[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 161 (Tuesday, October 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11894-H11897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1483, CELEBRATING AMERICA'S
HERITAGE ACT
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 765 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 765
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management
Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national
heritage 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, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1483 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 765.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 765 provides for
consideration of H.R. 1483, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act. The
rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on
Natural Resources and makes in order the substitute reported by the
Committee on Natural Resources.
The rule also contains a self-executing provision to the base text
consisting of a technical correction that
[[Page H11895]]
inserts a map reference for a map that was not completed yet by the
National Park Service prior to filing the reported bill. The rule also
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin to address the rule and the underlying
bill, I want to also extend my feelings of empathy and concern for
those out in California dealing with the fires that are plaguing that
area of our country. We are all watching and we are all, in spirit,
hoping that the fire ravaging will end. We appreciate the hard work and
the fearless dedication of our fire service and our firefighters, and
we hope that that situation is under control in the very, very near
future.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill. At the outset, I would like to commend my Republican colleague
and neighbor, Congressman Regula, for his leadership in sponsoring this
bipartisan piece of legislation.
This bill will provide additional support to nine national heritage
areas and allow for the designation of six new heritage areas, making
them eligible for Federal support.
I am proud that the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is among
these nine national heritage areas. And I can tell you from firsthand
experience that I've had with the Ohio and Erie National Heritage
Canalway, that these heritage areas are an invaluable asset, both to
the local communities and to our Nation, from the preservation of local
culture and history, to increasing tourism, and as centerpieces for
economic growth.
The designation of heritage areas provides for a partnership approach
to heritage development, allowing the sites to be locally managed with
a local organization coordinating in partnership with local residents.
These areas provide unique opportunities to understand the larger
context of these regions' traditions, landscapes and people, and the
heritage of this great country.
The Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is not a traditional
park. It's a lived-in region where the national, cultural, historic and
recreational resources combine to form a nationally significant
landscape that celebrates the significance of the Ohio and Erie Canal
and its contribution to the region, the State of Ohio, and the United
States.
The Ohio and Erie Canal helped connect the Ohio frontier with New
York and New Orleans in the early 19th century, playing a key role in
linking a previously isolated Ohio with economic centers east and
south. And the canal was crucial to the development of Ohio's economy,
attracting businesses to the area and providing a viable transportation
route for emerging industries.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that with increased Federal support, the
Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway and other heritage areas
included in this legislation will continue to play central roles in
their communities and equally important roles in our national heritage.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Ohio and Erie National
Heritage Canalway, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act will provide
support to the National Coal Heritage Act in West Virginia, the
Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal and National
Heritage Area in Georgia, the Steel Industry American Heritage Area in
Pennsylvania, the Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts, the
South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America's Agricultural
Partnership in Iowa, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area
in New York.
This legislation will also recognize and bring the benefits of
heritage areas to six new communities throughout the Nation: Journey
Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area in Virginia, Niagara Falls
National Heritage Area in New York, Muscle Shoals National Heritage
Area in Alabama, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in Illinois, and
Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona.
And it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation
specifically includes language that protects private property rights.
And the bill makes clear that a national heritage area designation does
not alter existing regulations or land use plans.
This is a good bill that will help communities and our country
celebrate our heritage and use our history for future prosperity and
collective pride. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. And,
again, I would like to thank Congressman Ralph Regula from my home
State of Ohio for introducing this bill and for being a champion of
Ohio's heritage.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
closed rule and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Mr. Speaker,
this rule is the 39th closed rule the House will be considering this
year. The Democrats have not just broken their promise to the American
people to cooperate in an open and honest manner, they are actually
doing it in a record-setting manner. In fact, this Democrat-controlled
Congress has considered more than twice as many closed rules, twice as
many, Mr. Speaker, as the previous Republican-controlled Congress did
at the same point in the session.
So they didn't just break their promise, Mr. Speaker, they have
shattered it. Most troubling of all is that this rule would prevent
Representatives from offering amendments to adjust and alter the bill
out of concerns directly affecting the districts and people that those
Representatives were elected to represent.
The Celebrating America's Heritage Act authorizes $135 billion to be
spent over the next 15 years for nine already established National
Heritage Areas and six new National Heritage Areas. One of the new
National Heritage Areas created in the bill is the Journey Through
Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, which includes land in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia. Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland and Mr. Goode of Virginia have expressed concerns that the
land in the districts they represent is included in this new National
Heritage Area and that this bill does not guarantee local residents
will be allowed to participate in decisions affecting the area in their
districts. If Congress is going to dictate how land is to be used, we
must make sure that those who are directly affected by such
designations are, in fact, supportive of the legislation.
I believe that all Members should be afforded an opportunity to have
their voices heard on behalf of those they represent when their
district is directly impacted. It was remarked yesterday in testimony
before the Rules Committee by Mr. Young of Alaska, ``That is just good
government.'' What he was referring to obviously was to have a Member
talk about issues that affect their district. Unfortunately, if
adopted, this 39th closed rule of the year will deny Mr. Bartlett and
Mr. Goode and, in fact, all Members of the House, the opportunity to
bring forth their concerns to attempt to amend--to perfect this bill.
Although National Heritage Areas typically do not create additional
Federal lands, the Federal Government can significantly impact the use
of the land in and surrounding National Heritage Areas.
Mr. Speaker, coming from an area in my area in central Washington
that is 40 percent federally owned, I want to take this opportunity to
discuss my concerns with future actions that could lead to additional
Federal lands. As I have said many times before on this floor, I
believe Federal land management agencies simply have too much land to
manage effectively. Federal land agencies continue to struggle to
maintain trails and facilities on public lands as well as to manage
unnaturally high fuel loads that can lead to catastrophic wildfires. We
had that discussion on the previous rule; yet, year after year we are
spending precious tax dollars to buy up more private property to take
off local tax rolls.
There are far more pressing issues affecting public lands management
that
[[Page H11896]]
we could be considering today. For example, Mr. Speaker, we should be
discussing the extension of payments to forested counties for rural
schools and roads or for development of clean energy on public lands.
These are far more pressing issues, and they are not going to go away.
I believe the House should act quickly in a bipartisan manner to
address them.
Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks. In closing, I would like to read a quote from the
distinguished majority leader (Mr. Hoyer) from Congress Daily PM on
December 5, 2006, a little more than 10 months ago. He said, Mr.
Speaker, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition
voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered
on the floor of the House.''
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that a little bit
more than 10 months ago. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority is once
again not living up to the promises they made to Americans just less
than a year ago. We are shutting out the people and the Representatives
who are directly impacted by this legislation with this closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against this,
the 39th closed rule of the year.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Washington that
this legislation does not affect private property rights. The bill
makes it clear that a National Heritage Area designation does not alter
existing regulations or land use plans, either.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 1483, amending the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act.
Early this year, I introduced the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage
Area Act with Congressman Grijalva. I am pleased that our bill has been
included in H.R. 1483.
By designating the Santa Cruz Valley as a National Heritage Area,
this beautiful and thriving region will receive modest Federal support
for promoting the area's history, cultural resources and indigenous
wildlife habitat. We are ensuring that the Santa Cruz Valley visitors
can experience the unique watershed and diverse societies it has
supported, Native American tribes, descendants of Spanish ancestors,
American pioneers, and, now, members of our diverse Sonoran Arizona
communities.
Widely supported from Marana, Arizona, to Patagonia, the Santa Cruz
Valley will protect private property rights and public use of this
federally managed land.
So I support this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the
underlying bill to support preserving Arizona's National Heritage.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules
Committee and I have highlighted loopholes in the House rules related
to earmark transparency. While this is an important issue that still
must be addressed, there is still a more pressing issue that the House
must act on immediately.
Mr. Speaker, it has now been 130 days, 130 days, since the veterans
funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar
bill. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was said in the debate in the last
bill, the Senate has appointed their conferees over 6 weeks ago. Sadly,
the Democrat leadership in the House has refused to move forward on
this bill and name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship
and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. Every day
the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's
veterans lose $18.5 million.
Last week, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step toward
naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi must follow suit
and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing
the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills that enjoys
strong bipartisan support. It is troubling to me that Democrat
leadership chose to consider a simple resolution today supporting and
encouraging greater support for Veterans Day each year, but thus far,
has refused to demonstrate meaningful support for our Nation's veterans
by working on this final funding bill. Our veterans, and all Americans,
want us to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do
what is in the best interests for our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I see no better time than right now. Therefore, I will
be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that
I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to
conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs funding bill and appoint conferees.
The amendment to the rule I am offering would allow the Speaker to
declare a recess for the purpose of consulting with the minority leader
prior to the appointment of conferees. Further, it would provide that
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 2
additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. In other
words, Mr. Speaker, we can act on this as quickly as we possibly can.
By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong
message to our veterans that they have our commitment to write a final
bill providing them the funding and increase they need, deserve and
were promised.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Doyle). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
oppose the previous question on the 39th closed rule the House is
considering this year, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I only wish the same commitment and tenacity
on behalf of veterans that is being expressed here today continues into
the future, and I wish that it had been a little bit more at the
surface in the past.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats, when they came into the
majority in this House, passed the biggest increase for veterans health
care in history. They passed in the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill $6.7 billion above the fiscal year 2007
budget, which, by the way, was the largest single increase in the 77-
year history of the VA, $3.8 billion above the President's request. So
we are indeed on the same page in terms of protecting our Nation's
veterans, and we are working diligently, not just with our words, but
with our votes and with our actions to make sure that we live up to the
promise that we make to our veterans.
Returning to the legislation and the rule at hand, Mr. Speaker, the
Celebrating America's Heritage Act would provide support for some of
our Nation's cultural treasures and will expand support to additional
heritage areas. I cannot overstate the importance of many of these
areas, not only to the local communities and the regions in which they
exist, but to preserving the history of the United States, that history
that those veterans fought for, by the way, and these heritage areas
stand out for national parks and they are overseen by a coalition of
local leaders, community members and local organizations all with an
interest in the preservation in their areas' traditions and culture and
in the continued vitality of their communities. These heritage areas
play a key role in spurring economic development, which serve as a
bridge to the future for communities as well as a constant reminder of
our past and the cumulative history that has led to where we are today.
[[Page H11897]]
I know what the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway means to
northeast Ohio, and I know what increased Federal support will do to
help it continue serving our community and our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
The material referred to previously by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 765 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
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.
Ms. SUTTON. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.
____________________