[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4636-4639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 684. A bill to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the 
Interior with respect to the management of the elk population located 
in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park; to the Committee of Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week I was in my State of North 
Dakota where we have a wonderful national park. It is named after Teddy 
Roosevelt. He is the conservation- minded President who established the 
National Park System. What a remarkable man he was. What a remarkable 
leader for this country.
  We have a national park in the Badlands called the Theodore Roosevelt 
National Park. I picked up a newspaper to read that there are too many 
elk in the park, an overpopulation of elk, which is going to be a 
serious problem for the national park. The Park Service has had some 
discussion about what they might want to do to thin out or cull the elk 
herd in the national park. It has grown dramatically. They were talking 
in the newspaper article I read about considering hiring Federal 
sharpshooters to kill some elk and then use helicopters to remove their 
carcasses from the national park, for meat, I guess.
  It occurred to me there are times when the Government is completely 
devoid of common sense. I understand the Park Service says there is a 
prohibition on hunting in the national parks. On the other hand, it 
seems to me if you are hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill elk, they 
are going to be hunting those elk. It would make a lot more

[[Page 4637]]

sense, to me, for a limited opportunity for qualified hunters to be 
able to hunt the elk in cooperation with Federal and State authorities. 
You do not need Federal sharpshooters to be paid. You do not need 
helicopters to haul the carcasses out of the park. All you need are 
hunters with a pickup truck or two, and you will be fine.
  Today I am introducing a piece of legislation that would allow the 
Park Service to allow local hunters in my State to work on a 
cooperative basis with the Federal and State authorities to thin that 
elk herd. Culling or thinning the elk herd, apparently, is a necessity. 
It is going to happen. The question is how. Do we spend a lot of money 
hiring sharpshooters and helicopters or do we do this in a commonsense 
way and allow hunters to go in, in a coordinated way and a careful way, 
to thin and cull that elk herd? It seems to me the latter is the better 
approach.
  The Park Service, by the way, at the moment also says my State is 
short of prairie dogs. Of course, that is not the case. We have far 
more prairie dogs than we know what to do with. The prairie dogs were 
born--I should say luckily for them--with a button nose and fur on 
their tail. Otherwise, they would essentially look like a rat. But we 
have a lot of prairie dogs.
  We are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs, not 
because they think prairie dogs are cute, but apparently because they 
want to reintroduce something called the black-footed ferret in my 
State. The last person to spot a black-footed ferret in my State 
allegedly spotted a black-footed ferret some 20 years ago and was 
widely thought, according to local folklore, to have been drinking at 
the time.
  So there apparently are no black-footed ferrets that live in my 
State. They apparently went to warmer climates in the South some long 
time ago. Now we are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie 
dogs as food for black-footed ferrets who are going to be reintroduced 
to North Dakota.
  It is no small wonder, then, I look at some of these Federal agencies 
and wonder if there is any reservoir of common sense left. That is what 
persuaded me, last week, as I read the newspaper article about hiring 
Federal sharpshooters to shoot elk and hiring helicopters to take the 
deer meat out of our national park--a national park proudly named after 
one of the great hunters ever to occupy the White House, Teddy 
Roosevelt--I wondered whether there might be any common sense that 
might be applied that very simply says if we are going to thin or cull 
the elk herd in the Teddy Roosevelt National Park, let's do it the way 
Teddy Roosevelt would have anticipated it be done.
  No, I do not suggest opening up all national parks to hunting. I 
suggest in this limited circumstance that thinning and culling the elk 
herd in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park can best be done without a 
massive cost to the taxpayers and with an opportunity for qualified 
hunters who live in my State.
  I recognize that these issues pale in comparison to larger issues 
like the Iraq war and the health care crisis and fiscal policy that is 
off track, but it seems to me there are times when we ought to call 
attention even to comparatively small things that do not seem right.
  What I read last week about sharpshooters and helicopters not only 
reminded me of the lack of common sense with respect to this little 
issue, but it annoyed me once again with respect to the subject of 
prairie dogs. I spoke about prairie dogs long ago on this Senate floor 
when the prairie dogs took over a small picnic area, and the response 
of the Park Service was to decide to spend a quarter of a million 
dollars to move the picnic area rather than hire a couple of 16-year-
old kids to tell the prairie dogs they have to be elsewhere.
  But having said all that, I am introducing a piece of legislation 
dealing with the Theodore Roosevelt National Park--a park I am 
enormously proud of--and an elk herd that needs thinning and an 
opportunity for qualified North Dakota hunters who will use a 
substantial amount of common sense to solve a problem that can be 
solved quickly and easily.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 685. A bill to establish an expedited procedure for congressional 
consideration of health care reform legislation; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the 
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation 
that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic 
policy issue of our time, namely health care reform.
  I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this 
country. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's in 
place in other countries or by what's been attempted in the past. What 
universal coverage does mean is ending a system where more than 46 
million Americans are uninsured, and where too many of those who are 
insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for 
prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care.
  Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we 
should change the health care system in this country. Some propose 
using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others 
think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a 
national single payer health care system is the only way to go.
  I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage 
creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, 
without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that States have 
a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, 
and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their 
State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system, 
where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan 
to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage, and 
I am working with Senator Graham to develop a bipartisan bill that will 
help States do just that. If we are finally going to fix our broken 
health care system, we need to be open to good, new ideas.
  And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are 
introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health 
care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that 
Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the 
outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens 
of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay 
their premiums, the Federal Government refuses to address the problem 
in a comprehensive way.
  That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force 
Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and 
Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to 
each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the 
session of Congress following enactment of the bill. This bill provides 
an expedited process for considering reform legislation. Similar 
procedures are established for House consideration.
  I want to emphasize that my bill does not prejudge what particular 
health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy 
proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not 
dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be 
considered.
  But what my bill does do is require Congress to act.
  It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health 
care reform was killed by special interests. I am disappointed that 
Congress still has not acted to reform our health care system, and 
businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to 
address the country's health care crisis.
  It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive 
health care reform. We cannot afford

[[Page 4638]]

any further delay. The cost of inaction is too great. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2007.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 685

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reform health Care Now 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENATE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Introduction.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 10 calendar days after the 
     commencement of the session of Congress that follows the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the chair of the Senate Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the Chair of the 
     Senate Committee on Finance, the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each 
     introduce a bill to provide a significant increase in access 
     to health care coverage for the people of the United States.
       (2) Minority party.--These bills may be introduced by 
     request and only 1 qualified bill may be introduced by each 
     individual referred to in paragraph (1) within a Congress. If 
     either committee chair fails to introduce the bill within the 
     30-day period, the ranking minority party member of the 
     respective committee may instead introduce a bill that will 
     qualify for the expedited procedure provided in this section.
       (3) Qualified bill.--
       (A) In general.--In order to qualify as a qualified bill--
       (i) the title of the bill shall be ``To reform the health 
     care system of the United States and to provide insurance 
     coverage for Americans.'';
       (ii) the bill shall reach the goal of providing health care 
     coverage to 95 percent of Americans within 10 years; and
       (iii) the bill shall be deficit neutral.
       (B) Determination.--Whether or not a bill meets the 
     criteria in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the Chair 
     of the Senate Budget Committee, relying on estimates of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, subject to the final approval of 
     the Senate.
       (b) Referral.--
       (1) Committee bills.--Upon introduction, the bill authored 
     by the Chair of the Senate Committee on Finance shall be 
     referred to that Committee and the bill introduced by the 
     Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions shall be referred to that committee. If either 
     committee has not reported the bill referred to it (or 
     another qualified bill) by the end of a 60-calendar-day 
     period beginning on the date of referral, the committee is, 
     as of that date, automatically discharged from further 
     consideration of the bill, and the bill is placed directly on 
     the chamber's legislative calendar. In calculating the 60-day 
     period, adjournments for more than 3 days are not counted.
       (2) Leader bills.--The bills introduced by the Senate 
     Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader shall, on 
     introduction, be placed directly on the Senate Calendar of 
     Business.
       (c) Motion to Proceed.--
       (1) In general.--On or after the third day following the 
     committee report or discharge or upon a bill being placed on 
     the calendar under subsection (b)(2), it shall be in order 
     for any Member, after consultation with the Majority Leader, 
     to move to proceed to the consideration of any qualified 
     bill. Notice shall first be given before proceeding. This 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill can be 
     offered by a Member only on the day after the calendar day on 
     which the Member announces the Member's intention to offer 
     it.
       (2) Consideration.--The motion to proceed to a given 
     qualified bill can be made even if a motion to the same 
     effect has previously been rejected. No more than 3 such 
     motions may be made, however, in any 1 congressional session.
       (3) Privileged and nondebatable.--The motion to proceed is 
     privileged, and all points of order against the motion to 
     proceed to consideration and its consideration are waived. 
     The motion is not debatable, is not amendable, and is not 
     subject to a motion to postpone.
       (4) No other business or reconsideration.--The motion is 
     not subject to a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to is not in 
     order.
       (d) Consideration of Qualified Bill.--
       (1) In general.--If the motion to proceed is adopted, the 
     chamber shall immediately proceed to the consideration of a 
     qualified bill without intervening motion, order, or other 
     business, and the bill remains the unfinished business of the 
     Senate until disposed of. A motion to limit debate is in 
     order and is not debatable.
       (2) Only business.--The qualified bill is not subject to a 
     motion to postpone or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business before the bill is disposed 
     of.
       (3) Relevant amendments.--Only relevant amendments may be 
     offered to the bill.

     SEC. 3. HOUSE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Introduction.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 calendar days after the 
     commencement of the session of Congress that follows the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the chair of the House Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, the chair of the House Committee on Ways 
     and Means, the Majority Leader of the House, and the Minority 
     Leader of the House shall each introduce a bill to provide a 
     significant increase in access to health care coverage for 
     the people of the United States.
       (2) Minority party.--These bills may be introduced by 
     request and only 1 qualified bill may be introduced by each 
     individual referred to in paragraph (1) within a Congress. If 
     either committee chair fails to introduce the bill within the 
     30-day period, the ranking minority party member of the 
     respective committee may, within the following 30 days, 
     instead introduce a bill that will qualify for the expedited 
     procedure provided in this section.
       (3) Qualified bill.--
       (A) In general.--To qualify for the expedited procedure 
     under this section as a qualified bill, the bill shall--
       (i) reach the goal of providing healthcare coverage to 95 
     percent of Americans within 10 years; and
       (ii) be deficit neutral.
       (B) Determination.--Whether or not a bill meets the 
     criteria in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the 
     Speaker's ruling on a point of order based on a Congressional 
     Budget Office estimate of the bill.
       (b) Referral.--
       (1) Committee bills.--Upon introduction, the bill authored 
     by the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     shall be referred to that committee and the bill introduced 
     by the Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     be referred to that committee. If either committee has not 
     reported the bill referred to it (or another qualified bill) 
     by the end of 60-days of consideration beginning on the date 
     of referral, the committee shall be automatically discharged 
     from further consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be 
     placed directly on the Calendar of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union. In calculating the 60-day period, 
     adjournments for more than 3 days are not counted.
       (2) Leader bills.--The bills introduced by the House 
     Majority Leader and House Minority Leader will, on 
     introduction, be placed directly on the Calendar of the Whole 
     House on the State of the Union.
       (c) Motion To Proceed.--
       (1) In general.--On or after the third day following the 
     committee report or discharge or upon a bill being placed on 
     the calendar under subsection (b)(2), it shall be in order 
     for any Member, after consultation with the Majority Leader, 
     to move to proceed to the consideration of any qualified 
     bill. Notice must first be given before proceeding. This 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill can be 
     offered by a Member only on the day after the calendar day on 
     which the Member announces the Member's intention to offer 
     it.
       (2) Consideration.--The motion to proceed to a given 
     qualified bill can be made even if a motion to the same 
     effect has previously been rejected. No more than 3 such 
     motions may be made, however, in any 1 congressional session.
       (3) Privileged and nondebatable.--The motion to proceed is 
     privileged, and all points of order against the motion to 
     proceed to consideration and its consideration are waived. 
     The motion is not debatable, is not amendable, and is not 
     subject to a motion to postpone.
       (4) No other business or reconsideration.--The motion is 
     not subject to a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to is not in 
     order.
       (d) Consideration of a Qualified Bill.--
       (1) In general.--If the motion to proceed is adopted, the 
     chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a 
     qualified bill without intervening motion, order, or other 
     business, and the bill remains the unfinished business of the 
     House until disposed of.
       (2) Committee of the whole.--The bill will be considered in 
     the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule, and the 
     bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at 
     any time.
       (3) Limit debate.--A motion to further limit debate is in 
     order and is not debatable.
       (4) Relevant amendments.--Only relevant amendments may be 
     offered to the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Dodd, and 
        Mr. Specter):
  S. 686. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historical 
Trail; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page 4639]]


  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 225 years ago, on October 17, 1781, a 
few thousand American and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, 
forced the surrender of General Cornwallis and his British regulars, 
and won American independence.
  Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose 
sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget 
that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when 
two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences 
and worked together for a common purpose.
  I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, 
Menendez, Reed, Specter, and Whitehouse, am privileged to call for the 
commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the 
end of the American Revolution with the designation of the Washington-
Rochambeau Revolutionary Route as a National Historic Trail.
  The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route is 600 miles of 
history, winding from Providence, RI, to Yorktown, VA. In the opinion 
of my colleagues and me, it is worthy of designation as a National 
Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and towns all 
along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great Nation. Let us 
celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance and the superhuman 
efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau 
to preserve that alliance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. 
Let us create a National Historic Trail along whose course we can pause 
and remember these heroes, their travels, and sacrifices--from the 
journey's beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport 
and Providence, RI, into New York where he joined Washington's troops, 
and through a cross section of colonial America to its culmination at 
Yorktown.
  Each of the nine States on the trail makes its own unique 
contribution to the tale of the journey. In my own State of 
Connecticut--the two generals met and through a translator planned 
their strategy. In Phillipsburg, NY, the French and American armies 
first joined together and faced off against the British in New York 
City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk 
strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing 
hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British 
army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing 
supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march 
towards Cornwallis in Virginia. They moved on through Princeton and 
Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial victories against great 
odds.
  The trail goes through Philadelphia, PA--then capital of the 
colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside 
town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through 
town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental 
Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new 
European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very 
uncertain time.
  A few days later in Chester, PA, Washington, the normally reserved 
commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he learned the 
French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the British at 
Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the colonies 
was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, DE and Elkton, MD, 
where American troops were finally paid for some of their efforts, 
using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army from General 
Rochambeau.
  Our Nation's capital region also played its part in this story. 
Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some 
crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, 
VA. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to Mount 
Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along the 
route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army and 
events swirling around them.
  The armies marched on through Williamsburg, VA until they reached 
positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and Rochambeau 
and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. Let us take 
the time to better remember the heroes of our past, those who 
sacrificed so much for our freedom today, deserve no less. This bill 
ensures that this history, in all its rich detail, is not forgotten.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Joe Lieberman, in introducing legislation to designate 
the historic route undertaken by General George Washington and General 
Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau to trap the British army at Yorktown, VA, 
as a national historic trail.
  This proposed national historic trail traces the 600-mile route that 
French troops under the command of General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau 
took from Newport, RI, to Yorktown, VA, during the Revolutionary War. 
American troops under the command of General George Washington joined 
the French force outside of New York City and, later that year, on 
October 17, the combined armies defeated British General Charles 
Cornwallis at Yorktown with the help of the French fleet commanded by 
Admiral Francois de Grasse.
  This historic trail would celebrate the Franco-American alliance and 
the heroic effort undertaken by these two great nations to ensure 
American independence. Led by their courageous and brilliant leaders, 
Generals Washington and Rochambeau, these two armies changed the course 
of history with their victory over the British at Yorktown. This 
national historic trail would recognize this historic route and educate 
the public at large about the contributions of these men and their 
armies.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I 
thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Washington-
Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

                          ____________________