[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.
____________________