Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2087) to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 587 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am obviously in favor of consideration of this resolution.

The question before the House is: Shall the House now consider House Resolution 587?

While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order. The waiver is a complete waiver in nature.

Note, there is not a specific waiver against an earmark simply because the bill contains no earmarks. It is in compliance with the earmark definition provided for us in the House Rules, a rule that goes back to, actually--to make the record complete--the 109th Session of Congress and the earmark ban instituted by the House Republicans when they took the majority in January of last year.

As is required by House Rules, the committee report filed for this bill on January 18 includes a specific determination and statement that the bill does not contain an earmark. I will quote from page 5 of the report: The bill does not contain any congressional earmarks or limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined by the Rules of the House of Representatives.

With all due respect to my friend from Arizona, each person may have his own perception of what an earmark is, but, with all due respect, the term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision that provides or authorizes or recommends a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority or expenditures with or to an entity. It has to have money involved in it.

Specifically, the definition of an earmark requires that there be spending in the form directed to an entity or targeted geographically. This bill does not involve the spending of money or loan authority or credit authority or any other form of payment of funds.

The land in question is already with the county. It will remain with the county. Whether we pass this bill or not, it is still with the county. The only issue is the deed restriction, not the value of the land, not the transfer of money.

This parcel is with Virginia on Federal land that at one time had a deed restriction. It simply removes that deal.

The CBO viewed and scored this bill, and concluded it would not cost money, stating it ``would have no significant impact on the Federal budget.''

Moreover, this type of bill, clearing the title to land, has repeatedly been approved when the House has been controlled by both Republicans and Democrats. The definition of an earmark is clear. There has not been a fiscal impact, and this bill does not meet the House rules definition used by either Democrats or Republicans.

This is really a red herring to stop economic development and the creation of jobs caused by lingering Federal bureaucratic red tape.

This county is one of the poorest counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with more than 16 percent of its population living in poverty and a higher rate of unemployment than the rest of Virginia. This very small bill, at no cost to the Federal taxpayer, will help to turn that around.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the rule does not waive an earmark, because there are no earmarks. It is a general waiver that is in there. If one were to look back at the past three Congresses, official bills that have been prepared that are very similar to this have also included the same type of language and were determined as not to have an earmark. Specifically, go back to H.R. 944 in the 112th Congress, H.R. 86 in the 111th Congress, H.R. 356 in the 110th Congress, H.R. 2246 in the 110th Congress, and S. 404 in the 112th Congress--same language, same situation, same condition.

Once again, the rules of our House say this is not an earmark. The

Let me try and once again put this in perspective.

The Federal Government, in and of itself, owns no land, especially in one of the original 13 States.

Virginia had the land and gave it to the Federal Government. In 1976, the Federal Government gave this back to the county with a lease for a park and restrictions, a deed restriction only. There is no transfer of money if we take away the deed restriction. There is no transfer of authority. The county has it. The county will continue to have it.

The dollar value that was given was made up in the minds of the Department of the Interior. This county actually said, if you really want more parkland, we will create 32 acres somewhere else for more parkland. The Department of the Interior said, No, let's have cash instead. They are the ones that determined that this land was worth 25 grand an acre, asking almost a million dollars from one of the poorest counties. They came up with that on their own. That does not mean it's reality.

The reality is the county has the land. The county will continue to have the land. There is no transfer of dollars. There is no loss from taxpayers in America. Actually, these guys who live in Virginia are taxpayers, too. Transferring from one pocket to the other is a ridiculous requirement to place on them, and all we're talking about is a deed restriction--how can we best use the land to actually help people.

Now, if the other side does not care about this county, does not care about the 16 percent of the population living in poverty, does not care about the unemployment rate, does not care that they actually use this land in a logical, rational manner, I can understand that. It still doesn't mean that's an earmark.

The point of order is a delay tactic of today's consideration of this legislation.

Sometimes in the past, a couple of other Members who have declared what I think are earmarks as non-earmarks have always used the old cliche if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But as Hans Christian Andersen told us, sometimes those ducks you perceive are actually the honking of a swan. This bill is a swan. This bill will help these people to produce themselves.

This point of order has no merit to it. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

The resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2087, a bill to remove certain restrictions from a parcel of land that's situated in the Atlantic District of Accomack County, in Virginia. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This rule makes in order all amendments that were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House.

So this modified rule is a very fair rule. It is a generous rule. It will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this bill that is not an earmark.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, who will once again try to describe to this body how this county land should stay with the county and needs to be dealt with by the county and all we have to do is remove an unnecessary restriction on its deed.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

I would be more than happy to close at any time you are ready.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favor of the underlying bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) knows his constituents; he knows the needs there and has worked very hard for their benefit.

This, as we already discussed and voted, is not an earmark. The gentlelady from New York introduced a heritage area for Niagara Falls that got $10 million sent from the Federal Government to that place. That was officially not an earmark. This bill has no money going anywhere. The land is the county's, no exchange of profit whatsoever. There is no earmark, and there is no money being exchanged.

This land was originally Virginia's land. They gave it to the Federal Government for a Federal purpose. Thirty-six years ago, the Federal Government, in no longer needing the land, gave it back to this county for a public park. As a public park, it is useless. Now that's the common bond here. It is not needed as a park; it is not used as a park; there is no parking; it is inaccessible; and it is lousy for that purpose. The county, though, would like to use their land to do economic development because that is where it is and for what it would best be used, how it would help the public and the general good if it were used for economic development. All they need is the Federal Government to graciously grant a deed restriction, which they refuse to do--for whatever purpose, no one really knows, but they won't do it. That is why the county needs to keep the county land, to do something that is common sense, simply use the land for the purpose in which it best suits the needs of the people.

I don't know why the Department of the Interior, in its infinite wisdom, decides they want to tell the county in Virginia what is best for Virginia, but that is exactly what they are trying to do by being hard-nosed, not on a law, but on an internal rule from the Department of the Interior.

Look, this government already controls 1 out of every 3 acres in this Nation. One-third of America is controlled by the Federal Government. That means the Federal Government's in-holdings are larger than any country's in the world, with the exception of Russia's and Canada's. That's what we already have. And yet the Department of the Interior is straining over 32 acres that shouldn't be a park and that need to be used to help the people of this particular county, and that is simply illogical. It is irrational.

I have faced similar circumstances in countless bills that we have had and passed before this body. There was public land in the middle of Park City in my district that was controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. They didn't need it; they didn't want it; they didn't use it. It was actually being occupied by squatters. The city had no control over it because it was public land, and yet the Department of the Interior did not want to let go of that land because the control was already there.

We passed another bill earlier that went through the House and the Senate that transferred land that the Forest Service had that they didn't even know they had. We had to do a title search to remind them, oh, yeah, that actually is ours. They didn't need it; they didn't want it; they didn't use it; and after 6 years, we finally got them to give it up so it could be used for a better purpose.

We have another bill for 2 acres in Alta that the Park Service doesn't want to give up, for whatever reason, even though on that 2 acres there is already the city building, a public safety building, and public bathrooms for the community and those that go to that ski resort; and yet the Forest Service, in this case, doesn't want to give that up for whatever reason there may be.

Mr. Speaker, we were just in a hearing earlier this morning that dealt with a proposed Eisenhower memorial. In all due respect, I just recently read a biography of Eisenhower. When he was just a lieutenant in the Army, he had his first child, and he applied for and received permission for a housing increase that he thought he deserved and so did the commanding officer who approved that housing increase. A little while later, they did an audit, and the acting inspector general did an audit and found out that there was a technicality to which General Eisenhower was not entitled to that housing increase. When he was confronted with that, he immediately apologized and said he was more than willing to pay back the $250.67 that he owed the government.

But that wasn't good enough for the inspector general. That acting inspector general wanted a court-martial because that was what the rules where. That acting inspector general had this blind fetish for fealty to follow rules because that's what bureaucrats always want to do. Fortunately, there was a commanding officer that realized that this young Army officer had a talent and an ability and intervened and allowed General, then Lieutenant, Eisenhower simply to pay the $250.67 and get on with it.

It is amazing to consider what this Nation and what this world would be like if Lieutenant Eisenhower had actually been court-martialed over $250.67 because that was the rule.

We have the same situation, 32 acres that is useless. Right now it has no purpose. It sits there, and the Federal Government wants to deny a county in Virginia the ability to do something useful to help people on 32 acres because it violates their internal rule. There has to be some time when common sense takes over and we actually do things because it's the right thing to do, because it is the better thing to do.

Fortunately, there was an officer in Texas that realized, in the case of General Eisenhower, common sense should take over. It would be nice, it would be wonderful if, within the Department of the Interior, there were some element of common sense that said it is stupid what we are doing with this land. We need simply to use common sense and use the land for a better, better purpose.

There is no transfer of land. The county has it. If we don't pass this bill, the county will still have it. They just can't use it effectively.

If we pass this bill, there will be no transfer of money. All you're saying is the county can use the county's land to do something the county needs to help the people in that county. And, honestly, should that not be our goal? Is that not our purpose, to actually use common sense? Or do we have the bureaucratic blood running through our veins that we put these little blinders on and, unless we check the right box, it doesn't matter if it helps, it doesn't matter if it's good, it doesn't matter if it's possible, we won't do it because of our internal rules?

That is, indeed, where this country and this Congress has come. There is something definitely wrong with us.

This rule is a fair rule. It will provide for a good debate. It provides for all those amendments that were preprinted and are in order to be debated here on the floor.

Let us proceed forward with this bill. Let's help this county that desperately needs our help and that desperately needs us just to use some good, old-fashioned common sense. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.

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.

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

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. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I have no requests for time. If he is prepared to close, I'll close.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

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.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Congressman McDermott.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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.

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

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and it is preprinted.

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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for just 15 seconds.

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.

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.

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.