[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5535-5540]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 5536]]

and namesake Mr. Hastings from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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.
  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

[[Page 5537]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5538]]

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, 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

[[Page 5539]]

     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
     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

[[Page 5540]]


     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.

                          ____________________