[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.
____________________