H 5640 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

Mineta

Mink

Nadler

Neal

Neumann

Owens

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Petri

Poshard

Reynolds

Rohrabacher

Roth

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Rush

Sanders

Sanford

Scarborough

Schroeder

Schumer

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shays

Slaughter

Stark

Stokes

Torres

Upton

Velazquez

Visclosky

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer

NOES—315

Abercrombie

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Baldacci

Ballenger

Barcia

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bentsen

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehlert

Boehner

Bono

Borski

Boucher

Brewster

Browder

Brown (FL)

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Cardin

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Collins (MI)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cunningham

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dicks

Dingell

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehrlich

Emerson

Engel

English

Ensign

Evans

Everett

Ewing

Farr

Fawell

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Filner

Flanagan

Foglietta

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gibbons

Gillmor

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hoyer

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E.B.

Johnson, Sam

Johnston

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Lipinski

Livingston

Longley

Luther

Manton

Manzullo

Markey

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHale

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

McNulty

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Moakley

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Pallone

Parker

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Regula

Riggs

Rivers

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roukema

Sabo

Salmon

Sawyer

Saxton

Schaefer

Schiff

Scott

Seastrand

Shadegg

Shuster

Sisisky

Skaggs

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Studds

Stump

Stupak

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thompson

Thornberry

Thornton

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Torricelli

Towns

Traficant

Tucker

Vento

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Wise

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—23

Barr

Bonilla

Chapman

Clyburn

Cubin

Fields (LA)

Gephardt

Gilchrest

Green

Hefner

Kanjorski

Kennedy (RI)

Kleczka

Lofgren

Lucas

Paxon

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Porter

Richardson

Shaw

Waldholtz

Watts (OK)

b 1419

The Clerk announced the following

pairs:

On this vote:

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas for, with Mr.

WATTS against.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana for, with Mrs.

WALDHOLTZ against.

Messrs. HOLDEN FAWELL, and

HORN changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’

to ‘‘no.’’

Mrs. LOWEY and Messrs. NADLER,

ROHRABACHER, STOKES, and NEAL

of Massachusetts changed their vote

from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I was attending a drug-free

schools and communities event at the

White House and was not able to make

rollcall vote 356. Had I been present I

would have voted ‘‘aye.’’

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr.

Chairman, I also missed rollcall vote

356. I was attending a drug free schools

event at the White House. If I had been

present, I would have voted ‘‘yes.’’

The CHAIRMAN. There being 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. 535) to direct the Secretary of the

Interior to convey the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of

Arkansas, pursuant to House Resolution 144, he reported the bill back to

the House with an amendment adopted

by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the engrossment and

third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a third time, was read the

third time, and passed, and a motion to

reconsider was laid on the table.

CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO

fTHE 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.

b 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
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5641

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 ownership 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
H 5642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

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.’’

b 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 zerosum 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
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5643

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.
H 5644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

b 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 parttime 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.
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5645

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.

b 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.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

A message in writing from the Presifdent of the United States was communicated to the House by Mrs. Sara

Emery, one of his secretaries.

NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 146 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. 614.

b 1502

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. 614) to

direct the Secretary of the Interior to

convey to the State of Minnesota the

New London National Fish Hatchery

production facility, 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] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.

STUDDS] will 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 suspect this debate

will be somewhat shorter than the last

one. I cannot think of anything that

can be said that has not already been

said, including references to outside organizations and other such debate. But

this bill, which is brought to us by the

gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE]

with reference to the New London National Fish Hatchery in Minnesota, is

substantively the same as the previous

two bills. It is of the same level of importance as the previous two bills. I

would hope that, once again, this bill

would proceed to be passed 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, ditto. I

really join the gentleman from New

Jersey in being utterly unable to conjure anything that has not been said at

least three times before.

I take that back, I can think of one

thing. I understand the desire of the

new majority to tote up on the scoreboard the number of open rules that

they have successfully adopted, but I

would enter just one personal plea to

go back to the old system of suspensions.

The gentleman from New Jersey and

I and the gentleman from Alaska and I

and others in the old days would have

been finished these three bills approximately 11⁄2 hours ago. We could be well

on our way toward dinner. There are

matters that require the time of the

House, but with all due respect, these

three bills, which are very good and

should be passed, do not require that

much time. We should proceed.