[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1411-H1420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMOVING RESTRICTIONS FOR ACCOMACK COUNTY LAND PARCEL
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2087.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 587 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2087.
{time} 1529
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. 2087) to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in
the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia, with Mr. Gardner in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2087, an authentic, no-cost jobs bill
aimed at removing government hurdles to economic development.
This bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) would allow
Accomack County in Virginia to move forward with plans to develop--and,
Mr. Chairman, I want to say this very explicitly--not 32 million, not
320,000, not 320--a 32-acre parcel of land adjacent to a NASA airstrip
into a technology and research facility.
Currently, the parcel has a restriction limiting use of the property
to recreational purposes. This was a condition placed on the property
when the county obtained the deed through the Federal Land to Park
program in 1976. Unfortunately, the park has been of little benefit to
the community. Though the county has made diligent efforts, the park
has fallen out of use and is currently overgrown and unmaintained.
Now Accomack County has found a better way to serve its citizens, and
has determined that with this legislation they can create hundreds of
short-term and long-term jobs.
{time} 1530
Mr. Chairman, again, this property is already owned by Accomack
County, not the Federal Government. Congress created the program that
allowed the county to take title to this land. The
[[Page H1412]]
purpose at that time was to help communities like this do exactly what
the bill says it should do. Congress has the authority to do this, and
it should have the common sense to allow the county to do this.
But there have been concerns raised that this bill would create a
precedent leading to an avalanche of these types of requests. Let's be
clear: This is simply one specific proposal dealing with one parcel of
land totaling 32 acres--not 32,000, not 320 million, just 32 acres.
To put this into perspective, there are nearly 170,000 acres of land
that have been transferred to State and local governments through the
Federal Lands to Park program. Nothing in this bill would affect those
other acres. This bill is narrowly focused, involves an extremely small
area of land, and, frankly, it's unfortunate that this bill is even
before us today.
However, I will state that there absolutely are instances in which
communities and States would be better off if the Federal red tape on
private land ownership was lifted, just as there are instances where
reducing Federal landownership would be beneficial to local communities
and States. Yet here we are debating this specific bill, and it is
simply not reasonable to argue that the sky is going to fall if this
bill affecting, again, Mr. Chairman, just 32 acres in Accomack County
becomes law.
With unemployment still over 8 percent, Congress should be looking
for every opportunity possible, no matter how big or how small, to
create new American jobs. Gas prices are rapidly rising and families
and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Now more than ever,
Congress should make it a priority to eliminate hurdles to economic
development; and, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this bill does.
The gentleman from Virginia has given us an opportunity to
immediately help a community with a plan to create jobs. We need to
pass this legislation today, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
2087.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation.
The Federal Lands to Parks program is one of the most successful
parts of our National Park Service. For those parts of the country that
are not blessed with the Grand Canyon or Sonoran Desert, this program
provides local government with excess Federal lands at no cost,
provided the land is used for recreational purposes.
Over the years, nearly 1,500 parcels of land have gone to local
governments for free but with deeds that ensure they are used for the
public good. This land isn't foisted upon these local governments.
Instead, local governments actively work with the Park Service to
obtain land for ``historical, natural, or recreational interest.''
I should note for clarification, as we go forward with this debate,
that this is not county land. This is Federal land. The county is
allowed to control this land as long as it is used for the recreational
purposes in the agreement. If this were county land, we would not be
here. The county can't sell the land. The county can't lease the land.
The county can't rent the land. The county does not own the land. This
bill gives Federal land away for free.
Examples of successful projects include: 195 acres that went to the
City of Ogden, Utah, for the Ogden Nature Center, Rodeo, and
Fairgrounds; 97 acres that went to Brigham City, Utah, for the Brigham
Intermountain Golf Course; 103 acres to the County of Walla Walla,
Washington, for the Fort Walla Walla Park; 307 acres to the City of
Aurora, Colorado, for the Aurora Reservoir Park; and 2.57 acres to the
Town of Hot Sulfur Springs, Colorado. All of these entities took the
same deal as Accomack County in 1976. They expressed their desire for
the land, advocated for the transfer, and freely agreed to a deed that
ensured that the land would be used for recreation or revert back to
Federal ownership.
Over the years, as local governments have fought development
pressures and budget shortfalls, the Park Service and the General
Services Administration have developed a land exchange process to
enable some flexibility for communities. They can enter into a land
exchange that requires the replacement land be of equal recreation and
fair market value. Alternatively, the county can return the land to the
Federal Government and purchase it for fair market value through the
GSA process. The sponsor of the legislation and the county involved
have rejected both of these options. Instead, the county is actively
promoting a development plan that includes these lands in question
while waiting for an act of Congress to clear the deed.
The enactment of this bill creates an unacceptable and dangerous
precedent for every other project out there.
The reason the Federal land management agencies refuse to give away
Federal land is because Congress requires the agencies to seek
legislation to sell or transfer Federal land. Do you know why? Because
a pesky little document called the United States Constitution requires
Congress to make laws with respect to the disposition of Federal land.
This would encourage local governments to run to Congress and cash in
on a gift the Federal Government shared with local communities.
This legislation should be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
Mr. RIGELL. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington.
I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to come before this body
today and make the case that this is wonderful and strong legislation
that should be moved forward for one purpose: job creation in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and, specifically, in Accomack County.
It, indeed, is a jobs bill. It reflects common sense. It reflects
common ground. It came out of committee with bipartisan support. And I
think most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it reflects the collective wisdom
and the will of the hardworking taxpayers of Accomack County.
Here is why, Mr. Chairman, this bill, if passed and enacted, will
create jobs: You see, the folks of Accomack County have not asked the
Federal Government for something. They've simply asked the Federal
Government to get out of the way so that the greatest job-producing
engine the world has ever known, the American entrepreneurs, and
Accomack County can get to work in a very responsible way of developing
this property that is immediately adjacent to the Wallops NASA facility
there.
It is, I think, a clear contrast of two basic philosophical
approaches to job creation. One looks to this institution and to
Washington to see that this institution is the primary driver of job
creation. As a lifetime entrepreneur, Mr. Chairman, I reject that
approach and, instead, have adopted all of my life and believe we need
to bring to this body the mindset that the best thing to do to get our
economy going again is to eliminate the hurdles. This is a very
practical hurdle that is holding back job creation in a county that
desperately needs jobs.
Mr. Chairman, 16 percent of the hardworking families in Accomack
County live under the poverty line. About 90 percent of the property
that's in Accomack County is agricultural.
{time} 1540
It is without a doubt a poor county, and this bill simply removes a
deed restriction. My friend behind me just a few moments ago said, Do
you have a picture of this? I said, Well, we didn't bring it down to
the floor, but we could have. It's just overgrown. There's nothing
there. There's a dilapidated dugout facility, and that's it. There's no
parking, there's no infrastructure, there's no buildings.
Accomack County has a plan. Americans are resourceful. They'll figure
their way out of this in spite of Washington. The board of supervisors
has a wonderful plan for the Wallops Research Park; but it only works,
Mr. Chairman, if this deed restriction is removed. Thirty-two acres.
Great potential for the folks in Accomack County.
I want to close, Mr. Chairman, by recounting a conversation that I
had just a few moments ago. I actually called the person back. I wanted
to make sure I had her permission to share this story. I trust she's
listening now.
[[Page H1413]]
Mr. Chairman, her name is Kathy Wert. Her husband is a builder in
Accomack County, and their business has been hurting because of the
economy. Jim's a friend of mine, and I know his business is hurting.
Kathy used to work for him in accounting. She's been out looking for
work because the construction business is so depressed. And we all know
that. I called Kathy and said, I would like to reference you here. Do I
have your permission? And she said, Yes, you do.
This is just one family. There are hundreds and hundreds of families
in Accomack County. I wish my colleagues on the other side who are
opposing this bill could look them in the eye and explain to them why
we can't remove this deed restriction. It's a classic example, Mr.
Chairman, of a paternalistic Federal Government, an oppressive Federal
Government, holding back job creation.
We're all American taxpayers. This idea of transferring it from one
to another, $800,000 or more from a poor county, this is what is wrong
with America, Mr. Chairman. Even though this is a relatively small bill
in the big scheme of things--32 acres--when the Federal Government owns
almost one-third of all the land in the United States, that, too, is a
problem. Maybe we'll get around to that one day, Mr. Chairman; but
until then we're just talking about 32 acres.
So I would ask my colleagues on the other side to reconsider, and I
would ask them to vote in favor of this, and let's get some hardworking
folks in Accomack County back to work.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it's inconceivable to me that with all the
challenges we have that are facing our Nation, this body is taking up
legislation today having to do with a 32-acre parcel of land in
Virginia. Is this really the best we can do at a moment when our
economy is still underperforming? At a moment when we're still sending
brave Americans to die in an immoral war that's gone on for nearly as
long as my grandson Teddy has been alive?
We still have more than 8 percent unemployment in this country. We
still have families and entire communities wondering what happened to
the American Dream. We have people losing their home through no fault
of their own. We have people wondering how they're going to pay next
month's bills, never mind the daunting cost of sending their child to
college. We have families wondering why the very health care reforms
they needed are about to go on trial at the U.S. Supreme Court. We also
have people who, more than ever, are depending on safety-net programs
like Medicare and Medicaid, which have a big fat target on their backs
put on by the Republican budget plan that was just unveiled today.
A good start would be to pass the Senate transportation bill to
rebuild our infrastructure and put our people back to work. And then,
how about getting down to the business of ending the war in
Afghanistan, which is killing our people, undermining our national
security, and diverting the money that we need to meet human needs
right here at home. I can't believe that the American people want us to
debate a bill about 32 acres of land in Virginia--not when we still
have thousands of troops in harm's way, fighting a war that is doing
nothing to keep America safe and nothing to protect our vital
interests.
We have important issues to debate, Mr. Chairman, big problems to
tackle, Americans who need our help, and an overseas conflict that must
end. This is a moment of great urgency. Why isn't the majority acting
like it?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the chairman of the committee for giving
me the opportunity to speak and the gentleman from Virginia for giving
me the opportunity to cosponsor this bill. The gentleman from Virginia,
of course, is from the southern end of the Delmarva Peninsula. I
represent the middle part adjoining Accomack County.
We heard a lot during the State of the Union Address. The President
stood just a few feet in front of you, Mr. Chairman, and talked about
shovel-ready jobs and infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, there are shovel-
ready jobs ready to go. This land adjoins Wallops Island, the launch
facility which now is one of the places that launched private and
public vehicles into space. It doesn't get any better than that for a
poor county like Accomack.
The chairman of the committee mentioned an 8 percent unemployment
rate. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish that Worcester County, where half the
employees in this industrial park will work, had an 8 percent rate. The
unemployment rate was 15.6 percent in Worcester County.
The President stood there and said, We've got to get Americans back
to work. Mr. Chairman, we need to cut through the red tape, just like
the President said, and get projects like this going. There's no loss
of recreation area. Accomack County has offered to, in fact, find
another 32 areas to have the recreation area. So let's not pretend
there's a loss. Let's not pretend this land doesn't belong to Accomack
County. They hold the title. Like a poor stepchild they are coming to
Uncle Sam begging for permission to create some jobs in Accomack
County. And like the mean old uncle, Uncle Sam has said, No. There's
red tape involved. We have a bureaucracy. You have to fill in all the
blanks. You have to do this. Mr. Chairman, the 15.6 percent of
Worcester County who are unemployed don't have the time for this red
tape. We must do it.
The gentleman called this unacceptable and dangerous. Mr. Chairman,
you're right, 15.6 percent unemployment is unacceptable. It's dangerous
to our economy. The gentlelady said it's inconceivable that we're here.
I couldn't have said it better. How could our Federal bureaucracy have
failed so poorly?
We need to pass this bill, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding time.
I have no doubt that these issues are important to the people
involved. I have no doubt that the people who support and oppose this
bill care deeply about it. It's a local issue, and I come from a
locality and therefore understand. But the fact of the matter is that
our country is in some seriously grievous harm because, yes, we do have
an exorbitant unemployment rate. It's been going down. We've been
adding private sector jobs. But there's still too many people
unemployed. And yet the majority has not taken the time on the floor
today to deal with how we're going to get all Americans back to work.
They're taking time to figure out how they're going to do an earmark
after they've said there's no earmarks.
This is remarkable. I'm actually not against earmarks, Mr. Chairman.
I'm for them--I think they're a good thing--but the majority has said
no earmarks. Yet this is about the second time in the last couple of
weeks we see them floating their earmarks right on through.
H.R. 2087 would allow a county in a particular Representative's
district to acquire full ownership of a little less than 32 acres of
Federal land worth more than $800,000 for free. That's an earmark. Yet
the rest of us can't get them. But if you are among the favorite few,
you can. That's wrong. That's unfair. That's unjust. And it's
particularly unjust, given the grievous problems that we're facing as a
Nation.
We should be voting on a real jobs bill to create good jobs all
across America, but apparently that's not what we're going to be doing
with our time today. We're going to be talking about a narrow
provincial interest and trying to give away Federal land for free for a
particular interest in a particular locality. We should be talking
about how we're going to save and protect Medicare guaranteed for all
Americans, which is a threat, given the Ryan budget. But, no, we're
talking about a narrow, small-town interest, which I think is important
but that the majority in their infinite wisdom has said we can't do
because that's an earmark.
The GOP has wasted the last 441 days that they've been in charge, and
has failed to produce a single jobs bill.
{time} 1550
In fact, they're trying to cut jobs. The transportation bill would
lead to
[[Page H1414]]
losses of over 500,000 jobs. Now, I definitely sympathize with the
folks who are out of work in the Member's district, I mean in the
county where this earmark is going to be taking place. I do. I'm very
concerned about the unemployed. That's why I wish we had a real jobs
bill as opposed to these giveaways of Federal land, and we really don't
know who it's going to be benefiting at the end of the day.
The bottom line is we have real problems in America. We've got
transportation needs, we've got environmental needs, and we've got
health care needs. We've got real debate to take care of. But if we're
going to be debating those things, we've got to be on the floor, taking
the time up to do those things, not dealing with disguised earmarks for
certain people because they happen to--I don't know. I don't know why
they get privileged treatment over people like me who don't get to
offer earmarks anymore.
I'll say this, Mr. Chairman: at the end of the day, America is a
country that needs the attention of this Congress so that everybody can
get a job that pays well across this country. And we're not doing that.
We're failing. What we're doing is we're allowing one county in one
Member's district to acquire the full ownership of a valuable piece of
land for free. And that's wrong.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington,
Congressman McDermott.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, when we came into this session, there
was a lot of talk in this House about the fact that we needed jobs,
lots and lots of talk on the other side about how they were going to
take care of this economy and we were going to finally get some jobs.
There hasn't been one single bill put out here in 441 days. We are
still waiting for a jobs bill from the Republican leadership.
Now, I don't want to dismiss the piece of legislation we're
discussing here. I'm sure it's very important to have 32 acres of
Virginia, and perhaps maybe there will be 100 jobs there. Those are
important jobs for those people. We are in favor of that.
What's hard to understand is the Republicans' idea of priorities. Mr.
Chairman, I can't understand how the Republican leadership could let
the highway bill expire in 11 days and end highway construction in the
United States of America and bring out instead a bill for 32 acres in
rural Virginia that--most of us would have a tough time finding
Accomack County on a map. There are 550,000 people working on
rebuilding infrastructure in this country in the highway system, and
the Republican leadership won't bring it out because they've got a
fight inside. They've got a fight inside. They've got a bill that is so
bad that it bankrupts the highway trust in 2016 and creates a $78
billion funding shortfall over the next 10 years. That's the highway
bill that they won't bring out here. I understand why they won't bring
it out here. They'd get chewed up by the fiscal irresponsibility.
They have a bill sitting on the desk from the Senate they could bring
up tomorrow, and we could ensure construction jobs all over this
country for 550,000 people. But no, we're out here with this little--
the last speaker said, it's really interesting, all the jumping,
shouting, and waving of arms, we're not going to have any more earmarks
in the House of Representatives. Earmarks are evil. They're evil things
created by the devil, and we have wiped them out.
Now, if this ain't an earmark, I don't know what is. If you put a
bill out here for 32 acres in two Members' districts, that's an
earmark, folks. That's an earmark. And I'm not saying earmarks are bad.
Frankly, I went to three of them last weekend in my district. One was
the restoration of the King Street Station in the railroad system.
Another one was an addition to the Wing Luke Museum, which is a
national monument. These kinds of things make sense, and I think this
piece of legislation makes sense, and it will probably go out of here
without a single vote against it.
But it can't go out without somebody saying, where are your
priorities? Where are they? Why is it that the leadership of the
Republicans can't get their people in line to get a highway bill out
here when it's 11 days from the day it expires? What is the matter?
Well, I think really what it is, it's driven by the ideology that is
creating most of the problems in this 2 years in terms of recovery.
Nobody wants to give President Obama one single success, and they will
kill the highway department and the highway construction fund and
everything else if they can just make sure they don't reelect President
Obama. That's what it's all about. It's very clear.
We see it going on tomorrow. It begins over across the street in the
Supreme Court. They've spent 3\1/2\ years fighting providing health
care for all Americans--3\1/2\ years fighting it, not trying to improve
it, not trying to make it work better, but trying to repeal it. That's
what's going on in this city. In fact, thousands of people have got
health care now that didn't have it. The fact that you can now keep
your kids on your policy to the age of 26 has added millions of young
people to those who are insured against health problems. There are
people who have health care in spite of the fact that they have a
preexisting condition.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. McDERMOTT. They've got their health insurance because the bill
that the President got through the Congress with our help was one that
made it possible for you to get insurance if you have a preexisting
condition. Now there are thousands of people who have benefited from
that in this country, but not one single attempt has been made by the
Republicans in 3\1/2\ years to do anything to make that work better.
All they want to do is destroy it.
This is the party of destruction--the destruction of the
infrastructure of the country, the destruction of an attempt to do the
health care. You can go right down the list--441 days, no jobs bill--
and what we get out here is this earmark. It would really be kind
of laughable if it weren't so serious.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I
have no requests for time. If he is prepared to close, I'll close.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I am prepared to close.
Mr. Chairman, as we have heard continually from my friends on the
other side of the aisle, before us we have a seemingly innocent piece
of legislation that would allow Accomack County to develop a mere 32
acres of land for an aerospace park. One might even wonder why we are
taking up valuable time on the House floor in debating this measure.
This is not innocent legislation. This is a Federal land giveaway
that under any other circumstance would be considered an earmark. It is
also the opening shot of a larger effort on the part of the Republicans
to privatize our Federal lands. In 1976, Accomack County made a deal.
They received 32 acres of Federal property free of charge. In return,
they promised to use the land for public recreation purposes. Now they
want a different deal, only they don't want to pay for it. The deal
they want is to commercially develop the land they got for free and
relocate the displaced recreation activity to a former landfill.
While it is ``just'' 32 acres, it represents what appears to be the
Republican platform: that our parks, forests, and wildlife areas are
cash cows, assets to sell and develop during these tough economic
times.
{time} 1600
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a Nevada newspaper that he
doesn't know what the purpose is of public lands. While in Idaho,
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum told the crowd that public lands
in Idaho should go back to the hands of the private sector. This theme
is not new. In 2005, then-chairman of the House Committee on Natural
Resources, Richard Pombo, proposed selling national parks to mining
companies.
Today, part of the Ryan budget was released. Again, it is proposing
to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land. Most recently, an Energy
and Commerce subcommittee chairman suggested selling off some of our
national parks. We can't get through a meeting of the House Committee
on Natural Resources without someone from the majority suggesting that
lands need to be transferred to the States, or sold, or fully developed
for gas and oil.
My view, and the view of most Americans, is completely different. As
renowned documentary filmmaker Ken
[[Page H1415]]
Burns put it, our National Park System is America's best idea. Our
forests and desert lands represent what is the best in America--a long-
term view that we should protect and value the majesty that God has
blessed our Nation with for this generation and the generations to
come.
I urge my colleagues to join with me to defeat this legislation. We
need this Congress to affirm to the American people that we value our
parks, our forests, and wildlife areas for their inherent value. We
value them as places to recreate with our family. We value them as
places to hunt and fish. Sometimes we value them for just knowing that
they are there, in hopes that one day we can visit.
I urge a ``no'' vote, a vote to protect our public lands from this
precedent that is being set by H.R. 2087.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle on the
debate on this issue is rather interesting. Let me take a couple of the
issues that were brought up and try to address them.
First, the issue of an earmark. Now, just to remind our body--we must
have a very short attention span--but this House acted not too long ago
on the question of earmarks and said we should proceed. That's why we
are debating this bill. Why? Because H.R. 2087 does not contain an
earmark. It is in full compliance with the earmark definition provided
for in House rule 21 in the earmark ban that was instituted by the
House Republicans in January of 2011.
Why is that or how is that? Because the House definition of an
earmark requires that there be spending in some form directed to an
entity. In H.R. 2087, we do not direct any spending of any money in any
form. It has no fiscal impact. So, Mr. Chairman, to repeat once again--
we had this debate earlier, and the House confirmed that debate, by the
way--there is no earmark in this bill. Let me make a couple other
observations of the previous speakers that have spoken.
One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came down here
and said it's been X number of days--I forget how many he said--without
one job bill. Well, he's right, Mr. Chairman. There is not just one job
bill. There are a multitude of job bills that have been addressed by
this body, generally on a bipartisan basis. I might add, if you go back
just prior to our last district work period, we passed some bills,
which were a series of bills that had passed with bipartisan support,
over to the Senate. I'd advise my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, rather than talking here about a lack of activity, go talk to
your colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda over there and say:
Move these jobs bills. That's what we ought to be doing.
Furthermore, if there are two big issues that the American people are
confronted with today, it's jobs and energy. Way last year, we passed
energy bills that created American jobs. Don't come down to the floor
and say we have not addressed energy jobs. This House has done its
work, generally with bipartisan support, but I will note that those
that spoke on that voted ``no.'' I don't know what they want to do--
create government jobs? Is that the idea?
So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that, I guess in rhetoric
and debate on the floor, you get all sorts of different takes, but the
facts are the House has passed job-creating bills. They have passed
energy job-creating bills. This bill here potentially falls in line
with that. I urge my colleagues to support it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources 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 in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2087
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS.
(a) Removal.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
execute such instruments as may be necessary to remove all
deed restrictions described in subsection (b) relating to the
parcel of land described in subsection (c).
(b) Deed Restrictions.--The deed restrictions referred to
in subsection (a) are those restrictions, including
easements, exceptions, reservations, terms, conditions, and
covenants described in Quitclaim Deed No. 17808A from the
United States to Accomack County, Virginia, executed on
December 20, 1976, and recorded among the real estate records
of Accomack County, Virginia, by the Clerk of the Circuit
Court, on pages 292 through 296 of Deed Book 381.
(c) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) consists of approximately 31.6 acres situated
in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia, more
particularly described in the metes and bounds description
recorded on page 292 of the quitclaim deed described in
subsection (b).
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the Congressional
Record of March 19, 2012, and except pro forma amendments for the
purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the
Member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be
considered read.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Lucas). The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
(d) Consideration.--Any instrument executed pursuant to
subsection (a), shall provide that--
(1) in consideration for the land described in subsection
(c), Accomack County, Virginia, shall pay the United States
the fair market value of the land (on the date of the
enactment of this Act) under terms approved by the Secretary
of the Interior from revenues generated by the sale, rent, or
lease of the land; and
(2) the land described in subsection (c) shall be appraised
in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal standards
(including the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice) by an independent appraiser selected by
the Secretary of the Interior and Accomack County, Virginia.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for
5 minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment
to H.R. 2087.
This is a very simple amendment. It ensures that Federal taxpayers
are compensated for the land that is moving out of public ownership and
into private development.
The Federal Land to Parks program provides Federal land to local
governments with the agreement through the deed that the lands will
stay in public use, primarily for recreation.
Accomack County, Virginia, is actively marketing the development of
the land in question to the aerospace industry for hangars and other
types of commercial development. The land is valued at over $800,000.
Meanwhile, the county is asking Congress to intervene so they can take
the land they got for free and develop it without compensating the
Federal Government.
The underlying bill is the legislative equivalent of writing Accomack
County a check for $815,000. It is only because this is cloaked through
a deed amendment that it isn't called an ``earmark.''
My amendment simply requires the county to repay the Federal
Government for the fair market value of the lands from the proceeds of
the development.
By ensuring the taxpayer is protected, we also send a signal to other
local governments that are facing economic or development pressures
that their parks, developed through the Federal Lands to Parks program,
are not piggy banks to tap into when times get tough.
I understand the challenges that Accomack County faces, but they want
this land to not necessarily put unemployed people back to work; they
want this land to attract the lucrative aerospace industry to the
Eastern Shore, not to build a job-training facility.
I urge support for the amendment. It assures that the taxpayer is
protected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H1416]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona does not help Accomack County create jobs,
and that is the underlying purpose of this bill.
Recall that this property was obtained by Accomack County because the
Federal Government did not need it or want it anymore. The Federal
Government washed their hands of this land. Indeed, there was a deed
restriction, but the underlying intent was to benefit the citizens of
Accomack County. Today, we are acting again to help those same citizens
by allowing them to use the property as they see appropriate.
This deed restriction was put in place 36 years ago, and it no longer
serves as a benefit to the county. Just because we could demand that
they give the land back to the Federal Government does not mean that we
should do it, and demanding that they buy the land they already own
makes even less sense. In the same vein in which Accomack County
requested this land in 1976, they're back asking us again to help their
citizens.
I understand the gentleman is looking out for the Federal
Government--and I respect that--out of fear that somehow a small county
in rural Virginia might take advantage of it. But I do want to assure
my good friend from Arizona that the Federal Government and its
countless millions of acres of land can and will go on without these 32
acres.
{time} 1610
We hear time and again how grateful we should be for massive Federal
ownership in the West and of the bounty of tourist dollars it produces.
Now, in this very narrow example of 32 acres, perhaps you will see the
blessing of local control and what you can do without Washington's
central planning and land management.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is
unwarranted and does nothing to produce much needed jobs.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk, and it is preprinted.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following:
(d) Valuation of Land.--Any instrument executed pursuant to
subsection (a) shall provide that, before the restrictions
referred to in this Act are removed from the deed referred to
in this Act, an independent appraiser shall complete an
approximate valuation of the land in each of the following
years: 1776 1865, 2013, 2017, 2032, and 2212.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to preface my remarks
by indicating, at the close of my remarks and when the debate is
concluded on this amendment, I do not intend to call for a vote,
largely for the reason that I believe that the ranking member, Mr.
Grijalva's amendment covers much of what I have offered in this
amendment; and second, out of respect for my colleague from Accomack,
Mr. Rigell, who I believe has brought this matter, as many of us may be
wont to do in the future, regarding the economic concerns that exist in
his community.
I would only add, he cited to 16 percent unemployment earlier today
in his presentation on the floor. I could take him to some places in
the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve and show him 40
percent unemployment in a rural area that happens to be in the same
contiguous area as the Everglades National Park. And I'm sure that I
could come back here and offer some measures that would allow for Belle
Glade and Clewiston and South Bay and Canal Point to have an
opportunity to convert land that is in a national park that was given
for that purpose, to leave the reversionary restriction aside and to go
about the business of allowing for those counties, Hendry and Palm
Beach County and Broward, to be able to utilize the land as they see
fit.
Land has a market value at some point. As I understand it--and I
stand to be corrected certainly by my good friend and colleague from
Washington--the original deed in this property allowed that if the
parcel was no longer used for recreational purposes that it would
revert to the Federal Government. Well, clearly, that reversionary
clause is what we are seeking in this particular measure, in this
specific one, to overturn. I believe it's wholly unnecessary but, more
importantly, I think it sets a bad precedent of involving Congress in
consensually entered agreements.
As I've explained, the county was granted the land on the condition
that it be used as a park. And I understand, and understood further,
from my good friend Mr. Hastings' comments yesterday at the Rules
Committee, that the land can't even be accessed--if it were not Mr.
Hastings, then it was Mr. Bishop--and, therefore, it is important that
they make this change.
Congress shouldn't grant special treatment of something as erratic as
market value because the market value of land is always changing. And
all I have to do is look at my mortgage and look at how the prices have
gone down, as they have all over this country.
I heard the statement yesterday in the Rules Committee that the land
is useless. I don't think any land is useless. Mark Twain said that we
ain't going to have much more land, just to paraphrase him. They're not
manufacturing it; although, I think Singapore may very well take issue
with that comment.
It's a park, and it is important that the Federal Government
conditioned the transfer of the land to the county in the first place
on the promise that it would be used as a park. The county agreed to
those terms when it initially received the land, and now, in all due
respect, they want to back out.
It's not unexpected to want to alter an agreement when conditions
surrounding the deal change. In fact, if the county no longer wants to
use the land as a park, there are remedies readily available within the
Federal Lands to Parks program that it could choose from.
Consequently, changing the agreement today because of a shift in
market value sets a bad precedent. We don't know what the market value
of the land will be a year from now; we don't know what it will be 5
years from now; and we certainly have no idea what it will be 200 years
from now. Before you know it, every county and every State--and this is
why I feel very strongly about this--will be here, asking Congress for
the same special treatment as soon as the market shifts in their favor.
My amendment requires appraisals of the land, and I believe that Mr.
Grijalva's does as well. All I ask is that if we don't want it to be a
park anymore, as the county doesn't, then the county should look to the
remedies it already has available to them.
I believe the market value will shift. I hope Mr. Rigell is
successful. I believe the measure will pass.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would really like to commend my good
friend from Florida on his very unique approach to this bill with this
very unique amendment. But make no mistake. If it were to pass, the
effect would be to hobble and to kill this job-creating bill, so let's
set that aside.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require appraisals to be conducted
in each of the following years: 1776, 1865, 2013, 2017, 2032, and 2212.
In this amendment as the amendment is written, these appraisals must be
done in those years.
[[Page H1417]]
We did not have a Federal Government in 1776, for example. In 1865,
Virginia was part of the Confederacy. That means, however, if we have a
requirement to have an appraisal in each of these years, that would
require that we go back 236 years and into the future 200 years before
this legislation would go into effect.
Now, there may be a misconception or maybe a misidentification, I
would tell my friend. I am Doc Hastings. I am not Doc Brown, the mad
scientist from ``Back to the Future.'' I do not own, nor do I have
access to, a plutonium-powered DeLorean that will allow me or Michael
J. Fox to complete the complexities of this amendment. I can't go back
236 years; I can't go forward 200 years.
So, notwithstanding some new technology, I have to say, Mr. Chairman,
in all sincerity, we should defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
speak for just 15 seconds.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, Doc Hastings--
that is, not Doc Brown--is mindful that we are going to have a future.
I just want to comment that there is a future, and we tend to do it
around here. As a matter of fact, we do it in budgetary matters; we do
it all around.
I appreciate very much my friend pointing out that creativity that I
offered. At the very same time, I think Mr. Grijalva's amendment is
deserving of serious consideration, and I support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was rejected.
{time} 1620
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 226, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
AYES--178
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
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
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
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, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
NOES--226
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
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
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
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
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
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
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 (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuler
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
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--27
Akin
Bachus
Bass (CA)
Bono Mack
Burgess
Cantor
Davis (IL)
Doggett
Dold
Gonzalez
Jackson (IL)
Kinzinger (IL)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Manzullo
Marino
Markey
Meehan
Paul
Platts
Rangel
Rush
Schock
Sessions
Walsh (IL)
Yarmuth
{time} 1649
Messrs. PRICE of Georgia, POSEY, COFFMAN of Colorado, BILIRAKIS, ROE
of Tennessee, and Mrs. ROBY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. AMASH and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lucas, Acting Chair 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. 2087) to
remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic
District, Accomack County, Virginia, and, pursuant to House Resolution
587, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H1418]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1650
Motion to Recommit
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. In its present form I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California moves to recommit the
bill H.R. 2087 to the Committee on Natural Resources with
instructions to report the same to the House forthwith with
the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OR USE OF LAND FOR ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT OR BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
Any instrument executed pursuant to section 1(a) shall
specify that the land described in section 1(c) shall not be
sold, leased, or rented to--
(1) an owner or operator of an adult book, novelty, video,
arcade, or live entertainment facility; or
(2) any foreign government that might pose a security
threat to the NASA Wallops Flight Facility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to offer a final amendment to H.R. 2087 that, if passed,
would bring the bill promptly back for a vote on final passage. Mr.
Speaker, this final amendment is noncontroversial, and it aims to do
one simple thing--and that is to protect the land of taxpayers.
The bill, itself, goes against so many things that the majority has
said that they would fight for in this Congress. This legislation would
provide a local county in Virginia an $800,000 windfall by allowing the
county to violate a contractual agreement without any justification.
That's the current bill. That's what the bill that you want to pass
does. I'm against that. Here in this Congress we did away with
earmarks. But when I look at this $800,000 windfall that you are voting
on, I say that's an earmark.
This is a very small step in the larger Republican plan to sell off
our valuable Federal land, such as National Parks, forests, and public
lands to developers. However, even if you're for giving away land the
way that's done in this bill, my final amendment would give us the
opportunity to ensure that this land would not be owned and used for
adult entertainment facilities or sold to or used by a foreign
government that could use this to steal our national security secrets.
So I ask my colleagues on the other side: Will you join us in
protecting taxpayer-owned land?
The final amendment is very simple and would outlaw the sale or the
use of the land for any ownership or operation of an adult book store,
a novelty adult store, a video adult store, an arcade or live
entertainment facility. I think we can all agree that we should not be
giving away Federal property to facilitate adult live entertainment.
In fact, if you're not convinced of that, then let me tell you the
second thing we don't want to happen close to that land, and that is
that land adjoining this piece of property we're talking about today
should not fall into the hands of those who would want to spy on our
top secrets. As you probably know, I'm a senior member of both the
House Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, and
every day, I deal with the issues of national security threats.
The issue is the proximity of the NASA Wallops spaceflight facility
to the land in question, so my final amendment is aimed at protecting
national security secrets from countries like China or Iran. What if a
country like Iran or China would purchase that land and eavesdrop on
our NASA spaceflight facility?
I am sure that my colleagues would agree that this land is worth
protecting. In fact, to remind my colleagues on the other side, this is
the final amendment to this bill. It's not going to kill the bill, and
it won't take it back to committee. So, if adopted, the bill would be
amended and it would go to final passage.
I ask my colleagues to do the right thing to protect our taxpayer-
owned land. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, this amendment
is one that I believe we should all be behind. I believe that we can
all vote ``yes'' on this final amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the author of this motion to
recommit clearly did not hear the debate. This land is owned by
Accomack County in Virginia. It is not a transfer. It's a deed
restriction lift. That's all it is. The land is owned by a county in
Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, when we had testimony on this bill in the committee, the
government of Accomack County testified, obviously, in favor of it, and
they said they wanted this for industrial use. Now, this is local
control. Doesn't the other side even trust local control, for goodness
sake, in testimony in front of a committee?
I have to say also that history tends to repeat itself. In this body,
it tends to repeat itself, it seems like, on a weekly basis. Now, why
do I say that? Because the two issues that are facing the American
people are jobs and the price of energy. Yet here we have a bill in
front of us that would certainly create jobs. And what does the other
side do? They want to put up more impediments to it.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 226, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
AYES--180
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
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
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
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)
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, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
[[Page H1419]]
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
NOES--226
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
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)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
Mica
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)
Polis
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 (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
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)
NOT VOTING--25
Akin
Bachus
Bono Mack
Burgess
Davis (IL)
Doggett
Dold
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Jackson (IL)
Kinzinger (IL)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Manzullo
Marino
Meehan
Paul
Rangel
Rush
Schock
Sessions
Tiberi
Walsh (IL)
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1716
Mr. POLIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 164, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
AYES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
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
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--164
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--27
Akin
Bachus
Bass (NH)
Bono Mack
Cleaver
Davis (IL)
Doggett
Dold
Gonzalez
Jackson (IL)
Kinzinger (IL)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Manzullo
Marino
Meehan
Paul
Perlmutter
Rangel
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schock
Sessions
Tipton
Walsh (IL)
Yarmuth
{time} 1725
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 115, 116 and 117, I was
delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted
``no'' on No. 115, ``no'' on No. 116, and ``aye'' on No. 117.
[[Page H1420]]
personal explanation
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, due to district business, I was unavoidably
back in my Congressional District on March 20, 2012. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 665, the Excess Federal
Building and Property Disposal Act of 2011, and ``yea'' on H.R. 2087,
``To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic
District, Accomack County, Virginia.''
____________________