[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1405-H1410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2087, REMOVING RESTRICTIONS FOR 
                      ACCOMACK COUNTY LAND PARCEL

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 587 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 587

       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. 2087) to remove restrictions from a parcel of 
     land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, 
     Virginia. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair 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. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those received for printing in the portion of 
     the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 
     clause 8 of rule XVIII in a daily issue dated March 19, 2012, 
     and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. 
     Each amendment so received may be offered only by the Member 
     who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be 
     considered as read if printed. 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

[[Page H1406]]

     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.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule seeks to waive House 
rules requiring disclosure of any earmarks in the underlying bill, H.R. 
2087. Therefore, pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the 
House, I make a point of order against consideration of this rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
  Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the gentleman from Arizona and the 
gentleman from Utah each will control 10 minutes of debate on the 
question of consideration.
  Following the debate, the Chair will put the question of 
consideration as follows: ``Will the House now consider the 
resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the majority frequently congratulates 
itself for adopting a policy ``banning'' earmarks. Republican 
leadership often points to the earmark ban as an important 
accomplishment in improving the legislative process.
  It should be noted, for the record, the provision requiring the 
disclosure of earmarks was inserted into the rules of the House during 
the 110th Congress, under a Democratic majority.
  The American people might be surprised to learn that, despite claims 
of strict opposition to earmarks, the majority is bringing a proposed 
rule to the House floor that would not only allow an earmark in the 
underlying bill, but even waives the basic requirement that such an 
earmark be disclosed.
  Clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states 
that it shall not be in order to consider a rule that waives the 
requirement to disclose earmarks, and yet the rule the majority is 
seeking to call up specifically states, ``All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived.''
  And the question of whether the underlying bill, H.R. 2087, contains 
an earmark is critical. If enacted, the bill would transfer full 
ownership of Federal land to a county in Virginia. All parties agree 
the land has an appraised value of $815,000, but the bill would 
transfer this Federal land to the county for free. The county is in the 
congressional district represented by the sponsor of the legislation.
  This is not county land; this is Federal land. The county has been 
granted limited authority to control this land as long as it is used 
for public recreation. According to the deed, the county cannot sell 
the land or rent it or lease it or develop it. Only H.R. 2087 will give 
the county this land with no limitation.
  I suspect that every Member of this House would like to be able to 
pass legislation giving his or her constituents an $815,000 windfall.
  Mr. Speaker, either this is an earmark, and the majority should 
follow its own rules and not bring this rule or the underlying bill to 
the floor, or this is not an earmark, and the waiver should be removed 
from the rule. Either way, the proposed rule is a clear violation of 
House rules and should not be taken up by this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am obviously in favor of consideration of this resolution.
  The question before the House is: Shall the House now consider House 
Resolution 587?
  While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order. The 
waiver is a complete waiver in nature.
  Note, there is not a specific waiver against an earmark simply 
because the bill contains no earmarks. It is in compliance with the 
earmark definition provided for us in the House Rules, a rule that goes 
back to, actually--to make the record complete--the 109th Session of 
Congress and the earmark ban instituted by the House Republicans when 
they took the majority in January of last year.
  As is required by House Rules, the committee report filed for this 
bill on January 18 includes a specific determination and statement that 
the bill does not contain an earmark. I will quote from page 5 of the 
report: The bill does not contain any congressional earmarks or limited 
tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined by the Rules of the 
House of Representatives.
  With all due respect to my friend from Arizona, each person may have 
his own perception of what an earmark is, but, with all due respect, 
the term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision that provides or 
authorizes or recommends a specific amount of discretionary budget 
authority, credit authority, or other spending authority or 
expenditures with or to an entity. It has to have money involved in it.
  Specifically, the definition of an earmark requires that there be 
spending in the form directed to an entity or targeted geographically. 
This bill does not involve the spending of money or loan authority or 
credit authority or any other form of payment of funds.
  The land in question is already with the county. It will remain with 
the county. Whether we pass this bill or not, it is still with the 
county. The only issue is the deed restriction, not the value of the 
land, not the transfer of money.
  This parcel is with Virginia on Federal land that at one time had a 
deed restriction. It simply removes that deal.
  The CBO viewed and scored this bill, and concluded it would not cost 
money, stating it ``would have no significant impact on the Federal 
budget.''
  Moreover, this type of bill, clearing the title to land, has 
repeatedly been approved when the House has been controlled by both 
Republicans and Democrats. The definition of an earmark is clear. There 
has not been a fiscal impact, and this bill does not meet the House 
rules definition used by either Democrats or Republicans.
  This is really a red herring to stop economic development and the 
creation of jobs caused by lingering Federal bureaucratic red tape.
  This county is one of the poorest counties in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, with more than 16 percent of its population living in poverty 
and a higher rate of unemployment than the rest of Virginia. This very 
small bill, at no cost to the Federal taxpayer, will help to turn that 
around.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, under current law, the county controls 
these 32 acres of Federal land, but the deed clearly states that the 
county may not sell or lease the land or use it for anything other than 
public recreation. The county received control of the land with those 
restrictions in 1976, free of charge.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 2087, will remove all restrictions from the 
deed. The county would be free to sell the land or lease it or do 
whatever it wants with it and pocket any and all revenue. This is 
clearly an $815,000 windfall for the county created specifically by 
this bill.
  Regardless of whether you agree the bill is an earmark, the proposal 
from the Rules Committee to waive the earmark disclosure rule should 
also be cause for concern. If H.R. 2087 contains no earmarks, why is 
the waiver necessary? Why have an earmark disclosure rule if you just 
waive it every time you bring a bill to the floor?
  Any Member who has ever claimed to oppose earmarks should insist that 
the rule waiving the disclosure requirement be rejected.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again, the rule does not waive 
an earmark, because there are no earmarks. It is a general waiver that 
is in there. If one were to look back at the past three Congresses, 
official bills that have been prepared that are very similar to this 
have also included the same type of language and were determined as not 
to have an earmark. Specifically, go back to H.R. 944 in the 112th 
Congress, H.R. 86 in the 111th Congress, H.R. 356 in the 110th 
Congress, H.R. 2246 in the 110th Congress, and S. 404 in the 112th 
Congress--same language, same situation, same condition.
  Once again, the rules of our House say this is not an earmark. The 
CBO

[[Page H1407]]

says it's not an earmark, because it is not an earmark. There is no 
transfer of money. The county has the land. The county will continue to 
have the land. The only thing this is about is the deed restriction. 
Deed restrictions are not earmarks.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, reading from the remarks to the Natural 
Resources subcommittee from Thursday, September 15, by the sponsor of 
this legislation, he stated a recent appraisal valued the land at 
$815,000, which is more than $25,000 per acre.
  There is economic gain for the county, and waiving the disclosure 
only adds to the confusion that the public feels when we say we have a 
ban on earmarks and yet we are waiving rules that would disclose that 
and fully be transparent as to the kinds of decisions we're making with 
public lands.
  The CBO is unable to value what public land is worth. It's certainly 
here in the testimony of the sponsor of this legislation. The appraisal 
value is listed, and that, to me, leads to the conclusion that this is 
an earmark and that the rule that is presently before us should be 
rejected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try and once again put this in 
perspective.
  The Federal Government, in and of itself, owns no land, especially in 
one of the original 13 States.
  Virginia had the land and gave it to the Federal Government. In 1976, 
the Federal Government gave this back to the county with a lease for a 
park and restrictions, a deed restriction only. There is no transfer of 
money if we take away the deed restriction. There is no transfer of 
authority. The county has it. The county will continue to have it.
  The dollar value that was given was made up in the minds of the 
Department of the Interior. This county actually said, if you really 
want more parkland, we will create 32 acres somewhere else for more 
parkland. The Department of the Interior said, No, let's have cash 
instead. They are the ones that determined that this land was worth 25 
grand an acre, asking almost a million dollars from one of the poorest 
counties. They came up with that on their own. That does not mean it's 
reality.
  The reality is the county has the land. The county will continue to 
have the land. There is no transfer of dollars. There is no loss from 
taxpayers in America. Actually, these guys who live in Virginia are 
taxpayers, too. Transferring from one pocket to the other is a 
ridiculous requirement to place on them, and all we're talking about is 
a deed restriction--how can we best use the land to actually help 
people.
  Now, if the other side does not care about this county, does not care 
about the 16 percent of the population living in poverty, does not care 
about the unemployment rate, does not care that they actually use this 
land in a logical, rational manner, I can understand that. It still 
doesn't mean that's an earmark.
  The point of order is a delay tactic of today's consideration of this 
legislation.
  Sometimes in the past, a couple of other Members who have declared 
what I think are earmarks as non-earmarks have always used the old 
cliche if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a 
duck. But as Hans Christian Andersen told us, sometimes those ducks you 
perceive are actually the honking of a swan. This bill is a swan. This 
bill will help these people to produce themselves.
  This point of order has no merit to it. In order to allow the House 
to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge Members to vote 
``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 172, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                               YEAS--227

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--172

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Akin
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Bass (CA)
     Bono Mack
     Brady (TX)
     Davis (IL)
     Doggett
     Dold
     Gonzalez
     Hartzler
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)

[[Page H1408]]


     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (NY)
     Noem
     Paul
     Rangel
     Rush
     Schock
     Stark
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1432

  Messrs. WELCH, HEINRICH, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BILBRAY and McCARTHY of California changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 112, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 111 and 112, I was delayed 
and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on 
both.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The resolution provides for a modified open rule 
for the consideration of H.R. 2087, a bill to remove certain 
restrictions from a parcel of land that's situated in the Atlantic 
District of Accomack County, in Virginia. It provides for 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This 
rule makes in order all amendments that were preprinted in the 
Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the 
House.
  So this modified rule is a very fair rule. It is a generous rule. It 
will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this bill 
that is not an earmark.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah, my 
colleague (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We begin yet another week of inaction in the House of 
Representatives. Last week, our colleagues in the Senate, working 
together in a bipartisan fashion, approved a transportation bill that 
would be the biggest job creation measure this body has considered in 
this Congress. But are we talking about a bipartisan job creation bill 
in the House? No.
  Instead of creating thousands of jobs through a bipartisan 
transportation bill that has already passed the Senate, and just awaits 
our action, we are talking about an $800,000 earmark to benefit a 
single county in a single State. And if somebody talked about the day's 
work that we were getting around to, this is it.
  In other words, instead of creating the millions of new jobs that 
would result from a strong bipartisan transportation bill, we're 
spending the entire day debating a bill that affects 32 acres of land 
in a single State. No other community in America has received the kind 
of special treatment that is provided to a single community in this 
bill. This earmark hardly seems like a fiscally responsible way to 
create jobs and to protect the tax dollars of our hardworking American 
citizens.
  This is not the first time the Federal Government has had to make 
decisions about transferring public lands to new uses. Fortunately, 
there is an established procedure in existing law to ensure that the 
taxpayers get just compensation in such cases. We are being asked today 
to ignore that. Instead of letting the National Park Service and the 
local community handle the transfer of this land in the tried-and-true 
way, the majority proposes making a one-time exception--an $800,000 
earmark for a single community.
  If this majority were serious about job creation, we would right now 
be discussing the Senate-passed transportation bill. But instead, as I 
said before, we've spent an entire day of this week debating 32 acres 
of land.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the sponsor of this bill, who will once again try to describe to this 
body how this county land should stay with the county and needs to be 
dealt with by the county and all we have to do is remove an unnecessary 
restriction on its deed.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Rigell).
  Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. Speaker, it's a real privilege today to speak on behalf of the 
bill that I'm introducing. It is indeed a jobs bill. It is a bill that 
reflects common sense. It's a bill that reflects common ground. And I 
think, importantly, it reflects the wisdom and the will of the good, 
hardworking residents of Accomack County in Virginia, whom I have the 
privilege of representing. It enjoyed bipartisan support in coming out 
of committee, and it enjoys and should enjoy and merits today 
bipartisan support when it comes before the full House for a vote.
  Here's why if it's passed it will work toward job creation. Unlike so 
many measures that some have proposed, instead of looking to Washington 
to actually spend more money or for Washington to do something, the 
folks of Accomack County are simply asking for the Federal Government 
to get out of the way and allow the greatest job-producing engine the 
world has ever known, Mr. Speaker, the American entrepreneur, to go 
forward and to put hardworking folks to work and put precious and 
limited capital to work.
  This bill simply removes a deed restriction. That's all it does. And 
this deed restriction is, in effect, a restriction on job creation. 
It's a restriction on much needed tax revenue that this county so 
desperately needs. Sixteen percent unemployment; sixteen percent of the 
folks there live at the poverty level.
  Accomack County is 90 percent agricultural, a bit of tourism, and 
then the NASA Wallops Facility. This piece of property is adjacent to 
the NASA Wallops Facility; and presently, with this deed restriction, 
they can't use it at all for any economic growth or opportunity. 
Removing this deed restriction will allow the board of supervisors 
there to move forward with their Wallops Research Park. They are 
desperate to get this done, and I am ready to help them today.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this bill enjoyed bipartisan 
support in committee. It does not require any money coming from the 
Federal Government. We're simply asking for the Federal Government to 
get out of the way and let the hardworking folks of Accomack County get 
on with job creation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I just wish to make a comment or two. The most unusual 
thing about this bill is that when we have a Federal land swap and a 
deed that goes with it, they're always the same--you can use this land 
for public purposes. Should you decide not to use this land for public 
purposes, it reverts to the government. It's as simple as that.
  So what we're doing now is giving away $800,000 that belongs to my 
constituents, your constituents, and everybody else's constituents. 
We're giving away the tax money. I have got a good idea because there's 
a Democrat amendment today that can remedy that, and it says the county 
can pay for the land with the revenues they get from developing the 
land and renting it out. That way we'll get our money back; the county 
should be very happy; and we hope that a lot of jobs are created there.

                              {time}  1440

  May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is ready to close?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would be more than happy to close at any time 
you are ready.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am ready.
  In closing today, let me reiterate what I've said all along: This is 
not a

[[Page H1409]]

jobs bill. It does nothing to put millions of unemployed Americans back 
to work. By considering this bill, the majority has made a decision 
that it is more important to vote on an earmark than to vote on a 
transportation bill that would create thousands of jobs, perhaps 
millions, throughout the United States and had strong, bipartisan 
support. We must do something because, as we know, the current 
legislation will expire at the end of this month.
  If the House passes today's legislation, we will have taken a vote, 
but we will not have helped the American people. We all know we were 
not sent here to avoid solving the pressing problems facing our 
constituents, and we certainly weren't sent here to spend our days 
giving away public land so one county in one State could receive a 
windfall while all the rest of the taxpayers get nothing.
  I urge my colleagues to get back to the single biggest problem facing 
the country--the lack of jobs--and to vote on the bipartisan Senate 
transportation bill, which easily passed the Senate 74 22. Until we do, 
we are just treading water as our roads, bridges, and highways crumble 
and our constituents are neglected.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the 
underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favor 
of the underlying bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) knows 
his constituents; he knows the needs there and has worked very hard for 
their benefit.
  This, as we already discussed and voted, is not an earmark. The 
gentlelady from New York introduced a heritage area for Niagara Falls 
that got $10 million sent from the Federal Government to that place. 
That was officially not an earmark. This bill has no money going 
anywhere. The land is the county's, no exchange of profit whatsoever. 
There is no earmark, and there is no money being exchanged.
  This land was originally Virginia's land. They gave it to the Federal 
Government for a Federal purpose. Thirty-six years ago, the Federal 
Government, in no longer needing the land, gave it back to this county 
for a public park. As a public park, it is useless. Now that's the 
common bond here. It is not needed as a park; it is not used as a park; 
there is no parking; it is inaccessible; and it is lousy for that 
purpose. The county, though, would like to use their land to do 
economic development because that is where it is and for what it would 
best be used, how it would help the public and the general good if it 
were used for economic development. All they need is the Federal 
Government to graciously grant a deed restriction, which they refuse to 
do--for whatever purpose, no one really knows, but they won't do it. 
That is why the county needs to keep the county land, to do something 
that is common sense, simply use the land for the purpose in which it 
best suits the needs of the people.
  I don't know why the Department of the Interior, in its infinite 
wisdom, decides they want to tell the county in Virginia what is best 
for Virginia, but that is exactly what they are trying to do by being 
hard-nosed, not on a law, but on an internal rule from the Department 
of the Interior.
  Look, this government already controls 1 out of every 3 acres in this 
Nation. One-third of America is controlled by the Federal Government. 
That means the Federal Government's in-holdings are larger than any 
country's in the world, with the exception of Russia's and Canada's. 
That's what we already have. And yet the Department of the Interior is 
straining over 32 acres that shouldn't be a park and that need to be 
used to help the people of this particular county, and that is simply 
illogical. It is irrational.
  I have faced similar circumstances in countless bills that we have 
had and passed before this body. There was public land in the middle of 
Park City in my district that was controlled by the Bureau of Land 
Management. They didn't need it; they didn't want it; they didn't use 
it. It was actually being occupied by squatters. The city had no 
control over it because it was public land, and yet the Department of 
the Interior did not want to let go of that land because the control 
was already there.
  We passed another bill earlier that went through the House and the 
Senate that transferred land that the Forest Service had that they 
didn't even know they had. We had to do a title search to remind them, 
oh, yeah, that actually is ours. They didn't need it; they didn't want 
it; they didn't use it; and after 6 years, we finally got them to give 
it up so it could be used for a better purpose.
  We have another bill for 2 acres in Alta that the Park Service 
doesn't want to give up, for whatever reason, even though on that 2 
acres there is already the city building, a public safety building, and 
public bathrooms for the community and those that go to that ski 
resort; and yet the Forest Service, in this case, doesn't want to give 
that up for whatever reason there may be.
  Mr. Speaker, we were just in a hearing earlier this morning that 
dealt with a proposed Eisenhower memorial. In all due respect, I just 
recently read a biography of Eisenhower. When he was just a lieutenant 
in the Army, he had his first child, and he applied for and received 
permission for a housing increase that he thought he deserved and so 
did the commanding officer who approved that housing increase. A little 
while later, they did an audit, and the acting inspector general did an 
audit and found out that there was a technicality to which General 
Eisenhower was not entitled to that housing increase. When he was 
confronted with that, he immediately apologized and said he was more 
than willing to pay back the $250.67 that he owed the government.
  But that wasn't good enough for the inspector general. That acting 
inspector general wanted a court-martial because that was what the 
rules where. That acting inspector general had this blind fetish for 
fealty to follow rules because that's what bureaucrats always want to 
do. Fortunately, there was a commanding officer that realized that this 
young Army officer had a talent and an ability and intervened and 
allowed General, then Lieutenant, Eisenhower simply to pay the $250.67 
and get on with it.
  It is amazing to consider what this Nation and what this world would 
be like if Lieutenant Eisenhower had actually been court-martialed over 
$250.67 because that was the rule.
  We have the same situation, 32 acres that is useless. Right now it 
has no purpose. It sits there, and the Federal Government wants to deny 
a county in Virginia the ability to do something useful to help people 
on 32 acres because it violates their internal rule. There has to be 
some time when common sense takes over and we actually do things 
because it's the right thing to do, because it is the better thing to 
do.
  Fortunately, there was an officer in Texas that realized, in the case 
of General Eisenhower, common sense should take over. It would be nice, 
it would be wonderful if, within the Department of the Interior, there 
were some element of common sense that said it is stupid what we are 
doing with this land. We need simply to use common sense and use the 
land for a better, better purpose.
  There is no transfer of land. The county has it. If we don't pass 
this bill, the county will still have it. They just can't use it 
effectively.
  If we pass this bill, there will be no transfer of money. All you're 
saying is the county can use the county's land to do something the 
county needs to help the people in that county. And, honestly, should 
that not be our goal? Is that not our purpose, to actually use common 
sense? Or do we have the bureaucratic blood running through our veins 
that we put these little blinders on and, unless we check the right 
box, it doesn't matter if it helps, it doesn't matter if it's good, it 
doesn't matter if it's possible, we won't do it because of our internal 
rules?
  That is, indeed, where this country and this Congress has come. There 
is something definitely wrong with us.
  This rule is a fair rule. It will provide for a good debate. It 
provides for all those amendments that were preprinted and are in order 
to be debated here on the floor.
  Let us proceed forward with this bill. Let's help this county that 
desperately needs our help and that desperately needs us just to use 
some good, old-fashioned common sense. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

[[Page H1410]]

  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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 House Resolution 587 will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 665.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 170, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 113]

                               YEAS--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--170

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bono Mack
     Brown (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Doggett
     Dold
     Gonzalez
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Meehan
     Paul
     Rangel
     Rush
     Schock
     Sessions
     Thompson (PA)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh (IL)
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1517

  Mr. LUJAN, Ms. HAHN, and Mr. HONDA changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BRADY of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________