[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.
____________________