[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 161 (Tuesday, October 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11888-H11894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1011, VIRGINIA RIDGE AND VALLEY ACT 
                                OF 2007

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 763 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 763

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1011) to designate additional National Forest System lands in 
     the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study 
     area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness 
     Area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek 
     Wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain and Bear Creek 
     Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail plans 
     for the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, 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; (2) the amendment printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative 
     Goodlatte of Virginia or his designee, which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order (except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for ten minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 1011 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 gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.

[[Page H11889]]

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. 
Sessions.
  All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 763.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 763 provides for consideration of H.R. 1011, the 
Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The 
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  The rule makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on 
Natural Resources and makes in order the amendment from the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment which was submitted 
to the Committee on Rules for consideration on this rule.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 1011, designates 43,000 acres as 
wilderness and nearly 12,000 acres as national scenic areas in the 
Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia. The areas in the 
Jefferson National Forest that are protected by this bill are some of 
the most beautiful areas of the country. The areas offer numerous 
recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, 
canoeing, horseback riding and skiing. These areas are virtually 
priceless and provide much-needed opportunities for visitors and 
families to spend time in the great outdoors and enjoying America's 
natural beauty.
  H.R. 1011 ensures that critical habitat for bears, song birds, wild 
turkeys, brook trout, and other species, in addition to preserving 
countless stands of old growth, a 45-foot cascading waterfall, and 
breathtaking scenic views that encompass wide areas. Preserving this 
habitat is also critical for the economy, as tourism is the fattest 
growing industry in the region.
  Each of these areas contained in H.R. 1011 were either recommended as 
part of the Jefferson National Forest plan or have been endorsed by the 
relevant county boards of supervisors in the local areas. The bill has 
broad bipartisan support from five other Representatives from Virginia, 
both Virginia Senators, Governor Tim Kaine and four county boards of 
supervisors. Local businesses and State organizations, faith groups, 
the International Mountain Bicycling Association and local bear hunters 
also support this bill.
  Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Boucher for 
their dedication and hard work in bringing this legislation to the 
floor today so that we can ensure that America's most treasured 
resources are protected once again for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this structured rule and to a 
number of provisions included in the underlying provision in its 
current form. I oppose this legislation because it substitutes the 
deliberate and long-studied recommendation of well-trained Forest 
Service professionals with a purely political congressional action by 
designating 27,000 additional acres, which are land in the Forest 
Service today, as wilderness, beyond the Forest Service recommendation 
of 16,000 acres in southwestern Virginia's Jefferson National Forest.
  This means that despite having spent millions of congressionally 
appropriated tax dollars and investing tens of thousands in on-the-
ground Federal employee hours on studying this issue, the Democrat 
leadership will simply override the Forest Service's well-reasoned 
decision to force this additional acreage into wilderness status. This 
also, despite the fact that many of the areas proposed in this 
legislation do not meet the standards of the 1964 Wilderness Act, 
including roads, utility corridors, mountain biking areas, and a 
Federal Aviation Administration tower. These should not be considered 
within wilderness area, and yet, today, that's exactly what is 
happening.
  Today's bill makes private landowners to the area vulnerable to the 
Jefferson National Forest Plan ultimate goal of obtaining all private 
lands within these expanded wilderness boundaries, including 722 total 
acres of outstanding privately held mineral rights.
  What is even worse is that thousands of acres in this proposed 
wilderness area are at high risk for wildfire and require mechanical 
thinning for proper fire risk mitigation. Many of these areas are next 
to the small communities that will be placed at even greater risk of 
catastrophic wild fires if this land is not managed properly.

                              {time}  1515

  So even as the threat posed by wildfires to American communities all 
across this country is fresh on our minds, as we watch with great 
concern and sympathy the unbelievable damage these wildfires are 
inflicting on Southern California, nonetheless, the Democrat leadership 
of this House has decided that the best course of action is to 
extremely limit and outright prohibit commonsense reduction activities 
across this Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.
  Besides the private land owners and homeowners adjacent to this land, 
other losers created by this legislation include a number of animal 
species covered by the Endangered Species Act, including bats and 
bears. Currently, several of the proposed wilderness areas added by 
this legislation are professionally managed to maintain threatened 
endangered and sensitive species habitat. By passing the legislation 
under this rule, Congress will be preventing the Forest Service from 
using the equipment that they need to comply with the Endangered 
Species Act.
  This makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. It makes absolutely no sense why 
this new Democrat majority throws aside not only the expressed 
opportunities that the Forest Service have given us to understand 
proper management, but they will override professionals who have 
studied this and do this for a living.
  Perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, because this draconian 
``wilderness'' designation prevents any road or trails from being 
improved in these areas, a number of our Nation's most vulnerable 
populations such as the elderly and disabled will be effectively 
prevented from accessing and enjoying this piece of America under this 
bill. It absolutely makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
  I'm sorry we're having to be on the floor today to take this 
position, because the Republican Party is in favor of our national 
parks, is in favor of people utilizing our national parks, and we view 
these areas as very historic areas that we want to preserve and make 
right and keep them.
  Mr. Speaker, this is bad public policy. I oppose this structured rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California, an esteemed environmentalist and champion for our national 
resources, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for bringing this rule to the floor that will enable us to 
vote for this important bipartisan bill which has broad support, H.R. 
1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007.
  I commend our colleague, Mr. Boucher, for his persistent and 
relentless leadership on this legislation. In advancing this, Mr. 
Boucher, you have advanced the cause of protecting our existing 
wilderness, and all of us who care about the wilderness and our park 
lands are deeply in your debt.
  As we come to the floor, though, today, Mr. Speaker, I do want to 
call additional attention of my colleagues that as we gather here this 
afternoon, wildfires are raging in my home State of California. The 
President has declared an emergency. I hope that it will

[[Page H11890]]

be limited to that. But the way the fire is raging, I'm afraid it may 
come to the point of a major disaster. The Governor of California, 
Governor Schwarzenegger, has just reported that 750 homes have been 
totally destroyed, 68,000 homes are endangered; 250,000 acres of land, 
an area the size of the entire City of New York, has been devastated by 
the fire, much of it wilderness areas. And in addition to that, 365,000 
people have been evacuated from their homes.
  In any consideration of what is happening there, it's very important 
to salute our firefighters for their courage and their tireless, 
tireless effort to end this fire, which is a tough battle because of 
the winds and, hopefully, they will die down soon. It is possible that 
if the fire continues to rage, we may have to appeal to the President 
to declare this a major disaster and therefore eliminate any capping of 
support that we would have for California, and that would have 
implications, as we know, for other fires that may occur in our 
country.
  So this is when the American people look to government to step up to 
the plate and to be there for them. The firefighters are doing their 
share. The people are acting in a very responsible way in the 
evacuations. The local government is doing well, according to what the 
Governor says and, of course, the State of California has this as an 
emergency of the highest, highest order. So far they have been able to 
avail themselves of whatever is available from the Federal Government. 
We may have to expand on that if the fires continue to rage.
  But to those who have suffered personal losses, whether it's the loss 
of a loved one, personal injury, loss of their homes and their 
communities, I extend the deepest sympathy and the fullest support as 
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  With that, again, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Boucher's 
bipartisan legislation to protect the Virginia wilderness, and in 
advance of any needs that we may have for the wildfires in California, 
inform my colleagues of the extent of the damage that we know to date 
and the need that we have for support. This compact between the people 
and the Federal Government is never called upon more strongly than in 
time of a natural disaster of this kind.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
California's words about the tragedies that are occurring. Not only for 
the past few days, but also, as always, anytime there's a wildfire, 
people who get in the way, the brave men and women of the National Park 
Service and others who go to help fight those fires, I know the Nation 
is at this time very focused on the lives and the property and the 
effort that is going on in California.
  With great respect, I too, join the gentlewoman from California for 
expressing our sincere appreciation for the firefighters who are trying 
to battle and save the property and the lives in California.
  Mr. Speaker, for perhaps the same reason that the gentlewoman from 
California has come down to join in this discussion today, perhaps with 
an opposite result, I, too, am down on the floor to talk about how wise 
management of our natural resources, of our Parks Service, is 
important. You don't have to go back really as far as Teddy Roosevelt 
to understand what Teddy Roosevelt saw, that this great Nation had the 
abundance of beautiful woodlands, hills, mountains, streams, the 
acreage included within that, the beautiful animals, the birds, the 
fish, the wolves that were a part of our landscape. And that's why 
national parks were created. National parks were created with an 
opportunity for the Federal Government to have a chance to allow people 
to come and see this great country, to see the beautiful country that 
we had.
  As a young man growing up and scouting, I remember well the 
opportunity that I had to not only visit national parks, but a chance 
to get what is called the Forestry Merit Badge. And even back in 1965 
or 1966, when I was receiving this badge, I remember, this is not the 
term that was used, best practices, but one has become used as a term 
of best practice and that is, wise management of our forests to not 
only sustain them, but to protect them, and to protect the animals and 
all that lives and counts on that forest surviving. We've learned these 
wise management techniques, not just in scouting to get the Forestry 
Merit Badge, but we have learned them through the years. We've learned 
that sometimes unwise management and doing things to our park system, 
in fact, caused more damage than it did good.
  I remember back with the fires that we had in Yellowstone, how the 
National Park Service said just let it burn, it is a fire created by an 
act of God. But they really, as a result of that, learned that they had 
to learn a better practice to save millions of acres and millions of 
animals that could be destroyed.
  Well, part of that best practice is what the National Park Service is 
attempting to do right now and has been attempting to do in this 
national park today. It is against their recommendation that 
politically we override the best practices, the best thoughts and ideas 
that people have who manage our park system, who do see the balance, 
who are there every day with the careful consideration.
  By designating this area, an extensive amount of area, as wilderness, 
it means that arbitrarily, we're taking something that would never 
qualify under the intended statutes and add it in. I think this is 
unwise. This is how you do have problems. This is how you do have fires 
that burn out of control when you're not able to come in and protect 
the forest properly as a result of this designation. This is how you 
have problems when you're not able to take care of the endangered 
species that are in there and properly protect them, because it will 
have that wilderness designation.
  And so with great respect for the same purpose that the gentlewoman 
from California came to notify us and to remember what America's paying 
attention to today, the wildfires in California, I would say we need 
that same sort of vision to avoid what could be in the time of drought 
or in the time of misdeed because of perhaps a lightning storm, 
something that's an unintended consequence, and that is to take this 
area and to move it into wilderness means that it will not receive or 
be able to receive the same kind of regular work that happens to 
protect these wilderness areas and national parks from destruction of a 
fire. I think it's a bad idea.
  I think it's also a bad idea any time politicians in Washington, D.C. 
for political purposes decide to overrule common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the well for the exact same reason that our 
California colleague, the distinguished Speaker of the House, Ms. 
Pelosi, has taken time, and that is to talk about what many have 
described as probably the worst fire that has ever hit Southern 
California.
  I was just talking to the dean of our delegation, Mr. Lewis, who is 
going to be returning to California. I know a number of our colleagues 
have gone now. He represents the Lake Arrowhead area where Governor 
Schwarzenegger and other elected officials are looking at this 
situation.
  As the Speaker pointed out, 365,000 people have been evacuated from 
their homes, and literally hundreds of thousands of acres have been 
burned. And Mr. Lewis just reminded me that one of the things that we 
can be extraordinarily grateful for is that we have been able to learn 
from previous fires how to deal with this. For example, we've had an 
increase in the number of what are known as the Mobile Airborne 
Firefighting System aircraft, the MAFS, which are going to be coming 
from other States. And we, as Californians, are very grateful for the 
fact that other States are working with us to deal with California's 
challenge in this time of need.
  There are other environmental issues with which we've had to contend, 
the bark beetle that Mr. Lewis just mentioned, and making sure that we 
are able to go in and clean up areas which create the potential for 
fire. And so we've learned a lot from the horrible

[[Page H11891]]

circumstances that we have faced in the past. And I'm convinced, Mr. 
Speaker that we will, in fact, learn from this tragedy as well.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost their homes. 
And if there is any kind of silver lining, when you think about the 
fact that 365,000 people have been evacuated, hundreds of thousands of 
acres, countless structures in the hundreds have been obliterated, and 
yet the report now is that there is only one loss of life. And 
obviously there are a number of firefighters who have been injured. 
According to a report I just saw on the television, another 25 
individuals have been injured, and our thoughts and prayers are with 
them. But we are very grateful for those who have stepped up.

                              {time}  1530

  Governor Schwarzenegger just, Mr. Speaker, talked about the fact that 
at this time of need, calling on those in the grocer industry and a 
wide range of others coming in and providing water, diapers, baby 
formula, other foodstuffs that are necessary for those who have been 
evacuated and those who are engaged in firefighting is something that 
has really been remarkable, as our Governor just said.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that one of the things that I 
have been struck with is that, while some people try to make things 
like this partisan, we are coming together as a State delegation to 
deal with this. As I said, a number of our colleagues have already gone 
to California. I know some members of the San Diego delegation, because 
that area has been hit particularly hard, have already gone.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to express my appreciation to 
those who are on the front lines and to say, as our Governor has, 
again, we have all come together to try to provide assistance, and the 
one thing we need to do now is pray for an improvement in both the wind 
and create the potential for some rain, if that's at all possible, to 
help provide some kind of relief, and to again state that at this time 
of disaster we want every level of government as well as individuals to 
continue to work together, and I am convinced that we will be able to.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I share the 
comments of our prior speakers. Both the Speaker of the House and the 
gentleman from California spoke eloquently about the disasters that are 
happening in our home State. It is certainly a time of great need and a 
great need for us to come together to figure out how we proceed from 
here to battle this rage.
  I see Mr. Lewis in the audience, and I have been to his district at a 
hearing about this very topic, and I know the serious nature of some of 
the forest management issues that are around his district and we have 
discussed it on numerous occasions. And our sympathies are with you and 
those of your constituents, Mr. Lewis.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Mr. Cardoza 
from California for yielding.
  I also want to express solidarity with the concerns and expressions 
of sympathy expressed by the Speaker for the residents of California 
who are so afflicted by this terribly uncontrollable act of nature. I 
know the entire Congress, if they had the opportunity, would want to 
stand up and speak out on behalf of those very same sentiments.
  We hope they can get that fire under control and that the people that 
have been displaced are able to find other housing and some safety. 
It's certainly one of the worst natural disasters. None of us can 
imagine what it would be like to be in the line of fire.
  Mr. Speaker, my primary purpose for rising today is to express 
support for the legislation that has been introduced by my good friend 
and Virginia colleague Congressman Rick Boucher. It's an extraordinary 
proposal for what it accomplishes in the way of conservation and 
wilderness protection but also for the collaborative effort it 
represents to bring different public land uses together to the table 
and craft a proposal that almost everybody can and does support. In 
fact, Republican Senator John Warner, the dean of our delegation, has 
sponsored it over on the Senate side.
  The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act will protect nearly 43,000 acres of 
the Jefferson National Forest in southwestern Virginia as wilderness or 
wilderness study areas and another 12,000 acres as scenic areas.
  Today, wilderness designations are often very controversial. That's 
because our public lands are visited more frequently by a much more 
diverse and engaged public, a public that now holds very different 
views oftentimes and expectations on how the public land should be 
used. As a result, we have seen fewer and fewer wilderness designations 
work their way through Congress. That's unfortunate because saving some 
of our last pristine public lands from resource extraction is an 
obligation and should, in fact, be a legacy we can pass on to future 
generations.
  My colleague from Virginia, however, is a very persistent colleague. 
And the time that he and the conservation community have invested to 
find middle ground and build a consensus to support this legislation is 
a model that other conservation groups around the country should look 
to to enact wilderness legislation. It can be done, but it takes that 
kind of commitment, persistent dedication that Mr. Boucher has shown.
  This legislation will protect the scenic and undisturbed character of 
pristine areas of the Jefferson National Forest.
  Now, while all terrain and four-wheel-drive vehicles are prohibited 
in the wilderness areas, recreational activities such as hunting, 
fishing, camping, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, picnicking, 
backpacking, bird watching, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, 
snowshoeing, spelunking, rock climbing, and so many other outdoor 
activities are allowed and, in fact, encouraged. So it is not that the 
public can't be fully and actively engaged in enjoying this land. But 
motorized traffic will be permitted only in certain circumstances in 
the 12,000 acres that have been designated as national scenic areas.
  This legislation, though, will protect the recreational, historic, 
and natural resources in the delineated areas in a manner that is 
generally similar to the protections wilderness status affords. By 
finding consensus, this bill has won the endorsement of all the local 
governments and the counties that it would affect. It is supported by a 
broad array of businesses and chambers of commerce and enjoys broad 
support from conservation organizations.
  So I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill. It's a fine bill, and I congratulate Mr. Boucher for 
bringing it forward.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as the entire country is focused upon 
California fires, the disasters that are occurring and the heroic 
efforts of the firefighters, the people who live in California are 
working together, community activities, the entire country has been 
called into action. And I'm sure every single one of us, as not only 
Members of Congress but just as proud Americans, want to respond in a 
way that is appropriate.
  The gentleman who represents a vast area that is included within 
those wildfires is with us now. He's the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis). I would like to yield him 10 minutes at this time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague's yielding me the time.
  I will not use anywhere near 10 minutes. But let me say that my 
colleagues have already expressed their support for the phenomenal work 
that has taken place over the recent years as we have learned from past 
tragedies like this. The law enforcement officials, local government, 
the State people with the Forestry Service in California, and the U.S. 
Forestry Service have been truly phenomenal. We have learned an awful 
lot. But I would mention two things.
  The first is that in terms of managing our forests, we usually find 
our way very quickly to develop those dollars that are necessary 
following a fire to respond to the immediate tragedy. Those dollars 
seem to flow almost upon our call. The dollars that, on the other hand, 
are much more difficult are those that involve managing the forest long 
term. It is so important that we recognize that the U.S. Forestry 
Service does all that they can, but they know

[[Page H11892]]

full well that the great difficulty of getting the money for managing 
that which makes up the ground fire that can destroy a forest, 
literally can obliterate this territory when we are looking, must be a 
part of our Federal responsibility.
  There is little doubt that we will overcome this tragedy. Hundreds 
and hundreds of homes lost in my own district in and around Lake 
Arrowhead, California, tragedies for each of those families. But I 
would say beyond remembering that we must find the money for managing 
the forests. We also should talk to our constituents about the fact 
that when faced with a fire tragedy, the first thing that all of our 
people should do is to respond to those warnings that suggest, when 
they are called to evacuate, to evacuate. One life lost is too many, 
and the danger of attempting to overcome a fire near your home, indeed, 
is a critical decision. I would urge all of our citizens who are faced 
with this difficulty to respond to those calls for evacuation.
  With that, I appreciate very much my colleagues' response to our 
tragedy and I appreciate very much their help.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wish to again give my deepest condolences to the folks who 
have lost their property in your district, Mr. Lewis. As you have said, 
we have traveled there and had hearings, and, frankly, with all the dry 
timber that was left behind there, we were fearful that that would have 
happened a couple of years ago, and I understand it's happening as we 
speak. And hopefully we will not lose any more lives. And our hopes and 
prayers are with the people that habitat that region in and around Lake 
Arrowhead.
  With regard to the bill at hand, H.R. 1011, I would just like to say, 
as has been said before, that this measure is supported by the members 
of the Virginia delegation. We will be offering, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the only amendment that was proposed under 
this rule. It's supported by all the local boards of supervisors as 
well as Senator Warner, Governor Kaine.
  And, in fact, we have listened to the community. And Mr. Sessions is 
right. The local officials and local community leaders, citizens of a 
region should be consulted when we designate one of these wilderness 
areas. And, in fact, this bill does incorporate those suggestions and 
comments of the local community. They desire this wilderness 
designation for their area. And it is truly going to be a national 
treasure. It already is, and it will be preserved for our children and 
for their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question 
so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation 
with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 
2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations 
bill for 2008.
  Yesterday a number of news publications, including Roll Call, 
reported that the Democrat leadership intends to hold off sending 
appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming 
anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an 
extension of their successful public relations campaign on the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program.''
  While the Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue, however, 
our Nation's veterans are paying the price. For every day that the 
Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to languish without conferees 
for their own political agenda, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 
million, which could be used for veterans health care, veterans 
housing, and other important support activities for veterans and their 
families.
  I would like to repeat that. Every single day there is $18.5 million 
that is lost for our veterans and their families.
  On October 18, the American Legion National Commander Marty J. 
Conaster, five national vice commanders, and all 55 Legion National 
Executive Committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with 
her to put partisanship aside and provide this funding now for our 
veterans and troops.

                              {time}  1545

  At this time, I will insert this letter into the Congressional 
Record.


                                          The American Legion,

                               Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The 
     American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The 
     American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis, 
     Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an 
     elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55 
     Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four 
     foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's 
     National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive 
     Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body.
       The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National 
     Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the 
     status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of 
     the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the 
     Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the 
     Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed.
       However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill, 
     which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't 
     moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since 
     the President has already said he would not veto the bill, 
     even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why 
     the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is 
     difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees, 
     the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report?
       We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil 
     Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats 
     itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter 
     of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not 
     only The American Legion and other veterans' and military 
     service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent 
     on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned 
     benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation.
       Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans 
     are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops 
     are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some 
     will be determined to be service-connected disabled because 
     of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active-
     duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need 
     attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients, 
     the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should 
     their health care be rationed due to limited available 
     resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their 
     life-support system.
       The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime 
     veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the 
     United States Armed Forces and their families.
       Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees, 
     convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference 
     Report.
           Sincerely,
         Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr. 
           (DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY), 
           National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National 
           Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National 
           Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice 
           Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive 
           Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive 
           Committeeman.
         Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman; 
           John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive 
           Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel (IN), National 
           Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken (KS), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Charles D. Aucoin (LA), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Dr. Gordon B. Browning 
           (MD), National Executive Committeeman; Richard W. 
           Anderson (CT), National Executive Committeeman; Paul H. 
           ___, for Walter W. Norris (DC), National Executive 
           Committeeman; William E. Marshall (France), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Andrew W. Johnson (HI), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Kenneth J. Trumbull 
           (IL), National Executive Committeeman; Michael E. 
           Wanser (IA), National Executive Committeeman; Randall 
           Coffman (KY), National Executive Committeeman; Robert 
           A. Owen (ME), National Executive Committeeman; James F. 
           Army (MA), National Executive Committeeman.
         John E. Hayes (Mexico), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Virgil V. Persing (MN), National Executive 
           Committeeman; David N. Voyles (MO), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Michael J. Landkamer (NE), National 
           Executive

[[Page H11893]]

           Committeeman; John E. Neylon (NH), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Bruce Jorgensen (NM), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Jerry L. Hedrick (NC), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Carl W. Swisher (OH), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Charles E. Schmidt (OR), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Gerald N. Dennis (MI), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Langley (MS), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Bob O. Beals (MT), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Ron Gutzman (NV), 
           National Executive Committeeman; William A. Rakestraw, 
           Jr. (NJ), National Executive Committeeman; Paul Mitras 
           (NY), National Executive Committeeman; Curtis O. Twete 
           (ND), National Executive Committeeman; Bobby J. 
           Longenbaugh (OK), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Alfred Pirolli (PA), National Executive Committeeman.
         William J. Kelly (Philippines), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Ernest Gerundio (RI), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Paul A. Evenson (SD), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Ronald G. Cherry (TX), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Leslie V. Howe (VT), National Executive 
           Committeeman; William F. Schrier (WA), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Arthur D. Herbison (WI), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Carlos Orria-Medina 
           (PR), National Executive Committeeman; Billy W. Bell 
           (SC), National Executive Committeeman; Jennings B. 
           Loring (TN), National Executive Committeeman; William 
           E. Christoffersen (UT), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Rob R. Gordon, Jr. (VA), National 
           Executive Committeeman; William W. Kile (WV), National 
           Executive Committeeman; ------ ------, for Irvin A. 
           Quick (WY), National Executive Committeeman.

  On the same day, the commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, George Lisicki, also asked Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat 
leadership to put partisanship aside for the benefit of our Nation's 
veterans and troops. These pleas from the American Legion and the VFW 
follow on the heels of requests from Republican Members to both Speaker 
Pelosi and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on September 17 
and October 4 urging them to begin conference work on the Veterans 
Appropriations bills. Unfortunately, it appears as though all these 
commonsense requests have fallen on deaf ears, and our Nation's 
veterans are being forced to pay the price for continued Democrat 
partisanship and lack of leadership on this issue.
  At this time, I will insert into the Congressional Record these two 
letters so that everyone watching today's debate across the country can 
see the efforts that have been made by the Republican Party to end this 
impasse on an important issue of providing adequate funding for those 
who have sacrificed so much on behalf of our country.


                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2007.
     Office of the Speaker
     U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Madam Speaker: We write to urge you in the strongest 
     possible terms to reach a prompt agreement on the conference 
     report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans 
     Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642). Few issues are more 
     important than adequate funding for our nation's veterans. 
     The leadership in the House cannot allow this critically 
     important funding to fall victim to the usual partisan 
     wrangling which occurs all too often in Washington.
       Veterans should not be used as tools for political 
     bargaining and gamesmanship. Both the House and Senate passed 
     the FY08 MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming 
     majorities because our commitment to veterans rises above 
     partisan squabbling. Tragedies such as the recent revelations 
     at Walter Reed Army Medical Center must never be repeated. 
     The findings of insufficient care at Walter Reed and other 
     facilities should be seen by Congress as a mandate to finish 
     the work and live up to the promises we have made to our 
     veterans.
       After decades of flat funding, total VA budget rose from 
     $48 billion in FY 2001 to approximately $70 billion in FY 
     2006, a 46 percent increase. This year, the House voted to 
     increase funding by $6 billion dollars over FY07, one of the 
     largest in the 77 year history of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs. Both the Senate and House versions received 
     overwhelming majority support passing by a vote of 409-2 in 
     the House and 92-1 in the Senate.
       Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would 
     continue the trend of significant increases in veterans 
     funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor 
     that agreement and see that the commitment we made to our 
     veterans is honored.
       We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As 
     members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill 
     our promises to them. We ask for you to look past the 
     heightened partisanship of our times and unite us on this 
     issue by making it a first priority to quickly bring a stand 
     alone Veterans appropriations bill through conference so the 
     Congress may present the President with a bill by October 1, 
     2007.
       We stand ready to assist you in reaching this goal.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2007.
     Office of the Senate Majority Leader,
     U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid: We write today to ask you to 
     keep the Senate in session the week of October 8, to help 
     pass this year's veterans appropriations. Now that we are 
     already into the new fiscal year, it is imperative that the 
     House and Senate reach a prompt agreement on the conference 
     report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans 
     Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642).
       It is unfortunate the Senate has been unable to act upon 
     many of its Constitutionally mandated appropriations bills. 
     While the House continues to wait upon the Senate to complete 
     its work, we call upon you to quickly move veterans 
     appropriations through conference so a final version of the 
     bill may be passed and presented to the President. We believe 
     that veterans issues rise above the partisan divisions of 
     Washington which is evident by the passage of the FY08 
     MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming majorities 
     in both Houses, 501-3 combined.
       The Senate cannot allow this critically important funding 
     to continue to fall victim to the usual partisan wrangling 
     which occurs all too often in Washington. If tragedies such 
     as the recent revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
     are to be diverted in the future, we must pass veterans 
     funding now. From FY 2001 the total VA budget rose from $48 
     billion to approximately $70 billion in FY 2006, a 46 percent 
     increase. This year, the House voted to increase funding by 
     $6 billion dollars over FY07, one of the largest in the 77 
     year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because 
     we have asked so much of our brave men and women in uniform 
     during the War on Terror we must uphold our commitment to 
     veterans upon their return home.
       Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would 
     continue the trend of significant increases in veterans 
     funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor 
     that agreement and see the commitment we made to our veterans 
     is upheld.
       We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As 
     members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill 
     our promises to them. We ask you to look past the heightened 
     partisanship of our times and unite us on this issue by 
     making it a first priority to bring a stand-alone veterans 
     appropriations bill through conference so the Congress may 
     present the President with a bill no later than October 12, 
     2007.

  Mr. Speaker, I will ask all of my colleagues to support this motion 
to defeat the previous question so that we can put partisanship aside 
and move this important legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important vote for each of the Members of 
Congress to decide whether we are going to move forward for the best 
interest of our military and veterans, or whether we are going to play 
partisan politics.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous material in the Record just prior to the vote on the 
previous question
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I couldn't disagree more 
with the gentleman's last comments. What I heard just does not even 
make any sense to me, having spent the last 5 years of my life sitting 
here watching this House debate veterans issues.
  The first 4 years that I was here, we saw the Republican Congress 
that was in power at that time refuse to take up a number of measures 
that were brought forward by the Democratic minority at that time. In 
fact, there were several discharge petitions that laid languishing at 
that desk for weeks and weeks on end until they finally died at the end 
of the session because they never got the attention of the Republican 
majority at that time. In fact, this year, since we have taken back the 
House and we have become a Democratic majority, we have been champions 
of veterans issues. And to say that they want to now lay letters upon 
the table that they're demanding of the Speaker's attention, we have 
been putting attention on this issue for a number of years. And not 
only are we taking care of our veterans now for the

[[Page H11894]]

first time in 12 years, but we are taking care of it in a way that 
would surprise them. And our Nation's veterans are very grateful that 
we are finally giving them the respect they deserve.
  And I will tell you that this House, by a vote of 409-2, passed the 
Veterans appropriations bill. And, yes, we do need to go to conference; 
but we will do that when the conferees are appointed in the Senate, 
when it is appropriate to do it. We have passed, this year, an 
additional appropriation of $3.4 billion to take care of our Nation's 
veterans. We will, in fact, make sure that all the veterans are taken 
care of. In fact, on November 11 of this year we will celebrate 
tremendous respect for our Nation's veterans and will, in fact, do 
everything that we have promised to do, and more.
  We just saw today three bills taken up by the Veterans' Committee to, 
in fact, take care of the needs of our Nation's veterans. And I am 
highly offended by the insinuation that we are in some way acting in a 
partisan way not to take care of our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1011, this bill is, in fact, an 
important bill to protect the natural resources of the State of 
Virginia, a vital area for our country. Mr. Boucher and the delegation 
from Virginia have done a fabulous job in crafting this proposal. It is 
a bill that preserves tens of thousands of acres of pristine wilderness 
in Jefferson National Forest. It is necessary that these beautiful, 
natural landscapes remain protected and untouched so that they may be 
enjoyed by our children and our grandchildren for years to come. It 
deserves the strong support of all the Members on the floor today.
  That is the bill that we will be moving the previous question on. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 763 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. CARDOZA. 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.

                          ____________________