Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5645-H5647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 146 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 614.

{time} 1502

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 614) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the
State of Minnesota the New London National Fish Hatchery production
facility, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Studds] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I suspect this debate will be somewhat shorter than the
last one. I cannot think of anything that can be said that has not
already been said, including references to outside organizations and
other such debate. But this bill, which is brought to us by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] with reference to the New London
National Fish Hatchery in Minnesota, is substantively the same as the
previous two bills. It is of the same level of importance as the
previous two bills. I would hope that, once again, this bill would
proceed to be passed without amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, ditto. I really join the gentleman from New
Jersey in being utterly unable to conjure anything that has not been
said at least three times before.
I take that back, I can think of one thing. I understand the desire
of the new majority to tote up on the scoreboard the number of open
rules that they have successfully adopted, but I would enter just one
personal plea to go back to the old system of suspensions.
The gentleman from New Jersey and I and the gentleman from Alaska and
I and others in the old days would have been finished these three bills
approximately 1\1/2\ hours ago. We could be well on our way toward
dinner. There are matters that require the time of the House, but with
all due respect, these three bills, which are very good and should be
passed, do not require that much time. We should proceed.

[[Page H5646]]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 614, a bill to transfer title
of the New London National Fish Hatchery to the State of Minnesota.
The New London hatchery has been operated by the State of Minnesota
under a memorandum of understanding with the fish and Wildlife Service
since the early 1980's. It produces walleye and muskies for a wide
range of State fishery programs.
The State of Minnesota has made some minor improvements to the
facility, and it is now interested in making more significant capital
investments. In order to do so, the State first needs title to the
property. This bill would give title to the State and protect the
interests of the Federal Government by requiring that title revert to
the Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that Minnesota no longer
wants to operate the facility as a fish hatchery.
This is standard language we have used to transfer many facilities in
the past and two more hatcheries we are transferring today. It is
supported by both the State and the administration, and I urge Members
support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers are indeed correct.
Virtually everything has been said about fish hatchery bills today that
needs to be said. There are two things, however, I would like to add,
two comments.
The first is that you need to recognize that we have had extended
discussion this afternoon about the importance of the Federal
Government being compensated for assets that transfer to State and
local governments and to other parties. I wholeheartedly embrace that
principle, and I applaud the gentleman from California for having
raised our sensitivity to that important concept. I will not applaud
out loud, but I will just do so figuratively.
I do think it is important, however, to recognize the context in
which these transfers are occurring. The gentleman from Iowa has
certainly laid out a five-part test for whether or not we ought to go
through the exercise of appraisal. If all five parts of his test are
met, I would suggest that it is a futile expenditure of taxpayer funds
to go through that appraisal process.
In the context of the Minnesota facility, I would like to mention two
considerations which I think are important and also indicate that this
property is of de minimis value to the Federal Government.
First, all of the land that is included in the Minnesota situation
has been classified as wetlands. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources has advised me of this. This means that this land is not
suitable for development. Indeed, it cannot be developed under State
and Federal law. The Federal Government and the policies that we have
developed in the Clean Water Act, swampbuster, as a part of the farm
bill, and other legislation, all indicate that it is inconsistent with
Federal policy to so develop land.
The other point that I wish to make with respect to the Minnesota
property is that the Federal law already authorizes the transfer of
this property by the Secretary of the Interior to the States without
compensation so long as it is used for the designated purpose.
The difficulty that we would face in using this Federal procedure is
that we would have to shut down the operation of the fish hatchery to
confirm that it indeed is surplus property. To shut down the operation
of the fish hatchery, go through the exercise of determining that it is
a surplus property, and then in turn conveying it to the States, simply
adds to the complexity and the cost of the process. Historically we
have operated in a very informal and expeditious fashion with these
assets in Congress, and I see no reason to go back to the ad hoc
disposal of this by the Secretary of the Interior in a more complex
fashion. Therefore, I urge that this bill be approved.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I hate to burn up the time, but I just feel as if I
have to just say a word. When the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Studds] made note that these bills were being considered under an open
rule, which for people who are not familiar with that gives any Member
of the House the opportunity to stand, as the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] has on two occasions so far, and undoubtedly will again on
this bill, to offer an amendment of his or her choice, this has come
about because as I experienced during the time that I was here as a
Member of the minority for 10 years, we did not enjoy, as Members of
the minority, the opportunity to offer amendments very often under an
open rule.
Some here may remember a few months ago there was a document that
became quite the talk of the town called the Contract With America.
Part of the Contract With America was a provision or statement or
series of statements that promised that we would open the process.
This is an example of, where possible, we are trying to open the
process. If it were not for this open process, it is true that we would
have consumed perhaps an hour total on these three bills, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] would have been precluded his
opportunity to make his statement in the form of amendments on these
bills.
So there has been a great deal said in this session about promises
made and promises kept. It is not always comfortable on either side to
spend the time or the effort to keep promises. But today is a part of
the promises that were made during the 1994 campaign, and once again a
promise kept.
So I hope the gentleman will appreciate the opportunity that the new
majority has provided for the purposes of these types of discussions
and these types of amendment procedures, which are a relatively new
phenomenon around here. We are quite proud to say we are keeping our
promise.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I guess like my budget
cutting tendencies, they were well kept secrets around here, but I just
wanted the gentleman to know as the staff on your side knows, I never
both brought a bill to the floor from this committee under a closed
rule. They were always open rules. As the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis], who sits behind you can testify, we had the most open rule
and the longest debate in the history of the Congress.
I want to commend the minority for, hopefully, what will be an
increasing commitment to open rules because I think it is the only way
to do business. But I knew it was a well-kept secret.
Mr. SAXTON. I believe you the gentleman meant to say ``commend the
majority.''
Mr. MILLER of California. Majority, soon to be minority.
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to prolong this, God help us all. But I
cannot help but help observing that the debate on this bill under this
rule could go on all night and tomorrow and for the rest of next week
and into next month. For that degree of breathtaking openness, we are
indebted to the new majority.
I must also observe the $16-billion-plus bill we are going to take up
in 10 minutes teminates in 6\1/2\ hours. This might be called selective
openness, not where we need it, but do not need it.
I would also observe in a personal matter that in my first term here,
I thought open rules were a very good idea. Since then I have come to
reconsider. The function of the Committee on Rules, it seems to me,
ought to be to look at those major propositions that are before the
House and to allow them to be voted on. But to let us go on
indefinitely I think is a mistake. In any event, I shall cease going on
indefinitely, and with great relief I will yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 614, which was
introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
This legislation would transfer the ownership of the New London Fish
Hatchery facility from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the State
of Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources. H.R. 614 would convey
all rights, title, and interest of the United States to the State of
Minnesota. This includes all property, buildings, water rights, and
easements of the New London facility.
It is my understanding that the hatchery has been operated by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the Fish and Wildlife
Service under a memorandum of agreement [MOA] since 1983. This MOA,
which was extended in 1993, expires in 1998.
The hatchery facility is actually located on two separate pieces of
land. One is located outside the town of New London and is owned
[[Page H5647]] by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The other is located
within the town of New London; the State had owned the property but
transferred it to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1939.
Finally, the bill stipulates that this property revert back to the
Federal Government if the State of Minnesota decides it no longer
wishes to operate the hatchery as a fishery resources management
facility.
The Fish and Wildlife Service supports this transfer and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this measure.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill and the amendment printed in the bill
are considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute
rule.
The text of H.R. 614 is as follows:

H.R. 614

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY
PRODUCTION FACILITY.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and within 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
convey to the State of Minnesota without reimbursement all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
property comprising the New London National Fish Hatchery
production facility, located outside of downtown New London,
Minnesota, including--
(1) all easements and water rights relating to that
property, and
(2) all land, improvements, and related personal property
comprising that production facility.
(b) Use of Property.--All property and interests conveyed
under this section shall be used by the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources for the Minnesota fishery resources
management program.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--All right, title, and interest
in and to all property and interests conveyed under this
section shall revert to the United States on any date on
which any of the property or interests are used other than
for the Minnesota fishery resources management program.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the committee amendment.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

Committee amendment: Page 2, line 19, strike lines 19
through 24 and insert:
(c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed
to the State of Minnesota pursuant to this section shall be
used by the State for purposes of fishery resources
management, and if it is used for any other purpose all
right, title, and interest in and to all property conveyed
pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States.
The State of Minnesota shall ensure that the property
reverting to the United States is in substantially the same
or better condition as at the time of transfer.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 614) to direct
the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Minnesota the
New London National Fish Hatchery production facility, pursuant to
House Resolution 146, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.

____________________