[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5648-H5654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY REVISION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 429 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on

[[Page H5649]]

the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1100.

                              {time}  1344


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1100) to revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National 
Historic Site in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Pastor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1100 authorizes a boundary expansion 
of 115 acres at the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, a unit 
of the National Park System in western North Carolina. The bill was 
introduced by my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, 
Representative Heath Shuler, in whose district the Sandburg National 
Historic Site is located. Representative Shuler has been a strong 
advocate for the bill, and I commend him for his enthusiasm and the 
dedication to this important piece of legislation.
  The 264-acre Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site preserves the 
farm where the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author and his family 
lived for the last 22 years of his life. Carl Sandburg was one of 
America's most versatile and recognized writers whose stories, 
histories, and poems captured and recorded America's traditions, 
struggles, and dreams.

  H.R. 1100 authorizes a 115-acre boundary adjustment that is 
recommended in the historic site's 2003 General Management Plan, a plan 
developed through a 4-year process that involved extensive public 
input. The boundary adjustment is necessary to allow construction of a 
visitor center and a parking lot as well as to protect the pastoral 
views from the Sandburg estate.
  H.R. 1100 authorizes the Secretary of Interior to acquire land from 
willing sellers only, and I would note that all of the affected 
landowners have agreed to have their parcels included in the proposal 
to expand the historic site.
  H.R. 1100 is important for the continued protection and operation of 
this historic site, and it has bipartisan support. At a hearing on the 
bill last month, the administration testified in support of the 
legislation, as did a local county commissioner. In the Senate, 
companion legislation has been sponsored by Senator Dole and Senator 
Burr.
  During the markup of this bill, the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Public Lands adopted an amendment that made several 
technical changes and standardized the bill's language. The amended 
bill was forwarded to the full committee by voice vote. The bill, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House by the Natural 
Resources Committee by voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1100 is a result of a lengthy public planning 
process. It has extensive and enthusiastic community support, including 
the support of the landowners involved. It also has the backing of the 
Bush administration and North Carolina's Republican Senators. Given all 
this, we have to wonder why there are those who would try to make this, 
a straightforward bill, controversial.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again commend Representative Shuler for his 
hard work on behalf of this important and worthy legislation, and I 
strongly urge the passage of H.R. 1100, as amended.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the headlines in the papers could probably read 
``Scramble the Eggs Because We're Bringing Home the Bacon.''
  We are going to be leaving for Memorial Day weekend. We will have the 
ability of standing in front of our constituents, looking them straight 
in the eye, and saying that one of the last things we did before we 
went back home was to cast a vote for something that can be described 
as one of the biggest pieces of pork legislation we have. A contingency 
from North Carolina, both congressional and senatorial side, come to 
Washington and they brought something back home. Even though this 
particular bill does not meet the definition of general welfare as was 
intended in the Constitution, does not meet a critical need, does not 
enhance the purpose of a specific park that we have, it does spend 
money upfront and will yearly require this country to have a larger 
financial obligation. And it does also tell us that enough votes can 
deliver anything regardless of the merits.
  We intend to show to all those who may be listening that this bill 
fails on the size, the cost, and the logic of it. We intend to 
introduce three amendments eventually within this process. One that 
will say that 5 acres included in this recommendation has logic to it, 
that we admit that is truly there. There is a need for safe public 
parking and a visitor center, which is the 5 acres they requested.
  We will also present an amendment which will say the first thing we 
need to do is make sure that we are dealing with the backlog of 
resource needs that we have. This particular park, according to the 
National Park Service, has $600,000 worth of construction needs in the 
regular park itself, which we should be doing before we try any kind of 
expansion.
  We will also be introducing, by Mr. Heller of Nevada, an amendment 
that says if this land wishes to be donated, we will accept it.
  Had any of these three amendments been adopted in the committee, the 
committee of jurisdiction, this bill would probably be here as a 
suspension bill. But when the attitude is it's all or nothing, 
rejecting any kind of minority input, we will probably object for the 
logic in this bill. This bill can be jammed through by the numbers but 
certainly not by the logic.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize the chief sponsor is here, and I think it 
would be only fair to allow him to have the opportunity to speak now in 
defense of his bill before I go on.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Grijalva, the respected 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks, Forests and Public Lands, for 
his efforts in managing the bill on the floor today and bringing this 
legislation before us.
  I, of course, do rise in support of H.R. 1100, introduced by one of 
our newest colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, a very 
respected member of our committee, Representative Heath Shuler. I 
commend Mr. Shuler for his work on this legislation as well as his 
dedication to his constituents, who stand firmly behind this bill to 
protect and interpret a local resource that has national importance. 
Some may call it pork. Whatever you want. But the last time I checked, 
we are the people's House of Representatives. We represent the people 
that sent us here. And perhaps because Mr. Shuler is doing such an 
effective job of that, it raises the ire of some in this body. But he 
has worked diligently to guide this bill through the legislative 
process. I applaud him for those efforts.
  Carl Sandburg was an American poet, a biographer, novelist, and 
songwriter. Today the farm he owned is preserved as the Carl Sandburg 
Home National Historic Site, managed by the National Park Service for 
all Americans to visit and learn about the life and works of one of 
America's most beloved authors.
  During the 22 years Sandburg spent at the farm until his death in 
1967, he published more than ten volumes of poetry and prose, including 
a novel and an autobiography. And it was this farm he returned to after 
winning his second Pulitzer Prize in 1951.
  The pending measure is important to the future protection and 
interpretation of the Sandburg farm. The 115-acre boundary adjustment 
will allow for the construction of a much-needed visitor center and 
parking lot. As important, the boundary adjustment will provide the 
opportunity to protect the views

[[Page H5650]]

from the Sandburg estate that the author and his family cherished and 
that today's visitors so richly enjoy.
  The State of North Carolina's Department of Cultural Resources has 
recognized the importance of protecting the views from Sandburg's 
estate by purchasing 22 acres within the proposed boundary expansion 
area. They intend to donate these acres to the National Park Service 
upon authorization of the boundary adjustment. All of the other 
affected landowners have agreed to have their properties included 
within the proposed boundary adjustment.
  This is a straightforward bill, as the chairman of the subcommittee 
has said. It enjoys bipartisan support, and I urge that it be approved 
by all of our colleagues on the House floor.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the author and sponsor of the legislation, Congressman Shuler.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, Carl Sandburg was a national treasure who 
spent 20 years of his life in the mountains of western North Carolina. 
While he was not a native son, we in North Carolina are certainly proud 
to claim him as one of our own.
  His farm is now a National Historic Site visited by thousands of 
families around the world. This site is important both for its history 
and its beauty.
  H.R. 1100 would revise the boundary of the historic site to add 115 
acres. The addition would serve two purposes. The first purpose is to 
protect the scenic views and open spaces the Sandburg family enjoyed 
from their home. The second purpose is to allow the site to build a 
much-needed visitor center and parking area. These additions are part 
of the site's General Management Plan which was adopted in 2003, after 
a full public process.
  This bill has wide bipartisan support. The administration has 
testified in support of this bill. North Carolina Senators Richard Burr 
and Elizabeth Dole are pushing companion legislation in the Senate. And 
this is strongly supported by local county government.
  I thank Chairman Grijalva, Chairman Rahall, and members of the 
committee for their support.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Utah 
for yielding.
  It's quite interesting. I was listening to the rule debate, and the 
gentleman from New York said that the reason this was being brought up 
under a rule is to make sure that the process was open and that there 
were people who had amendments, and I just thought that was quite 
comical and more of the smoke-and-mirror thing that this majority has 
put forth.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1100. This is a 
great opportunity for us to realize what an earmark is, whether it is 
recognized by the Chair as an earmark or not, what real pork is, and 
what a Federal land grab is.
  This is designed to increase the National Park Service's land 
inventory. This is ironic considering that the National Park Service 
currently has an overall maintenance backlog for lands it currently 
owns. In fact, this very site, the Carl Sandburg National Historic 
Site, already has $600,000 in deferred maintenance cost itself.
  The author of the bill said that this was a mission to allow the 
site. If my understanding is correct, you cannot even see the 
additional 115 acres from the home site itself. And I don't know if 
this is going to involve any landscaping or cutting down trees or 
grading costs or whatever, and maybe Mr. Sandburg did see this, but it 
must have been on a walk and not from his home.
  This was not an original part of the Sandburg estate. And if you read 
the intent of the legislation when it was done, it was to preserve the 
farm, not to buy up all the surrounding land.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will understand exactly what 
this bill is, that they will oppose it and join me in protecting the 
taxpayers' dollar.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This bill authorizes the purchase of 115 acres. I have already said 5 
acres is legitimate. There is a need for safe parking and a visitor 
center, and that is the amount of space that they need. It is the other 
110 acres which, unfortunately, fits the title of ``pork.''
  This park is about Carl Sandburg. It is supposed to venerate his life 
and his literary legacy. Unfortunately, the extra 110 acres has 
absolutely nothing to do with his life or literary legacy.
  The National Park System said, and some that sit here on the floor, 
that this land would protect the viewshed. The logical question is what 
viewshed? The ridge is the natural boundary of this park. The land to 
be adopted is over the ridge, which means you stand anywhere in that 
extra 100 acres and you can't see the house from that acreage. You 
stand at the house and you can't see the acreage unless we give you 
some complimentary periscopes. Simply, there is no view to deal with.
  The county came up here and said, well, this park has evolved, kind 
of like Jurassic Park, and now we are trying to protect some of the 
historic pasturelands.

                              {time}  1400

  Historic pasturelands? This is about Carl Sandburg. He wrote about 
Abraham Lincoln. He did not invent Arby's.
  They also said during the committee that this is to protect the 
resources. The resources of this park is the house. You could be on 
that 100 acres they want to add, and the house could burn to the 
ground, and you wouldn't know about it until the fire trucks from the 
town came running by the road to get there. This has nothing to do with 
preserving and protecting the vast purpose of this particular park. 
I've got four problems with this bill, this is the first one.
  The second one deals with the cost. When we had the hearing in the 
markup, it was said that this bill would cost between 2- and $3 
million. CBO has now scored it at $7 million. They have also said it 
will incur to the Federal Government an ongoing expense of a half 
million dollars a year. This park already costs about $1.2 million to 
run. They bring in about $100,000 to $200,000 worth of revenue a year, 
so it is a $1 million drag on the Federal Treasury at first. This will 
add to that, making it a $1.5 million net deficit every year the 
existence of this park is there.
  Now, some people will say, look, it's only 100 acres. We're only 
talking about $7 million. In the scope of what we do here in the 
Nation, that's not much. But if you actually spend $7 million here, 2- 
or $3 million there, pretty soon you realize that we are in a situation 
where we have squandered all our money, and we don't have anything for 
those deserving projects that actually are before us.
  The National Park Service said this park itself needs $600,000 in 
maintenance work. It is galling that a park system that is always 
talking about the need would in any way recommend or that we as a body 
would adopt that recommendation to try and expand into areas that we 
are not necessarily dealing with.
  I show you this picture right now because it is Dinosaur National 
Monument. It straddles the border between Utah and Colorado. This is 
the visitors center. I used to go there. This is exciting. The entire 
mountain has been scaled back, and you can see the fossil remains of 
dinosaurs. Unfortunately, this is condemned. No school kid can ever go 
into this building or see the fossil remains. No Park Service employee 
can go in there because this is on the backlog of stuff that needs to 
be done.
  Before we buy extraneous territory that adds to something that has 
nothing to do with the mission of the park, we should solve these types 
of problems first, because the money we use to buy this land in North 
Carolina is money that will not be used in real parks, for real needs, 
for real issues anywhere else in the Nation, in California, in Arizona, 
in New Mexico, in Maine. None of those will receive that. It is simply 
a misplaced sense of priority.
  Now, this area was represented in the past by a gentleman who used to 
chair the appropriations subcommittee that dealt with public lands. He 
could have easily added this kind of money to an appropriations 
prospect. But having the ability of seeing the overall needs that we 
have in our forest system, our

[[Page H5651]]

parks system, our public lands system, he flat out didn't. He did take, 
instead of a parochial view, a very patriotic view of the needs of this 
country, and I am hopeful that we will do that as well.
  There is a third area of concern I have, and that deals with 
community. To be honest, we are dealing with a community that overtaxed 
its citizens by $5 million last year. They brought in $5 million more 
than they spent. They have a general reserve fund of $21 million. If 
this is definitely needed as open space, because it doesn't really fit 
the park, but any kind of open space, they could easily do that. Or 
they could do what cash-strapped cities in the West do, which is simply 
bond for that kind of an approach. Even the idea that 20 acres was 
given to the State, and that the State will now dedicate that, still 
presents another problem because that means that forevermore this 
county will have additional PILT land, and additional PILT money will 
be going to that, which, once again, cuts into the amount which is a 
finite supply for all of us that are left.
  The fourth reason I have a problem with this bill is simply it's not 
pork. If this was a significant addition to giving the message of Carl 
Sandburg, I would not object to it. If this was the 5 acres that is a 
significant addition for parking, safety and for a visitors center, I 
would not object to it. But this is simply land that doesn't protect a 
viewshed, that doesn't have any historical connection with the family. 
It is land that is simply being gobbled up and will forevermore be 
subsidized through PILT payments by this body to this county. And when 
we have these other needs, the question is simply, for what? There is 
no logic for that.
  This is a hard place, I know, to deal with logic; but this is one of 
those bills that simply defies logic. Mr. Chairman, for that reason I 
have to oppose this particular bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, as we go into the discussion and the 
debate on the amendments, let me just remind my colleagues that H.R. 
1100 is supported by the Bush administration, State and local 
governments, citizens, and North Carolina's Republican Senators. I 
would also note that the 115-acre addition was developed through a 4-
year planning process.
  And, yes, Carl Sandburg is beloved in North Carolina, but his 
significance is of national importance. That is why our cosponsors from 
east coast to west coast are part of this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that the preservation of the Carl Sandburg 
Home National Historic Site and the enhancement of that site is a 
national responsibility, and that is why this legislation is important, 
to extend that national responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 1100

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Carl Sandburg Home National 
     Historic Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act:
       (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Sandburg Center Alternative'' numbered 445/80,017 and dated 
     April 2007.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) Historic site.--The term ``Historic Site'' means Carl 
     Sandburg Home National Historic Site.

     SEC. 3. CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY 
                   ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Acquisition Authority.--The Secretary may acquire from 
     willing sellers by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange not more than 110 acres of 
     land, water, or interests in land and water, within the area 
     depicted on the map, to be added to the Historic Site.
       (b) Visitor Center.--To preserve the historic character and 
     landscape of the site, the Secretary may also acquire up to 
     five acres for the development of a visitor center and 
     visitor parking area adjacent to or in the general vicinity 
     of the Historic Site.
       (c) Boundary Revision.--Upon acquisition of any land or 
     interest in land under this section, the Secretary shall 
     revise the boundary of the Historic Site to reflect the 
     acquisition.
       (d) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--Land added to the Historic Site by 
     this section shall be administered as part of the Historic 
     Site in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except the amendments printed in House Report 110-165. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report; by a 
Member designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not 
be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-165.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 2, line 20, after the period insert the following: 
     ``The authority to acquire property under this subsection may 
     not be exercised until all maintenance for the Historic Site 
     deferred as of the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act has been completed.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 429, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as I said in the opening remarks, 
we are going to try to present some amendments that can actually make 
this into a better bill.
  This is the first one in which I want to do which simply deals with 
the backlog we are talking about.
  This amendment requires the Park Service to eliminate its maintenance 
backlog at this particular national historic site, the Carl Sandburg 
site, prior to the purchasing of land.
  As I said already, there is a $600,000 backlog that the Park Service 
has said exists already at Carl Sandburg's historic site. According to 
the Congressional Budget Office, this bill costs $7 million to 
implement. Those funds must be prioritized on an ``existing needs'' 
list, which means the Park Service has the discretion to use the $7 
million to buy new land before they actually fix the existing buildings 
that happen to be there.
  Overall, the Park Service has a maintenance backlog that's anywhere 
from $5- to $10 billion. This is not the time to buy more land until we 
fix the existing problems. Any addition to this park simply exacerbates 
the problem. And this bill, not only in the overall cost, but also add 
an additional $500,000 a year on operating costs of this particular 
park.
  So once again, Mr. Chairman, this is the purpose of this particular 
amendment, to say, fine. What we will do, though, is make sure that 
what we own and what we are operating and what we are using, which is 
actually the house, it's about Carl Sandburg, should be properly 
maintained first before the Park System uses any of this money that may 
be appropriated or any of their dedicated funds that they may have for 
that kind of appropriation to expand the park. Fix what we have first.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is clearly intended to 
stop the boundary expansion at the Carl Sandburg home historical site 
from ever happening. It imposes excessive, ill-defined requirements on 
this historic site, standards that we have never imposed on any other 
national park or government agency, and that I suspect most of us would 
never impose

[[Page H5652]]

on ourselves. Could you, as a homeowner, certify that all maintenance 
on your home is ever complete? Isn't there always a light bulb to be 
changed, a wall to be painted? Would we expect the Department of 
Defense to certify that maintenance on every piece of equipment in 
their inventory is complete before allowing them to purchase new 
equipment? Of course not. So why is the Carl Sandburg Home Historic 
Site expected to meet that standard?
  The minority has had 12 years to do something about the National Park 
Service maintenance backlog and failed to act, but that failure should 
not be allowed to hinder the continuing needs of the National Park 
System.
  The new majority in Congress is committed to addressing the past 
budget shortfalls, while managing and growing the National Park Service 
responsibly. We can do both, and we must do both.
  Further, Mr. Bishop's amendment requires an unspecified person to 
determine that all deferred maintenance at Carl Sandburg has been 
completed, but fails to define not only who makes the determination, 
but also what the definition of ``deferred maintenance'' is. Therefore, 
I don't see how a determination can ever be made. Even the Director of 
the National Park Service herself has testified before the Subcommittee 
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that deferred maintenance 
is an ongoing process, just like it is for every other Federal agency 
or a homeowner.
  The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has already 
purchased 22 of the 110 acres proposed to be added. They would like to 
donate these lands to the National Park Service, but Congress must 
authorize this boundary adjustment first. This amendment would require 
the State to continue to hold the land indefinitely, something they 
should not have to do.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have no impact on whether the 
backlog of maintenance on the national parks is managed effectively. 
Rather, it was simply introduced to kill this boundary addition. I urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I think it is one of those things 
that it's a simple question: Do we expand what we have, buy more stuff 
to take care of, or do we take care of what we have first? And I have 
to admit that under Republican leadership we have had huge increases in 
these budgets; however, the need is still significantly there.
  I appreciate the comments that were made by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona, as to what those deferred maintenance needs may 
or may not be. Actually, the Park Service has already done that. They 
have listed out exactly what needs to be done there. In fact, I said 
$600,000. I was wrong. It's $599,673 worth of specific maintenance that 
has to be done on this site first. And it just makes sense that we take 
care of this first before we do any kind of other expansions; 
otherwise, we are simply not dealing properly with what should be 
before us.
  I appreciate, also, the fact that North Carolina bought the 22 acres, 
but I would remind you also that they bought it from a group that 
virtually had the land so it could be kept in open space in the first 
place, and that as soon as we federalize these acres as well as the 
other 110 acres, this automatically becomes PILT money available for 
North Carolina. This is the gift that keeps on giving and the cost that 
keeps on costing the rest of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
North Carolina, sponsor of the legislation (Mr. Shuler).
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment unfairly targets H.R. 1100.
  The gentleman from Utah did not offer this amendment to two similar 
Republican bills. Had he required H.R. 1080, Mrs. Cubin's legislation 
dealing with the Grand Teton National Park, to delay land acquisition 
until deferred maintenance was completed, it would have cost them $57 
million. That is 115 times more in deferred maintenance costs than the 
Carl Sandburg home.
  None of these groups or agencies is required to complete backlog 
maintenances. That is because the maintenance is never fully completed, 
and it is an ongoing process.
  This amendment fails to define the deferred maintenance, what it is, 
who will complete it, or in what time frame it is to be completed. It 
is a weak attempt to stop legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1415


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 110-165.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 2, line 18, strike ``110'' and insert ``five''.
       Page 2, line 18, strike the comma at the end.
       Page 2, strike ``within the area depicted on the map,''.
       Page 2, line 22, strike ``also'' and all that follows 
     through ``acres'' on line 23 and insert the following: ``use 
     the land, water, or interests in land and water acquired 
     under subsection (a)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 429, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that does 
what I originally said ought to have been done. There has been 
compelling evidence that there is a need for 5 additional acres to 
provide for safe parking enhancement and to provide for a visitors 
center. In addition, in the testimony we had at the hearing, they asked 
that this acreage not be made mandatory as contiguous to the park 
itself to leave them the flexibility as far as the planning process.
  So what I am asking for this to do is make in order those 5 acres, 
which I admit is a legitimate request, and it would not include the 
extra 110 acres that are supposedly for a viewshed protection that no 
one can see or for a resource that is not related in any way to the 
purpose of this particular park.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Bishop amendment arbitrarily slashes 
the boundary adjustment at the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic 
Site by 95 percent. This reduction is based on no science, no studies, 
and would substitute the judgment of a few for those of the many.
  The National Park Service has invested 4 years and tens of thousands 
of dollars in a public planning process to determine the future of this 
very important historic site. With extensive analysis and public input, 
a 115-acre boundary adjustment was determined to be necessary to 
protect park resources and provide for the enjoyment of the public. Mr. 
Bishop's amendment simply ignores this, undermining good public policy.
  The amendment flies in the face of the wishes of the local community, 
including the village council and the local county commissioners. It 
defies the many State and Federal agencies that participated in and 
supported the outcome of the multiyear planning process. It contradicts 
the wishes of the Bush administration, who testified in support of this 
legislation at a hearing just last month. And it goes against the 
desires of two Senators from North Carolina, both Republicans, I might 
add, who have sponsored companion legislation in the Senate.

[[Page H5653]]

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment also flies in the face of the desires of 
landowners in question who have agreed to have their properties 
included in the proposed boundary expansion. It virtually guarantees 
these lands will be developed. The owners would like the opportunity at 
some future date to sell their property or an easement on their 
property to the historic site for conservation purposes. If and when 
these landowners are ready to sell their land, this amendment assures 
that the Federal Government would not be at the table, but a developer 
surely will.
  Mr. Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has moved this year 
Republican-sponsored park expansion bills that have added more than 
3,000 acres at a cost of millions of dollars with no amendment of this 
type offered. Money and expanding parking are clearly not the real 
issue here. The Bishop amendment has no science, no studies, no local 
support, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Shuler).
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment violates the wishes of the 
residents of Henderson County, their Republican county commissioners, 
the State of North Carolina, Republican Senators Elizabeth Dole and 
Richard Burr and the administration.
  Additionally, this amendment flies in the face of the 2003 general 
management plan that was conducted publicly with wide support. This 
general management plan included all 115 acres that are in this bill. 
This amendment would eliminate the ability of the Carl Sandburg Home to 
protect their viewshed and thus undermine the purpose of this bill.
  My bill is not seeking any appropriation or requiring the government 
to purchase anything. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I take some umbrage at the claim 
that this is an arbitrary number that is taken out. In our hearing 
testimony, it was very clear from both the park as well as the county 
that 5 acres was what was needed for the parking and the visitors 
center. That is not a number pulled out of the air. It was specifically 
for 5 acres. That is why I have continuously used that particular 
number.
  Things have changed, I admit, since the hearing. When we had the 
hearing, it was said this would totally cost somewhere between $2 
million and $3 million. CBO has said today this will cost $7 million 
and a continuing ongoing fee of $500,000 every year.
  I would not be necessarily as opposed to this if indeed donation was 
the goal. It is unfair to the gentlelady from Wyoming, as well as the 
bill that deals with a donation of land to the Grand Teton National 
Park, to compare this with that. That was simply a donation. The total 
cost is zero. The total expansion of that park is expanding the Grand 
Teton Park by six ten-thousandths of a percent. This particular bill 
expands this park 44 percent, and if you divide $7 million by the 
number of acres, that is something around $64,000 an acre.
  That would be a cost that would be there. There is an ongoing cost 
and an ongoing decision that the United States needs to go into if we 
are going to make these kinds of decisions.
  Like I said, the amendment is straightforward. There is a need for 
parking. There is a need for the visitors center; 5 acres meets that 
need. The rest of it is simply not a need, it is not necessary, and we 
should reject this kind of pork.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Just in closing, on the issue of cost, CBO scored this 
bill as costing $7 million because they included the cost of the future 
visitors center that was estimated at $3.5 million. Just for the 
record, I note that both Mr. Bishop's amendment and Mr. Heller's 
amendment allow the $3.5 million to be spent on the visitors center.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was rejected.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Heller of Nevada

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 110-165.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Heller of Nevada:
       Page 2, strike lines 15 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Acquisition Authority.--The Secretary may acquire from 
     willing sellers by donation, purchase with donated funds, or 
     exchange not more than 110 acres of land, water, or interests 
     in land and water, within the area depicted on the map, to be 
     added to the Historic Site.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 429, the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of my colleague 
from Utah, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1100 that will 
allow for the expansion of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic 
Site, provided that it is acquired from willing sellers by donation, 
purchased with donated funds, or exchange.
  As those of us from public land States know all too well, public 
funding for lands management is insufficient to adequately manage the 
current Federal estate. Nearly 85 percent of my home State of Nevada is 
controlled by the Federal Government. In Nevada, we have vast 
management needs. We need funding for important priorities like the 
management of wild horses and burros, wildfire mitigation and 
management, endangered species, and rangeland and habitat restoration, 
to just name a few. And I know this is the case across much of the 
West.
  We need to be cognizant of the fact that every time we add to the 
Federal estate, it spreads our already limited resources even thinner. 
As a result, Mr. Chairman, any additions to the Federal estate must be 
carefully debated and have demonstrable necessities of Federal 
protection.
  This bill was reported out of committee, Mr. Chairman, with an 
estimated price tag of $2.25 million. Since that time, as mentioned by 
my colleague from Utah, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this 
legislation and determined that the actual price tag is $7 million.
  That is no small chunk of change; $7 million can provide energy 
assistance to over 44,000 North Carolina households living below 
poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, $7 million can go a long way to protect veterans in the 
Asheville veterans hospital, which has been plagued by shortages of 
nurses and doctors.
  Mr. Chairman, $7 million would buy flu shots for all of the children 
living below the poverty level in North Carolina's 11th District for 11 
years.
  And in the context of this debate, that $7 million is desperately 
needed to manage and maintain the land currently owned by the Federal 
Government. In fact, some of that money is needed to address the 
$600,000 in deferred maintenance currently existing at the very site 
that is proposed for expansion.
  Additionally, it is unclear to me why this particular piece of 
property is vital to the Carl Sandburg story for which the park was 
created and in dire need of Federal protection.
  Mr. Chairman, during subcommittee proceedings we learned that this 
expansion enjoys support from the community and local governments. I 
understand the importance of communities and Federal land management 
agencies working together, and it is in that spirit that I am offering 
this amendment.
  This amendment strikes a balance that will allow for the expansion of 
the park, but will not take away from the already overburdened budget 
for public lands management.
  Henderson County, which is the home of the Carl Sandburg Home 
National Historic Site, has determined that they would like to protect 
the viewshed area. If this is the priority for them, this compromise 
amendment will give the community the opportunity to show their support 
by making a financial commitment to purchase this property, with the 
Federal Government ultimately responsible for management. I believe 
that local support can

[[Page H5654]]

make this compromise I am proposing a reality.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment allows for my colleague's constituents to 
achieve their goal while protecting the budgets of our Federal land 
management agencies, who have a difficult time managing the lands they 
already own.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and its wise use of 
Federal resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is inconsistent and 
unfair. As I stated earlier, the enhancement and preservation of this 
site is a national responsibility. This amendment abdicates that 
responsibility by prohibiting the use of Federal funds to fulfill this 
role. Strangely, it allows Federal funds to be used for development but 
requires State and local landowners to shoulder the costs of protecting 
the historic viewshed.
  Philanthropy has and will continue to play an important role in the 
care of our national parks and is something that we are all thankful 
and grateful for. A perfect example is the State of North Carolina. 
Recognizing the importance of protecting the historic viewshed, it has 
purchased 22 of the 110 acres identified as needing protection and 
would like to donate them to the National Park Service. The National 
Park Service will, of course, continue to welcome any donation of land 
or money to help protect the remainder of this land.
  However, it is irresponsible to expect the State to shoulder the 
total responsibility of purchasing all 110 acres, nor should small 
landowners have the responsibility to donate their property to the 
National Park Service. We need to maintain the option to purchase the 
land from willing sellers, so that when it is on the sale block, the 
Federal Government's hands are not tied.
  The amendment is not about the availability of Federal funds. This is 
a funding source specifically set aside for Federal acquisitions of 
land identified as important for conservation. The Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has a current balance of $16 billion. I would say 
that is sufficient to allow the possibility of using appropriated funds 
for this 110-acre addition.

                              {time}  1430

  This amendment is also inconsistent. It allows the use of Federal 
funds to purchase 5 acres for construction of a visitor center, yet 
does not allow the use of Federal funds to purchase 110 acres of land 
or easements to protect the historic viewshed.
  Finally, this amendment is unfair. Committee Republicans raised no 
objections nor offered any amendments when the Natural Resources 
Committee favorably reported a Republican bill that would add more than 
3,000 acres to the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park. That bill 
allows appropriated funds to be used, and the CBO estimate put the cost 
at up to $5 million. Why should appropriated funds be available for 
that bill but specifically protected in this bill?
  Mr. Chairman, land protection at a national historic site is a 
national responsibility, as recognized by my Republican colleagues in 
the Jean Lafitte legislation. The Heller amendment is inconsistent and 
unfair. I believe Mr. Shuler's predecessor did not recognize the 
importance of enhancing and protecting this valuable viewshed. We 
should not penalize the author of this legislation for recognizing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Shuler for his comments.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, while my preference is for as much land to 
be donated or purchased privately, this amendment would tie the hands 
of the government if it ever decided to step in and protect the Carl 
Sandburg home's viewshed.
  Mr. Heller did not offer this amendment to Mrs. Cubin's bill or Mr. 
Jindal's bill in committee, both Republican bills very similar to H.R. 
1100.
  It is not reasonable to expect all of the land to be donated from 
small landowners who are currently living on the land. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wish to simply address a couple 
of the issues that have been brought up again.
  In comparing this particular bill to two others, one specifically 
still held up in the committee, it is true that one bill did have a 
donation, which is what he is patterning after, so the Grand Teton bill 
is very similar to this: Willing donor.
  The other bill by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) is with 
the Jean Lafitte National Park. This is the ability of coming up with 
area that is necessary for protecting from the devastation of 
hurricanes. It is also area coming mainly from State and local lands, 
not from private owners, and we do not actually oppose the boundary 
revisions because it makes sense on a case-by-case basis in this 
particular area, especially when the cost for the land is only $1,000 
per acre. It would only increase the size of this particular national 
site by 15 percent, not the 44 percent as in this one.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada will 
be postponed.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pastor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1100) to 
revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in 
the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________