[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.

                          ____________________