```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5640-H5645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF IOWA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 145 and rule 
XXIII, 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. 584.

                              {time}  1421

                     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. 584) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish 
hatchery to the State of Iowa, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] will each be recognized for 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this noncontroversial 
legislation.
  H.R. 584 was introduced by Mr. Leach. It would convey the Fairport 
National Fish Hatchery from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the 
State of Iowa. It is my understanding that this facility was built in 
the 1930's, and as you can imagine, it is in need of improvement. Due 
to Federal budget constraints, the State of Iowa agreed to assume 
operational control of the facility in 1973. The State of Iowa has 
managed, maintained, and staffed the Fairport Fish Hatchery for the 
past 22 years, and has made some cosmetic changes. If the State of Iowa 
had not stepped in when the Federal Government found its management too 
costly, this hatchery would have closed and its fishery resources would 
have ceased to exist.
  Now the State of Iowa would like the authority to modernize the 
facility, which would be accomplished by this legislation. H.R. 584 
will formalize a permanent transfer of title between the Federal and 
State Government. The State of Iowa has committed over $2 million to 
the operation of this facility over the past 22 years. Further, it has 
spent $220,000 on necessary improvements to the hatchery.
  This is a noncontroversial bill and will accomplish its goal without 
[[Page H5641]] amendment. I urge you to support H.R. 584 without 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, once again the gentleman from New Jersey 
has said it all. The issues are virtually identical in this bill as 
they were in the past and as they will be in the next one, and 
therefore in consideration of sheer humanity they need not be repeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 584, a bill to transfer title 
of the Fairport National Fish Hatchery to the State of Iowa.
  The Fairport hatchery has been operated by the State of Iowa under a 
memorandum of understanding with the Fish and Wildlife Service since 
1972. It produces bass, bluegill, and channel catfish for stocking 
programs throughout the State.
  After 20 years of operation, the State is now interested in making 
capital improvements to the facility but needs title to the property 
before doing so. This bill would give title to the State, while 
protecting the interests of the Federal Government by requiring that 
title revert to the Fish and Wildlife Service in the event that Iowa no 
longer wants to operate the facility as a fish hatchery.
  The bill is supported by both the State and the administration, and I 
urge Members to support it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, 3 weeks ago in thunderous debate the House 
considered the ``mega'' implications of the budget resolution. Now we 
have before us perhaps the smallest bill of the year, H.R. 584, which 
would have the effect of conveying a small federally owned, State-
operated, fish hatchery to the State of Iowa.
  This hatchery, operated by the State of Iowa since 1973, is crucial 
to the fishery resources program in my State, and the legislation 
before us formalizes a permanent transfer of title between the Federal 
and State government.
  The hatchery is located in Fairport, an unincorporated town of 50 
people situated on a beautiful hillside embankment overlooking the 
Mississippi River approximately 8 miles east of the community of 
Muscatine. The facility was originally donated at the turn of the 
century to the Federal Government by an association of button 
manufacturers who, prior to the advent of plastic alternatives, 
utilized the shells of freshwater mussels from the Mississippi River as 
raw material for the making of buttons.
  With the subsequent acquisition of surrounding land, at a total cost 
of $21,771.22, Fairport was established by Congress in 1909 as a 
biological research station, and in 1929 became a fish hatchery 
operated and maintained by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
  In 1973, as a result of Federal budgetary constraints, operation and 
maintenance of the facility was assumed by the Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources. The Fairport Fish Hatchery has served as an 
important part of the State's fish hatchery system since that time.
  The State of Iowa agreed to assume responsibility for the facility 
partly to assist sports fisherman but mainly to help advance a growing/
midwestern acquaculture industry, particularly for the stocking of farm 
ponds. As an augment to farming the land and feeding livestock, 
increasing numbers of farmers are finding they can diversify into 
aquaculture.
  The Fairport facility is one of three warmwater fish hatcheries 
within Iowa's hatcheries program. The facility fills the need for 
several fish including bass, bluegills, white amur, and channel 
catfish, which are utilized throughout the State as a part of the Iowa 
stocking program. Simply put, fish that are not hatched cannot be 
caught or bred.
  The State Iowa has committed substantial resources to providing for 
its fisheries needs through the operation and maintenance of the 
Fairport facility. Unlike other States, it has done so without seeking 
Federal funds for 22 years. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources 
estimates that it has expended $2,100,000 for the operation of the 
hatchery under the memorandum of understanding with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service since 1973. This sum is substantially greater than the 
market value of the property which, according to a 1983 appraisal, was 
$717,000. It is possible that the property has slightly increased in 
value since then, but before use by others, numerous ponds would have 
to be filled and the extensive well and underground pipe system removed 
at considerable cost.
  In addition to its current operating budget of $175,000, the State of 
Iowa has to date spent $220,000 on necessary improvements to the 
hatchery. If title to the property is transferred, the State intends to 
make an additional $350,000 investment in the facility, including a new 
holding house and dike improvements. But the State of Iowa cannot 
afford both to buy the property and then improve and operate the 
facility. Without this transfer the facility is likely to close and the 
Federal Government will have to either make necessary improvements and 
operate it itself or take on the costly task of closing it.
  Iowa's interest in obtaining title to the hatchery is based on the 
concern that the State be able to make these needed improvements to the 
facility without risk of loss. If the State does not have title to the 
property, the Federal Government could divest itself of the hatchery 
along with any investment the State might make in it. The State would 
be left vulnerable to property confiscation precipitated either by the 
executive branch in Washington or capricious Federal legislators.
  Because investment without owner-ship would be imprudent, Iowa has 
secured the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's agreement to transfer 
title to the property to the State. To obviate concerns that the State 
of Iowa might accept property conveyance and then turn around and put 
it on the market or use it for another purpose, the agreement between 
the Department of Interior and the State provides that if the property 
ceases its fish related functions, it will revert back to the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Speaker, conveyances of national fish hatcheries to States are 
normally noncontroversial. Indeed, since 1989, four almost identical 
conveyances have taken place--in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, 
Kentucky, and Ohio--all with the unanimous approval of this House. And, 
in an analogous transaction for a different purpose the 103d Congress 
transferred land to Imperial Beach, CA.
  Federal and State officials involved in the Fairport conveyance 
unreservedly support this transfer. Mr. J. Edward Brown, State Water 
Coordinator for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, is 
particularly to be commended for his long and hard work in this effort 
to secure the future of the Fairport Fish Hatchery. I also wish to 
thank Mr. Saxton of New Jersey, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries. Wildlife, and Oceans, and Mr. Young of Alaska, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources and their staffs 
for providing the residents of my State and my district with a great 
service by moving this legislation quickly to the floor.
  While by precedent such conveyances to States are normally routine, I 
was surprised to learn that the distinguished gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] objects and in the committee report as well as in a ``Dear 
Colleague'' letter suggests that it is the taxpayers who, along with 
the fish, are being ``soaked.'' Actually, it is citizens who are being 
served by this approach and politician who are being ``fishy'' in their 
arguments in opposition.
  This is, after all, a country with one Government of, by, and for the 
people. It is true there are different levels of governmental 
organization--local, State, and Federal--but the obligation is the 
same: to serve the people. Transferring property from one level of 
government to another has implications that must be assessed on a 
careful basis--on this, Mr. Miller is correct--but, when the purpose is 
to maintain a public service which otherwise would be dropped; when the 
cost is de minimus; when there is no intent to take advantage of anyone 
or any institution; when the public body the property is transferred to 
has a historical commitment to and investment in the property and 
public program in question; when all relevant professional bodies--
private and governmental--are in concurrence, there is no credible 
reason not to proceed.
  In this regard, let me tell a tale of two States and two fish 
hatcheries to illustrate why I believe Mr. Miller's 
4 [[Page H5642]] protestations represent ``upstream'' logic with a 
fishy ``downwind'' odor.
  Iowa, unlike California, has no national parks. Iowa, unlike 
California, has no Bureau of Land Management projects. And, Mr. 
Chairman, Iowa, unlike California, has no federally subsidized fish 
hatchery.
  In Iowa, private citizens almost a century ago gave a piece of 
property to the Federal Government for the purpose of advancing 
Mississippi River aquaculture. For the last generation the State of 
Iowa has exclusively borne the cost of such activities and maintained 
and upgraded the property. On the other hand, in the State of 
California there exists a fish hatchery which the Federal Government 
bought and which the Federal Government on a yearly basis subsidizes. 
Indeed, this year the Federal Government has committed $1,902,000 to 
the Coleman National Fish Hatchery in Anderson, CA, a sum which is 
$887,000 or 87 percent more than that obligated just 4 years ago. By 
comparison, the value of the Fairport property is about one-third the 
annual Federal subsidy to California's fish hatchery and less than the 
increase in that subsidy authorized in the last 4 years.
  A fair question might therefore be asked: Which fish are more 
important--California's federally subsidized steelhead trout or the 
Mississippi River catfish which do not receive a Federal subsidy?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not rise today, nor have I ever risen, to object 
to the California Fish and Wildlife Protection Act, which the gentleman 
from California sponsored; nor do I rise to object to nor did I vote 
against passage of the California Desert Protection Act, which Mr. 
Miller assured us was vital to the needs of his State; nor, Mr. 
Speaker, do I rise to object to nor did I vote against addition of land 
to the John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez, CA.
  But I do think it fair to point out some irony in the fact that the 
gentleman from California has proposed new environmental projects 
costing multibillions in the gentleman's home State while he now 
objects to the transfer of an existing small fish hatchery which will 
cost the Federal Government nothing and which the Federal Government 
paid next to nothing for to begin with. Methinks it is hollow 
conservatism for the gentleman to protest so much. Why, pray tell, is 
it fair for Iowans to pay for California fish propagation when 
Californians object to Iowans taking responsibility for their own 
aquaculture?
  The issue, let me stress, is not traditional congressional 
logrolling. I ask no money for anything from anyone. I ask only that 
this Congress allow a transfer of property and responsibility to take 
place between one level of government and another. This transfer, as 
small as it is, represents a symbolic step away from all-knowing 
Washington hegemony toward a new federalism in which States rights are 
matched by State responsibility. Beyond this, it is particularly 
poignant that the transfer contemplated symbolizes a State taking 
responsibility for a governmental service after the Federal Government 
has abdicated its traditional role. In fact, under State management, 
the Fairport Fish Hatchery provides regular advice and information to 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi River ecosystem. 
The State in other words, willingly provides a service to the Federal 
Government, without charge or complaint. It is a commonsense thing to 
do.
  The gentleman might wonder why I object so strenuously to his 
legislative sophistry. Let me say as carefully as I can: I don't like 
legislative games being played with people's livelihoods and a town's 
well-being. At a personal level I spoke twice to the gentleman this 
year asking for comity. For the last generation citizens of my State 
have provided tax resources to advance environmental projects all over 
the country. All Iowans ask today is the opportunity to invest in our 
future at our expense. Aquaculture and the study of the Mississippi 
River ecosystem are important to our region. It is simply not fair to 
ask Iowa taxpayers to foot the bill for environmental projects in 
virtually every other State but their own and then pay Washington for a 
facility the State of Iowa has invested more in than the Federal 
Government.
  Let me conclude by stressing that H.R. 584 is supported by all 
executive branch parties involved, including the Republican 
administration in Des Moines and the Democratic administration in 
Washington. The approach it contains is consistent with precedent, in 
conformance with administration policy, and represents mutual fairness 
to all parties. No obligations are being placed on the Federal 
taxpayer. I doubt if there is a stronger equity case anywhere in the 
federal system for the transfer of property from one level of 
government to another.
  To turn down an agreement in which a State accepts responsibility for 
services the Federal Government abandons in some parts of the country 
but embraces elsewhere is not only unfair, it risks the transfer of an 
environmental jewel to industrial development.
  If Mr. Miller's irascible approach is adopted, a wonderful small town 
in my congressional district will be faced with the elimination of its 
second largest employer--negatively impacting the quality of life of 
this beautiful river community and severely retarding the development 
of aquaculture in the State of Iowa.
  To paraphrase Daniel Webster in a reference he made in a court case 
involving a small private college: ``Fairport is, Sir, but a small 
place but there are those who love it.''
                              {time}  1430

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just want to say to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, I now 
feel extremely guilty that I did not speak at greater length on this 
matter. I do not recall a more scholarly presentation replete with more 
references to literature, to history, to Latin invective, and to puns, 
and it was the part about the buttons that really got to me, I must 
say.
  Also, let the record reflect for the duration of this debate I am not 
sitting between the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the aforementioned distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, the amendment is not large, but 
the principle is important, and that is that we are now living under a 
zero-sum situation within the Federal Government in an effort to 
balance the Federal deficit, and that is what makes some of the things 
we have done in the ordinary course of business in this Congress in the 
past not possible in the ordinary course of business today because we 
have that mandate to meet.
  The fact is, yes, we have transferred fish hatcheries in the past and 
we did not charge the States. That is before we were living under these 
rules of today.
  The gentleman from Iowa cites a number of transfers between agencies 
of the Federal Government which he suggests is analogous to this, and 
the fact of the matter is it is not. The California desert was created 
out of Federal lands currently owned. The fact is the moneys that go 
into the hatchery in California are there because Federal actions have 
devastated the fisheries in that general area in the northern part of 
the State.
  And the fact is this hatchery, once it is transferred, will continue 
to receive Federal funds for its operation, as do many of the other 
hatcheries. So this is not a question of Iowa only. There will be 
Federal funds, $2 million a year, to go to the State for the operation 
of this and other hatcheries.
  The fact is the Federal Government operated this hatchery for 44 
years, and I do not see anybody complain about that. Yes, Iowa operated 
it for 22 years. The point is this: We have 60 acres on a prime piece 
of land next to the Mississippi River that we could call this surplus. 
We could put it out and let it go. We are doing the State of Iowa a 
favor because we are continuing the hatchery program by making this 
available to them so that they can continue to have a program which, 
like the gentlewoman from Arkansas said, is a vital interest to that 
State for sport fishing revenues, recreational revenues, for all the 
revenues the State receives from those efforts, and apparently also for 
the people who live in the small town.
  The point is this, though, in the transfer of that we ought to 
receive for 
[[Page H5643]] the taxpayers of this country fair market value. The 
suggestion is it is only $717,000. The fact is, again, we do not know 
that. It has been suggested it might be as much as $2 million. But 
$717,000 is half again as much as all of the taxes that an average 
family will pay to the Federal Government after working a lifetime.
  So we hear very often, and I think quite correctly, that from time to 
time we have got to check what we have been doing before. This 
gentleman has, in this Committee of Natural Resources for many years, 
forced the receipt of fair market value in land exchanges and land 
trades and land transfers to levels of local governments, and I have 
been doing that for 20 years. And in most cases that is what the 
Federal law requires.
  In this particular case, we simply are desiring to make a gift to the 
people of Arkansas, the people of Iowa, the people of Minnesota to a 
program that we hear is vitally important to them, very, very helpful 
to their economies, and simply saying the taxpayer will walk away from 
it.
  All I am suggesting is we ought to get an appraisal. We ought to find 
out fair market value. This is not an attempt to gouge. We will give 
them credit for the improvements they have put into the facility, and 
everybody will be happy in their work as we transfer this facility.
  Again, I would say that there is tremendous local benefit to the 
transfer of this project, the facility, to the State, ongoing benefit 
in terms of their economy, in terms of, I believe, this hatchery is 
even used in the private sector in aquaculture and other commercial 
ventures, and all I am saying is when you have got that, you know, we 
constantly go before town hall meetings, people, what do they say to 
you all the time? ``Why don't you run the government like a business?'' 
And the point is we ought to run the government like a business. And in 
this case, when you transfer an asset, what tenant would be able to go 
and say, ``I would love to fix up this building so I can do a better 
job in this building; I am not going to do it if I don't own it, but 
you have to give it to me for free.'' I have never met that landlord, 
except the U.S. Government, that would say, ``Oh, okay, take it for 
free, and then we will be on our merry way.''
  I think that is the point, is that that we have got to make this 
effort, as I said before; there will be a rationale made for each and 
every one of these projects coming out of this committee. Some of them 
are far grander than this in terms of transferring the assets that the 
people of this country have invested into the projects or the ideas or 
the purposes of a single region.
  I think we ought to make some effort to provide for the recapture of 
that investment. We are not talking about recapturing the money that 
was spent for 44 years. We are not talking about recapturing the 
Federal money that will be spent after this. We are not talking about 
capturing the Federal money being spent today in this or any other 
hatchery. We are talking about the fair market value for the real 
estate transaction of this facility to the State of Iowa.
  I think it is a very, very small thing to ask in behalf of the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
584, a noncontroversial bill to transfer the Fairport National Fish 
Hatchery to the State of Iowa.
  This facility is an important component of Iowa's fish hatchery 
system. The State has operated this hatchery with their own funds since 
1973, and it is one of three warm-water facilities within the State's 
program. The Fairport facility fills the need for several fish, 
including large-mouth bass, blue gills, and channel catfish. These fish 
are utilized throughout the State as part of their fisheries resources 
program.
  While the Iowa Department of Natural Resources wants to modernize the 
upgrade this facility, they cannot justify the expense of these 
improvements as long as the Federal Government holds title to this 
property.
  H.R. 584 was introduced by our distinguished colleague from Iowa, Jim 
Leach It is strongly supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
which indicated by letter that the Service has ``no present, or 
foreseeable need for a hatchery at this site and recognizes the 
importance of this facility to the fishery resources program of the 
State of Iowa.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I compliment the 
gentleman from Iowa for his outstanding leadership in this matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the bill?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to have the rule, the bill is considered as having been read 
for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 584 is as follows:

                                H.R. 584

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY 
                   TO THE STATE OF IOWA.

       (a) Conveyance.--Within 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     convey to the State of Iowa without reimbursement all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the fish 
     hatchery described in subsection (b) for use by the State for 
     purposes of fishery resources management.
       (b) Hatchery Described.--The fish hatchery described in 
     subsection (a) is the Fairport National Fish Hatchery located 
     in Muscatine County, Iowa, adjacent to State Highway 22 west 
     of Davenport, Iowa, including all real property, improvements 
     to real property, and personal property.
       (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed 
     to the State of Iowa pursuant to this section shall be used 
     by the State for purposes of fishery resources management, 
     and if it is used for any other purpose all right, title, and 
     interest in and to all property conveyed pursuant to this 
     section shall revert to the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the bill?

             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: In section 
     1(a) (page 1, beginning at line 5), strike ``Within'' and all 
     that follows through ``without reimbursement'', and insert 
     ``Upon the provision of consideration by the State of Iowa in 
     accordance with subsection (c) within 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall convey to the State of Iowa''.
       Amend section 1(c) (page 2, beginning at line 12) to read 
     as follows:
       (c) Consideration.--
       (1) Consideration required.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall require that, as consideration for any property 
     conveyed by the Secretary under subsection (a), the State of 
     Iowa shall--
       (A) pay to the United States an amount equal to the fair 
     market value of the property conveyed by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a), reduced in accordance with paragraph (3); or
       (B) convey to the United States real property that the 
     Secretary determines--
       (i) has a fair market value not less than an amount equal 
     to the fair market value of the property conveyed by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a), reduced in accordance with 
     paragraph (3); and
       (ii) is useful for promoting fish restoration and 
     management.
       (2) Appraisal required.--The Secretary shall determine fair 
     market value of property for purposes of this subsection 
     after considering an appraisal of the property prepared for 
     the Secretary after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Reduction of fair market value of property conveyed.--
     For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph 
     (1), the fair market value of property conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by the value of any capital 
     improvements to the property that were made by the State of 
     Iowa before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Deposit of payment.--
       (A) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as 
     payment under this subsection shall be deposited into the 
     Sport Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund established by section 9504 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9504), commonly referred to as the Wallop-
     Breaux Fund.
       (B) Limitation on use of deposits for purposes not related 
     to fish restoration and management.--Section 9504(b)(2)(B) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9504(b)(2)(B)) 
     does not apply to amounts deposited under this paragraph.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H5644]]

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 
I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment has been previously 
explained in the debate, would provide for an appraisal of the fair 
market value of the 60 acres and facilities that the Federal Government 
would transfer to the State of Iowa for the continued use of a fish 
hatchery at Fairport, IA, a national hatchery. The purpose of this 
amendment, as I stated previously and with the previous amendment, is 
to try and assure that we have some ability to recapture the Federal 
investment in this facility as we transfer it to the State of Iowa. As 
I said earlier, we operated this facility for 44 years. Previously the 
State took it over at one point determining it was in such interest to 
the State that they would then run the annual operating expenses of 
this to continue to provide for the feedstocks that are developed at 
this hatchery, and now they seek to gain clear title to the facility. I 
have no problem with the State gaining clear title to that facility, 
the State taking this over and the Federal Government getting out of 
this business. It all sort of makes sense. My problem is I think, when 
we exit there, when we turn over this 60 acres of real estate, that we 
owe it to the public to get an appraisal and to get fair market value 
for this facility, and the amendment also provides for the offsets for 
the moneys that the State has put into improving that facility during 
their tenancy in that facility.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a favorable reporting of this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal was debated at length during our 
subcommittee and full committee deliberations, and it was also 
deliberated at some length earlier today on the amendment when the 
gentleman offered an amendment on the Arkansas bill. While on the 
surface the amendment may appear to have certain amount of appeal, 
there are certain facts that are indisputable. I think I will just 
reference them very quickly.
  First, Iowa has operated this hatchery with State funds for decades 
and have done so effectively for more than 23 years--22 years. 
Furthermore, Iowa has spent millions of dollars to operate the hatchery 
and to improve the infrastructure surrounding it.
  Second, this bill contains language requiring the property to revert 
to the Federal Government in as good or if not better condition at the 
time that any transfer may be contemplated.
  Third, this is not the first time the Federal fish hatchery has been 
transferred to a State at no cost. It has been done several times, as 
recently as the last Congress. This bill simply transfers an asset from 
one level of government to another to continue the partnership that is 
so important relative to this hatchery.
  Fourth, recent real estate appraisals have not been conducted on this 
facility, and it would cost the Federal Government thousands of dollars 
to make such an assessment and would be a waste of the taxpayers' 
money.
  Finally, this bill is an important partnership with the State, and we 
will benefit, and it will benefit, thousands of Americans who enjoy 
recreational opportunities that abound from it.
  So, I believe the choice is clear. By supporting the Miller amendment 
precious funds would be squandered on real estate assessments and 
appraisals. The hatchery would be in jeopardy of closing if the State 
of Iowa decided not to purchase it, and these important fish stocking 
programs would cease to exist, and so I urge a no vote on this 
amendment and support the committee's position.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first there are two issues under consideration with 
this amendment. One relates to the concept of an appraisal, and I would 
say the gentleman from California has a point that the last appraisal 
was done 12 years ago. I would affirm to the gentleman that most Iowa 
small towns have not seen property appreciate in levels above the 
inflation rate, and generally it is less than that.
  I would acknowledge that in terms of view, Fairport enjoys one of the 
most spectacular views in the world, every bit comparable to Big Sur; 
in fact, probably exceeding. On the other hand, great land and seascape 
portraits in Iowa are valued far differently than they are in other 
parts of the country, and I cannot say that on a dollar basis that view 
value would be reflected. But even if the property value were 50 
percent higher than the 1983 appraisal, 100 percent higher, 200 or 300 
percent higher, the point still holds that that would not be a credible 
reason for not making the transfer, and so I would suggest that the 
concern for an appraisal, while being of 12 years of age, does not 
constitute a compelling point.
  The second issue is the issue of what is equity between the parties. 
Should the State of Iowa pay the Federal Government? And I would say 
that the gentleman's points would be not only more plausible, but very 
compelling, if this were a transfer of land from the U.S. Government to 
a private sector source. This is not. This is a transfer between two 
levels of government. The public interest is the same. The constancy of 
the public interest has to be considered a factor of some significance, 
not precluding other factors, but a factor of serious significance.
  In this regard it also should be stressed that there is a reversion 
clause in this agreement. If the State of Iowa were to sell the 
property for another use or use it itself for another use, the property 
rights would revert back to the U.S. Government.
  I would also like to stress, and I tried to lay it out in my opening 
statement to this body, that because the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] has a point in the abstract and a point that also could well be 
valid in concrete circumstances, it is important to lay down criteria 
where transfers might take place without proceeds involved. I would 
suggest five relevant criteria:
  First, when the purpose is to maintain a public service which would 
otherwise be dropped; second, when the cost is de minimis; third, when 
there is no intent to take advantage of anyone or any institution; 
fourth, when the public body which the property is transferred to has 
an historical commitment to and investment in the property or program 
in question; and fifth, when all relevant professional bodies, private 
and governmental, are in concurrence.
  With these five criteria met, I would suggest that there is no 
credible reason whatsoever not to proceed with this transfer, leaving 
open the philosophical question that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] raises that there might well be a philosophical circumstance in 
which these criteria are not met in other kinds of situations. But I 
would stress to the gentleman, to the committee and to this body that 
to act on a line of reasoning because of something that might exist in 
another circumstance that does not relate to this precise circumstance 
where a series of very careful weighings have taken place and where, by 
the way, and I would stress again, this administration and its 
professionals, as well as the Iowa administration and its 
professionals, are in concurrence, would be a mistake.
  I leave myself open to supporting the kind of amendment that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or any other member of this body 
may raise in other contexts at other times, but in my judgment to apply 
it to the Fairport fish facility, a facility with two full-time 
employees and one part-time employee, a facility that is serving the 
interests of the State and the Midwest, would be a mistake of not 
large, but symbolically quite sad proportions.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words to remind Members the question before us is for all intents and 
purposes identical to the one that was before us in the preceding bill, 
although we have spent an unaccountably longer period of time 
discussing it, and I would urge Members, for reasons particularly 
stated by the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Iowa, to 
vote as they did before, in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. [[Page H5645]] 
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my good friend from California 
that God loves a repentant sinner, and I remember in the Bible when 
Paul is on the road to Damascus, then called Saul, and Christ appeared 
to him,and he had a miraculous conversion and became, instead of a 
zealot against Christ, he became a supporter and became one of the 
greatest apostles of all, and the gentleman from California has been, 
at least to my recollection, one of the bigger spenders in the body, 
and apparently he has some new found fiscal conservatism, and I just 
like to say, I really appreciate that conversion, and I hope that 
conversion continues when we get to the appropriations bills later in 
the year, because later in the year we'll have the opportunity to make 
some major cuts in spending, and since this new found conservatism has 
risen in this gentleman's psyche, I hope it continues, and I would 
congratulate him on becoming a fiscal conservative.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
remarks, but they are somewhat off target. The fact of the matter is 
that in these issues before the committee, which I have now sat on for 
20 years, my position has always been that the Federal Treasury and the 
Federal taxpayer, whether it is in my district in California, in the 
Western United States or anywhere else, is entitled to fair market 
value for the resources. Most of these pieces of legislation that have 
made it to the floor the gentleman from the well has voted against for, 
I am sure, other reasons than those reasons, but the fact is we have 
voted, whether it is in water subsidies, mining subsidies, timber 
subsidies, and tried to regain for the people some control over those, 
that has been my historical record, and it has happened no matter 
without question where the project existed or elsewhere, and so the 
gentleman's arrow is somewhat misplaced at this point, but I appreciate 
his support for the concept that I am expressing here and expect his 
vote on this amendment because that road to Damascus was started with 
one small step, and the gentleman can take it here today. I am sure the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] will have some other literary reference 
at some point----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, let me just say that I am 
happy to see that the gentleman is moving in the right direction, and I 
hope, when we get to the appropriations bills later this year, that he 
will continue to be fiscally conservative.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that we try to maintain a certain level 
of consistency, and I would point out to the gentleman from California 
that in November of 1993 he did vote for legislation that included the 
nonreimbursed advance of the hatchery in Senecaville, OH, and I am 
curious that now he has seen that this is no longer a good policy, he 
would like to depart from that.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard somebody a minute ago from the other side of 
the aisle mention the National Taxpayers Union, and I think it is 
appropriate to point out the lack of credibility that that organization 
has with most Members of this House and certainly with most Members of 
the other body. Some may wonder why that is. Let me remind Members that 
when the Senate was controlled by the Republican Party, and the House 
was controlled by the Democratic Party, the National Taxpayers Union 
used double standards in order to rank and rate Members' votes about 
whether they were conservative enough or liberal enough. Whatever it 
was, they were going to make the report. So, when you pass an 
appropriations on this side of the House and voted for it, it was a bad 
vote for the National Taxpayers Union. That same bill passing the 
Senate, however, was not counted as a bad vote against a Senator.
  So, I think it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that any time somebody 
gets up and touts that particular organization, that those of us who 
understand that they use a double standard ought to stand up and say 
so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1500

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman 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. 584) to 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to the 
State of Iowa, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________
```