[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5644-H5647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1100, CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL 
              HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY REVISION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 429

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1100) to revise the boundary of the Carl 
     Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North 
     Carolina, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolutiuon. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1100 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Arcuri) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 429.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 429 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1100, the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic 
Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on 
Natural Resources and makes in order the substitute reported by the 
Committee on Natural Resources. The rule also allows for consideration 
of all three amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee on 
H.R. 1100.
  Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my good friend and 
freshman class colleague Mr. Shuler for working this thoughtful 
legislation through the legislative process. H.R. 1100 will further 
preserve the legacy and communicate the stories of internationally 
recognized author, Pulitzer Prize-winner, and great American historian, 
Carl Sandburg.
  Located in the pristine wilderness of North Carolina is the 248-acre 
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site. Each year, over 150,000 
people visit for the purpose of learning about Carl Sandburg's positive 
influences on writing, or to hike and just enjoy the splendor of this 
beautiful, pristine site.
  In recent years it was determined by interested parties at all 
levels, local, State and Federal, including the National Park Service, 
that increasing

[[Page H5645]]

the size would be desirable to carry out the purposes of this historic 
site.
  H.R. 1100 addresses the need for more space by authorizing the 
Secretary of the Interior to acquire up to 115 acres of land from 
willing sellers by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 
funds, or exchange.
  Now, for some unknown reason, some my colleagues have labeled this 
legislation an ``egregious example of landgrabbing'' by the Federal 
Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. The key point to 
this legislation is that the land would have to be acquired from 
``willing sellers.''
  Of the 115 acres, 5 acres would be used to construct a new visitor 
center and parking lot, and the remaining 110 acres would be used to 
enhance the overall experience when visiting the site. Visitors will 
now have an opportunity to sit on the same ridge Carl Sandburg sat to 
pen some of his greatest works and explore the same beautiful 
mountainside Carl Sandburg would frequent with his family for picnics.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1100 has strong bipartisan support here in the 
House, and bicameral support from North Carolina's two Senators, who 
have introduced companion legislation.
  Further, H.R. 1100 has the support of the administration, as well as 
the State of North Carolina and Henderson County, where the site is 
located.
  All of that said, with such broad support, one might ask why are we 
here debating a rule for consideration of this legislation? The reason 
is that during a subcommittee and later full committee markup, it was 
discovered that there are a few Members of this body who object to the 
legislation in its current form. Those Members made several attempts to 
alter the existing legislation by amendment during the committee 
process. In addition, those same Members submitted amendments to the 
Rules Committee which we will consider later today, again seeking to 
alter this legislation.
  While one might argue that our debate today is unnecessary, I contend 
it is yet another example of the majority's efforts to provide our 
colleagues with opportunities to offer their amendments, voice their 
views, and make their objections known here in the House Chamber. I 
look forward to a fruitful discussion of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 429 allows 
for consideration of H.R. 1100, the Carl Sandburg Home National 
Historic Site Boundary Revision Act, which would increase our Federal 
inventory of land by up to 115 acres. Rarely does the Rules Committee 
consider rules for bills making changes to historic sites because they 
are typically brought to the floor under suspension of the rules.
  Mr. Speaker, coming from an area in central Washington that is 40 
percent federally owned land mass, I believe we ought to be encouraging 
land exchanges where possible rather than more land purchases. The 
Federal land management agencies simply have too much land to manage 
effectively with their current level of funding. We all know there is a 
serious backlog of road, trail and facility maintenance on Federal 
lands. In many cases, Federal land agencies are struggling to manage 
invasive species, plant pests, and unnaturally high fuel loads that 
lead to catastrophic wildfires. Yet, year after year, we are spending 
precious tax dollars to buy up more private property and take it off 
the local tax rolls.
  We need to make land exchanges and the orderly restructuring of 
Federal land holdings easier. The Federal Government owns and must 
maintain many small, isolated parcels of land that have no special 
resource value. We should make it easier for the Federal agencies to 
dispose of these properties and retain the proceeds to acquire lands 
that are high in resource value.

                              {time}  1245

  This is a practical solution that allows us to protect special places 
without having to spend limited tax dollars.
  I would also add that there are many other issues, in my view more 
pressing matters, affecting public lands management that we could be 
considering today. For example, the extension of payments to forested 
counties for rural schools and roads. As many of my colleagues are 
aware, the Congress long ago promised rural communities that they would 
get a fair share of the revenue produced from Federal forestlands as 
compensation for the tax-exempt status of Federal forestlands.
  However, unfortunately, special interest groups successfully used 
litigation under the Endangered Species Act to bring harvest to a 
standstill in many places like the Pacific Northwest. This left many 
counties struggling to pay for basic services while saddled with large 
areas of nontaxable Federal land. Although the House has passed 
legislation providing for a 1-year fix on this issue, we need a longer-
term solution, and we need to get this legislation to the President's 
desk as soon as possible.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will soon have an opportunity 
to consider these and other issues impacting Federal land management.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by saying that it's 
important to note on this bill that all this bill really does is to 
create an environment for people to donate the land or for funds to be 
donated to actually purchase the land, and we're not talking about a 
vast tract of land. We're talking about a very small amount of land, 
115 acres, 22 acres of which have already been pledged, and basically 
are waiting for this legislation to be passed so that the conservatory 
could be created so that the acreage can be donated to it.
  So I would say in response to my good friend and colleague from 
Washington that this is not any type of huge land grab. This is really 
just a very small amount of acreage that is being set up and being 
donated just to enhance the whole, again, experience of the Carl 
Sandburg site.
  So I think it is a very good bill. It is a good rule, and I would 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just point out that this is an increase of 44 percent over the 
current land value, and I know we're talking about acres and we're not 
talking about square miles. But to paraphrase former Senator Edward 
Dirksen, in another sense, you know, a billion here, a billion there, 
pretty soon you're talking about real dollars. Well, we're talking 
about Federal land ownership, and I'm very sensitive to that because I 
come from the western part of the United States.
  As I mentioned in my opening remarks, 40 percent of my district is 
owned by the Federal Government, and I have some counties in which 75 
percent of the counties' land mass is owned by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today and 
it goes back to the experience we had on the floor and in committee.
  Mr. Bishop had offered an amendment in the National Parks 
Subcommittee that would have improved this bill, in my opinion, because 
his amendment would have reduced the number of acres that are being 
added to this so-called park. This was not Carl Sandburg's original 
home. The acreage being added or sought to be added is not even 
available for view from the Sandburg home. It was not part of the 
original home. So it made sense that an amendment like this ought to 
have a vote and it did.
  When it came time for a recorded vote, the subcommittee chairman 
promised to hold the vote open for 15 minutes. About 8 to 9 minutes 
later, though, for some time the vote on the amendment was passing, 
once there was one more vote ``nay'' than in the affirmative, between 8 
and 9 minutes later, the chairman closed the vote, even though he said 
he would leave it open for 15 minutes. He closed it as I walked into 
the door and others alerted him, and actually he never said that

[[Page H5646]]

the vote was closed. He simply asked the clerk for a count at that 
point, and when it was pointed out to him that the vote had not been 
closed but simply a count asked for, and that I was there when he did 
that, he still refused to allow my vote, and my vote as reflected would 
have been ``aye.'' That would have tied the vote. We all know there 
were others on the way, though we knew not how they would vote. But I 
was promised that my vote would also be counted in the record but it, 
in fact, did not.
  And we went through a series of parliamentary inquiries to make sure 
that the chairman had every opportunity to do the right thing, and so 
that it was not quite as clear as it became, that there was only one 
reason that vote was held open, and that was to foreclose the 
opportunity to pass this amendment.
  Now, the House rules say that a record vote shall not be held open on 
the floor for the purpose of changing the outcome of a vote. Clearly, 
that's what happened here. Clearly, it would have changed the outcome 
of the vote, at least as I came in, to a tie with other people coming 
if the vote had been held open as long as the chairman said he was 
going to.
  But the promises of bipartisanship in this Chamber, as we saw it 
yesterday, as we saw in this subcommittee hearing, are about as hollow 
as some of the other things around this floor.
  Now, as far as the rule, it should have been open to this amendment. 
The amendment should have been part of the original bill, but through 
this procedural folly, it was not. And so I object to the rule. I rise 
in opposition to the rule, and I would encourage our colleagues across 
the aisle to remember their promises.
  I know it's been clear back to November and all those campaign 
promises leading up to November, and that's a long time, even though 
the Attorney General is being condemned for forgetting things further 
back than that. Nonetheless, we won't get into questions of hypocrisy. 
I just ask you to remember your promises about bipartisanship and open 
government, because this rule forecloses the openness that we were 
promised we would have, especially when it pertains to a good amendment 
that deserves consideration before this floor.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I must say I'm a bit confused because the 
gentleman from Texas is opposing the rule, the rule which is allowing 
the amendment that he is speaking of. So the Rules Committee has put 
the amendment in, the Bishop amendment, that he's talking about. It 
will entitle a full and fair debate on it this afternoon, and we are 
giving the gentleman everything that he has asked for. And he stands up 
here and talks about some type of hypocrisy, and frankly, I just don't 
understand why he is mentioning that, why he is talking about that 
when, in fact, we are giving the rule that allows for debate on that 
particular amendment.
  So we are, in fact, giving the gentleman exactly what he is asking 
for, and he is opposing the rule. So I guess I just don't understand 
what his point is, but I would say that we are supporting the rule 
that, in fact, does allow for full and fair debate on this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. There 
were three amendments made in order on this bill, and what I have a 
problem with is the process and how ridiculously partisan it was there, 
and there should have been more made in order here, but I do appreciate 
what has been made in order.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of time.
  I just simply want to say that the gentleman from Texas, a member of 
the committee, was apparently told something by the subcommittee 
chairman and that wasn't carried out, and I think that's the point that 
he made. I am pleased that the committee has made these three 
amendments in order. They were debated, and I think the full House 
deserves that consideration.
  I think the rule could have been, obviously, better if it were an 
open rule on a bill here that certainly is not that controversial.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1100 will further preserve the legacy 
and communicate the stories of internationally recognized author, 
Pulitzer Prize winner and great American historian, Carl Sandburg.
  Again, I congratulate my good friend and freshman class colleague, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) for his efforts to bring 
this thoughtful legislation to the floor.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting 
``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule so that future 
generations can also enjoy the beauty and splendor of the Carl Sandburg 
Home National Historic Site.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on motions to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1252 and H.R. 2429.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny

[[Page H5647]]


     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     DeGette
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Shays

                              {time}  1319

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________