to come and
protect this country. Utterly incredible.
The Director of the National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the
Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to this Congress
that under current law their hands are tied. They are giving this body
notice: we cannot do this under the law. And as Director McConnell
testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology.
Today, once again, the Republicans are asking for us to support the
intelligence community because they are forced to obtain warrants to
listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and as a result, and this
is a quote, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we
should be getting,'' directly from the Director of Central
Intelligence.
This Congress has known about it for months. Republicans were on the
floor last week. We are on the floor again this week. We are saying we
are getting ready to go on break, we need to protect this country, we
need to pass the law. We are asking the Democrat leadership once again
if you have got time for this bill that is about a river, you certainly
should have time to protect this country when our intelligence people
are saying we need it. We have been saying for months we need it. The
Republicans are on the floor today again to say there are 5 days left
and then we will be on vacation.
{time} 1800
Are they going to say to the American people and to the intelligence
community, ``Too bad, we didn't have time to do that?''
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about
facing down this threat, Mr. Speaker, they should come and join us.
They should join us in defeating the previous question so that the
House will be able to then address this issue since the Democrat
leadership won't.
Don't hide behind something that deals with Republican or Democrat,
and do the right thing for the country. This is a very real and a very
serious threat.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and
extraneous material in the Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to return the debate to the
matter on the floor.
The Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act sponsored by my colleague,
Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut, which designates certain
segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Mr. Speaker, how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful
country; spacious skies, amber waves of grain, purple mountain's
majesty, and the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River corridor.
Despite the protestations from the other side of the aisle, it has
been the communities and the residents of this area that have worked on
this designation for 10 years or more. And so I congratulate them
today. And I salute the leadership of Congressman Joe Courtney, who
brought a new energy and commitment to this effort, and I thank Natural
Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall for his leadership.
This is a noncontroversial bill. It was reported favorably by the
Natural Resources Committee by a voice vote in May. It received the
strong bipartisan support of the House, over 235 Members on July 11.
Mr. Speaker, the Eightmile River is a national treasure, and we must do
all that we can to preserve it.
This bill enjoys bipartisan support. A majority of the Members of
this House have voted for it, and we're going to vote for it again. I
urge my colleagues to support this rule and the important Eightmile
Wild and Scenic River Act.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows
Amendment to H. Res. 580
Offered By Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the
definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order
against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
____
(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:
[[Page H8905]]
``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.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________