[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H517-H522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1528, NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL SCENIC 
                         TRAIL DESIGNATION ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 940 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 940

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1528) to amend the National Trails System Act 
     to designate the New England National Scenic Trail, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 1528 
     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 (Mr. Cardoza) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 940.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 940 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 1528, the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, under 
a structured rule. The rule provides 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 two Republican 
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Mr. 
Bishop of Utah. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. 
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1528, amends the 
National Trails System Act to designate most of the MMM Trail System as 
the New England National Scenic Trail.
  The MMM Trail System extends from the Massachusetts border with New 
Hampshire through western Massachusetts and Connecticut toward the Long 
Island Sound. The highly popular trail system has existed for over 50 
years and is predominantly managed and maintained by volunteers.
  The trail system travels through important historical landmarks and 
harbors a range of diverse ecosystems and natural resources, including 
mountain summits, waterfalls, and critical habitats for endangered 
species.
  In a recent feasibility study, the National Park Service recommended 
that the trail system be designated as a national scenic trail, with 
some adjustments and rerouting for a total of 220 miles. However, this 
study has been out since the spring of 2006; and while no changes are 
expected, it has been trapped in a giant morass of bureaucratic red 
tape that has not been finalized.
  H.R. 1528 is simply about cutting through this red tape and getting 
Federal recognition and administrative support for a trail that is 
already extremely popular and well managed.
  H.R. 1528 includes specific language protecting private property 
rights, and landowner cooperation in the national scenic trail 
designation is entirely voluntary. All landowners affected by the trail 
have the opportunity to have the trail rerouted around their property.
  Furthermore, since no Federal land is involved, Federal designation 
of the land has no impact on State or local laws currently in place, 
including those governing hunting, fishing, or trapping or local zoning 
or other land use issues.
  Madam Speaker, this designation is widely supported. It is supported 
by

[[Page H518]]

the administration and the local communities across New England, and it 
has bipartisan congressional support, including the Representatives of 
all affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
  In closing, I'd like to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairman Grijalva, and 
Mr. Olver for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor 
today so we can ensure that America's most treasured resources are 
protected for future generations.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to express my great appreciation 
to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman 
from Atwater, California, who so ably represents his constituents here, 
is beginning his second session as a member of the Rules Committee, and 
I will say that it is great to welcome a fellow Californian to the 
Rules Committee.
  But, Madam Speaker, at first blush one looks at this bill and it is, 
as I think was really reflected in the gentleman's remarks, sort of 
innocuous and noncontroversial. I mean, it's a pretty simple measure. 
New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, who can be opposed 
to that? I mean, who could be concerned about that?
  It certainly wouldn't be the first time in the 110th Congress that we 
have had a measure brought up with a rule that could have very easily 
been considered under suspension of the rules. After all, today so far 
we have under suspension of the rules passed a bill that provided a 
$150 billion economic stimulus to our Nation's economy, an issue which 
I'm very proud to say, as we all are, that saw the two parties come 
together, working with the White House in a bipartisan way to make sure 
that we could have this economic stimulus package. And I hope and pray 
that it mitigates the economic challenges that our constituents are 
facing in the future.
  And then, Madam Speaker, we move from there to consider the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, an extension of that, as we worked on 
the issue of reform. And so here we've dealt with the economic stimulus 
and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both measures considered 
under suspension of the rules, and now we have a rule for consideration 
of the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act.
  I think my point is that this is a measure that very easily could 
have been considered under suspension of the rules, and we understand 
that there is an attempt to fill the schedule and there were people who 
quipped about that last night up in the Rules Committee. It is 
unfortunate. I know a number of other Members have already left. We 
didn't work today until noon; and we are in a position now, having 
begun working so late, that we're going into the night on this measure, 
which is a bill that initially, as I said, could have been completely 
noncontroversial and considered under suspension of the rules.
  But I will say, having looked now at the measure, there are concerns 
that have been raised. They are concerns about private property rights 
and the threat of eminent domain. In fact, Madam Speaker, the State of 
New Hampshire opted out of the national designation because of these 
concerns. The people of New Hampshire believe that the trail running 
through their State is well managed and is in no need whatsoever of 
Federal intervention.

                              {time}  1615

  But the other States involved would like to move forward on the 
Federal designation, so we are here late this afternoon to consider 
this.
  Now, as we proceed, we've simply asked that the concerns that have 
been raised see the light of day on the House floor; as I said, these 
concerns as they relate, first and foremost, with the issue of private 
property rights and eminent domain.
  Unfortunately, while seven amendments were submitted to us in the 
Rules Committee, only two were made in order, two out of seven 
amendments submitted. And unfortunately, contrary to the promise that 
was made at the beginning of the 110th Congress by Speaker Pelosi that 
we would have a substitute made in order for legislation that's 
considered, a substitute that was proposed by Mr. Bishop was, in fact, 
denied by the Rules Committee. And why? I mean, I ask about the time 
constraints again. As I said, we didn't begin work today until noon. 
The House convened at noon. Our most critical business of the day, as I 
said, the stimulus bill and the FISA law, were considered under 
suspension of the rules. So, why the rush for us to proceed with this 
New England Scenic Trails bill?
  There is really no practical reason why, Madam Speaker, now that 
we've decided to not take this up under suspension of the rules and 
have a debate, that we can't engage in a little extra debate to allow 
for the concerns to be vetted. And if we can't have an open debate on 
the issue of scenic trails, then one's got to ask, what issue will we 
have an open debate on? I mean, what hope is there for an open process 
for the most significant and the most controversial issues if we can't 
have it on the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act?
  Now, six amendments were submitted by our friend, former Rules 
Committee colleague, Mr. Bishop, addressing the private property rights 
issue. Four were rejected by the Rules Committee. A seventh amendment 
was offered by Mr. Flake that would explicitly prevent the use of 
earmarks in this bill. Now, Mr. Flake's amendment would have provided 
an opportunity to examine this bill's provision to direct unspecified 
Federal dollars to two private entities. Now, did any Members have a 
personal stake in these private groups, in these private entities? Did 
any Member make a specific request on behalf of these private entities? 
Mr. Flake's amendment would have helped to shed a little sunlight on 
this provision before we direct Federal taxpayer dollars towards two 
private groups. But this amendment was also rejected, Madam Speaker, 
unfortunately, by the Rules Committee.
  Shutting out this amendment is, to me, probably the most troubling of 
all. Obviously, the issue of private property rights and eminent domain 
that Mr. Bishop has wanted to address and his four amendments that were 
denied is very, very troubling. But this issue of completely preventing 
Members from the opportunity for sunshine and disclosure on what could 
have been a request by a Member for support for two private 
organizations is very troubling.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that this issue itself gets right 
to the heart of one of the biggest challenges that we faced under the 
Democratic leadership in this place, and it is the inability or 
unwillingness to rein in wasteful earmarks.
  Now, last week, we Republicans were meeting in West Virginia, and we 
spent a great deal of time talking about the issue of earmarks when our 
Republican conference came together. And I'm happy to say that, with a 
united front, Republicans came together on this issue and we decided 
that we would call for a moratorium on earmarks, a moratorium until a 
bipartisan committee can formulate a proposal that eradicates waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the earmark process. It's the so-called Kingston-
Wolf-Wamp legislation that has been put forward.
  Now, we offered to have a complete ban on earmarks, and we challenged 
our Democratic colleagues to join in with a bipartisan agreement to 
have a moratorium on earmarks until such time as this bipartisan 
committee can come forward. Now, Madam Speaker, as I see you in the 
chair, as I see my friend from Atwater, I suspect that either or both 
of you, and certainly a lot of your Members, are going to be going on 
to your retreat. The Democratic Caucus is, I know, going for a meeting 
that will be taking place over the next few days. And it's fun, but 
challenging, and great to have an opportunity for the two parties to 
work within their caucuses, your caucus, our conference, to deal with 
these issues.
  Well, I would just like to say that, just as we did at our meeting 
last week, while far be it for me to be so presumptuous as to say I 
should set the agenda for the Democratic Caucus retreat, I would like 
to say that in light of the offer that we made coming forward as 
Republicans on this issue of earmarks, I would recommend that in

[[Page H519]]

light of the discussion that came here on the floor today on this 
issue, the speech that was delivered last night from the President of 
the United States in which he called for cutting in half the number of 
earmarks saying that he would veto legislation if he didn't see it cut 
in half, the request that we have made on behalf of our constituents to 
say we should have this moratorium done in a bipartisan way, and we as 
Republicans are challenging our Democratic colleagues to do that, I 
would like to say that I hope very much that Members at your retreat 
would, rather than spending a lot of time on a number of other issues, 
I would hope that you would put partisanship aside and try to work, 
just as we did on this economic stimulus issue, in a bipartisan way to 
recognize the very, very pressing need for earmark reform and our 
proposal, which should, in fact, provide strong bipartisan support.
  I will say, Madam Speaker, that the integrity and the effectiveness 
of this body depends on our agreement to proceed with very, very 
important bipartisan reform on this issue. It's my hope that my 
Democratic colleagues will use their upcoming retreat over the next few 
days as an opportunity to urge their leadership to accept our proposal 
to make a bipartisan effort to tackle this very, very critical issue.
  Today's bill was perhaps a small but yet a significant opportunity to 
signal a newfound commitment to open process and meaningful earmark 
reform. Unfortunately, today's bill is a missed opportunity. I suspect 
that this measure will proceed. I don't think that we'll have the votes 
to defeat the previous question, which I should say I'm going to 
attempt to do, to defeat the previous question so that we can make in 
order what I would describe as the Marshall proposal, the proposal that 
has been put forward by one of our Democratic colleagues, Mr. Marshall, 
which is basically identical to the Boehner proposal that we have on 
earmark reform, which will provide a greater degree of transparency, 
accountability, disclosure, and enforcement on this issue, which 
unfortunately is not there.
  So, when it comes to our attempt to defeat the previous question on 
this, what I will be offering is tantamount to a bipartisan proposal 
for our colleagues as we seek to address this issue.
  So, again, I would say, Madam Speaker, if my colleagues had proceeded 
with this bill under a suspension of the rules, you would not have had 
to listen to the speech I just delivered because we would have done the 
exact same things as we did on the $150 billion economic stimulus bill, 
and we would have done the exact same thing as we did on the very 
important Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform measure, and 
albeit simply an extension, the steps towards bringing about reform.
  But in light of the fact that we are here, denying the opportunity 
for us to address the issue of private property rights and eminent 
domain, and the opportunity for the kind of transparency and disclosure 
that everyone around here talks about on the issue of earmarks that 
would have come forward in the amendment offered by our colleague, Mr. 
Flake, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can make that earmark reform proposal in 
order. And if that is defeated, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the rule 
as we proceed with this.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
his kind words that he opened his statement with.
  He mentioned throughout the statement that we might not be here if we 
were under suspension. I feel that under suspension of the rules, we 
would not be able to hear any of the debate that Mr. Bishop is going to 
offer on his two amendments. So, we are actually, in fact, allowing Mr. 
Bishop to make his amendments before the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker.
  I would simply say that I very much appreciate his willingness to 
have greater openness on this debate. And unfortunately, when the Rules 
Committee met late yesterday afternoon, I offered an amendment to have 
this considered under an open amendment process, and that was defeated. 
And I then made an attempt to offer this under a modified open 
amendment process.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman did 
make that offer in Rules. However, it should be noted that Mr. Bishop 
is the ranking member of his subcommittee. He had an opportunity to 
amend this bill in committee. He did not choose to offer but one 
amendment in committee, is my understanding, and then he came to the 
Rules Committee at the last minute with seven amendments.
  The Rules Committee is allowing two amendments to be offered on the 
floor today. I think that's a fair hearing for the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman further yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. The gentleman has his own time.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, I look forward to yielding to you if you would ever 
like to ask.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I would like to just get through a few of my points, if 
I may.
  The gentleman also brought up the issue of whether or not this bill 
has any effect on eminent domain. And I can tell you that there is 
absolutely no authority in H.R. 1528 for the National Park Service to 
take land by eminent domain, nor does the Service have any authority in 
local zoning issues that might affect national scenic trails.
  Further, H.R. 1528 explicitly states that ``the United States does 
not acquire for trail any land or interest in land without the consent 
of the owner.'' In fact, this bill is an opt-in bill; you have to agree 
to have your land put into this act and used in this way.
  The second part of the gentleman's statement with regard to earmarks, 
I'd like to just refer the gentleman to the committee report, page 7, 
the earmark statement. And in the committee report it states that 
``H.R. 1528 does not contain any congressional earmarks.'' This is an 
authorization bill, not an appropriation bill. Further, the report 
states that it does not contain any limited tax benefits or limited 
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.'' 
It states that very clearly in the committee report.
  Finally, the bill does allow two private groups that manage the trail 
currently, and this is the entire point of the bill, to receive Federal 
technical assistance. And that is in the way of educational experience 
or technical assistance to manage the trail, not resources to manage 
the trail.
  So, I would say that there is no earmark whatsoever in this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to my very dear friend from Atwater by saying 
a few things.
  First, on this notion of Mr. Bishop's very able leadership position 
on the committee, my friend, who served with great distinction in the 
California State Legislature, knows very well that the legislative 
process is an ongoing process, and people work on amendments, people 
work on legislation in committee. And the fact that Mr. Bishop may have 
been working on some of the amendments that he is dealing with right 
now and did not offer them in the committee should in no way deny him 
the right to represent his constituents and the American people with 
one of his brilliant, new, and creative ideas that quite possibly 
developed from the markup to the Rules Committee and now to the floor.
  So, I would argue that it is very important for us to do everything 
that we can to ensure the most open amendment process, which is what we 
were promised at the beginning of this Congress.
  Second, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend on this notion of the 
designation of earmarks, I will say that I am particularly proud of the 
fact that in the 109th Congress we dealt with stronger enforcement, we 
dealt with the issue of earmark authorization, tax bills, and 
appropriations bills. Now, I will recognize that the definition that

[[Page H520]]

exists for earmarks in the 110th Congress is not nearly as strong as 
the definition that was put into place in the 109th Congress. Why? 
Because the gentleman is trying to argue right now that there are no 
earmarks in this bill. Well, I would argue that in the 109th Congress, 
based on the definition that we passed in this House and was 
implemented, that this would have been considered an earmark.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, I know that there is a lot of vagueness on this, but we do know 
the following: this is an authorization bill, and there are two private 
entities that are the beneficiaries of this. The gentleman may be 
absolutely right. It may be critically important to the New England 
National Scenic Trail Designation Act to have these items in there. It 
may be. Far be it from me to say that they shouldn't be there because I 
don't know at this point. All we're arguing is that we should, in fact, 
have the opportunity for our colleague, Mr. Flake, who spent a great 
deal of time dealing with the earmark issue, to come forward with his 
amendment so that we could debate it. That's what we are hoping for.
  So I will say, Madam Speaker, that I believe that if we, as an 
institution, are serious about the issue of earmark reform, reining in 
wasteful Federal spending, we should, in fact, in a bipartisan way, in 
a bipartisan way, proceed with this moratorium until such time as the 
bipartisan committee can come back with a group of recommendations as 
to how we can again, in a bipartisan way, deal with this issue of 
earmark reform.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may 
consume to my very good friend from Utah, my former Rules Committee 
colleague (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity in 
being here and talking on this particular bill. This is a day when we 
have dealt with some emergency measures in a very bipartisan way. I 
don't know if this is classified as an emergency measure, but it can be 
a bipartisan approach, too, depending on how we go from here on out.
  I am grateful to the Rules Committee for taking my six amendments and 
approving two for the floor. This is a .333 batting average. It's 
enough to get me in the Hall of Fame. I'm at least above the Mendoza 
line, and I appreciate your doing that for me.
  However, there are some amendments that really are bad amendments 
aimed at trying to scuttle a bill, aimed at putting shackles on the 
runner to prohibit him or her from getting to the finish line. The 
amendments that were proposed by Representative Flake and myself are 
not aimed to do that. They are aimed to take a bill and to improve a 
bill so they can be approved in a bipartisan way and take a bill and 
make it even better.
  Let me assume that I can just talk for a moment on a couple of 
amendments that were not made in order. This trail covers the States of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut, but in reality the trail goes to New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut. Only two of those States are 
proposed in this particular bill and then a process allowed for New 
Hampshire to join later on. One of the amendments simply said, why 
don't you make the same process for all three States? It's not an 
effort to slow anything down. It's an effort to try to be rational in 
the approach to take place. I thought it was a significant and simple 
and straightforward amendment.
  One of the things we always talk about is how important it is to have 
informed citizens and an informed citizenry. We had, for this 
particular bill, one specific property owner who did not wish her 
property to be included in the bill. At great expense to her, with a 
great deal of study and effort coming to Washington to lobby us, she 
was allowed by the committee to be exempt from this trail boundary 
line. I appreciate the committee's doing it. It was appropriate to do 
so. It's very positive on the part of the Natural Resources Committee 
to do so.
  But the question that should be brought to mind is, was she an 
isolated situation, or was she indicative of a greater problem? Indeed, 
if you look at the record of the testimony, there are at least 40 other 
people that have the same question, the same concerns, the same 
approach. And so what we wanted to do is to make sure in one of our 
amendments that citizens were allowed to be notified that they would be 
now included in what before had been a voluntary trail system now into 
a federally mandated and regulated trail system.
  And this is not an onerous task. We were told in committee that both 
the organizations that are currently managing this, as well as States, 
had a database of all the property owners in both Massachusetts and 
Connecticut, and they are already being mailed yearly. What would be 
the problem in including another paragraph in the yearly mailing 
saying, this is about to happen to you and if you don't like it, this 
is the process you can use to exempt yourself, or, even better, if you 
do want to be part of it, this is the process you could use to include 
yourself and your property?
  Once again, that's not to stop the bill. It's simply a matter of 
making sure that everyone is clearly informed of what is about to take 
place, because in the history of trails, in the history of land issues 
in these United States, that has not always been the case, that every 
individual is informed of what is happening to him before it takes 
place.
  I don't think, once again, that was an onerous request. It was 
unfortunate. I think it simply indicates that we should value the 
individual in our legislation, that we should say if even one person is 
going to be adversely affected and does not wish to be adversely 
affected, his home, his farm, his property should be held inviolate, 
and we should respect that. And that was the purpose of one amendment 
that was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. Once again, I don't 
think it would have negatively harmed the bill. In fact, I think it 
would have moved the bill forward in a bipartisan manner.
  We will talk a great deal about the concept of takings. No one who 
has talked about this bill wants takings to take place, wants property 
taken from an individual. We have heard that before. And yet in the 
attempt on the committee staff's part to protect individuals, there is 
a loophole. There is a huge loophole that will result in contradictions 
coming into the future. Those are some of the things we tried to put in 
order. And simply if you had taken that loophole out of the system and 
done what everyone says they want to do, we would have had a bill that 
all of us on this side of the aisle could have stood up and said, yes, 
this is a bill that we all had our input on and we are all prepared to 
move forward on the bill.
  It could have moved forward in the same bipartisan manner, hopefully 
even a bigger bipartisan manner, than the other two emergency pieces of 
legislation we handled today, as well as the LSU resolution, which we 
also did in a bipartisan way, except for the people from Ohio.
  Let me, at last, very briefly, re-echo what Mr. Dreier said about the 
Flake amendment, the so-called earmark amendment. By definition this 
bill does not have earmarks. That's because the committee said it 
didn't. By definition this bill doesn't have a PAYGO question, because 
the committee said it didn't. But, indeed, right after we had the State 
of the Union and the President talked about earmarks and the Speaker 
talked about earmarks, the minority talked about earmarks, we have the 
first authorization bill coming before us with two organizations, the 
Appalachian Mountain Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, 
specifically mentioned as being eligible for grants given to them by 
the Federal Government, and then the language goes on and says ``or 
other groups,'' I think ``groups'' or ``associations.'' Had you simply 
taken out the specific names of the two organizations and simply 
allowed it to be the other groups, any group could apply for 
these grants and the leadership in this particular one, it would have 
solved all of the problem. And that's what Mr. Flake was trying to say. 
It wouldn't have prohibited them from being in the management position 
on this trail, but it would have simply made it a clear and open 
process without giving an earmark to these two organizations. That's 
all that needs to be taken.

  Once again, these amendments that we presented were not in an effort 
to kill the bill, to slow it down, to make

[[Page H521]]

sure it does not pass. They were in an effort to try to make sure that 
we took some of the areas which we think are a little rough, smoothed 
them over, and gave us some protections for the future that we could 
feel comfortable, as the Republican side, in joining with our 
Democratic colleagues to move this bill forward and understand that 
many of the things we are concerned about, protecting the individual, 
protecting the process that we go through, to ensure that those things 
are included in the bill before it leaves this body. It would have been 
a chance to show real bipartisan support for this concept going 
forward.
  Hopefully, we will still have some debate on the amendments that were 
made in order, maybe some other issues that we can once again show the 
ability of this body to come together and make sure that a bill that 
everyone can support goes forward as opposed to one that seems to be 
skewed in one direction or the other.
  With that, I appreciate the time being yielded to me.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I agree totally with one statement that Mr. Dreier, my colleague and 
friend from California, said, and that is that Mr. Bishop often comes 
up with brilliant ideas. Today we are allowing two of those brilliant 
ideas to be debated on the floor.
  With regard to some of the other issues that were raised, I already 
read into the Record the fact that the committee has certified that 
there are no earmarks in this bill. Mr. Bishop says, well, there's a 
potential to have grants later on down the road. My understanding of 
grants is that they come from the administration, not from Congress. 
And if we start talking about every grant that is given by the Federal 
Government or the U.S. Government to the myriad of people who receive 
them throughout this country, that is a process that Congress has set 
up for a number of years. That has never before been the definition of 
an earmark, to my knowledge. So if that's the new definition of 
earmarks, that's news to me.
  But I don't believe, based on the committee's certification, what I 
have heard, the testimony I have heard, there are any earmarks in this 
bill. That is what has been reported in the report, and I believe that 
to be the case.
  Secondly, as I have previously stated as well, this bill is a 
voluntary measure where landowners have the absolute right to opt in or 
out. And so I can't see where there is coercion. There is agreement 
among the delegations in the affected regions, our House colleagues.
  I believe that this is a good measure and it should go forward, and I 
would encourage my colleagues to support the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
as we proceed with this debate on this authorization and earmark 
process.
  I will acknowledge that based on this new and, I believe, rather 
unfortunate definition that is provided for earmarks, you have, in 
fact, seized a little loophole in trying to determine that these are 
not earmarks.
  And I will tell you, Madam Speaker, what that loophole consists of. 
Not a specific dollar amount. Now, Madam Speaker, potentially this is 
even more egregious. Why? Because without a specific dollar amount, we 
don't know exactly how much is going to be expended. And Mr. Bishop has 
just given me a copy of the proposed blueprint budget; and, Madam 
Speaker, what that consists of is specific designation to these private 
entities. And in many ways, this is, as I said, more egregious than had 
a specific amount been put into place, which would have required this 
to have been considered as an earmark.
  Madam Speaker, our quest is simply for more transparency, 
accountability, and disclosure of our constituents' hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars; and we believe very strongly that that should, in 
fact, be the case. Now, everyone says what I just said. Everyone says 
we want more transparency, accountability, and disclosure. Everyone 
says that we want to be great stewards of the taxpayer dollars, those 
dollars of our hardworking constituents. The fact is what we have got 
here is something that is potentially even worse than under the 
definition that you all have as an earmark.
  So I will say that looking at this proposed blueprint budget makes it 
even more imperative that we do everything within our power to proceed 
with making sure that we defeat the previous question and make in order 
the earmark amendment that we are going to be offering, and I hope very 
much that my colleagues will join in doing that.
  Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous 
question, as I have said, so that I can amend the rule to allow for 
consideration of H. Res. 479, the Boehner earmark enforcement rule 
changes. And don't fear, the amendment would not prevent the House from 
considering the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. It 
would merely allow the House to also consider the Boehner earmark 
reform proposal.
  Over the first year of Democratic control, we have learned that the 
earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the 
Houses as well as a myriad of other legislative scenarios which were 
not contemplated when the new Democratic majority put through the so-
called earmark reform rules. These loopholes, as I was saying earlier, 
have prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy 
bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion 
legislation, and the omnibus bill, which, as we all know, contained 
nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-
dropped in the bill at the last minute.
  Now, Madam Speaker, it's not just Republicans as I was saying in my 
opening remarks who have taken note of these earmark loopholes. Our 
colleague from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) recently introduced a virtually 
identical rules change geared at closing the air-drop loophole as well 
as the amendments between the Houses loophole.

                              {time}  1645

  Obviously, I believe it's about time for the Democratic majority to 
start listening not only to concerns that are emerging from those of us 
who serve in the minority, but from members of their own caucus on this 
issue as well.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous material be inserted into 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 California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to restore 
accountability and enforceability to House earmark rules.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his debate 
today. I disagree vehemently that his rendition of the earmark process 
is an accurate one. I don't believe that last Congress's rules on 
earmarks were stricter and more transparent than this Congress's. In 
fact, I believe that the country knows that the earmark process has 
gotten more transparent under the Democrats and that we have far fewer 
earmarks in the current process than we had previously. I think voters 
spoke about that in the last election.
  I would just go on to say, Madam Speaker, that 40 years ago, the 
National Trails System Act was established to provide a system of 
trails for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of scenic, historic, 
and naturally significant areas. H.R. 1528 adheres to these very long-
established values. It ensures that the sweeping, natural landscapes 
across New England remain protected and untouched so they may be 
enjoyed by our children and grandchildren for years to come. It 
deserves strong support by all Members on the floor today, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier of California is as 
follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 940

                  Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:

[[Page H522]]

       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4, 
     if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order or demand for division of the question, shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:
       (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' 
     at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the 
     end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding 
     the following at the end:
       ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between 
     the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to 
     an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his 
     designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited 
     tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and 
     amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective 
     item in such list) or a statement that the proposition 
     contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
     limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional 
     Record prior to its consideration.''.
       (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph 
     (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition. The question of consideration 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiation 
     the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but 
     shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except 
     one that the House adjourn.''.
                                  ____

       (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. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________