[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8586-8593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 146, OMNIBUS 
                   PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 280 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 280

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 146) 
     to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program for the 
     acquisition and protection of nationally significant 
     battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War 
     and the War of 1812, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without 
     intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
     clause 10 of rule XXI, a single motion offered by the chair 
     of the Committee on Natural Resources or his designee that 
     the House concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate 
     amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 280.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 8587]]


  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 280 provides 
for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus 
Public Land Management Act of 2009. The rule makes in order a motion by 
the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources to concur in the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 
of 2009. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by 
the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Madam Speaker, today, people across the country are looking to this 
body to pass this important bill. We have an historic opportunity to 
protect and preserve land across the country for future generations. 
Our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to enjoy 
national parks around the country.
  In Maine, my district, like so many other areas around the country, 
we cherish the natural beauty that surrounds us, and we have worked 
hard to preserve it. When I was the Senate majority leader in the State 
of Maine, I sponsored the biggest land bond bill in State history to 
preserve our open spaces for the public.
  Time and again, the people of my State have voted to invest in public 
land that will be protected for generations to come, and we value the 
full variety of uses of that land, whether it be hiking, camping, 
kayaking, hunting, or fishing.
  We are here today to consider the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the 
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. These amendments provide us 
with the opportunity to strengthen our National Park System, improve 
forest health, facilitate better management of our public lands, and 
increase the quantity and quality of the water supply in numerous local 
communities.
  This is not the first time this body has voted on this legislation. 
On March 11, a bipartisan majority of the House voted in favor of the 
Omnibus Lands Management Act. Unfortunately, it narrowly failed to 
obtain the two-thirds vote to pass the House. Last year, the majority 
of the bills that make up this package were passed out of the House but 
were held up in the Senate by a threatened filibuster.
  Finally, this year the Senate voted twice--each time overwhelmingly 
in favor of this package. Our time to send this legislation to the 
President's desk is long overdue.
  This package will provide protection to historic and cultural 
resources that include the sacred ground of American battlefields. In 
addition, it will protect our forests, our water, our network of 
trails. It will add to our National Park System and provide land that 
we can all enjoy.
  By finally passing this legislation today, we will designate over 2 
million acres of land as wilderness. This means that when our 
grandchildren want to take their families to see what America looked 
like in its wild state, they will be able to. And they will be able to 
explore these lands because we are not closing off or preventing access 
to land.
  Instead, the wilderness designation helps manage the various uses, 
and this legislation recognizes that some areas are better suited for 
some kinds of recreation than others.
  This act also provides protection to historic sites like the Harriet 
Beecher Stowe House in my State of Maine, where this courageous 
abolitionist wrote ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Future generations will be 
able to see and use this site and others protected by this legislation.
  This legislation before us is a product of bipartisan efforts that 
recognize how critical it is to conserve our land and ensure that the 
American people have access to that land. Land is one of our most 
precious resources and we must do our part, not only for our use but 
for future generations.
  This legislation protects areas for outdoor recreation. It preserves 
land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. Not only 
does this package protect some of the most environmentally significant 
and scenic land in the country, it also provides protection for our 
Nation's water resources and keeps our Wild and Scenic Rivers undammed 
and free flowing.
  Taken as a whole, this package is truly landmark legislation. The 
amendments incorporate bipartisan bills introduced by the last 
Congress--39 by Democrats and 36 by Republican Members of the House.
  Finally, as good a piece of legislation as I think this is, the 
debate before us is simply on the rule to debate the underlying bill. 
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may argue that this did 
not go through regular order, or this limits second amendment rights, 
or that it somehow excludes our honored returning vets from accessing 
public lands, but all of those arguments are simply untrue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. No, I won't.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very 
important public lands bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the best thing about what has been happening 
in this session of Congress, I think, is that the American people are 
paying close attention to what is going on here, and I certainly hope 
that they are paying close attention to the debate on this rule today 
because it's an important rule that we are debating and it's an 
important bill that is going to be voted on.
  Process is important, I think, although people say most folks don't 
pay attention to it. But what the majority has done, it's taken a very, 
very bad bill and used every possible maneuver to it to keep us from 
really debating this bill, from voting on amendments, and from dealing 
with this bill in an open way.
  I want to say that I am a big supporter of national parks. I often 
say that I think the Federal Government's number one job is national 
defense, but I think there is an important role in this country for 
preserving land for all people to use.
  So I am a supporter of national parks. When I travel around the 
country, those are the places that I like to go.
  We are debating the rule, but the underlying bill, I think, is going 
to harm our country and harm Americans in many ways. We are going to be 
restricting Americans' right to the second amendment in this country. 
We are going to be restricting people with disabilities from using the 
very lands that they think they should be able to use. We are going to 
be restricting our disabled veterans from being able to use the parks 
and areas that are being set aside. We are going to be trampling on the 
important issue of eminent domain.
  Many people are opposed to this bill. We even have the ACLU along 
with several other groups saying that they are opposed to this bill and 
have serious reservations about it.
  But it's going to be rammed through, like so many other things have 
been rammed through in this session of Congress, and it's setting the 
tone for how the majority is operating in this Congress at this time.
  We are even told that even though 100 of these bills--there are 160 
bills in this one bill--even though 100 of them have never been debated 
by either body, because the Senate okayed this, then it's okay with us.
  I suspect that later on in this session I'm going to hear my 
colleagues who made that comment make a very, very different kind of 
comment.
  So I am very concerned about this rule. I think it is a bad 
underlying bill. I think the rule is bad because it cuts off debate. 
But this is the modus operandi of the majority in this session.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 8 minutes to a former 
member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to this rule and the total blockade erected by House 
Democrat leaders to any amendments being offered on this over 1,200-
page bill, this $10 billion omnibus lands package.
  This bill is a monster bill created by the Senate, stacking together 
more than 170 pieces of different legislation. Over 100 of these bills 
have never been voted on in the House.

[[Page 8588]]

  The legislative strategy behind the creation of this omnibus bill was 
to make a bill--apparently like AIG--that is too big to fail.
  Of course, the bill does contain some worthwhile provisions, 
including a few that I offered. But if we were wise, if we were wise in 
this House, our recent experiences with TARP and the stimulus package 
would serve as a cautionary tale about the need for deliberation before 
passing gargantuan bills.
  Last week, for example, Congress loudly expressed indignation about 
the Wall Street bonuses. But now we learn that restrictions on bonuses 
were in the original legislation but they were stripped out in the 
final bill by someone in Congress, specifically in the Senate.
  And yet here we are again, about to ensure that another far-reaching 
bill will move through the House, unexamined, and it with no 
opportunity for amendment.
  However, there are many areas in this bill that need improvement. I 
filed, Madam Speaker, just 10 amendments with the Rules Committee on 
the most serious areas of concern.
  Let me highlight just a few of them: Ensuring protection of our 
border security; producing American-made energy that will create new 
jobs; ensuring public access to Federal lands--and I will talk about 
that more in a moment--and restoring Americans' second amendment rights 
while on Federal lands. This was struck down last Thursday by a judge 
here in D.C.
  On the need to protect our borders, do we know what effect the 
enhanced environmental restrictions under this bill will have on border 
security? No, we do not.
  The Senate has stricken out an amendment by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona 
to the National Landscape Conservation System bill that was adopted in 
this House last April, 414-0. This unanimously approved House amendment 
stated, ``Nothing in this act shall impede any efforts by the 
Department of Homeland Security to secure the borders of the United 
States.'' The Senate stripped this provision from the bill and now that 
protection is gone.
  I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee to restore this 
provision as it reflects the unanimous House position, as well as 
another amendment to apply this border security protection language to 
the entire omnibus bill.
  We must ensure that provisions in this bill do not ban the use of 
vehicles and other technology to patrol and secure our border. But this 
rule we are debating doesn't allow any amendments to be debated or 
voted on by this House.
  The force behind denying any amendment to the omnibus bill is so 
great, so great, that the House is apparently willing to fall over and 
play dead on border security. We don't even know who is responsible for 
deleting this amendment in the Senate.
  If this bill becomes law without fixing this border security 
loophole, I fear we will likely look back in the future and say, Well, 
we really should have kept that safeguard in and not let the Senate 
strip it out, just like the Senate stripped out the AIG provision that 
we railed against last week.
  The price Americans pay to fill up their cars is starting to go up 
again, yet H.R. 146 prohibits American-made energy production on 
Federal lands--production that would create new jobs in these difficult 
economic times. Our Nation can't afford to shut down the creation of 
jobs and we can't afford to become even more dependent on foreign oil.
  The omnibus bill even locks up Federal lands from renewable energy 
production, including wind and solar. Again, amendments that I filed to 
address these issues were rejected by the Rules Committee.
  As written, Madam Speaker, the omnibus bill prevents and bans public 
access to Federal lands in many ways. The recreational riding of 
bicycles and motorbikes is prohibited in over 2 million acres of public 
land. Wheelchair access to wilderness areas is effectively banned as 
well.
  Madam Speaker, let me explain. Federal law does not ensure that 
wheelchairs capable of use in outdoor natural areas are allowed. It 
only permits wheelchairs that are ``suitable for use in an indoor 
pedestrian area.''
  Madam Speaker, I know there's a great deal that politicians disagree 
on, but I hope that we can agree on this fundamental fact: Nature is 
outdoors. Wilderness areas and national parks are located outside, and 
wheelchairs and similar devices that allow the disabled access to 
outdoor natural areas is not allowed under existing law or this omnibus 
bill.
  Furthermore, current law expressly says that accommodation for 
wheelchairs or the disabled in wilderness areas is not required. 
Therefore, the disabled act reigns.
  Public lands should be available for public enjoyment. That includes 
disabled. Yet access for disabled veterans and all disabled Americans 
is not protected by this omnibus.
  I proposed several amendments to address these shortcomings, 
including explicit protections for bicycle access, existing motorized 
recreational vehicle access, as well as an amendment for access for 
disabled and disabled veterans on lands covered in this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate our friend from Pasco, the 
ranking member of the Resources Committee, for his very hard work on 
this issue, and to report to the House, unfortunately, the fact that 
the Rules Committee last night, after a very, very contentious debate, 
on a party-line vote, decided not to allow the very thoughtful 
amendments that Mr. Hastings has brought forward to be considered.
  It's interesting to note, if my friend would continue to further 
yield, that we in the last week or two have been dealing with the 
aftermath of the 1,100-page stimulus bill that was brought before us.

                              {time}  1045

  We know that last week we spent all of our time trying to figure out 
a way around the $167 million in bonuses that were provided to AIG 
executives. Everyone was up in arms about this, and people are still 
pointing fingers to determine how it is that that measure got into the 
stimulus bill.
  Well, one of the things that we found is that unintended consequences 
continue to come forward and we, thanks to Mr. Hastings' efforts, found 
an unintended consequence. I have to say, Madam Speaker, for many, many 
years we, as Republicans, have been maligned, maligned regularly by our 
friends on the other side of the aisle for trying to pull the rug out 
from under seniors, starving children, and the disabled. I would not 
dream of standing here arguing that there is any Member of this House, 
Democrat or Republican, who would want to deny the disabled access to 
wilderness areas. But I know this, a problem was raised.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington's time has 
expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Let me say, and I thank both of my colleagues for their 
kindness, but let me say, Madam Speaker, as we look at this challenge 
which has been such a great one, there is no one, as I said, who would 
want to deny any disabled person access, Democrat or Republican, even 
though we are regularly accused of such heinous acts and have been for 
many, many years.
  But Mr. Hastings found the unintended consequence here, and last 
night in the Rules Committee we came forward and said here is a way to 
deal with this challenge. We want to ensure that people who are 
disabled have access to our wilderness areas. And again, Mr. Hastings 
had two amendments. We offered them, and on a party-line vote he was 
denied an opportunity to offer those amendments.
  Again this gets to this point, Madam Speaker, we are in this era of 
bipartisanship as put forward by Speaker

[[Page 8589]]

Pelosi, a great desire to listen to the input provided by Members 
regardless of political party; and here we have a commonsense package 
of amendments that will deal with something that no one wants to allow 
happen, and yet Members of the Republican Party were in fact shut out 
from having a chance to offer those amendments whatsoever. And I 
believe it is a very sad day for this institution and the Committee on 
Rules that such action would take place.
  I thank my friend for yielding and thank him again for his very hard 
work on this important issue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
  Madam Speaker, there is another issue. I offered an amendment with 
Mr. Bishop of Utah dealing with the second amendment rights, and he 
will speak to that. But I want to tell the House that this is an issue 
to correct a Federal judge's decision from last week that bans the use 
of firearms under State law on certain Federal lands. We can rectify 
that without slowing this bill down at all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We can rectify this, Madam Speaker, by 
defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question and 
allow a motion to amend the rule to take up the amendment that I 
offered dealing with the second amendment, then we can add that to the 
package and this House will have an opportunity to vote on that.
  The reason I bring this up, while 2 weeks ago the House put in the 
Altmire amendment, at that time the nonrestriction on gun ownership on 
Federal lands was in place until the judge struck it down. This 
corrects that, and it needs to be corrected. We can correct it today by 
defeating the previous question and allowing us to amend the rule to 
take up my amendment on the second amendment.
  I urge Members when we get to that point to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can amend the rule to take up this issue on gun 
rights that Mr. Bishop will talk about later.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on the rule and support for the underlying 
bill.
  This morning marks hopefully the culmination of 7 years of work that 
I have been involved with in the State of Oregon to preserve one of our 
special places, the Mount Hood wilderness. It has been a bipartisan 
effort. Indeed, I hiked around Mount Hood with my good friend and 
colleague, Greg Walden, 5 years ago now, with our staff. We have had 
countless meetings with stakeholders, with Native Americans, with 
cyclists, with all of the special interests that care about this icon 
of Oregon, Mount Hood. And it took us a lot of hard work to reach the 
sweet spot where we had bipartisan support. We actually got it through 
the House once, and it stumbled in the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, it is too important for us to start down this trail of 
starting to tweak the legislation now, because I have watched the Mount 
Hood wilderness be tied up in Senate politics and procedural activities 
for a half-dozen years now. I strongly urge that we support this 
underlying bill and be able to bring in millions of acres of America's 
special places to give them wilderness designation.
  I want to thank my friend, Greg Walden; the dean of our delegation, 
Peter DeFazio; and in the other body, Senator Wyden; former Republican 
Senator Smith; and new Senator Merkley. All of us have joined together 
on this landmark legislation for Mount Hood. I see my good friend and 
colleague Congressman Minnick from Idaho here. This is a journey in 
Idaho that Representative Simpson has been working on for years as 
well. Members should come together and pass this legislation.
  The rule does matter. We have watched one single Member of the other 
body tie up critical wilderness legislation for years. We have got it 
through the Senate, finally. We have broad bipartisan support for 
special places all across America. I strongly urge that we resist the 
temptation to tinker with this bill now. I would like to think that my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle is offering this from the 
purest of motives, but the fact is that we have watched delay and 
amendment foul up the wilderness legislation procedurally for a half-
dozen years.
  By approving this rule, approving this legislation, we can move 
forward with these protections for special places all across America. 
And then we can go back and deal with any unresolved issues. Heaven 
knows, I want to make sure that we take care of issues that relate to 
cyclists, for instance. Vote for the rule, vote for the bill, and get 
on with business.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, yesterday I went to the Rules 
Committee and offered an amendment to the Omnibus Public Lands bill 
that would have saved 80,000 jobs and over $2.2 billion worth of income 
in my district by ending the regulatory drought that currently plagues 
the San Joaquin Valley. Surprisingly, the Rules Committee said ``no'' 
to saving 80,000 jobs despite bipartisan support.
  My amendment would have temporarily removed the restrictions the 
Endangered Species Act places on Federal and State water pumps in the 
California Bay-Delta, allowing water to be moved from northern and 
central California to farming families in my district and to millions 
of urban Californians in the southern portion of the State. Pumping and 
storing more water is necessary if we want to relieve the devastating 
drought in California. Yet, the Rules Committee didn't consider the 
billions of dollars and jobs it would save to be worthwhile.
  The way this legislation has been put together and shuttled through 
Congress is atrocious. The majority has sprinkled a few meritorious 
provisions in an effort to buy votes around what is otherwise damaging 
legislation.
  This bill blocks millions of acres from new oil and gas leasing and 
all other business activity. Further, the bill designates more than 2 
million acres as wilderness acres, permanently restricting public 
access. The Federal Government already owns 30 percent of the total 
land area of the United States. It doesn't need any more.
  Though I will not vote for the Omnibus Public Lands bill for the 
serious reasons previously stated, there are some supportable measures 
in the bill. The Tuolumne Me-Wuk Land Transfer Act, the Madera Water 
Supply Enhancement Act, and the San Joaquin River Restoration 
Settlement are three examples.
  The Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act creates an underground water 
bank in my district which is desperately needed in the San Joaquin 
Valley to mitigate the effects of drought and the onerous Endangered 
Species Act regulations.
  I also support the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement, 
resolving a 20-year lawsuit that threatened the water supply for 
farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin River Restoration 
Settlement gave my agricultural constituents something they did not 
previously have: a seat at the negotiating table. Before the 
settlement, a Federal judge was going to decide how much water farmers 
would lose in order to restore a salmon fishery. By giving farmers a 
voice in the solution, the settlement prevents an agricultural disaster 
and gives the agricultural community some control over their water 
future. Additionally, all 22 water districts of the Friant Water Users 
Authority have consistently voted in support of the settlement. The 
settlement is a product of hardworking folks who simply want to 
continue growing food to feed this great Nation with a safe, reliable, 
and efficient water supply. I believe we have accomplished that goal in 
this settlement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

[[Page 8590]]


  Ms. FOXX. I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I support these portions of the 
Omnibus Public Lands Act, and believe that they should be passed on 
their own merit. However, for reasons stated above, I cannot support 
the overall package and urge my colleagues to vote against this rule 
that did not allow a vote to save 80,000 jobs and over $2 million in 
income in California at no cost to the taxpayers.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Omnibus Public Lands bill under consideration, as well as the rule.
  This bipartisan and bicameral effort has taken a lot of work, and it 
has been a long and twisting road. But we have before us today a widely 
supported piece of legislation that benefits our Nation from Florida to 
Alaska, Texas to Minnesota, and, indeed, my district in Colorado.
  I was lucky enough to grow up in Boulder, Colorado, hiking in Mount 
Sanitas, the Flat Irons, and Flagstaff Mountain--all areas under public 
management. This bill will protect and defend some of America's truly 
great public lands so that children all across the country can grow up 
enjoying our environment and interacting with our ecosystems, just like 
I did when I was a kid.
  It will also finally give Rocky Mountain National Park, a prized 
jewel in Colorado, the wilderness designation it deserves. The Rockies, 
rising high above Denver and our surrounding communities, are visited 
by local residents and international adventurers who come to be 
surrounded by our awe-inspiring landscapes and diverse ecosystem.
  These visitors sustain Colorado communities like Estes Park and Grand 
Lake, communities that rely on tourism and recreation jobs, and will be 
well served by this bill.
  Furthermore, the National Landscape Conservation System, the wild and 
scenic rivers and national heritage areas that this bill codifies, will 
enrich our country many times over. Just as Rocky Mountain National 
Park and the Indian Peaks Wilderness have enriched the culture and 
history of Colorado, the National Landscape Conservation System will 
enrich our country.
  This bill's passage is long overdue. It will preserve landscapes, 
educate generations, enrich lives and support local communities. We 
have addressed any reasonable concerns that have been posed, and at 
long last it is time for this bill to become law.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
important piece of legislation. I thank Chairman Rahall for his 
leadership on this bill, Representative Pingree for her leadership on 
the rule, and I look forward to sending this bill to the President.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this new bill and the amendments 
to the bill cover 177 different issues, 100 of which were obviously 
never discussed in the House before. I think it is important to note 
that the chairman of this committee, Mr. Rahall, the Democrat chairman, 
would not have done this. On each of the issues we actually did 
discuss, he went through regular order. There were hearings. There was 
a markup. They brought them individually to the floor for debate.
  This bill is in this condition not because there were Senate 
filibusters, for indeed some of these provisions have sat over in the 
Senate for as long as 2 years. This bill--this concoction--is here 
simply because the Senate failed to do their job. They did not hold 
hearings. They did not hold markups. They did not bring these issues to 
the floor in a regular manner. They lumped them all together.
  And now it is almost humorous to watch the contortions that the 
Democratic Party is going to go through to try and stifle any kind of 
debate or change in this bill. Originally it came to us as a suspension 
in a situation in which it could not be amended, could not have a 
motion to recommit, even though it did somehow get an amendment on it. 
Now it is coming back to us in a version of amendments to another 
Revolutionary War bill. They actually had a Civil War monument 
battlefield bill over there with a Republican sponsor. They could have 
at least made those amendments to that bill and appeared bipartisan. 
But nonetheless it is now here to us as the form of amendments with a 
closed rule so we can't talk about them again.
  Now one of the amendments that got into this bill, even though it 
wasn't actually supposed to get into the bill, dealt with hunting 
rights. Mr. Hastings of Washington talked about that issue very 
briefly. Hunting is not the same thing as the second amendment. And we 
have special interests that went before a maverick judge who ruled that 
8 months of study is not the same thing as a quick review. It is not 
long enough. And therefore that judge, in her own right, changed 
National Park Service policy that was designed to create consistency 
and created instead chaos.
  If the Park Service rule had been left in place without this judge 
playing around with it, all public lands under the Department of the 
Interior would be treated the same way. The Bureau of Land Management 
does not prohibit against lawful concealed carry anywhere that it is 
allowed by States. The Forest Service doesn't do it either. Only the 
Park Service. And the Park Service changed their rule to make it in 
compliance with everything else and bring consistency. This judge 
changed it to chaos.
  Now when we think about national parks, we think about Yellowstone, 
Grand Canyon, Zion and Bryce. But the National Park Service controls 
lands, they control roads and walkways. It is impossible to drive or 
jog without going in and out of Park Service land which is never signed 
or notified, so no one really knows whether you are actually legally 
carrying a concealed weapon or not. We have had people who have been 
arrested, entrapped, on Park Service land for carrying a concealed 
weapon where if they had gone a couple of blocks further, they would be 
in Virginia territory where it was legal. That is ridiculous. That is 
silly.
  Yet this provision is now done by judicial fiat, which means that the 
hunting amendment that was put in by the Democrats in the contortion of 
trying to get this bill through is now meaningless and it is 
insignificant, which is why Representative Hastings of Washington has 
an amendment to reverse that decision and bring consistency back to the 
Department of the Interior.
  This is the proper time. It is the proper venue. It should have been 
made in order. It would have solved the problem.
  I introduced another amendment in there to simply take four 
amendments that were passed by this House on the floor, bipartisan 
amendments, Republican and Democrat, that were voted in a bipartisan 
way and rejected by the Senate simply because the Senate said they 
didn't have the time to review what the House did. These were short 
amendments. If you wrote small, you could put them all on one page. It 
is wrong that the Senate rejects the work of this floor. This side of 
the Capitol is just as important as that side of the Capitol.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is just as important as that side of the 
Capitol. And what we do should be respected. That amendment should have 
been put in order so that what the House passed and what the House said 
should be part of this particular bill if indeed it is going to pass. 
There is no reason why we should have our amendments taken out and let 
the Senate simply do what it wants to because the Senate failed to work 
in an orderly process while they had these bills for years and years.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Minnick).

[[Page 8591]]


  Mr. MINNICK. Madam Speaker, this legislation protects public lands in 
my home State of Idaho within the vast Owyhee Canyonlands. It is 
contained within one county in my district which is larger than five 
States and has only 12,000 hardscrabble residents, fewer people per 
square mile than any county in the continental United States.
  Last summer, I had the privilege of spending several days floating a 
rarely visited upper stretch of the Owyhee River within the area this 
bill will protect. If passed, this bill will permanently protect as 
wilderness 517,000 stunning, unspoiled acres of my home State's 
landscape and would provide Wild and Scenic status to nearly 315 miles 
of its free flowing rivers. It will also guarantee that the ranching 
families who have protected this land for generations will continue on, 
with their grazing rights protected from the free-ranging ORVs which 
will be restricted to designated roads and trails.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. MINNICK. I salute my colleague in the Senate, Mike Crapo, who 
fostered a bipartisan collaborative process of ranchers, public 
officials, community leaders and conservationists to preserve our 
cherished Owyhees.
  I urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation. I support 
the rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 1 minute to my 
colleague from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  A couple of minutes ago, our friend from the other side of the aisle, 
the gentleman from Oregon said, and I wrote it down, ``We need to 
resist the temptation to tinker with this.'' Wow. I don't really have a 
category for that. Think about the experience that we're coming off of 
where this body failed to properly vet the stimulus package that ends 
up passing with an 1,100-page thud and all of a sudden people are 
unable to answer the simple question, did you read it or did you not 
read it? And we have an AIG debacle that has completely confused and 
created a great deal of consternation across the country.
  Nearly half the bills that are being contemplated in this omnibus, 
Madam Speaker, have not been contemplated by the House, and that is 
considered ``tinkering''? I think that this is acting as a coequal 
branch of government. And we ought not to give up this authority, we 
ought not to give up this responsibility, and we need to vote against 
this rule so that this House can do the right thing.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to our 
colleague, Mr. Fleming, from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  I want to speak out on this rule and certainly the underlying 
legislation for the omnibus public land bill. The Constitution of the 
United States has long been a thorn in the side of many activist judges 
in this country. Last week we witnessed another act of hostility 
towards the Constitution when a U.S. district judge single-handedly 
decided to recede one of our basic constitutional rights. The ruling by 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly eliminating a law-abiding citizen's right 
to carry a concealed weapon on Federal lands is a direct assault on the 
second amendment.
  The right to bear arms was a founding principle of our democracy, and 
the second amendment spells out this principle in clear, unambiguous 
language that requires no clarification or translation: ``The right of 
the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Citizens 
should not lose this right just because they are standing or driving on 
Federal lands.
  It is our responsibility in Congress to craft legislation that is in 
accordance with the Constitution. And we should not see cede this 
responsibility to an agenda-driven activist judge.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in upholding and protecting this 
country's founding document by voting to restore Americans' second 
amendment rights on public lands.
  ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed.''
  Let us never forget the second amendment and its importance.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to Mr. 
Nunes, the distinguished gentleman from California.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, around the world today, more than 1 billion 
people do not have access to water. Conflict rages among populations on 
every continent for the control of this vital resource. In the 
undeveloped world, violence and bloodshed often determine winners and 
losers. And, indeed, brutal dictators like Robert Mugabe have taken 
water from their own people as a means of control.
  Most Americans would never believe our government is capable of such 
an act, the intentional drying up of entire communities. That is what 
the San Joaquin River Settlement does to central California.
  Madam Speaker, the Democrat leadership in Congress clearly has no 
interest in the economic prosperity of the San Joaquin Valley and no 
compassion for those suffering due to manmade water shortages.
  This legislation will ensure higher unemployment in a region nearing 
20 percent unemployment. The poverty you are creating is unprecedented. 
This body's cruelty in the face of suffering is beyond belief.
  If this Congress isn't capable of delivering water to people, perhaps 
we can ask the United Nations for help. Maybe they would be willing to 
deliver water, distribute humanitarian aid and rebuild the San Joaquin 
Valley you seem so committed to destroying.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I continue to reserve my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from 
Maine if she is prepared to close.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Yes. I am the last speaker for this side. I 
will reserve my time until the gentlewoman has closed for her side and 
yielded back her time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule to restore Americans' second 
amendment rights on public lands and wildlife refuges. In January, with 
overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, the Federal 
Government announced a commonsense policy to allow citizens legally to 
carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in 
accordance with State law.
  Last week, House and Senate leaders added an amendment, sponsored by 
Representative Jason Altmire, to the Omnibus Public Lands Management 
Act that protects hunting and fishing on certain parts of Federal land. 
It clarified that the States have the authority to manage fish and 
wildlife. In short, the Altmire amendment made certain that Americans 
kept their second amendment right to carry concealed firearms on public 
land.
  However, in an arbitrary reversal of sound policy on March 19, a U.S. 
district judge single-handedly decided to block this commonsense policy 
to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in national parks and 
wildlife refuges in accordance with State laws. As Ranking Member 
Hastings said, ``There is now a giant hole in the Altmire language.'' 
Americans' constitutional second amendment rights are again in 
jeopardy, and I call on the Democrats in charge to amend this rule so 
Congress can protect these rights as we were sent here by our 
constituents to do.
  For months, Democrats in the House and Senate have done everything in 
their power to block the House from voting on any amendments to this 
enormous 1,200-page, $10 billion bill which combines over 160 land 
bills, most of which have never had hearings in either the House or the 
Senate.

[[Page 8592]]

  This bill contains hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in new 
spending and locks up additional public land which may have energy 
resource potential. Many of the bills rolled into this package are 
controversial and ambiguous, yet in a series of hasty maneuvers to 
silence dissent, the Democrats have worked to marginalize rather than 
engage the healthy debate our constituents deserve on these bills.
  With this new court ruling, Americans' second amendment rights would 
be in jeopardy on all Federal land, including 2 million new acres of 
land designated as ``wilderness areas'' under this bill. Today, there 
are 708 federally imposed ``wilderness areas'' totaling 107 million 
acres of land in 44 States. If this bill is enacted, the amount of 
Federal wilderness areas will exceed the amount of all developed land 
in the United States. If Congress does not take action to protect every 
American's constitutional rights now, it won't be long before these 
rights are in jeopardy on even more land.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I call on the Democrats in charge to fulfill 
their obligation to the American people by restoring their second 
amendment right to carry concealed firearms on public lands in 
accordance with State law.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat the 
rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, let me be clear on two things. 
Nothing in this bill in any way limits or restricts access as defined 
by the ADA. Nothing in H.R. 146 changes the status quo in regards to 
regulation of hunting, fishing and recreational activities in 
designated areas.
  I would like to enter into the Record a letter from the National 
Rifle Association supporting the Altmire amendment to the omnibus 
public land management bill.

                              {time}  1115

  I will also submit for the Record a full editorial in today's New 
York Times, and I would like to read briefly from that editorial.
  ``This bill establishes three new national park units and protects 
more than 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers and streams from 
development. But what makes it a memorial piece of legislation are 
provisions giving permanent wilderness status, the highest layer of 
protection the law can confer, to 2 million acres of public land in 
nine States ranging from California and Oregon to Virginia. This would 
be the largest addition to the nation's store of protected wilderness, 
now about 107 million acres, since 1994.
  ``The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the country 
at large. But after surviving a threatened filibuster in the Senate in 
January, it failed by two votes in the House, partly for complex 
parliamentary reasons and partly because some House Members felt that 
not all the measure's moving parts (the bill is really 160 smaller 
bills wrapped into one big one) had been properly vetted in committee.
  ``This is a defect that afflicts many omnibus bills. It is also true, 
however, that every single provision in the bill is a product of long 
and intense negotiations stretching back years on the State and local 
level, and the product, that is, of consensus.
  ``The measure is now back in the House after a second trip through 
the Senate. It has been approved each step of the way. Its most 
controversial provision for a road through a wildlife refuge in Alaska 
has been revised for the better. It now gives the Secretary of the 
Interior the power to veto the road if he feels it would cause 
excessive environmental damage.''
  The New York Times closes by saying, ``The House should honor all of 
this work, as well as the country's need for protected open space, by 
approving this worthy measure.''
  This legislation has been through the House and the Senate numerous 
times in one form or another. The items in the bill have been 
thoroughly vetted. Most, if not all the House provisions have had 
extensive hearings, committee markups and been passed by the full 
House. The bill is a bipartisan product that contains language sought 
by Members on both sides of the aisle. That was reflected in the last 
week's suspension vote of 282-144 here in the House. The Senate vote 
was 77-20. Any changes at this point would require that the bill goes 
back to the Senate, where further action is very unlikely. It is time 
to pass this widely supported bipartisan legislation and send it to the 
White House for the President's signature. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question and on the rule.

         National Rifle Association of America, Institute for 
           Legislative Action,
                                      Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of the 
     National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our 
     support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus 
     Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment 
     would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to 
     close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing, 
     trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional 
     recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the 
     states retain the authority to manage resident fish and 
     wildlife.
       Encroaching development and the increasing population 
     demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal 
     lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation, 
     such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the 
     closure of a trail that served as the access point for a 
     generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to 
     target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under 
     attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation 
     by attempting to use land designations to further close 
     federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment 
     is necessary.
       The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the 
     National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It 
     is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other 
     areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining 
     to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas, 
     respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment 
     would do.
       While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the 
     meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are 
     critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority 
     of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For 
     these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22.
       Should you have any questions or need additional 
     information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Chris W. Cox,

                                               Executive Director,
     NRA-ILA.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 25, 2009]

                       A Bill Whose Time Has Come

       Maybe, just maybe, with a little nudge from Speaker Nancy 
     Pelosi and other House Democrats, Congress will at last push 
     a historic omnibus public lands bill over the finish line, 
     perhaps as early as Wednesday.
       The bill establishes three new national park units and 
     protects more than 1,000 miles of ``wild and scenic'' rivers 
     and streams from development. But what makes it a memorable 
     piece of legislation are provisions giving permanent 
     wilderness status--the highest layer of protection the law 
     can confer--to two million acres of public land in nine 
     states ranging from California and Oregon to Virginia.
       This would be the largest addition to the nation's store of 
     protected wilderness--now about 107 million acres--since 
     1994.
       The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the 
     country at large. But after surviving a threatened filibuster 
     in the Senate in January, it failed by two votes in the 
     House--partly for complex parliamentary reasons and partly 
     because some House members felt that not all of the measure's 
     moving parts (the bill is really 160 smaller bills wrapped 
     into one big one) had been properly vetted in committee.
       This is a defect that afflicts many omnibus bills. It is 
     also true, however, that every single provision in the bill 
     is the product of long and intense negotiations stretching 
     back years on the state and local level--the product, that 
     is, of consensus.
       The measure is now back in the House after a second trip 
     through the Senate. It has been improved each step of the 
     way. Its most controversial provision--for a road through a 
     wildlife refuge in Alaska--has been revised for the better; 
     it now gives the secretary of the interior the power to veto 
     the road if he

[[Page 8593]]

     feels it would cause excessive environmental damage.
       The House should honor all this work, as well as the 
     country's need for protected open space, by approving this 
     worthy measure.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 280 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       After ``concur in the Senate'' strike ``amendments'' and 
     insert ``amendment to the title and concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the text with the amendment specified in section 
     2''.
       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
       Sec. 2. The amendment to the text referred to in section 1 
     is as follows: At the end of title XIII, add the following 
     new section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     ``SEC. 13007. FIREARMS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND NATIONAL 
                   WILDLIFE REFUGES.

       ``Except as provided in section 930 of title 18, United 
     States Code, a person may possess, carry, and transport 
     firearms within a national park area or national wildlife 
     refuge area in accordance with the laws of the State in which 
     the national park area or national wildlife refuge are, or 
     that portion thereof, is located''.
                                  ____

       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 form 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.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 2009.
     Chairwoman Louise Slaughter,
     House Rules Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: It is with deep personal regret 
     that I learned of comments you made about my truthfulness at 
     yesterday's Rules Committee hearing in describing the lack of 
     access that disabled Americans and disabled veterans will 
     have on federal lands covered under H.R. 146, the Omnibus 
     Public Lands Management Act of 2009.
       Having served on the Rules Committee for twelve years, I 
     take particular exception to the fact you chose to direct 
     your comments at me only after I departed the hearing 
     following my appearing before you as a witness for an hour. 
     If there were doubts about the accuracy of what I stated, 
     courtesy and fair play would mean allowing me the opportunity 
     to rebut your accusations with the facts.
       The facts show that my amendments to ensure access for the 
     disabled and disabled veterans on federal lands in this bill 
     are very much needed. As written, the Omnibus Lands Bill 
     prevents and bans public access to federal lands in many 
     ways. The recreational riding of bicycles and motor bikes is 
     prohibited on over 2 million acres of public land. Wheelchair 
     access to wilderness areas is effectively banned as well. 
     Federal law does not ensure that wheelchairs capable of use 
     in outdoor, natural areas are allowed--it only permits 
     wheelchairs that are ``suitable for use in an indoor 
     pedestrian area.'' Wilderness areas and national parks are 
     located outdoors, not indoors. Wheelchairs and similar 
     devices that allow the disabled access to outdoor, natural 
     areas are not ensured under existing law or this Omnibus 
     bill. Furthermore, current federal law expressly says that 
     accommodations for wheelchairs or the disabled in Wilderness 
     areas are not required.
       Public lands should be available for public enjoyment, and 
     that includes for the disabled. Yet, true access for disabled 
     veterans and all disabled Americans is not protected in this 
     Omnibus. I proposed two amendments to explicitly ensure 
     access for the disabled and disabled veterans to lands 
     covered in the Omnibus bill. As you know, these amendments 
     were blocked by you and Democrat Members of the Rules 
     Committee.
       I regret the inaccurate, false statements made about my 
     truthfulness, and that such comments were made only after I 
     left the hearing room. But what I most seriously regret is 
     that the Rules Committee under your leadership refused to 
     ensure true access for the disabled and disabled veterans for 
     public lands in the Omnibus bill.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Doc Hastings,

                                        Ranking Republican Member,
                                House Natural Resources Committee.

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time and 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________