[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.


                          ____________________