[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2093-H2098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2016, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM ACT
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1084 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1084
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. 2016) to establish the National Landscape
Conservation System, 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. 2016
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 Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and namesake, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Resolution 1084.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1084 provides
for consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation
System Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of
general debate, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.
The rule makes in order the eight amendments listed in the Rules
Committee report on this resolution. Six of these amendments will be
offered by Republican Members, two by Democrats. Each amendment is
debatable for 10 minutes. This rule is a continuation of our commitment
to ensuring that the minority be given a fair opportunity to amend
legislation on the House floor.
The rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the American public has a vested interest in protecting
our Nation's lands from the destructive uses that would ruin their
natural beauty. In my home State of Florida, the protection and
preservation of the magnificent ecosystem known as the Everglades,
which spans 3 million acres of wetlands and is home to rare and
endangered species, is of utmost importance to me and my constituents.
It is a national priority to ensure that these majestic wetlands and
others around our country will be preserved for all future generations
of Americans to enjoy. The preservation of the National Landscape
Conservation System is equally important to this Nation and to this
Congress.
The underlying legislation would protect 27 million acres of land of
the American West considered to have significant historical, cultural,
ecological, scientific or scenic value. Most of the lands in this
system are already protected and administered by the Bureau of Land
Management, including wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and
national monuments. This bill will help to streamline management of the
system and reduce overall bureaucracy in the program.
If the statement of the gentleman from Alaska yesterday in the Rules
Committee is any indication, and I am referring to our colleague
Congressman Young, there is a small minority of Members who may try and
argue that this bill strips the private property rights of landowners.
Quite the contrary. This bill protects only the lands the Bureau of
Land Management already has authority over. Additionally, no owners'
rights have been violated in the past, and there is no reason to
believe they will be violated in the future.
[[Page H2094]]
Some may also argue that the underlying legislation changes the core
management authority governing the individual National Landscape
Conservation System units. Conversely, the bill includes an extensive
savings clause that makes it abundantly clear that nothing in the bill
alters the management authority governing the individual units.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would not
affect the Bureau of Land Management's budget, direct spending or
revenues, or the budgets of State, local or tribal governments.
Finally, the amendments made in order under the rule go a step
further to address energy development, grazing rights, hunting and
fishing and border security, ensuring that this bill does not change
the law in these areas at all. All this bill does is help conserve and
protect our Nation's land, our Nation's heritage.
It enjoys broad bipartisan support from groups including the
Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, American Hiking
Society, the National Council of Churches, Boone and Crockett Club,
National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Wildlife Foundation,
and the Outdoor Industry Association.
The bill also enjoys the often unheard of support from both President
Bush and former President Clinton.
It is my sincere hope that the House will pass this rule and
underlying bill with the same overwhelming bipartisan support it
currently enjoys. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
National Landscape Conservation System Act as we further our efforts to
protect and preserve public lands throughout America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
and namesake Mr. Hastings from Florida for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and 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, this is an unfair rule
making in order, in my view, a bad bill, and a poor way to run the
House of Representatives. It is claimed by this legislation's
proponents that it is just an attempt to write into Federal law a new
BLM, Bureau of Land Management, land management scheme that was
invented by then-Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt.
{time} 1215
It is the weakest of justifications for passing legislation and an
abdication of responsibility for the legislative branch, for this
Democratic Congress, to argue that we have to pass this bill to
authorize what the last Democratic President created by fiat. Yet the
harm to the powers and responsibilities of the House and our public
lands is far greater.
This bill simply doesn't write into law the national landscape
conservation system that Secretary Babbitt created, because this bill
is written so poorly and loosely that it actually gifts the authority
of the Congress over to the political appointees and career department
bureaucrats in the Interior Department.
Vague words such as ``values'' are left undefined by this bill. It is
the job of the Congress to define terms and write bills plainly and
clearly. Not doing so gives away the power to these presidential
appointees and career bureaucrats. When the elected Congress doesn't do
its job, the unelected agencies and departments are free to impose
their opinions and philosophy as laws and regulations.
With the faults and deficiencies of this bill so obvious, it was no
surprise that last night 28 amendments to improve this legislation were
filed with the Rules Committee, and with the Democratic track record of
shutting down debate in this Congress, it was certainly no surprise
when the Democratic Rules Committee blocked 19 of these amendments and
denied representatives an ability to come to the floor and have a
debate and a vote on their proposals.
My dear friend from Florida noted that the rule makes in order two
Democratic amendments and six by Republicans, but I must point out that
this means that every amendment offered by the Democrats were made in
order, but 19 were not allowed to be made in order that were sponsored
by Republicans.
Many relevant and constructive amendments were shut down by the
Democratic Rules Committee. These include amendments to ensure the
ability for wind and solar energy production on these public lands, to
require that the Federal Government fully fund payments in lieu of
taxes to local governments before spending new funds on landscaping, to
ensure that there is no net loss of off-highway recreation areas and
boating access facilities, to protect existing grazing rights, to
ensure that hunting, fishing, recreational shooting and other current
uses can continue on BLM lands and to require that the privately owned
property of American citizens are not included in the NCLS without the
written consent of the owner.
When the Rules Committee blocked these amendments, they acted to put
the decisions in the hands of the Interior Department. This bill is a
threat to the ability of citizens to enjoy and use their public lands.
Democrat leaders won't even permit Members of the House to vote on
whether Americans will be able to continue to ride, boat, graze
livestock, shoot, hunt or fish on the lands that they can use today.
This Congress says to Americans that their private property rights are
not certain, that these rights and their land is at risk subject to the
whims of the Interior Department.
That Democratic leaders are shutting down debate on this bill is
truly not a surprise, but it is a broken promise. When the new majority
took control after the 2006 elections, they promised to run the most
open House in history. Unfortunately, they have not kept this promise.
In fact, the Democratic majority has set a historic record of the
most closed rules in the history of the House, and they have already
done that in record time. They have shut down debate on the House floor
more than any other majority ever.
Why have they done so? It certainly isn't because of the tremendous
accomplishments of the 110th Congress. The list of items not done,
overdue bills and unfinished business of this House is long and growing
longer.
For example, House Democrats have refused to pass the bipartisan
Senate bill to protect our country by modernizing the 1970-era FISA law
to monitor foreign persons in foreign places. Another example is the
farm bill that expired last September, and America's farmers have been
left waiting for months and wondering when this Congress will act.
Another is fixing the Medicare payments to doctors so that they can
keep caring for seniors. Another is passing funding for the war on
terrorism. The new No Child Left Behind act awaits renewal later this
fall. Also the Secure Rural Schools Act desperately needs to be passed
to keep the Federal promise made to rural communities whose hospitals
and schools are at risk.
The State sales tax deduction expired last December for those States
that don't have a State income tax like Washington and Florida. With
the deadline just 6 days away, the new majority has yet to create a
final budget outline for the next fiscal year.
The House isn't working on these national priorities, but last week
the Rules Committee went so far as to pass a rule to restrict debate
and permit only three amendments on legislation to renew the Fire
Administration.
The end result of this closed process was that all three amendments
passed by a voice vote and the bill passed this House by 412-0. Hardly
a controversial bill, but under the closed process we are left with
that example of how this House is being run.
With the House neglecting its work and not acting on these
priorities, we have a lot of free time on our hands, to which the new
majority leaders respond by shutting down Republicans from being
allowed to offer amendments on even the most noncontroversial bills,
like last week and what we will take up this week.
This is an unfair rule on a poorly written bill that threatens each
and every American's ability to recreate, use and enjoy their public
lands. It puts citizens' private property rights at a real risk.
[[Page H2095]]
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the bill and
insist that the House get to work on the important business this
Congress is thus far failing to get done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time until
the gentleman has closed and yielded back his time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
yield 4 minutes to my good friend and former member of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Bishop of Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington
yielding me the time. It is always a pleasure for me to be on the floor
with the two Representative Hastings who represent different parts of
the country here. It's a pleasure.
Mr. Speaker, when I was a young State legislator in my second term,
actually I was still in my twenties, so you know that was a long, long
time ago, someone once came to me with an idea of doing some PR by
doing what everyone wants to do, and that is to eliminate useless
legislation. I thought this is great. This is going to be a great stunt
that I can use to eliminate some useless legislation.
I picked a statute still in the Utah code still on the books which
required the State of Utah to fund a summer encampment for every
veteran of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and, since when
this was written, it also said the Great War. Since there were no
veterans alive, I thought this was an ideal situation to try to pass,
and I introduced the bill.
The unfortunate thing is, even though this bill was supposed to do
nothing, when it went to the committees of jurisdiction, there was this
impending desire on the part of legislators to make the bill actually
do something. By the time it went actually through the process, this
bill allowed for any veterans group, including Boy Scouts, to be able
to use all the National Guard armories in the State of Utah free of
charge.
It got to the point where I killed my own bill, because all of a
sudden something that wasn't supposed to do anything was now doing
something. What it was doing was really, really wrong and not intended.
Now the proponents of this particular bill say the greatest benefit
from this bill is simply that it basically does nothing. It doesn't
change anything.
However, one of the proponents, when asked by his local newspaper if
this would increase the cost and the regulations on these lands said,
well, you establish the system first and then we go to step two.
It is what that step two may or may not be that has the greatest
amount of concern with this particular bill, which direction will we be
going? This bill talks about establishing values for the management of
this land, but nowhere does it ever talk about what these values
actually are.
We will hear amendments on the floor that we are talking about
grazing and hunting and fishing and energy rights, as those are part of
the values that should have been described and should have been defined
in the very basis of this bill.
But what is significant is what will not be allowed to be discussed
on this floor with this particular bill. Specifically, how do you treat
individuals with this bill? We had an amendment that deals with the
concept of recreation, boating and shooting rights. There would be no
net loss of territory. On these types of recreation activities, this is
a perfect example to talk about is this part of the value of these
lands? It's traditional, and yet it was denied the ability to even
present that on the floor.
We talked about the border security. There will be an amendment which
will codify the status quo on border security, which is not what we
wanted to bring up, because what we were talking about is not the
status quo, which is bad, but changing the status quo. Those efforts to
try and expand that opportunity on border security were denied
discussion on this floor on the rule.
Now, this particular entity, this national land conservation system,
came from the fertile mind of Secretary Babbitt. It also did not have a
specific definition of what the values were.
There are two types of parks and monuments. Not all parks and
monuments are created equal. Parks and monuments, run by the Park
Service, talk about values and they are specified as to what those
values are. What this bill is now trying to do is codify a new entity
that will be talking about values of BLM, parks and national monuments.
Now, when you talk to the Department of the Interior, one of the
reasons they say they are somewhat supportive of the concept of this
bill was because it would allow them to maintain the multiple use
values that make a difference between park service land and BLM land.
Yet when we tried to add an amendment to this bill, both in committee
and again in the Rules Committee, to specifically say that one of the
values must be multiple use, it was defeated on a straight party-line
vote.
Once again, the very essence of the difference between national park
monuments and national parks and BLM national parks and national
monuments is this concept of multiple use. Yet we are not allowed to
even talk about that, which goes to the question, if people eventually
take legislation and want it to do something, in what direction will
this take us? What will they start wanting to do?
If the core difference between national park land and BLM land is not
specified in this legislation, where, actually, will we end up? This
bill may, indeed, do something that we do not want to see happening,
and this entity, which is nothing more than a $15 million a year
boondoggle right now, a redundancy at best, could indeed end up to do
something that creates real harm and real destructive elements.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Now there is one other part that should have been
part of this discussion and was not allowed by my friends on the Rules
Committee.
It was briefly addressed by the gentleman from Florida, but he missed
the point, I think, that the gentleman from Alaska was trying to make
dealing with personal property.
Supposedly this issue does not deal with personal property because we
are only dealing with BLM property. The difference, though, is with all
of those entities within the Bureau of Land Management proposal, there
are private inholdings. They have been a constant source of problem and
contentions.
Unless you specify the significant value of how you are going to
treat these inholdings, you make the situation of those private
property holders much more difficult. You raise the specter of trying
to change access restrictions because, indeed, if you are now going to
run this land like the park service land, that will be a problem.
Not only do you create another level of bureaucracy to make those
trying to solve their problems much more difficult to get equity, you
also create all sorts of different solutions to be there that should
have been specified in the legislation.
Protecting the private property holders' inholdings in those
properties right now is one of the values that BLM lands should be
doing, and it should be specified. It is not in this bill. The fact
that we cannot add that to this bill, because of a ruling on a partisan
vote by Rules Committee, is devastatingly wrong.
{time} 1230
It will take us down a path where who knows what will be the end
result. But, it is an end result that will have the high likelihood of
harming individual people, individual people who use this land right
now, either for recreation purposes, for sporting purposes, for hunting
purposes, or for their own land value purposes, will be harmed unless
those issues are clearly specified in this language, and the amendments
to do that were not made in order.
Several good amendments were made in order, not nearly enough because
this bill, as written, is flawed; and this bill, as amended, would
still be flawed because it doesn't address those particular issues.
[[Page H2096]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Utah
not to leave, and I am going to ask him a question and then yield time
to him, with the Speaker's permission.
The gentleman from Utah is my good friend and he served with us on
the Rules Committee, but I am just curious, as the ranking member of
the committee of relevant jurisdiction, did you offer these measures?
And, in addition, in the Rules Committee did you offer any statement in
support of your measures? Finally, you did offer one amendment that I
would suggest we save yourself from by not making it in order because
you are not asking, of course, or want us to take up a measure that is
going to cost the Treasury $5 billion.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you very much, but please don't try and
save myself from anything in the future.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will work on that.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Put all of my amendments on the floor, and then,
then you've got a good argument that is there.
Indeed, one of these amendments, specifically the amendment on
multiple use, was discussed in committee and was defeated on a partisan
voice vote. That issue still is one that is relevant and needs to be
part of this bill. If it is not, you have taken the core values between
BLM and National Parks and blurred the lines into nonexistence. You
can't do that. That has to be one of the values that is here.
The second issue I am talking about is private property rights. As I
recall, I did not present that in the committee so but it is still very
relevant and should be here, and is one of the problems that we are
developing if we continue to go on with this.
I do have to say to the gentleman from Florida, no, I did not have
the privilege of going before your committee and testifying last night.
Gosh, I wish I could have done that, and I know you guys really wanted
me to be there to continue the testimony and elongate the meeting last
night.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, did you not have the
privilege or did you choose not to come?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you if I can answer that question, and as
much as I would have loved to, I must say in reality Delta Airlines
made the decision for me.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Yes, but that wasn't a privilege lost, that
was just an airline not working.
Reclaiming my time, I wanted my friend to have an opportunity to say
those things that he did. And notwithstanding his admonition, I can
assure him that when he is offering measures that are going to cost the
Treasury $5 billion and violate the PAYGO rule, that on the Rules
Committee I will try to save him one more time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I would just make this point: There are many times when amendments
are filed by Members of this body and they do not come to the Rules
Committee and their amendments are made in order, and that was the
case, for example, of one of the amendments that was made in order by a
Democrat Member last night. Those things do happen.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is a restrictive rule that
prevents Members of this House from offering amendments to try and
improve the poorly and loosely written underlying bill.
As has been said several times, 19 amendments were blocked by the
Rules Committee. This rule does not allow the House to debate
amendments to protect American's current ability to enjoy these BLM
lands through fishing, riding, hunting, and boating.
But even more egregious is that this rule blocks the House from
voting on an amendment to protect private property rights of American
citizens. As Representative Bishop has pointed out, and he had filed an
amendment to the Rules Committee, it was amendment No. 13, that would
have simply directed the Secretary of the Interior not to include
private property within the National Landscape Conservation System
without the written consent of the landowner, and this deals with the
issue of in holdings, as Mr. Bishop mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair amendment. It is an important amendment.
It seeks only to protect the private property rights of American
citizens. The Rules Committee should not have blocked his amendment
from being made in order and let Members vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on that
amendment.
So I am going to give, Mr. Speaker, Members an opportunity to support
or oppose private property rights by asking Members of the House to
defeat the previous question on the rule. By defeating the previous
question, I will seek to amend the rule to allow Representative Bishop
to offer his private property rights amendment No. 13. By voting ``no''
on the previous question, Members are voting to respect and protect the
private property rights of all Americans.
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. 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 vote
``no'' on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule and an inclusive rule. We have heard
here why we must pass this rule and the National Landscape Conservation
System Act. Far too many of our Nation's natural treasures have already
been compromised by a variety of destructive threats. It is Congress'
responsibility to ensure that the National Landscape Conservation
System is forever protected. Each National Landscape Conservation
System unit has been established by Congress or Presidential
proclamation and is managed according to its enabling authority. This
legislation establishes the system in statute.
It is crucial for Congress to act as a good steward for environmental
land protection and fully codify the National Landscape Conservation
System. It is our duty to help preserve the natural heritage of our
Nation for all future generations of Americans to one day enjoy. I urge
a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1084 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Bishop
of Utah or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Page 4, line 9, strike ``and''.
Page 4, line 11, strike the period and insert the
following:
(3) by ensuring that no private property will be included
in the system without written consent of the owner.
(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,
[[Page H2097]]
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. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
suspending the rules with respect to House Resolution 1077.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 190, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 164]
YEAS--220
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Abercrombie
Alexander
Boucher
Buyer
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ferguson
Granger
Hill
Hunter
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Larson (CT)
Neugebauer
Rothman
Rush
Shays
Sires
Velazquez
{time} 1300
Mr. NUNES, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mr. LAMPSON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
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. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 188, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 165]
YEAS--220
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
[[Page H2098]]
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Abercrombie
Alexander
Boucher
Buyer
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ferguson
Granger
Green, Al
Larson (CT)
McGovern
Neugebauer
Rothman
Rush
Shays
Sires
Sullivan
Sutton
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Waxman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remaining in
this vote. Two minutes remaining.
{time} 1307
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably delayed
and missed the vote on H. Res. 1084, the Rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System
Act (rollcall 165). Although H. Res. 1084 passed by a vote of 220-188,
I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position. Had I
been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 165.
____________________