[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 24091-24093]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 24091]]

    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4656, LAKE TAHOE BASIN LAND 
                               CONVEYANCE

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 634 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 634

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4656) to authorize the Forest Service to convey certain lands 
     in the Lake Tahoe Basin to the Washoe County School District 
     for use as an elementary school site. All points of order 
     against the bill and against its consideration are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 634 is a closed rule waiving all points 
of order against H.R. 4656, the conveyance of certain forest service 
land in the Lake Tahoe Basin and against its consideration. The rule 
provides 1 hour of debate to be equally divided between the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule 
also provides one motion to recommit with or without instruction.
  H.R. 4656 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair 
market value approximately 8.7 acres of Federal land in the Lake Tahoe 
Basin to the Washoe County District for use as an elementary school 
site. The bill provides that the land may be used only for this purpose 
and that it would revert back to the Federal Government if used for any 
other purpose. The bill was introduced by my friend, the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), and was considered by the House on October 10, 
2000. Although the bill was supported by a considerable majority in the 
House, it failed to receive the two-thirds necessary for passage under 
the suspension of the rules. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that enactment of H.R. 4656 would have no significant impact on the 
Federal budget. Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-
you-go procedures would apply. However, CBO estimates that such effects 
would be less than $500,000 per year. H.R. 4656 does not contain any 
intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. This rule 
provides for the consideration of a bill allowing the Forest Service to 
sell environmentally sensitive land at below market value to an 
affluent school district in a Republican Member's congressional 
district. Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that our schools are overcrowded; 
but they are overcrowded everywhere, from Boston to Burbank, from 
Bismarck to Biloxi.
  With this bill, Republicans are doing a special favor for one school 
while my Republican colleagues are ignoring overcrowded schools 
everywhere else.
  Mr. Speaker, American children deserve better. The Democrats' number 
one priority is the education of our children. They deserve much more 
than the crowded schools that are crumbling down around them.
  The average age of schools in the United States is 42 years. Rather 
than helping out one affluent school district, my Republican colleagues 
should be funding the Democrat initiative to help all school districts; 
but this bill will not do that, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, this bill 
sells the taxpayers short. It transfers land at far less than its 
value. The land is worth between $2 million and $4 million and this 
bill will sell it for $500,000. Rather than allowing the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Resources, to offer his amendment selling the land for its actual 
value, my colleagues are proposing this closed rule that prohibits 
amendments. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, schools everywhere else are 
scrambling for the funds to go expand and modernize their buildings and 
getting nothing from my colleagues on the other side. The Republican 
budget neither provides nor guarantees funding for urgent school 
repairs and no money for school modernization bonds. Mr. Speaker, it 
should.
  American children do deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the author of the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague and friend, the gentleman 
from the State of Washington (Mr. Hastings), I want to also thank him 
for his leadership and for allowing me to speak on this rule today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule, which will allow 
an open debate on H.R. 4656 a bill which will sell 8.7 acres of the 
Forest Service land to Washoe County School District at fair market 
value for the limited use as an elementary school site. H.R. 4656 is a 
product of much hard work, compromise and discussion and strikes a 
careful balance that will benefit all parties involved and provide over 
400 students at Incline Village with a safe and accommodating school 
facility.

                              {time}  1800

  Local officials from both the school district and the United States 
Forest Service, as well as environmental groups such as the League to 
Save Lake Tahoe, have had an integral role in crafting this important 
legislation. As a result of this valuable local input, this legislation 
is supported by the entire Nevada congressional delegation, as well as 
interested community groups.
  Most significantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4656 is strongly supported by 
the parents, teachers and the students of Incline Village. The present 
Incline Village Elementary School was constructed in 1964 and can no 
longer meet the needs of an increasing student population. The 
overcrowding problems have become so severe that the school must now 
place up to 40 children in each classroom. There is simply no room left 
to expand the current school, and the only available land suitable for 
a new school is the Federal land to be sold to the county school 
district under H.R. 4656.
  Mr. Speaker, I say ``sold,'' not given away, because the land will 
not be given away for free, although this Congress has done so for even 
Members on the other side of the aisle recently in the past for school 
construction. Instead, the school district will pay the fair market 
value for the land for its use as a school site. Yet I understand the 
administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
like to get 800 percent more for this land than its appraised value 
would be as a school site.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just unconscionable to me, that the 
administration wants to put such a high price on the education of 400 
children. I am committed to working to enhance the educational 
opportunities for the children

[[Page 24092]]

of Nevada, and this bill will allow 400 students the space to learn and 
grow in a suitable school facility.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this fair rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4656 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 
convey for fair market value approximately 8.7 acres of land in a 
parcel in the Tahoe National Forest in Incline Village, Nevada, to the 
Washoe County School District for the use as an elementary site. The 
parcel has been valued at between $2 million and $4 million. However, 
because of the deed restriction directing the use of the school site or 
a reversionary clause, the Forest Service believes that the appraised 
value would be reduced by 75 percent, or approximately $500,000.
  This bill requires the proceeds of the sale to be used for acquiring 
environmentally sensitive land in Lake Tahoe. This all sounds good, 
until you examine this deal.
  The deed restriction, this land was purchased because it is 
environmentally-sensitive land. I realize that there has been 
development around it, but that was the purpose and the priority for 
which it was purchased by the public. Now, because it has a deed 
restriction, they say that they want it transferred to the school 
district for $500,000, as opposed to fair market value.
  Well, if you are a school district and you are using it for that 
purpose, and that is the purpose of the deed restriction, it is like 
getting a full-valued piece of property, because that is all you are 
going to use it for. But now we have worked in a discount in this 
property, and then we are told we can take this $500,000 and we can 
take that and go out and try to buy equally environmentally-sensitive 
land somewhere else in the Tahoe Basin, when in fact we are talking 
about some of the most expensive land in the State.
  In many parts of the Tahoe Basin, $500,000 will not buy you a 50-by-
100 building lot, much less a school site or environmentally-sensitive 
land or anything else. The fact of the matter is that this land is 
valuable for that very reason, because either people want to enjoy it 
for their own homes or recreational benefits and/or because there is so 
little land left in the Tahoe Basin, given what we have to do.
  Yesterday we passed a bill here to spend $300 million of Federal 
taxpayer monies to protect this very same basin, and yet we are giving 
away environmentally-sensitive land here, with the belief that somehow 
we are going to replace it, and I object to that.
  I think that this is a continuation of a misuse of public resources, 
when in fact the local entity has all of the wherewithal to purchase 
the land at fair market value. Certainly they ought to purchase it for, 
at a minimum, what they just sold their own school land for, which was, 
I guess, about $850,000. They could take that and buy this site, which 
they believe to be a superior site, but they would rather have a 
discount paid for by the Federal taxpayers.
  The gentleman from Nevada suggested that somehow this is the same as 
other legislation that we have done. The fact of the matter is that is 
not the case, because in most instances, as we do with little 
disagreement on a bipartisan basis, we transfer land from the Federal 
Government to public agencies all the time. In most instances, that 
land is sort of generic Federal land, if you will. It really in some 
cases has no other value other than to be transferred to a local 
agency, whether it is a city or a school district or a sanitation 
district or whatever, as we have done now in a number of instances in 
the Committee on Resources.
  But this bill is simply bad policy, and it is bad economics for the 
taxpayer; and I think it is bad for the environment in the Lake Tahoe 
Basin.
  I think this bill also points out a continuing problem that we have 
in the Committee on Resources; and although this is not technically a 
land exchange, it is part of the same parcel where, once again, we just 
continue to dip into the Federal land base and we parcel it out on less 
than a fair market value, less than equal basis, when we engage in land 
exchanges.
  This committee and the Congress was just recently again put on notice 
by the General Accounting Office as to the problems that we are having 
in these exchanges. A number of them exist in the gentleman's home 
State, where the Federal Government, through, I think, bad policy on 
behalf of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, but 
especially the Bureau of Land Management, has engaged in real estate 
practices on behalf of the taxpayer, where the taxpayer ought to just 
scream to high heaven that they want a new real estate agent.
  We have seen properties that have been flipped on the same day of 
sale, where the Federal Government got its ``value'' of $763,000 in 
Nevada, only to find out that the same day that property was resold for 
$4.5 million. In another instance we got the ``value'' of $504,000, 
only to have that property sold for $1 million the very same day. I 
think it calls into question.
  So when the Forest Service makes a determination that because this 
land has a deed restriction, but it happens to be a deed restriction 
that allows you to use it exactly for that purpose, of a school, of 
which you want it, land which you cannot find suitably elsewhere, for 
the Forest Service now to step forward with a straight face and suggest 
that the value of this 8.5 acres of land in the middle of Incline 
Village, somehow the value here is $500,000, is simply not true. If the 
school district went out on the open market and sought to purchase 8.5 
acres in the Tahoe Basin, the land value would exceed $500,000 in any 
instance.
  For those reasons, I think that the Congress ought to reject this 
legislation. This is not a declaration against all land swaps, because 
we have done land swaps, we have done land exchanges and done outright 
grants of land, as we did yesterday in a number of instances. But in 
those cases, the value of the land was essentially de minimis, other 
than the purpose for which some local agency wanted to put it to use.
  So I think at some point you have got to cry ``halt'' here to having 
the Federal taxpayer just continuing to subsidize these kinds of 
arrangements, where in fact we simply cannot look our constituents in 
the face and suggest to them we got fair value or in any way did we get 
market value.
  The fact of the matter was that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith) tried to offer an amendment to provide for fair market value. 
That was rejected in the committee, and now we are operating under a 
closed rule so that he cannot offer that amendment so that we will have 
an opportunity to find out whether or not we can get fair market value 
for the taxpayers in the use of this land for the school district.
  I think that would be a much fairer way to go, but it is obvious that 
the proponents of this legislation do not want to engage in that public 
process of determining fair market value. They simply want the Forest 
Service, which I might add, the proponents here who show such great 
support for the Forest Service evaluation are the same people who are 
usually beating the hell out of the Forest Service on a daily basis, 
but all of a sudden they become outstanding appraisers of the public 
land in the Tahoe Basin. But I guess it is the end of the session.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope Members would vote against this rule and 
that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) would get an opportunity 
to offer his amendment, and we could square the books on behalf of the 
taxpayer.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 24093]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  After this 15-minute vote on House Resolution 634, pursuant to clause 
8, rule XX, the Chair will resume proceedings on--and will reduce to 5 
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on--two of the motions 
to suspend the rules debated earlier today on which the yeas and nays 
were ordered, to wit:
  (1) House Concurrent Resolution 414; and
  (2) H.R. 4271.
  Other questions on which proceedings were postponed earlier today 
will resume tomorrow.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 196, 
nays 181, not voting 55, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 541]

                               YEAS--196

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--55

     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilman
     Goode
     Green (WI)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Hyde
     John
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Ney
     Nussle
     Peterson (PA)
     Shaw
     Shays
     Stupak
     Talent
     Visclosky
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf

                              {time}  1832

  Messrs. THOMPSON of California, DAVIS of Illinois, MORAN of Virginia, 
GEPHARDT and LaFALCE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 541, I was detained by an 
accident which forced me to miss my flight to Washington, DC. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________