[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9440-H9446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONVEYANCE OF FEDERAL LAND IN NEW CASTLE, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4614) to provide for the conveyance of Federal land in New
Castle, New Hampshire, to the town of New Castle, New Hampshire, and to
require the release of certain restrictions with respect to land in
such town, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4614
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FEDERAL LAND, NEW CASTLE, NEW
HAMPSHIRE.
(a) Conveyance Required.--Notwithstanding any provision of
law (including the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)), the
Administrator of General Services shall convey, by quitclaim
deed and without consideration, to the town of New Castle,
New Hampshire (in this section referred to as the ``Town''),
the interest of the United States in a parcel of real
property consisting of approximately 2 acres located in New
Castle, New Hampshire, and currently administered by the
Secretary of Transportation and leased to the Town under
United States Coast Guard license number DTCGZ51283-97-RP-
011L.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined as set forth in the United
States Coast Guard license described in such subsection.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may require
such terms and conditions, including the reservation of
easements and other rights, in connection with the conveyance
under subsection (a) as the Administrator, after consultation
with the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard,
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(d) Replacement of Land.--Notwithstanding any provision of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law
88-578; 16 U.S.C. 460l-4-460l-11) or any other law, the real
property conveyed under subsection (a) may be used to replace
Land and Water Conservation Fund-assisted land in New Castle,
New Hampshire, under project number 33-00077. The real
property conveyed under subsection (a) shall be of reasonably
equivalent recreational usefulness and location. Such
replacement shall occur not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Amend the title so as to read: ``To provide for the
conveyance of Federal land in New Castle, New Hampshire, to
the town of New Castle, New Hampshire, and to provide that
such land be used to replace certain land for use as a
cemetery.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) be permitted to control the time on
this side of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
(Mr. SUNUNU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, under New Hampshire State law, cities and towns are
required to provide for public cemeteries within their own local
boundaries. Since 1994, the town of New Castle, New Hampshire, has been
working to acquire just 2 acres of surplus Federal property through the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to meet this important
public need. New Castle, however, is an island, a small community, a
little bit more than 1 square mile, and there exists very limited land
available for this purpose of cemetery expansion. Moreover, the town's
present cemetery is filled to capacity, and the need for additional
space has become urgent.
New Castle has identified a 2-acre parcel of land that would be
appropriate and enable the town to meet the State's requirement.
Although the town owns the identified parcel, it is presently dedicated
to recreational use under a National Park Service land and water
conservation program. In order to use this parcel for cemetery use, the
town must replace it with 2 additional acres that would then be
dedicated to recreational use.
The town had hoped to fulfill the Park Service replacement
requirement with a 2-acre parcel that it currently leases from the
United States Coast Guard right there on New Castle. However, after a
7-month delay, the town was finally informed by the Park Service that
it would have to take ownership of that parcel it currently leases. In
light of this, the town has been pursuing ownership of the land under
the no-cost public benefit provisions of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act.
The Coast Guard has stated in a letter to me their intention to
declare this property that is currently under lease to the town as
excess. That land would then be presented to the GSA, the General
Services Administration, for disposal. Furthermore, the Park Service
has indicated in a letter to the State of New Hampshire, that has been
working with the town on this important issue, that it ``has no
objection'' to the town's replacement approach for converting land
under this program for cemetery use. Given the urgency of this
particular situation, I think it appropriate that we consider a
legislative approach through which this transfer could be expedited.
Therefore, in the interest of meeting this very real public need in
as timely a fashion as possible, I have introduced this legislation,
H.R. 4614, which directs the Administrator of General Services to
convey to the town of New
[[Page H9441]]
Castle the 2-acre parcel of land that it currently leases from the
Coast Guard once the Coast Guard declares that property as excess. I am
entering into the Record several letters of correspondence, including
those mentioned above, as well as letters from the town of New Castle,
the State Department of Resources and Economic Development, and the
Commandant of the United States Coast Guard declaring his intention to
excess the property. These letters clearly describe the urgent request
by the town, the intent of the Coast Guard to excess the property, and
the willingness of the Park Service to accept the town's proposal.
Even after the passage of this legislation, implementation will
require the continued cooperation of three major Federal agencies: the
GSA, the Park Service, and the Coast Guard. Their cooperation is going
to be required, working with the State and the town of New Castle, to
make sure that this moves forward in as timely a manner as possible.
They each have responsibilities in order to ensure a smooth transition
of these properties. I would encourage each of these agencies to act
quickly to accomplish the needed tasks. I am very pleased that the
officials from the GSA and the Park Service have already taken the time
to visit the properties.
In summary, this legislation will help the State of New Hampshire and
the town of New Castle deal with an urgent public need. The 2-acre
property is already leased by the town at no cost, and they also
already pay to maintain the property for recreational use. The bill
will simply transfer ownership of this parcel so that the town may have
the peace of mind knowing that their citizens can be buried with
dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of our
committee.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is special
legislation; as such, it treats Federal land as a new kind of ``pork''
for Congress to distribute. The administration opposes this bill
because it would give away Federal land that is not excess to the
government. This is a dangerous precedent to set, especially
immediately before midterm elections.
I am also concerned that the majority chose to bypass the full House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This bill has never been
the subject of a hearing. We thought this bill would be brought to the
committee. We are disappointed that the committee has been sidestepped
and that our concerns cannot be addressed by the full committee.
The minority first learned of this bill less than 2 weeks ago. It was
considered by the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information
and Technology in markup just last Monday. I urged the subcommittee to
hold a hearing on the bill and, at the very least, seek the
administration's position on the bill. We now have the administration's
position, and they are opposed to it. I have the statement of
administrative position here, and I would like to quote from it:
The administration opposes House passage of H.R. 4614 which
would convey Federal land to the town of New Castle, New
Hampshire. H.R. 4614 would convey Federal land, which has not
been declared excess, in a manner inconsistent with the
process established under the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 for the fair and
efficient utilization and disposal of excess and surplus
Federal property.
The procedure by which the city could have pursued the matter, they
did not require an act of Congress, they could have asked for an
administrative procedure. Instead, they have come to the Congress and
asked for this special legislation. I think it is a type of ``pork''
for the Congress of the United States to bypass the ordinary procedures
for deciding how to deal with land. It creates a bad precedent. It has
been assembled hastily, it has not been considered by the full
committee, and finally and significantly, there are administrative
alternatives for the town that better address its needs.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, since I earlier yielded all of the time to author of the bill,
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
The gentleman from California who has just spoken knows that after
questions were raised in subcommittee we had a full airing with members
of the various agencies in the Federal Government, and I do not know
where this administration thing was squeezed out of somebody downtown,
but we had the concurrence, I believe, of the agencies involved, and I
must say I find it rather strange to call land for a cemetery pork. I
did not know we called dead bodies pork, and that rather offends me,
frankly.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to further address some of the concerns
that were raised by the minority. As the Chairman has pointed out, we
had an informative hearing on the bill. While it was not a previously
scheduled hearing specifically for this legislation, it allowed an
opportunity to address many of the minority's concerns.
Subsequent to that we had a meeting with officials of the GSA, of the
Park Service, and even of the Coast Guard with both majority and
minority staff to address their concerns.
{time} 1530
In fact, in particular they raised the concern that we be careful
about the precedent, and the majority is very mindful of that. There
was a request that we get notification of the town, that indeed they
intended to use this transfer process specifically to enable them to
expand their cemetery, which is obviously an enormous public need,
certainly not a case for pork.
In order to address those concerns, the town put together a letter
from the town officials the, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, that
they went even through the trouble to have notarized for minority
staff. I ask that that be included in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I will quote it,
We wish to make it clear at this time that the converted
Land and Water Conservation Fund land, once approved for
conversion, will not be used for any special purpose. It is
the town's intention to develop the land as need arises for
cemetery use only.
Not only have they provided this notarized letter in response to the
concerns of the minority, previously, in 1995, the town passed a
warrant in town meeting to ensure, to see if the town will vote to
authorize the selectmen to negotiate with the appropriate State and
Federal officials to use the site of Great Island Common for cemetery
purposes.
Obviously, it is the full intention of the town to meet what is not
just a serious but an urgent public need. To label it as anything else
I think is somewhat disingenuous. There is no question that the Park
Service could grant a temporary waiver so that the town could go
forward, but the town would still have to replace the land and in that
case a transfer would be necessary. This legislation would be extremely
helpful in moving that process forward.
Not only is there a great deal of uncertainty about how long any
administrative process would take; history shows that in order to get a
clear response from the Park Service that they would have to take
ownership of the land, the town had to wait a full 7 months.
Mr. Speaker, we could wait for a great deal of time for the
administrative process to take its course. But the fact of the matter
is I think the vast majority of Americans would agree that for the sake
of a transfer of 2 acres that the town is currently leasing anyway, it
would certainly give the citizens of the town peace of mind that they
deserve. That they do not need to bury their dead at sea, that they do
not need to inappropriately bury people in the aisles of cemeteries
that they have existing, which sounds somewhat unusual, but it is in
fact alternatives that have already been considered.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record:
[[Page H9442]]
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service,
Philadelphia, PA, January 23, 1996.
Joseph F. Quinn, Director,
Officer of Recreation Services, Dept. of Resources & Economic
Development, Division of Parks & Recreation, Concord, NH.
Dear Joe: This is in response to your request for NPS
consideration of concepts for conversions at three Land and
Water Conservation Fund assisted sites. These sites are:
33-00260--26 acres of the 6f protected Gorham Common.
33-00139--1.42 acres of 6f protected land in Conway, NH.
33-00077--2 acres of the 6f protected Grat Island Common.
We have reviewed the preliminary information submitted by
your office regarding these proposed conversions and have no
objection at this time to the approach you suggest for
projects 260 and 77. As you know, final NPS approval of a
conversion request can only be given after review and
approval of a formal conversion package which includes full
documentation. If you decide to proceed with conversion for
projects 260 and 77 full documentation must be submitted at
that time.
In reviewing the conversion concept for project 33-00139 we
find that the parcel now being considered as substitution
land is not large enough to formulate an acceptable
replacement for the land to be converted. We encourage the
Town of Conway to look for an alternative site which will
avoid loss of 6f protected land.
If you need any additional information on any of these
proposals please contact me.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Wilkerson.
____
The State of New Hampshire
Town of New Castle
town warrant for 1995
Rockingham, SS--New Castle
To the Inhabitants of the Town of New Castle, In the County
of Rockingham and the State of New Hampshire, qualified to
vote in town affairs:
You are hereby notified to meet at the New Castle
Recreation Center, Great Island Common in said New Castle, on
Tuesday, the ninth of May, 1995 at ten o'clock in the
forenoon, to act upon Article I through VIII.
The second session of the Annual Town Meeting will commence
at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to act upon the following
subjects: Article IX through XVII.
Article I: To choose all necessary Town Officers for the
following year. The polls for the election of Town Officers
and Ballot Articles will open at ten o'clock in the forenoon
and shall not be closed before seven o'clock in the
afternoon.
Article XII: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the
Selectmen to negotiate with the appropriate State and Federal
Officials for the purpose of granting permission for the Town
to establish a municipal cemetery on the northern side of
Great Island Common in a presently wooded area unused for
recreational purposes. Said cemetery to be laid out in an
area not to exceed 250' (two hundred, fifty feet) by 400'
(four hundred feet) and to conform with all applicable state
laws and any requirements established by local, state, and
federal authority.
town of new castle, new hampshire
annual town meeting held at great island common--may 14, 1996
Articles 1 through 15 were voted by ballot with the results
indicated. The polls were opened by Moderator Wayne Semprini
at 10 am and closed at 7 pm.
Article 1: Balloting for town officers produced the
following results:
Town Clerk (one year): Henry F. Bedford, 174 votes.
Selectman (three years): Clinton H. Springer, 118 votes.
Treasurer (one year): Wm. B. Marshall, III, 168 votes.
Tax Collector (one year): Pamela P. Cullen, 175 votes.
Moderator (two years): Wayne Semprini, 174 votes.
Trustee of Trust Funds (three yrs): Russell N. Cox, 173
votes.
Library Trustee (three years): Pamela F. Stearns, 169
votes.
Cemetery Trustee (three years): William E. Lanham, 175
votes.
Budget Committee (three years): Robert W. Beechar, 158
votes.
Fire Ward (three years): Andrew Schulte, 8 write-in votes.
Supervisor Checklist (six years): Marcia L. Whitehouse, 177
votes.
ARTICLE 12: Zoning Amendment #11 as specified in the
warrant was ADOPTED by a ballot vote of 165 YES to 16 NO.
I attest this to be a true copy.
Pamela P. Cullen.
Sept. 28, 1998, Justice of the Peace.
Town of New Castle,
Office of the Selectmen,
New Castle, NH, September 28, 1998.
Hon. Stephen Horn,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In behalf of the town in general and the
Board of Selectmen in particular, I wish to thank you and the
Subcommittee for your willingness to assist us in resolving
what has become a pressing public need in our town. New
Castle is in critical need of cemetery space and has been
attempting to acquire additional land to meet this need since
1995.
As you know, the Town of New Castle is a small island
community of approximately 512 acres. Under New Hampshire
State law, communities are required to provide for public
cemeteries within their own limits. However, our present 2.4
acre cemetery is filled to capacity, and the need for
additional space has become urgent. Having no other suitable
land available to us for this purpose, we are seeking to
convert the use of approximately 2 acres of undeveloped land
on Great Island Common that is currently dedicated to
recreational use under the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act (LWCF). This parcel would be replaced with 2 acres of
additional land which the Town will acquire from the United
States Coast Guard.
We wish to make it clear at this time that the converted
LWCF land, once approved for conversion, will not be used for
any commercial purpose. It is the Town's intention to develop
the land as need arises for cemetery use only. This is the
only purpose for which the LWCF land in question would be
converted, and it would remain as cemetery space in
perpetuity. Enclosed is a copy of the 1995 Town Warrant
Article approved by the voters of New Castle that supports
establishing a cemetery on Great Island Common property.
Once again, thank you for your assistance in this most
important matter.
Very truly yours,
Clinton H. Springer,
Chairman, Board of Selectmen.
Witness this Monday, Sept. 28, 1998.
Pame la P. Cullen,
Justice of the Peace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the Record. This bill was introduced a
matter of weeks ago. There was no hearing on this legislation. The
gentleman from New Hampshire said there was a hearing. There was no
hearing on this legislation. There was a discussion among Members where
I suggested to the chairman of the subcommittee that we have a hearing.
The next week, there was several administrative agencies brought
before the committee. The Coast Guard was not there. It was represented
that the Coast Guard was there; they were not there. The Park Service
was there. The GSA was there, but it was my understanding they said
they could not endorse the bill. They wanted to do some further
checking on the matter.
The Democrats who were present allowed the bill to get out of the
subcommittee with the idea that it was going to come to the full
committee and then we would know whether there was a problem or not.
Now, no one dredged out anything from the administration. They have
come forward with their determination that the existing law allows a
streamlined administrative procedure to deal with this very issue. It
does not require an act of Congress, and they do not want to set a
precedent where congressmen can just drop bills in, distribute
property, and never have an opportunity for a hearing where concerned
citizens might express their point of view.
I have no disagreement or any knowledge about whether this land ought
to be handled the way the gentleman from New Hampshire would like to
handle it. But it is not, it seems to me, up to the Members of the
House to decide this question when there is an administrative process
to make that determination.
I do think it is troubling that Members of Congress, without
hearings, should come up with bills to settle these matters. A Member
could go home and say, ``Look what I have done. I have got you this
piece of land.'' Is that any different than, ``Look, I have got this
government money to distribute for the interest of my constituents''?
It seems to me the kind of thing that Members of Congress take credit
for all the time, but it ought not to be handled in this slipshod
manner.
Any chairman of a subcommittee who cared about the substance would
give a full opportunity for everyone to get input into it and know what
we are doing before legislation moves forward. Any chairman of a
subcommittee who wanted to give people a full opportunity to
participate in the legislative process ought to have at least held up
and let the full committee consider the legislation.
I think that it is not illegitimate for the administration to give
their views
[[Page H9443]]
on this, whether Members agree with their views or not. I agree that
they are expressing the fact that this would be a dangerous precedent,
and for this reason I strongly urge Members to oppose the bill.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the ranking member of the full
committee does not feel that the Members meeting where we discussed
this legislation and other legislation, the staff meeting where these
issues were addressed, were not sufficient to deal with the issues
raised in the depth that he would like to have dealt with, and I
understand that concern. We are all busy. We all have schedules to
keep, and we do not always have the time that we would like to to delve
into matters of detail.
The gentleman mentions the concern of the administration's position.
And as I stated earlier, certainly from the perspective of the town and
the State having received a letter from the Park Service stating that
there was no objection to the proposal, I think there was some natural
assumption that the administration would be somewhat supportive or at
least accommodating of moving forward with a solution that meets such
an urgent public need with all good speed.
The fact of the matter is that the town has tried to work through
formal channels to the best extent that they can, providing a proposal
to the State Department of Resources and Economic Development, that was
then passed on through to the Park Service, corresponding with them
over a period of years.
As I mentioned, it took 7 months just for the Park Service to respond
to the town that the lease that they currently have on the property
would not be sufficient and that they had to take ownership.
The Ranking Member suggests that this is just shocking that Congress
would actually try to work, or any Member of Congress would actually
try to work to actively help a town or a State that it is representing
deal with some of the Federal bureaucracy that we face every day here
in Washington. That we might try to facilitate public benefit transfer
that is actually quite common.
Just a month ago in the committee, we supported legislation that
happened to grant land to a town in the State of California,
approximately 200 acres. Certainly, the ranking member would point out,
and correctly so, that because of the size and scope of that transfer,
200 acres, we had a hearing on that transfer. I think that was
appropriate. And if we had ample time in this session of Congress, we
might be able to schedule a more formal hearing.
But the fact is, there is a need that the town of New Castle has to
bury its dead. We are talking about 2 acres of land. Not 200 acres of
land, but 2 acres of land that the town is currently leasing and the
town would take ownership of that land so that they can bury their dead
with dignity. That may be a problem to some on the committee or the
subcommittee. But the fact of the matter is, this bill was originally
voiced through the subcommittee because, I believe, of the effort of
the majority and minority on the committee to work together on issues
like this to form some bipartisan consensus.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) the subcommittee chairman,
has been good enough to schedule many bills of the minority in the past
and to deal with them as expeditiously as he deals with bills that
majority members might submit, and I think his fairness is to be
commended in this case.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should be able to come to some bipartisan
agreement that this bill makes sense. It is fair. It serves a public
need, not a special interest need. I urge support for H.R. 4614, as
amended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to repeat that this bill has
not been considered by the full Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. It has not been fully vetted through the committee. And when
we had our discussion in subcommittee, it was our understanding that
the full committee would address this legislation. So, there is a
question here of the adequacy of the process.
And while I think all of us in this Congress would admire the
spirited defense which the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu)
gives to the needs of his constituents, we at the same time have to be
bound by a process in order to make government work for all the people.
I would agree that the gentleman presents a case that there is a
critical need for cemetery space. But there is an administrative
process through the Department of Interior that works faster and better
than this bill, I would submit. And the town, it is my understanding,
is pursuing this approach and the Department of the Interior is working
with the town and the State to help.
Mr. Speaker, I think we do have to be concerned that we have not had
a full airing here, not withstanding the good intentions of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), our ranking member who I have
the greatest respect for, and of the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Because at the time of the meeting, it is my understanding that the
National Park Service had not seen the property, that GSA had and
continues to express concerns.
We had a half-hour meeting with the administration officers where
they explained the administration process, where they gave the
gentleman from New Hampshire and our staff technical advice on
language. But I believe they specifically refused to give an
administration opinion at that time.
It is my understanding further that the property is not surplus, that
the National Park Service still has concerns with the Coast Guard
property and with respect to its size, in that it is small, it has
easements, and of course that the emergency situation can be addressed
administratively. Current law would appear to provide a better
solution.
The town and the State of New Hampshire are aware of an
administrative remedy that will provide for the immediate conversion of
the park land for use as a cemetery. The town, as I mentioned earlier,
is actively pursuing this avenue. At least I believe it is.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it is true, however, that even if the Park
Service was to grant such a waiver, they would still have to replace
the land with a transfer under the Land and Water Conservation
requirements.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding
that the town does not have to replace the land; that the State does,
under an agreement with the Department of the Interior.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
the town is actually under contract from the State. They have full
legal requirement for the replacement.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman then saying that the town
does have to replace the land, or does not?
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. KUCINICH. It does or does not?
Mr. SUNUNU. It is my understanding that they have contracted with the
State, are under contractual obligation with the State to meet the
requirements of the LWCF to replace the land.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, we may have a
disagreement in our perception on that. It is my understanding that the
town does not have to replace the land; that the State of New Hampshire
does, and this is under agreement with the Department of the Interior.
I would be happy to continue the colloquy with my friend from New
Hampshire if he has better information.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that the bill as drafted may
have serious weaknesses, which is another question which relates to
process. Early reports from the Department of the Interior indicates
that the land to be conveyed is probably not adequate to serve as
replacement property for park land. And we know that the Coast Guard
wants to retain easements across the property.
There is a great concern on our side of the aisle about the Federal
property disposal process and that it not be subverted. That is the
reason why the administration opposes this bill. I would
[[Page H9444]]
be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) to
hear a response.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
would enter in a copy of the agreement that the town has with the
State, and also the language of the regulations which says: The terms
``State'' as used herein means the State which is party to this
agreement and the political subdivision or public agency to which the
funds are to be transferred pursuant to the agreement.
So, I believe the town also has a contractual obligation to meet the
requirements of the LWCF.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, we may have some
ambiguity here, because the State is under a legal obligation with the
Department of Interior. The town may also be included, but the State is
the one who is ultimately responsible. And the National Park Service
indicated to us that the State was on the hook.
Mr. Speaker, this colloquy in itself proves the need for further
hearings on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
{time} 1545
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. This is
the type of thing that should have been hashed out in a hearing, and if
not in a hearing, a markup. But what happened with this legislation is
that there was never a hearing. The meeting with some of these agencies
was with the staff and not the Members. There was, we thought, an
understanding that the subcommittee would report the bill out and we
would have a chance to get full recommendations from these agencies
before the bill went to the full committee, and then there was no full
committee hearing.
The bill is suddenly on the House floor. I guess there might have
been some anticipation that there was going to be opposition. But
whether that was the case or not, this is just not the way the
legislative process should be conducted. If we allow a bill out of
subcommittee on the understanding, as I hear it from the subcommittee
chairman, that we would go to the full committee, and we would have a
chance to look at our concerns and be able to raise them in the full
committee, it just seems to me incumbent on all of us, in terms of
comity and working with each other, not to run then to the floor,
passing up the full committee, passing up all hearings, and then
telling everybody this is a bill that is only a couple of acres.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
is correct, the staff meeting was at 1 o'clock on Monday, the 27th of
September. That was 2 hours before the subcommittee markup, and the
subcommittee markup was at 3 o'clock that same day. I think that serves
to illustrate the concerns that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) continues to express.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think that far from indicating any weakness in the legislation, the
colloquy we just had and the remarks made is nothing more than a
spirited defense of the kind of bureaucracy that gives Washington a bad
name.
I think there is no question that granting the land to the town would
meet the contractual obligation under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund requirements. Granting the land to the State would probably also
achieve the same ends but, in all likelihood, the State would continue
to give full responsibility to the town itself to continue to maintain,
to continue to use for recreational purposes.
What we are quibbling about here is the kind of regulatory red tape
that the vast majority of Americans find repulsive about Washington.
What we are trying to do here is to look at a process that exists, the
public benefit transfer, which is actually fairly clear language for
Washington, and to use a piece of legislation to make sure that we move
these two acres of land to the ownership of the town to meet its needs
for a public cemetery as quickly as is expeditious.
But, at the same time, we are not going to leave the GSA or the Park
Service out of the process. They are not cut out of the process. And as
has been described, they have actually visited the site. They are going
to be involved in the ultimate administrative transfer of the land.
I think it is appropriate that we, as public servants, as elected
officials, do what we can to give a community in this kind of a
situation, with these kinds of problems, the benefit of moving forward
with a process that they do not find frustrating and that they do not
find fraught with red tape. And I think some of the description of the
legalities and the technicalities are only evidence that the people's
worst fears about bureaucracy and the defenders of bureaucracy in this
institution are well-founded.
We are talking about two acres. In the dear colleague letter that was
sent around by the ranking member, the gentleman from California, and
the gentleman from Ohio, they raise the grave concern that it might not
be quite enough land because there may be a slight difference in the
two-acre parcel on the common and the roughly two-acre parcel that the
town is currently leasing. Well, the grave concern consists of a
difference of perhaps a tenth of an acre, or two-tenths of an acre, the
kind of difference that will only be determined with a fair and
appropriate survey of the exact acreage of the land. Once again, the
kind of minutia, the bureaucracy, the red tape that I think the vast
majority of Americans find objectionable.
I think there is no question that the GSA, as is called for in the
legislation, will protect the interests of the United States. We have
language in the legislation to protect the interests of the Coast Guard
as well. We certainly want to make sure they have the right-of-way they
need; that they can use the roadway that cuts through the property to
get to anything that they might need. And those interests are protected
in the legislation because it makes good sense to do so, but also
because the interests of the town, the interests of the Coast Guard,
and the interests of the country are all one in the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. May I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains for
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With respect to those who are concerned about bureaucracies, and I
certainly am, I would submit there is an easy administrative procedure
already in the law and that we are creating a bureaucracy through all
of the machinations involved in this bill. This bill creates the
problems in terms of creating the circumstance for a property transfer,
problems that we have been all trying to fix. And that such property
transfer, which this legislation would effect, sets and creates a bad
precedent.
I would like to further state that I do not believe that what we are
submitting here is so much an attempt to sanctify the bureaucratic
process as to insist on the preeminence of the legislative process;
that, in fact, as Members of Congress, we are entitled to request full
hearing on any legislation that comes before a committee. And while we
engaged, I thought, in a constructive discussion in subcommittee, we
were given assurances that we would have a full discussion in the full
committee. Such a discussion has not occurred.
I do not think that any Member of Congress would attempt to diminish
the importance of a hearing on any piece of legislation, because that,
in fact, my colleagues, is the purpose for our being in the Congress of
the United States; to be able to assess information that is brought
before us, to be able to make as judicious a decision as we can about a
legislative matter, and to be able to vote, if we may, on any
legislation in front of a committee. To jump over the committee
process, I believe, does not serve the process of the Congress well and
does not properly show respect for the legislative process, as much as
I am sure my colleagues do respect the legislative process.
It is, indeed, a work of mercy to bury the dead. It is a work of
mercy which
[[Page H9445]]
I think we all recognize and we all respect. But I would submit that we
cannot bury our legislative responsibilities and we cannot bury
administrative process in our desire to bury the dead. This legislation
must submit, as all other legislation in the Congress of the United
States must submit, to some kind of a review process in the committee.
And the fact that we are bypassing that really does not give us
adequate opportunity, I believe, to be able to respect the real needs
of the people of New Hampshire in regards to this.
I do not think that anyone would disagree with the merits of the case
which the gentleman from New Hampshire would present on behalf of his
constituents, but we have strong disagreement as to how to advance
that, and how do we advance it by vitiating the legislative process
itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, just to get a few things clarified, we are not
shy about holding hearings in this committee and subcommittee. We have
had over 80 subcommittee hearings in this Congress, as my colleague,
the gentleman from Ohio, knows.
When we had this markup last week, it was strictly understood that it
was a voice vote. Nobody asked for a rollcall on this. And we did that
as a courtesy to the minority, I believe, on a couple of bills. Then,
when it was not scheduled by the full committee, that was a decision at
that level, not our level; that it looks like this will go through, why
do we not get it on the consent calendar since the full committee
cannot meet until Thursday and the last day of the Congress is
presumably Friday. And the decision was, ``Well, it seems to have been
worked out, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) has met with
the various agencies, so let us just put it on the calendar here.''
Now, of course, I am afraid we have a little bit of the politics of
the full committee rather than the politics of the subcommittee, which
I would think the gentleman from Ohio would admit is one of the most
bipartisan subcommittees in this Congress. And I would hope we would
support this measure.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, our objection to this legislation has
nothing to do with the politics of the full committee, the
subcommittee, or the Democratic versus Republican parties. Our concern
is that a bill went out of subcommittee with our understanding that
between the time it went out of subcommittee and it was taken up in
full committee we would find out more about it from the administrative
agencies that were never brought in to testify before a hearing of the
subcommittee. And it was with that understanding that the Democratic
Members of the subcommittee did not ask for a rollcall vote but let it
go on a voice vote.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has stated that he
does not have any questions about the merit of the bill. Now the
gentleman from California is stating we do not have enough information.
If the gentleman from California could clarify which position prevails.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I object to this bill on
process because, it seems to me, that because of the expedience of time
running out, we did not get the process. Because of the gentleman's
concern about the time running out and the full committee not meeting,
the bill was brought to the floor without meeting the commitment that
we thought we had that we would have a full committee markup on the
legislation. And not just to have a markup, but because in the meantime
we would hear from the administration.
Now, the administration has told us that on the substance this is not
a good idea. It is a very dangerous precedent. And, besides, I am also
informed, and I never wanted to become an expert in this area, but
there is this administrative procedure where the people in New
Hampshire could have gone and said that there are two parcels of land
and they want both parcels for the cemetery. They could have gotten
agreement through the administrative procedure to do that and then, at
some later date, they would have to come up with another parcel to make
up for the one parcel that was dedicated for park land that is now
going to be used for cemetery land.
If this bill were to pass, I fear that what the gentleman has done
has created more bureaucratic confusion than what would happen if the
people of New Hampshire went right through the established immediate
procedures in the law, because they would have to go through a process
that would take more time and would be more cumbersome.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
With all due respect to the gentleman from California, Mr. Speaker,
that did not make much sense to me at all. While it is true that the
Park Service could grant a waiver such that the town could begin work
on the cemetery today, the requirement to replace that land remains.
There would be still a full requirement to transfer ownership of two
acres of land to the town.
The town has worked over the last 2 years to identify a parcel of
land appropriate for such transfer. They happen to be leasing two acres
of land from the Coast Guard as we speak that is a very appropriate
parcel for them to take ownership of. They wanted to work through the
status quo and say, because we lease the land, because we maintain the
land, because it is used for parks and recreation, would that fit our
obligation under Land and Water Conservation Fund. And the government's
response, after 7 months, was: ``No, you have to take ownership of the
land.''
In and of itself, I think that represents the concerns of the town
for the delays that might be inherent in the process. And anything we
can do to move it along is appropriate for the town.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to again point out that the town has had a
cemetery problem for 2 years. The State has 1 year to identify a
suitable replacement, and there are concerns that the Coast Guard
property may not work.
Now, I say that all in the context of I wish that we had had some
hearings at a full committee level and, therefore, we could have
brought all these points into a debate. And the bill was only
introduced 2 weeks ago.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be calling for a recorded vote, but before
I get to that, I am going to yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from New Hampshire so that he can state his concerns for his
constituents in New Hampshire. And I want the people in New Hampshire
to know that we are also concerned about their problems, but we do have
a legislative process that we have to regard here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
{time} 1600
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, my concern is not just for my constituents
or just for the State. The fact of the matter is, I am concerned that
we have a Federal Government that is responsive, that fulfills its
duties and its obligations to reach out to those cities or towns or
States that might be in need where there is an appropriate Federal
role. And in this particular case, I think there is clearly a Federal
role.
We have land in the town that is encumbered by Federal regulation. We
have a town that has been looking to find an appropriate solution to
their public need for cemetery space. They currently lease 2 acres.
They would like to take ownership of those 2 acres.
We have a process called the public benefit transfer that has been
used many times before. And, in fact, we have used legislation to move
that process forward in an expedited way before and move that
legislation through this legislative body on numerous occasions. And I
think that is an appropriate way to address the concerns of the town
and the concerns of the State so that they might bury their dead in
dignity.
[[Page H9446]]
As I described, the legislation here protects the interest of the
Coast Guard, it protects the interest of the Park Service, it calls on
the town to make sure that it meets all the requirements that the GSA
might put on the land when it is transferred. The Park Service has
previously written a letter to the State that states, ``We have
reviewed the preliminary information submitted by your office regarding
these proposed conversions and have no objection.''
Now, that is not the be all and end all from the administration, but
it is a clear example or clear point that the issues were raised by the
town and the State as early as 1995; that they have tried to make sure
that everyone has had the information that they need throughout the
entire process.
I think what we have here is an opportunity to do the right thing for
the town, to transfer 2 acres, not 200 acres as the legislation that
the committee dealt with for California was done just a month ago, but
just 2 acres so that the people in the town of New Castle can have
peace of mind.
We have moved this legislation through the subcommittee. We have
tried to address the concerns of the minority. We have had the
opportunity to meet with minority and majority staff and other
representatives from the administration.
I am disappointed that the administration sent over a fax today,
October 5, saying that they have decided to oppose the bill. They could
not send that a week ago apparently. They could not send it 2 weeks
ago. They could not send it 2 years ago when the Park Service was
saying that they have no objection. I am disappointed that we have
received such a late response at such a late date, but I think in some
ways that just points to the need for this body to do whatever it can
to move the legislation forward on behalf of the people of the State of
New Hampshire.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4614, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________