[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.''

                          ____________________