up. and it becomes ground beef. in fact, ground beef is the components, it's the mixture of meat that's coming from all over the world and sometimes some very low-quality parts of the cow. so this is just an example of kind of superproduction in our food supply. . .

>> does have inspectors in every single food facility in the u.s. so the meat slaughter plants are visited continuously. they have usda inspectors there

all the time. and our meat processing plants like this plant that produces this finally meat product, those are visited as least daily. >> our topic, food safety and federal inspection programs with our guest caroline smith. first all is point of rocks, maryland. caller: i was wondering if she could tell the listening audience about the process what they use in their process. they have been exempt from f.d.a. inspections in the past. thank you for taking the call. guest: thanks so much for your question. the meat is treated with a mixture of amobea -- ammonia and water. when we think of ammonia we think of the cleaning ingredient, but in fact this

isn't -- this is a different product. it's not what you have in your home cabinet for cleaning purposes. but the bottom line is that treatment doesn't really result in a residue, has any significant concern for consumers. our meat -- our food can be treated with a number of different additives, and this ammonia water wash has been treated simply as a cleaning tool for the industry. they sometimes apply lack particular -- lactic acid to meat which also is the liquid you find in yogurt when you open a container. these kinds of products and cleaning agents can actually reduce the levels of harmful bacteria in the meat. your second question had to do with whether b.p.i. was

exempted from -- and i think he said f.d.a. inspection. i'm not familiar with that issue, but it wouldn't be exempt from usda inspection. by law usda is required to be in all facilities like this on a daily basis. host:burg, louisiana. caller: good morning. i'm very particular about my ground beef and i bought usda choice an gus 8 -- angus beef. does it still have this additive to it guest: it can certainly have this type of meat mixed in. for consumers that don't might want to buy anything that has this particular additive or mixture in ground beef, we really recommend you go to your local grocery store and ask, pick out a roast or a steak and

ask them to grind it on site and make you tell them you don't want anything added. you want that piece of meat ground. that's the best way to ensure that what you're getting is what you think you might be getting. host: so we have someone on our twitter feed, james, says ground turkey is our go-to meat these days. does turkey get a pass as far as additives are concerned? guest: no. ground turkey. it's a very healthful choice. it's often considered lower in fat and healthier choice than ground beef. however we have seen some problems with ground turkey, especially last summer there was a major grout break linked to an antibiotic resistant strain of salmonella. and, pedro, that gets to another very important point. consumers -- it's a good thing. consumers are very concerned about the food they eat.

but sometimes they get -- they overreact to an issue like this pink slime which has gotten a lot of publicity when in fact the real concerns are things like e. coli 015787 that can cause your child to end up in the hospital. or these new antibiotic resistant strains of salmonella. it's critically important that consumers focus both on the additives that they may not want, but also on the pathogens which are truly a danger to them and their families. host: what about ground brief served in schools in some type of federal authority over that and what type of beef gets served? guest: the school lunch program is operated -- in part through products that are bought by the u.s. department of agriculture and then sent out to the schools. usda last week announced that schools would have a choice

that they could buy meat that did not have this mixture. however, i don't -- i see no evidence that usda is actually going to be purchasing beef like that in order to provide it to the schools. i think it was an announcement just that schools would have a choice or the option, but whether that meat is really available other than how i advised your last caller to actually go to the butcher and say, grind this piece of meat, we are not sure how much really beef that does not contain this mixture, we are not sure how much is really available on the market. host: william from mount shasta, california, on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i was reading last month's "discover" magazine had an article in it and i couldn't find it exactly so i'm going to tell you. 74% is what they are saying of all ground beef has pork in it. is that true?

guest: 74% has pork in it? caller: yes. guest: i think that if work were combined with beef, it would have to be labeled. that it had pork in it. and frankly i would be a little surprised that that -- at that because -- and pork production are usually done in totally different facilities. it would be very unusual that it be -- that these products be intermingled that way because they are not -- they have to go to an extra effort to do that. the beef production is really streamlined from the slaughter facilities into processing. i would be surprised but certainly will look for that article, william. thank you. host: who is responsible for setting the standards for how food is labeled? for its content or otherwise?

guest: there are two agencies in the federal government and they each play a role. with respect to food additives, f.d.a. is the one who decides what kind of labeling would need to be done on a food additive. and then usda will look at f.d.a.'s recommendations and they set their own guidelines for labeling of meat and poultry products. so really usda is responsible for the label that you see on meat and poultry products, but they really take the advice of what's recommended as well by f.d.a., their sister agent. host: what's required? because usually all you see is 85% of whatever the percentage is, is that the only thing that's required or are their other things? guest: they have to -- they have to tell you information about what is actually in the

package. so they have to tell you what species they are eating. they also often will tell you what is the fat percentage in the meat you are eating. we have also been advocating for nutrition labeling on meat products. but that process is -- has moved slowly through usda. we have been working on that for over 15 years. and it's just now coming in to being. so meat products are -- meat products do need to be labeled with what species is in the product, and then any additives, including for some products even added water would be listed. host: pete on our independent line from jackson, new jersey. caller: hello. my comment is g.m.o. foods. if we are so worried about labeling and food safety, why don't we ask an educated

g.m.o.'s and people like tom vilsack, the chief of the usda right now. i mean my question would be if you get your studies on g.m.o. foods as they turned out to be so dangerous, why in our country are we still being forced almost discreetly to ingest this stuff when it's known to be just totally bad for you? and the g.m.o.'s go through the vegetables -- go into the meats. it's everything. host: g.m.o.? guest: pete, thank you for your question. g.m.o. products, g.m.o. products really have been in our food supply for over 20 years. it started with soy. it's also in corn. it's used a lot in cotton production. luckily we don't eat cotton. for consumers i think the most

important thing to know is if you don't want to eat g.m.o. products, buy organic. that's when secretary brickman was in office. he made a decision that organic they could not use g.m.o. products. but other than that you can pretty much assume if it's got soy and often corn it's probably a g.m.o. product. g.m.o. is technology that was developed in the u.s. we have been eating it for many years. we are -- we do not see adverse health effects. for a while there was concern about allergies associated if you mixed a gene from one type of plant with another type of plant whether you would get allergies. but in fact those types of products were never marketed. so g.m.o.'s are not actually bad for you.

in fact we have been eating them probably every day for many, many years. but again, consumers who really want to avoid g.m.o. -- g.m. products can do so by choosing the organic label. host: our viewer on twitter says does your guest have an opinion on factory farms? the way we grow beef now all packed together eating grains? guest: the question is a very good one. we have a concern about, especially the rise in the use of antibiotics, in animal production. we published a report last week that talks about how many outbreaks have been associated with animal products like ground beef or dairy products that were traced back to strains of salmonella, e. coli that were antibiotic resistant. this is something we can

control. in factory farms today, they are often applying these antibiotics on a daily basis. they are giving them to animals to promote growth and to ensure that when they are prouded together that the animals don't get sick. that's not the way we should be using these priceless and very important antibiotics. it's critically important that antibiotic are preserved for human medicine. so we need to use them much more discreetly with respect to animals. in that report it's called antibiotics in food borne pathogens, we actually documented that in 2009 four times as many antibiotics were given to animals in food producing animals than in human medicine. that's really shocking. these are drugs that are so

critical to human medicine. that's where we have been most concerned about factory farming. host: this is the cover of the report, anti-biotic resistance in food-borne patio agains. can they get this off your website? guest: absolutely. if you go to www.cspinet.org, and look at food safety. there is a page there called outbreaks and you'll see all our recent reports. this one came out just last week and it's really important for policymakers to understand that they can make changes. f.d.a. could today withdraw certain approvals for the use of these important drugs, these important antibiotics, in animal production. f.d.a. holds the key to managing this very important problem. there is legislation pending that will, in fact, give f.d.a.

more tools and ensure that f.d.a. actually goes back and review past approvals to make sure that critically important antibiotics are preserved for human medicine and were not use -- we are not using them irresponsibly. f.d.a. -- that's a really good question. and there have been groups like ours who have been working for decades to encourage f.d.a. to take much tougher -- a much tougher stand with respect to the use of antibiotics in animals, but f.d.a., i think, is getting a lot of pressure from the drug industry to allow very liberal use of these drugs. we have -- at cspi we were involved in a lawsuit against f.d.a. to preserve certain antibiotics for human medicine. we also petitioned -- we

petitioned the agency to do that, and most recently last year we actually petitioned the usda because i told you there are these two agencies and they do different things. f.d.a. is in charge of the drug approvals. but usda actually has to ensure the meat is safe to eat. so we actually petitioned usda that they should declare certain strains of salmonella, the ones documented in that report, as adulterants. that means whenever they are found in the food supply, those products recalled. host: omaha, nebraska, gale on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: hi, i was just wondering when you go to the store or meat market and you buy ground sir loin, ground round, are we really getting that product? guest: you are getting -- you are certainly getting the cut of meet on the label, but you

may also be getting some other types of meat that can be mixed in with it. so for example the use of this meat product, this finely ground meat product that they are calling -- not so affectionately pink slime, this product can be used in about 15 %, 10% to 15% of ground beef. so you might be getting 85% of what's on the label, but you may be getting a mixture of other types of meat as well. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania. go ahead, charles, republican line. caller: yes. my question is, basically on the in studying this i found it's actually aluminum hydroxide they are using in these meats and that is found in many industrial products and cleaners.

and that it does create poisons in the system that can affect airways and lungs. eye, nears, -- ears, nose, and throat. this is not something we should do to our children. guest: i would absolutely agree with your caller that we shouldn't be feeding our children any chemical agent that could cause those problems. the way this chemical is being applied to the meat, however, it's not resulting in rest due that pose any concerns to the public. now at cspi we found a chemical agent that was being used in certain caramel colorings used in certain sodas like coke and pepsi, and we blew the whistle on that. so we are very concerned about chemical additive that is do pose a public health concern. in this case, though, there is

no -- there is -- the way it's used is not -- does not result is residues of any concern to the public. that's what our scientists who have looked at it have -- and have reviewed the science on this have determined that this just isn't really a concern. now, your caller is right, pedro, that for people working in the factory it certainly could be a concern. so it might be an issue of worker safety. and that's a very important consideration. but in terms of the actual meat product, it's being fed -- it's really a very small percentage of the product and the additive itself does not come through at high enough levels to pose a concern. host: a viewer pantses to explain what the term free range means and if it's controlled and rated by the government. guest: there are a series of

terms that are not really well controlled by the government. free range can mean that the animal just has access to the outside. for example, i think in organic production there is a requirement for certain access to the outside. but it doesn't -- it may not mean that they are actually out on pasture land like we imagined. for many cattle, they spend a certain portion of their life on the range anyway. cattle they often are born and are allowed to graze for a big part of their lives. and then right at the end for beef cattle they are thrust to these centralized -- these centralized feeding areas where the animals are all crowded together. they are fed a lot of grains and fattened up before they go

to slaughter. but for much of a cow's life, an animal's life, it's a beef cattle, for much of that animal's life they are on the range. so free range where it's used for beef production may well mean that that animal never was sent for that final fattening act of feed log and it spent it's whole life. it may also be a grass fed animal. host: there is no government definition of free range. there is a variety of government definition of free range. guest: it's a marketing term more than a term that's really regulated by the government. host: new orleans, louisiana. angela, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just want to say i'm so relieved to see -- i've known that usda is involved in this, but i didn't realize there was

other people involved in it. i was a meat cutter years ago. i worked for different companies. i seen the tricks and things that go on. in the corporate business. you were right, you hit on something earlier. everything you said, i had no disagreement at all. years ago, at the killing plants was injecting a tenderizer -- there was a meat they were pushing that was supposed to be tender. do you know, is there any other chemicals that they are injecting at these -- at the killing plant into our meat? has there been a resistance to this, i hope? guest: that sounds like a very interesting topic and one that we would certainly look into.

what the industry in my experience is what the industry has done to ensure meat tenderness is actually to use these fine needles and actually they tenderize the meat much as our mothers might have done and our fathers in the old days using a mallett. they are doing that now commercially but they use fine needles. so i'm not aware of a drug or chemical being applied to the meat and the plant. but it's certainly something we can look into and that might pose a concern. but again what i'm familiar with is more a fine needle tenderizing which is done after the meat is already fully cut. host: you made reference at the beginning but the food safety modernization act. where are we in its implementation? guest: thank you, pedro. that's an excellent question. the food safety modernization act was signed into law by

president obama last year. in january. they are now 2 1/2 months late in getting a number of regulations out to the public. we would then have a comment period on those regulations before they take effect. now, 2 1/2 months may not sound very long, but in fact this is critically important because each of these deadlines feeds into additional deadlines. let me tell you just for a minute on what the food safety modernization act will do. it was designed to make sure that all food producers in the u.s. have a minimum level of food safety controls operating in their plants. and this applies also to imported foods. that's one of the rules that could be delayed right now. it requires that imported food meet certain new standards. that's one of the regulations that's being delayed right now.

and it also requires that growers, people who produce the food on the farm, have some standards, some minimum standards for food safety that they also have to apply. that's one of the regulations that's being delayed. we have talked to f.d.a. they said that the rules were sent over to the white house for review. they have gone back and forth a few times. but the bottom line is these regulations are vitally important and it's critically important that o.m.b., the white house office that was used regular -- reviews regulations, release them to the public so that we have our comment period and so they can proceed with implementation of the new law. host: michigan, thanks for waiting. michael, republican line. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of comments. i was a butcher for many years at the retail level. and 35 years ago you couldn't

believe what was going on in some meat markets. but i'm sure the young lady there has heard stories about it. but today if you're going to eat meat, you should know your butcher, talk to your butcher because heed love to talk to you. and ask him -- heed love to talk to you. and ask him the questions you got. he has to deal with the inspectors. when they come in it used to be once a month, but when they come in, those guys are tough. you better be -- have it together when they come in. and they could come in at any time. unannounced. so it's much better than it used to be. and second point about ground beef, when you see ground sirloin, ground round, ground chuck, or hamburger, even

though it says ground sirloin, it could just be real lean ground chuck. leave it there. guest: yeah. i think -- thank you so much. it's really nice to hear from these people who really have done -- who have done the butcher -- who worked as butchers and worked in these plants because these are very important information that you're getting out. the bottom line is that the retail butchers, the people in the grocery stores and in your old butcher shops, that job has really changed. they are getting much more prepackaged product that they mix together in the back of the supermarket. there is still some that do the old -- traditional grinding, but it's getting fewer and fewer. and very much they are moving chugs, what are called these big packages of coursely --

correspondly -- course -- coarsely ground products. they may be mixed from u.s. cattle, australian cattle, all mixed together. it's all mixed together to produce one patty, bunburger -- one burger, one package of hamburger. these products are moving into supermarkets as coarsely ground products. and they are coming out in the meat section in packages. not coming from individual animals. if you do want to have the greatest assurance that you're getting ground beef in the old-fashioned way, coming from one particular animal you really need to ask the butcher to grind up meat that you have actually seen in the package. host: there is a cost difference for that? guest: i think there would be a cost difference.

it is very important that the meat industry recognize that the concerns that consumers have about these products that are so blended, it really does raise the question about whether consumers are getting enough choice in the ground beef products that are available to them. host: fort worth, texas, good morning to logan. the republican line. caller: hello. my question was i'm a student. an eighth grader, and i'm hope today sick, but i was watching this and i saw on yahoo! and is this in almost all the meat or just parts? guest: it is in a fair portion of ground beef products. now, a number of fast food chains have recently said that they would no longer use this

type of meat mixture when they make their patties. so a couple of food -- fast food chains are not using this product any longer in their ground beef patties. for products going through your supermarket, this product is really unlabeled. so we can't tell you for sure what percentage it's in. but it could be in much of the ground beef that's out on your grocer's shelves today. host: has mad cow disease been eradicated from cattle yet? guest: it hasn't been eradicated but it's been controlled very, very well. we only -- in the u.s. we had a handful of animals that were ever even identified with the disease. and at cspi we had actually gone back in the mid 1990's and

looked at the parts of our food supply that we felt might be vulnerable to contamination if we did have an outbreak of mad cow disease here. i can assure your viewers that at least we have taken a hard look at how meat was produced and we have asked usda and they have complied to take out the parts of meat that would be most vulnerable to contamination with b.s.i., -- b.s.e. if an animal was sick. but today we don't have a problem with b.s.e. in the u.s. at all. host: fran on our democrats line. warren, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have one really just simple quick question here. the lady talked about how long it takes the government to do a study. how long they have been studying this. how long does the government takes to act on anything. how are we as consumers out

here supposed to trust anybody when it takes so long for congress, for anybody to get anything done? it's frustrating, it's maddening, and i just don't understand why there are so many delays. thank you. guest: fran, i totally share your frustration some days. we worked on the food safety modernization act for over a decade. we worked with a number of members of congress, people like rosa delauro, henry waxman, john dingell in the house. we worked with dick durbin, tom harkin. these are senators. we have worked with so many really caring and wonderful members of congress who wanted to put food safety at the front of the congressional agenda, and even so it took a decade.

so i share your frustration, but i also know that there are lots of important things happening here. during that time there was a major oil spill in the gulf coast that delayed things. there were also -- it was during that time we went to katrina. so a lot of times things can happen that really get in the way of people's best intentions. but i share your frustration and that's why i think many of us are here in washington working every day to ensure that the best policies do advance. host: we have time for one more call. house coming in just a few minutes. golds borrow, north carolina, george, on our independent line, go ahead. caller: i work on a turkey factory farm for a short period of time. if people knew how the birds were treated. when the birds come in as chicks, there's so much hormones pumped into these

birds by four months they are adult birds. it usually takes a little over a year for a turkey to become an adult. and they are bred to have such huge breasts that their legs are not strong enough to hold the bodies up. they have to be killed. and once the turkeys are down, the other turkeys gang up on them and eat the bird alive. it's disgusting when you saw -- it's not the fampler. it's the c.e.o.'s. the farmer don't follow the rules the farmer loses the contract. something needs to be done about these factory livestock corporations. guest: i think that's an important point. your caller was just relaying was truly shocking and of great concern. so i think that this issue of factory farming does need to be looked at. especially as it's impacting both animal welfare and the ability of us to have

antibiotics that are available to treat humans. if we just use them so they are only treating animals -- host: caroline smith dewaal, thanks for your time. >> the u.s. house has been in a bit of recess as the president is up on capitol hill with the irish prime minister and the traditional st. patrick's day lunch. that is wrapping up. we expect the house to gavel back in in a few minutes, probably around 1:45 eastern. they'll vote on a bill they debated dealing with establishing a program with the sale of federal real estate. and debate a bill -- the rule for removing restriction from a piece of land in virginia. house debate coming up at about 1:45 here on c-span. the budget was released today by budget committee chairman, republican paul ryan, his budget proposal. they are calling it the path to prosperity. you can watch the news conference at the release.

you can read the report, proposal itself and also the white house reaction on our website at c-span.org. its primary day in illinois with 54 delegates at stake in the republican presidential primary. we will have complete coverage for you. the latest vote results, the candidate speeches, and your responsible, too, with your phone calls and facebooking and twitter postings as well. again the house coming in about 1:45 eastern. until then, part of a hearing we showed you earlier today with the commanding general in afghanistan, john allen, testifying before the house armed services committee. here's part of his opening statement. >> it is an honor to be here with you today. chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our operations in afghanistan. it's a pleasure to be here with my friend, drcht miller, the

acting undersecretary of defense for policy, and chairman, i ask my verbal remarks be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, sir. let me begin by expressing my gratitude to all of you on the committee for the support that you provide our men and women in uniform every day. they are well equipped, well trained, and well led is a great testament to the efforts of this committee and to the great work of this congress. on behalf of those troops and on behalf of their families, i want to thank you for that. in the past eight months i have walked the ground of afghanistan with many of those troops. along with my friend and partner, ambassador ryan crocker, and my nato come pratt, the senior civilian representative, ambassador sir simon gas, i met with the leaders of most of the other 49 nations that serve alongside us in the international security

assistance force. isaf, and all through this i have been in close consultation with the afghan civilian and military leadership, most of whom have experienced the years of soviet occupation, the civil war, the darkness of the taliban,. in short they have been emmeshed in their country's conflict for over three decades. from all of this i can tell you unequivocally three things. first, we remain on track to ensure that afghanistan will no longer be a safe haven for al qaeda and will no longer be terrorized by the taliban. second, as a coalition the largest in recent history, we are well aware and well along in the progress to meet our 2010 lisbon commitments to transition security lead to the afghan national security forces by december, 2014. third, our troops know the difference that they are making every day. they know it.

and the enemy feels it every day. to be sure the last couple months have been trying. in the wake of the revelations that american troops had mishandled religious texts to include the koran, protests, some of them violent, occurred in several but only a few regions across afghanistan. 32 afghans lost their lives in these riots, and even more were hurt. just since the first of january the coalition has lost 60 brave troops in action from six different nations. 13 of them were killed at the hands of what appear to have been afghan security forces. some of whom were motivated, we believe, in part by the mishandling of religious materials. and just as tragic, as dr. miller mentioned, we are investigating what appears to be the murder of 16 innocent afghan civilians at the hand of a u.s. service member. each of these events is

heartwrenching, and my thoughts and prayers go out to all of those affected by this violence. coalition and afghan alike. but i assure you the relationship between the coalition and our afghan security forces remains strong. just two weeks ago i was down in the helmund province visiting with marines and local afghan commanders. this was in the wake of the koran burning incident when violence was add its peak. a young marine said he and his unit were told about the demonstrations by their afghan counterparts. the afghan troops told them, let us patrol outside the wire for a couple days. we've got this for you. understanding the gravity of the risk, the afghans had assumed for these marines, this particular marine continued, our afghan brothers were trying to protect us. this one statement spoken by a young marine conveys the power

of this brotherhood in arms that has been forged in battle now over the years. it speaks to the trust we have built with the afghans and to the shock absorbency of this relationship. and yet we know there is much hard and deadly work that remains to be done. but the progress is real. and importantly that progress is sustainable. we have severely degrade the the insurgency. as one afghan commander told me in the south in the latter part of 2011, quote, this time around the afghan taliban were the away team, unquote. on top of that success as a result of our recent winter operations, we have seriously degraded the taliban's ability to mount a major spring offensive of their own. this spring they will come back to find many of their cache's empty, their former strongholds untenable, and a good many of their foot soldiers absent or unwilling to join the fight.

indeed, in kandahar back in december, 50 former tallets decided to reintegrate on short notice back into the afghan society. and when we asked them why they laid down their arms, they complained of unreleapting pressure they feel. they said they found themselves up against capable afghan forces in greater numbers with greater frequency. and while they were willing to fight foreigners, they were unwilling to fight their afghan brothers. especially afghans who fought back with courage and with skill because of the training that we have provided them. and the training we provide them is critical to our mission. throughout history, insurgencies have seldom be defeated by foreign forces. indeed they have ultimately been beaten by indigenous forces. in the long run our goals can only be achieved and then secured by afghan forces. transition, then, is the linchpin of our strategy not

moorely the way out. and -- merely the way out. during the past 12 months afghan security forces have expanded from 276,000 to 330,000. they will reach their full strength ahead of schedule, the deadline having been 1 october. the expansion and professionalization of the afghan security forces allows us to recover the remaining 23,000 u.s. surge forces this fall. enables us to continue to pressure the taliban to reconcile and makes possible security transition to the afghans in accordance with our lisbon commitments and on time. security conditions remain good in areas that have transitioned thus far from kabul in the east to harajt in the west. to the north and south. and later this year afghan security forces are expected to assume security lead for as much as 2/3 or possibly more of the afghan population.

as the potential unifying influence in afghanistan, the afghan forces are wetter than we thought they -- better than we thought they were. and they are better than they thought they were when tried in combat. so as we move them to the fore, they are gaining more and more confidence and they are gaining more and more capability. in the past five months 89% of the total conventional operations were partnered with both coalition and afghan forces. and 42% were afghan led. over the next two years coalition forces will remain combat ready. would increasingly focus on security forces missions as we continue to move the afghans into the lead. in this process, afghan leadership is simply key, and i can tell you that the afghans want to lead and they want the responsibility that comes with it. in fact, for the very first time our joint coalition afghan operational campaign plan for

january, 2012, through july 20 -- july, 2013, was conceived, developed, and planned with afghans in the lead. they are truly emerging as the real defeat mechanism of this insurgency and emblem of national unit. this is essential for the long-term security of afghanistan. but none of us harbor illusions. we know that we face long-term challenges as well. we know that al qaeda and other extremist networks, the very same networks that kill afghan and coalition troops every day, still operate with immune -- impunity across the border in pakistan. we know they remain a resilient and determined enemy and many will try to regain their lost ground in the spring through assassination, intimidation, high profile attacks, and implacement of i.e.d.'s. we know that iran continues to support the insurgency and fuels often the flame of

violence. we know that corruption still robs afghan citizens of their faith in their government. and that poor governance itself often advances insurgen messages. this campaign has been long. it has been difficult. and it has been costly. there have been setbacks to be sure, and we are experiencing them now. and there will be setbacks ahead. i wish i could tell you that this war was simple and that progress could easily be measured, but that's not the way of counter ininsurgencies. they are fraught with both successes and setbacks which can exist in the same space and in the same time, but each must be seen in the larger context of the overall campaign. and i believe the campaign is on track. we are making a difference. i know this and our troops know this. and i'd like to take just another moment of your time today, mr. chairman, to end where i began this morning with our troops and the thousands of american and coalition partner troops that are bearing the

weight of this conflict -- >> we'll break away here with the house returning and taking up a couple bills dealing with federal property. live coverage. rules i ca up hou resolution 587 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 118, house resolution 587, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2087, to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the atlantic district accomack county, virginia. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equal request divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those rereceive -- received for printing in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18, in a daily issue dated march 19, 2012, and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed, or a designee and shall be considered as read if printed. at the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this proposed rule seeks to waive house rules requiring disclosure of any earmark in the bill. therefore pursuant to clause 9 of rule 21 of the rules of the house, i make a point of order against consideration of this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point of order that the resolution violates clause 9-b

of rule 21. under clause 9-b of rule 21, the gentleman from arizona, and the gentleman from utah, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following the debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as follows. will the house now consider the resolution? the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the majority frequently congratulates itself for adopting a policy banning earmarks. republican leadership often points to the earmark ban as an important accomplishment in improving the legislative process. it should be noted for the record the provision requiring disclosure of earmarks was inserted into the rules of the house during the 110th congress under a democratic majority. the american people might be surprised to learn that despite claims of strict opposition to earmarks, the majority is

bringing a proposed rule to the house floor that would not only allow an earmark in the underlying bill but even waives the basic requirement that such an earmark be disclosed. clause 9 of rule 21 of the rules of the house specifically states that it shall not be in order to consider a rule that waives the requirement to disclose earmarks. and yet the rule the majority seeking to call up specifically states all points of order against consideration of this bill are waived. and the question of whether the underlying bill, h.r. 2087, containing an earmark is critical. if enacted the bill would transform full ownership of federal land to a county in virginia. all parties agree the land has an appraised value of $815,000. but the bill would transfer this federal land to the county for free. the county is in the congressional district represented by the sponsor of the legislation. this is not county land.

this is federal land. the county has been granted limited authority to control this land as long as it is used for public recreation. according to the deed, the county cannot sell the land or rent it or lease it or develop it. only h.r. 2087 will give the county this land with no limitation. i suspect that every member of this house would like to be able to pass legislation giving his or her constituents an $815,000 windfall. mr. speaker, either this is an earmark and the majority should fom its own rules and -- should follow its own rules and not bring this rule or the underlying bill to the floor or this is not an earmark and the word should be removed from the rule. either way, the proposed rule is a clear violation of house rules and should not be taken up by this house. and i reserve, mr. chairman, the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona

reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i claim the time obviously in favor of consideration of this resolution. the question before the house is, should the house now consider house resolution 587. while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order. the waiver is a complete waiver in nature. note, there is not a specific waiver against an earmark, simply because the bill contains no earmarks. it is in compliance with the earmark definition provided for us in the house rules, a rule that goes back actually to make the record complete to the 109th session of congress. and the earmark ban instituted by the house republicans when they took majority in january of last year. as is required by house rules, the committee report filed for this bill on january 18 includes specific determination in statement that the bill does not contain an earmark. i will quote from page 5 of the

report. the bill does not contain any congressional earmarks. or limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined by the rules of the house of representatives. with all due respect to my friend from arizona, each person may have their own perception of what an earmark is, but with all due respect, the term congressional earmark means a provision that provides or authorizes or recommends a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority or other spending authority or expenditures with or to an entity. there has to have money involved in it. specifically the definition of an earmark requires that there be spending in the form directed to an entity or targeted geographically. this bill does not involve spending of money or loan authority or credit authority or any other form of payment of funds. the land in question is already

with the county, it will remain with the county, whether we pass this bill or not. it is still with the county. the only issue is the deed restriction. not the value of the land. not transfer of money. this parcel is with virginia, on federal land that at one time had a deed restriction, it simply removes that deal. the c.b.o. viewed and scored this bill and concluded it would not cost money, stating it would have no significant impact on the federal budget. this type of bill, clearing the titled land, has repeatedly been approved when the house has been controlled by both republicans and democrats. definition of an earmark is clear. there has not been a physical impact. and this bill does not meet the house rules definition used by either democrats or republicans. this is really a red herring to stop economic development, creation of jobs, caused by lingering federal bureaucratic red tape. this county is one of the poorest counties in the

commonwealth of virginia. more than 16% of its population living in poverty and a higher unemployment than the rest of virginia. this very small bill at no cost to the federal taxpayer will help to turn that around. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. under current law, the county controls these 32 acres of federal land, but the deed clearly states that the county may not sell or lease the land or use it for anything other than public recreation. the county received control of the land with those restrictions in 1976 free of charge. the underlying bill, h.r. 2087, will remove all restrictions from the deed. the county would be free to sell the land or lease it or do whatever they want with it and pocket any and all revenue. this is clearly $815,000

windfall for the county, created specifically by this bill. regardless of whether you agree the bill is an earmark, the proposal from the rules committee to waive the earmark disclosure rule should also be cause for concern. if h.r. 2087 contains no earmarks, why is the waiver necessary? why haven't ear -- why have an earmark disclosure rule if you just waive it every time you bring a bill to the floor? any member who has ever claimed to oppose earmarks should insist that the rule waiving the disclosure requirement be rejected. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, once again, the rule does not waive an earmark because there are no earmarks. it is a general waiver that is in there. and in one were to look back at the past three congresses, official bills that are -- that have been prepared that are very similar to this have also concluded the same type of --

included the same type of language and were determined not to have an earmark. go back to h.r. 944 in the 112th congress, h.r. 86 in the 111th congress, h.r. 356 in the 110th congress and s. 404 in the 112th congress. same language, same situation, same condition. once again, the rules of the house say this is not an earmark, c.b.o. says it's not an earmark, because it is not an emark. there is no transfer of money -- earmark. there is no transfer of money. the county has the land, the county will continue to have the land. the only thing this is about is the deed restriction. deed restrictions are not earmarks. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. reading from the remarks to the natural resources subcommittee thursday, september 15, by the

sponsor of this legislation, he stated, a recent appraisal valued the land at $815,000 which is more than $25,000 per acre. there is economic gain for the county and the waiving of the disclosure only adds to the confusion that the public feels when we say we have a ban on earmarks and yet we are waiving rules that would disclose that and fully be transparent as to the kinds of decisions we're making with public lands. c.b.o. is unable to value what public lands is worth, it's certainly here in the testimony of the sponsor of this legislation, the appraisal value is listed and that to me leads to the conclusion that this is an earmark and the rule that is presently before us should be rejected. . i jackson lee back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back his time.

the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: let me try and once again put this in perspective. the federal government in and of itself owns no land. especially in one of the original 13 states. virginia had the land and gave it to the federal government. in 1976 the federal government gave this back to the county with a lease for a park and restrictions, a deed restriction only. there is know transfer of money if we take away the deed restriction. there is no transfer of authority. the county has it. the county will continue to have t the dollar value that was given was made up in the minds of the department of interior. this county actually said if you really want more parkland we'll create 32 acres the department of tineror said no. let's have cash instead. they are the ones to determine this land was worth 25 grand an acre, asking almost $1 million for one of the poorest counties. they came up with that on their own. that does not mean it's

reality. the reality is the county has the land. the county will continue to have the land. there is no transfer of dollars. there is no loss from taxpayers in america. and actually these guys who live in virginia are taxpayers, too, transferring from one park to another is a ridiculous requirement to place on them when all we are talking about is a deed restriction. how can we best use land to help people. if the other side does not care about this counties, dot not care about the 16% of the population living in poverty, does not care about the unemployment rate, they use this land in a logical, rational manner, i can understand that. it still doesn't mean it's an earmark. point of order is a delay tactic of today's consideration of this legislation. sometimes in the past a couple other members who have declared what i think are earmarks as nonearmarks have always used the old klee chesapeake bay-r shea, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a chuck. but as hans christian anderson told us sometimes those ducks

you perceive is the honking of a swan. this bill is a swan. this bill will help these people to produce themselves. this point of order has no merit to it. in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business of the day, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of this resolution. i also yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. the question is, will the house now consider the resolution. those in favor please say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. >> mr. speaker. mr. grijalva: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. grijalva: please. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays -- the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 172.

the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, a the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from utah is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. and i further ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: resolution provides for modified open rule for the consideration of h.r. 2087, a bill to remove certain restrictions from parcel land situated in the atlantic district of accomack county in

virginia. provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on natural ro resources. this rule makes in order all amendments preprinted in the congressional record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the house. so this modified rule is a very fair rule. it is a generous rule. it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this bill that is not an earmark. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: goop, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from utah, my colleague, mr. bishop, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you. we begin yet another week of inaction in the house of representatives. also week -- mr. speaker, could we have order?

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ms. slaughter: last week our colleagues in the senate working together in a bipartisan fashion moved a transportation bill that would be the biggest job creation measure this body has considered in this congress. but are we talking about a bipartisan job creation bill in the house? no. instead of creating thousands of jobs through a bipartisan transportation bill, we -- that has already passed the senate. and just waits our action, we are talking about an $800,000 earmark to benefit a single county in a single state. and somebody talked about the day's work that we were getting around to, this is it. in other words, instead of creating millions of new jobs that would result from a strong bipartisan transportation bill, we are spending the entire day debating a bill that affects 32 acres of land in a single

state. no other community in america has received the kind of special treatment that is provided to a single community in this bill. this earmark hardly seems like a fiscally responsible way to create jobs and to protect the tax dollars of our hardworking american citizens. this is not the first time the federal government has had to make decisions about transferring public lands to new issues. -- uses. fortunately there is an established procedure in existing law to ensure that the taxpayers get just compensation in such cases. we are being asked today to ignore that. instead of letting the national park service and the local community handle the transfer of this land in the tried and true way, the majority proposes making a one-time exception, $100,000 earmark for a single community. if this majority was serious about job creation, we would be

right now discussing the senate-passed transportation bill. but instead as i said before, we spend an entire day of this week debating 32 acres of land. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield four minutes to the sponsor of this bill who will once again try to describe to this body how this county land should stay with the county and needs to be dealt with by the county and all we have to do is remove an unnecessary restriction on its deed. with that i recognize the gentleman from virginia for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. million riggle --

mr. riggle: i thank the gentleman from utah. -- mr. rigell: i thank the gentleman from utah. it is indeed a jobs bill. it is a bill that reflects common sense. it's a bill that reflects common ground and i think importantly it reflects the wisdom and the will of the good hardworking residents of accomack county and virginia which i have the privilege of representing. it enjoyed bipartisan support in coming out of committee and it enjoys and should enjoy and merits today bipartisan support when it comes before the full house for a vote. here's why if it's passed it will work toward job creation. unlike so many measures that some have proposed, instead of looking to washington to actually spend more money or for washington to do something, the folks of accomack county are simply asking for the federal government to get out of the way. and allow the greatest job producing engine the world has ever known, mr. speaker, the

american entrepreneur, to go forward for hardworking folks to work and put precious and limited capital to work. this bill simply removes the deed restriction. a deed restriction. that's all it does. and this deed restriction is in effect a restriction on job creation. it's a restriction on much needed tax revenue that this county so desperately needs. 16% unemployment -- 16% of the folks there live under the poverty level. accomack county is 90% agriculture urel -- agricultural, a bit of tourism, and the nasa facility. this piece of property is adjacent to the nasa facility and presently with this deed restriction they can't use it at all for any economic growth or opportunity. removing this deed restriction will allow the board of supervisors there to move forward with their wallace

research park. they are desperate to get this done and i am ready to help them today. mr. speaker, as i mentioned earlier this bill enjoyed bipartisan support in committee. it does not require any money coming from the federal government. we are simply asking for the federal government to get out of the way and let the hardworking folks of accomack county get on with job creation. so i yield back to my friend from utah and thank him for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from -- gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i just wish to make a comment or two. most unusual thing about this bill when we have the federal land swap and a deed that goes with it, they are always the same. can you use this land for public purposes. should you decide not to use this land for public purposes, it reverts to the government. it's as simple as that. what we are doing now is giving

away $800,000 that belongs to my constituents, your constituents, anybody else's constituents. we are giving away the tax money. and now i got a good idea because there's a democrat amendment today that can eliminate that and it says the county can pay for the land with the revenues they get from developing the land and renting it out. that way we'll get our money back. the county should be very happy. and we hope that a lot of jobs are created there. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. ms. slaughter: thank you. may i inquire, mr. speaker, if my colleague's ready to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i would be more than happy to close at any time you're ready. miss slaught ir: -- ms. slaughter: i am ready.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: in closing today, let me reiterate what i have said all along, this is not a jobs bill. it does nothing to put millions of unemployed americans back to work. by considering this bill, the majority made a decision that is more important to vote on the earmark than to vote on transportation bill that would create thousands of jobs. and had strong bipartisan support. and we must do something because as we know the current legislation will expire at the end of this month. if the house passes today's legislation, we will have taken a vote and we will not have helped the american people. we all know we were not sent here to avoid solving problems facing our constituents, and we certainly weren't sent here to spend other days giving away public lands so one county in

one state could receive a win where all the taxpayers get nothing. i urge my colleagues to get back to the single biggest problem facing the country, the lack of jobs, and to vote on the bipartisan senate transportation bill which easily passed the senate 74-22. until we do, we are just -- treading water as our roads and bridges and highways crumble and our constituents are neglected, i urge my colleagues to vote no on today's rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i am very pleased to speak in favor of the underlying bill. the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell knows his constituents and needs there and has worked very hard for their benefit. this as we already discussed and voted is not an earmark. the gentlelady from new york introduced a heritage area for niagara falls that got $10

million sent from the federal government to that place. that was officially not an earmark. this bill has no money going anywhere. the land is the county's, no exchange of profit whatsoever. there is no earmark. there is no money being exchanged. this land was originally virginia's land. they gave it to the federal government for a federal purpose. 36 years ago the federal government no longer needing the land gave it back to this county for a public park. as a public park it is useless. now, that's the common bond here. it is not needed as a park. it is not used as a park. there is no parking. it is inaccessible. it is lousy for that purpose. the county, though, would like to use their land to do economic development because that is where it is and for what it would best be used. how it would help the public and the general good is it was used for economic development. and all they need is the

federal government to graciously grant a deed restriction which they refuse to do for whatever purpose no one really knows. but they won't do it. that is why the county needs to keep the county land to do something that is common sense. simply use the land for the purpose in which it best suits the needs of the people. and i don't know why the department of interior in its wisdom decides they want to tell the county in virginia what is best for virginia, but that is exactly what they are trying to do by being hard-nosed not on a law but on an internal rule from the department of interior. look, this government already controls one out of every three acres in this nation. that's 1/3 of america is controlled by the federal government. that means the federal government's inholdings are larger than any country in the world with the exception of russia and canada. that's what we already have. yet the department of interior is straining over 32 acres that

shouldn't be a park and need to be used to help the people of this particular county. and that simply is illogical. it is irrational. i have faced similar circumstances in countless bills that we have had and passed before this body. there was public land in the middle of park city in my district that was belonging -- controlled by the bureau of land management. they didn't need it, want it, use it. it was usually being occupied by squatters. the city had no control over it because it was public land, yet the department of interior did not want to let go of that land because the control was already there. we passed another bill earlier, went through the house and senate, to transfer land that the forest service didn't even know they had. we had to do a title search to remind them. that actually is ours. they didn't need it, want it, or use it. after six years we finally got them to give it up so it could be used for a better purpose. we have another bill, for two acres that the park service doesn't want to give up for whatever reason, even though on

that bill the two acres, there is already a city building, a public safety building, and public bathrooms for the community. those that go to that ski resort. the forest service in this case doesn't want to give that up for whatever reason there may be. mr. speaker, we were just in a hearing earlier this morning that dealt with a proposed eisenhower memorial. in all due respect i just recently read in a biographer of eisenhower, when he was a lieutenant in the army, he had his first child and he applied for and received permission for a housing increase. . he thought he deserved it and so did the commanding officer who improved that housing increase. a little while later they did an you had its and the acting inspeggetter -- audit and the acting inspector general found out there was a technicality to which general eisenhower was not entitled to that housing increase.

when he was confronted with that he immediately said, he apologized and said he was more than willing to pay back the $250.67 that he owed the government. but that wasn't good enough for the inspector general. that acting inspector general wanted a court marshall because that's what the rules were. that acting inspector general had this blind fetish for feelt to follow rules because that's what bureaucrats always want to do. fortunately there was a commanding officer that realized in this young army officer a talent and an ability and intervened and allowed general -- then lieutenant eisenhower simply to pay the $250.67 an get on with it. it is amazing to consider what this nation and what this world would be like if lieutenant eisenhower had actually been court marshaled over $250.67 because that was the rule. we have the same situation. 32 acres, that is useless right now, it has no purpose, it sits

there, and the federal government wants to deny a county in virginia the ability to do something useful to help people on 32 acres because it violates their internal rule. there has to be some time when common sense takes over and we actually do things because it's the right thing to do. because it is the better thing to do. fortunately there was an officer in texas that realized in the case of general eisenhower common sense should take over. it would be nice, it want wonderful, if within the department of interior there was some element of common sense that said, it is stupid what we are doing with this land. we need simply to use common sense and use the land for a better, better purpose. there is no transfer of land. the county has it. if we don't pass this bill the county will still have it, they just can't use it effectively. if we pass this bill there will be no transfer of money, all you're telling is the county can use the county's land to do something the county needs, to

help the people in that county. and honestly should not that be our goal? sn is that not our purpose? to use common sense? or do we have the bureaucratic blood running through our veins that we put these little blinders on and unless we checked the right box, it doesn't matter if it helps, it doesn't matter if it's good, it doesn't matter if it's possible, we won't do it. because of our internal rules. that is indeed where this country and this congress has come. there is selfly -- there is something definitely wrong with us. this is a fair rule. it will provide for a good debate. provides all those amendments that were preprinted and are in order to be debated here on the floor. let us proceed forward with this bill. let's help this county that desperately needs our help and desperately needs us just to use some good old-fashioned common sense and vote yes on this amendment. i have to say something first before -- that's it.

i am ready now to yield back the balance of my time after i move the previous question on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 587 will be followed by a five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 665. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232 and the ncaas are 170. thes remain -- nays are 170. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 665 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 665, a bill to establish a pilot program for the federal rail property. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 402, the ncaas are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 403, the nays are

zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, in order to rejoin the committee on energy and commerce, i hereby resign my seat on the science, space and technology committee and the natural resources committee effective today. signed, sincerely, john sarbanes, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, please accept my resignation from the house committee on science, space and technology

effective immediately. i have been pleased to serve on the s.s.t. committee during the 112th congress. however this resignation is necessitated by the recent vacancy and my assignment to the house committee on education and the work force. thank you, best regards, marsha l. fudge, member of -- m -- member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignations are accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 590, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. one, committee on education and

the work force. >> i ask that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: is there any objection? >> i thank the gentleman for his consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 2087. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 587 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2087. the chair appoints the gentleman from colorado, mr.

gardner, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the h. -- of h.r. 2087 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the atlantic district accomack county, virginia. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, or mr. chairman -- mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman yields. ex keys custe me, to himself -- excuse me, to himself. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r.

2087 on a no costs jobs bill that removes government hurdles to economic development. this bill by the gentleman from virginia mr. a-- will allow accomack county in virginia to move forward with plans to develop and, mr. chairman, i want to say this very explicitly, to develop 32 acre parcel. not 32 million, not 300 -- 320,000, 32-acre parcel of land adjacent to an air strip into a technology and research facility. currently the parcel has a restriction limiting use of the property to recreational purposes. this was a condition placed on the property when the county obtained the deed through the federal land park to program in 1976. unfortunately the park has been of little benefit to the community. though the county has made diligent efforts, the park has fallen out of use and is currently overgrown and

unmaintained. now accomack county has found a better way to serve its citizens and determine that this legislation that can create hundreds and thousands of short-term and long-term jobs is a proper way to go. this property is already owned. mr. chairman, again, this property is already owned by accomack county. not the federal government. congress created the program that allowed the county to take title to this land. the purpose at that time was to help communities like this to do what the bill says it should do. congress has the authority to do this and should have the common sense to allow the county to do this. . there have been concerns that this will lead to an avalanche of these types of requests. let's be clear. this is just one specific proposal dealing with one parcel of land totaling 32

acres, not 320 acres, not 3,200, just 32 acres. there are thousands of lands that have been tfered through the land to park -- transfered through the land to park program. this involves an exthreemly small -- extremely small amount of land. there are absolutely instances in which communities and states would be better off if the federal red tape on private landownership was lifted. just as there were instances where reducing federal landownership would be beneficial to local communities and states. yet, here we are to debate this specific bill, and it is simply not reasonable to argue that the sky is going to fall if this bill affecting, again, mr. chairman, 32 acres in accomack

county becomes law. when unemployment is still over 8%, congress should be looking for every opportunity possible, no matter how big or how small to create new american jobs. gas prices are rapidly rising and families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. now more than ever, congress should make it a priority, a priority to eliminate hurdles to economic development. and, mr. chairman, that's exactly what this bill does. the gentleman from virginia has given us an opportunity to immediately help a community with the plan to create jobs. we need to pass this legislation to -- today and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2087. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the legislation and yield myself

such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. the federal land to park program is one of the most successful parts of our national park service. for those parts of the country that are not blessed with the grand canyon or the sonora desert, this program provides local government with excess federal lands at no cost, provided the land is used for recreational purposes. over the years, nearly 1,500 parcels of land have gone to governments for free. the land has been foisted upon these local governments. instead, local governments actively work with the park service to obtain land for historical, natural or recreational interests. i should note for clarification, as we go forward with this debate, that this is not county land. this is federal land. the county is allowed to control this land as long as it

is used for the recreational purposes in the agreement. if this was county land, we would not be here. the county can't sell the land. the county can't lease the land. the county can't rent the land. the county does not own the land. this bill gives federal land away for free. examples of successful projects are 195 acres that went to the city of ogden in utah for the ogden national center, rodeo and fair grounds. 97 acres that went to bring ham city, utah, for the brigham intercity golf course. and 307 acres to the city of aurora, colorado, for the aurora reservoir park. 2.7 acres to the town of sulphur springs, colorado. all of these took the same

deals as accomack county in 1976. they advocated for the transfer and freely agreed to the deed that ensured the land would be used for recreation or revert back to federal ownership. over the years, as local governments have fought development pressures and budget shortfalls, the park service and the general services administration have developed a land exchange process to enable some flexibility for these communities. they can enter into a land exchange that requires the land be of equal recreation and free market value. alternative, the county could return the land to the federal government and purchase it for fair market value through the g.s.a. process. the sponsor of the legislation and the county involved have rejected both of these options. instead, the county is actively promoting a development plan that includes these lands in question while waiting for an act of congress to clear the

deed. enactment of this bill creates an unacceptable and dangerous precedent every -- for every other project out there. the reason the federal land management agencies refuse to give away federal land is because congress, congress requires the agencies to seek legislation to sell or transfer federal lands. and you know why? because a pesky little development called the united states constitution requires congress to make laws with respect to disposition of federal land. it encourages local governments to -- this would encourage local governments to run to congress and cash in on a gift the federal government shared with local communities. this legislation should be rejected. i urge a no vote on this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield five minutes to the author of this

legislation, the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. rigell: i thank my friend, the gentleman from washington. i appreciate the opportunity, mr. speaker, to come before this body today and make the case that this is wonderful and strong legislation that should be moved forward for one purpose, job creation and the commonwealth -- in the commonwealth of virginia, in accomack county, specifically. this bill reflects common sense. it reflects common ground. it came out of the committee with bipartisan support. i think most importantly, mr. speaker, it reflects the collective wisdom and the will of the hardworking taxpayers of accomack county, and here's why, mr. speaker, that this bill, if enacted and passed, will create jobs. you see, the folks of accomack county have not asked the federal government for something. they simply ask the federal government to get out of the

way so the greatest job producing engine the world's ever known, the entrepreneurs in accomack county can get to work in a very responsible way of developing this property that is immediately adjacent nasa facility there. it's i think a clear contrast of two basic philosophical approaches to job creation. one looks to this institution and to washington to see this institution is the primary crifere of job creation. -- driver of job creation. as a lifetime entrepreneur, mr. speaker, i reject that approach and instead have adopted all of my life and believe we need to bring to this body the mindset that the best thing to do to get our economy going again is to eliminate the hurdles. this is a very practical hurdle that is holding back job creation in a county that desperately needs jobs.

16%, mr. speaker, of the hardworking families in accomack county live under the poverty line. about 90% of the property that's in accomack county is agricultural. it is without a doubt a poor county. and this bill simply removes a deed restriction. my friend behind me just a few moments ago said, now, do you have a picture of this? i said, well, we didn't bring it down to the floor. we could have. it is overgrown. there is a delap tated dugout facility. there is no infrastructure. there is no buildings. accomack county has a plan. you know, americans are resourceful. they'll figure out a way -- figure a way out of this. the board of supervisors have a wonderful plan for the research park but it only works, mr.

speaker -- mr. chairman, rather -- it only works, mr. chairman, if this deed restriction is removed. 32 acres. great potential, great potential for the folks in accomack county. i want to close, mr. chairman, by recounting a conversation that i had just a few moments ago, and i actually called the person back and i wanted to make sure i had her permission to share this story. i trust she's listening now. mr. chairman, her name is kathy. her husband is a builder in accomack county, and their business has been hurting because of the economy. and jim's a friend of mine. and i know his business is hurting. kathy used to work for him in accounting and she's been out looking for work because the construction business is so depressed and we all know that. and i called kathy.

i said, kathy, i'd like to reference you here. do i have your permission? and she said, yes, you do. this is a -- this is just one family. there are hundreds and hundreds of families in accomack county, and i wish my colleagues on the other side who are opposing this bill could look them in the eye and explain to them why, why we can't remove this deed restriction. it's a classic example, mr. chairman, of paternalistic federal government, an oppressive federal government holding back job creation. we're all american taxpayers. this idea of transferring it from one to another, $800,000 or more from a poor county, this is what's wrong with america, mr. chairman, and even though this is a relatively small big in the -- bill in the big scheme of things, 32 acres,

when the federal government owns almost 1/3 of all the land in the united states -- that, too, is a problem. maybe we'll get around to it one day, mr. chairman. but until then we're just talking about 32 acres, so i ask my colleagues on the other side to reconsider and i'd ask them to vote in favor of this and let's get some hardworking folks in accomack county back to work. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: yes, let me yield five minutes to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. chairman, it's inconceivable to me that with all the challenges we have that are facing our nation this body is taking up legislation today having to do with a 32-acre parcel of land in virginia. is this really the best we can do? at a moment when our economy is still underperforming, at a

moment when we're still sending brave americans to die in an immoral war that's gone on for nearly as long as my grandson, teddy, has been alive, we still have more than 8% unemployment in this country, we still have families and entire communities wondering what happened to the american dream. we have families losing homes through no fault of their own. we have families not knowing how to pay next month's bills and how to send their children to college. we are wondering why the very health care reforms they needed are about to go on trial at the u.s. supreme court. we also have people who more than ever are depending on a safety net, programs like medicare and medicaid, which have a big fat target on their backs put in by the republican budget plan that was just

unveiled today. a good start would be to pass the senate transportation bill to rebuild our infrastructure and put our people back to work. then, how about getting down to the business of ending the war in afghanistan which is killing our people, undermining our national security and diverting the money that we need to meet human needs right here at home? i can't believe that the american people want us to debate a bill about 32 acres of land in virginia. not when we still have thousands of troops in harm's way fighting a war that is doing nothing to keep america safe and nothing to protect our vital interests. we have important issues to debate, mr. chairman. big problems to tackle. americans who need our help and an overseas conflict that must end. this is a moment of great urgency. why isn't the majority acting like it? i yield back.

the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the co-sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i want to thank the chairman of the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak and the gentleman from virginia for giving me the opportunity to co-sponsor this bill. the gentleman from virginia, of course, is from the southern end of the delmarva peninsula. i represent the middle part, joining accomack county. you know, we heard a lot during the state of the union address. the president stood in front of you, mr. chairman, and talked about shovel-ready jobs and infrastructure. mr. chairman, there are shovel-ready jobs ready to go. this areaed a joins the launch facility, which is one of the areas that launch public and private vehicles into space. it doesn't get any better that that. for a poor county in accomack. and the chairman of the committee mentioned it, 8%

unemployment rate. mr. speaker, i wish that worcester county where half the employees in this industrial park will work had an 8% rate. . the unemployment rate was 16.5% in worcester county. the president stood there and said we have to get americans back to work. mr. chairman we need to cut through the red tape just like the president said and get projects like this going. there's no loss of recreation area. accomack county is offered to in fact find another 32 acres to have the recreation area. so let's not pretend there's a loss. let's not pretend this land doesn't belong to accomack kts. they hold the title. like a poor step-child, they're coming to angelina -- uncle sam, begging for permission to deteriorate jobs in accomack county and like the mean old uncle, uncle sam has said no. there's red tape involved. we have a bureaucracy. you have to fill in all the blanks. you have to do this. mr. chairman, the 15.6% of

worcester county who run employed don't have the time for this red tape. we must do this. the gentleman called this unacceptable and dangerous. mr. chairman, you're right. 16.6 -- 15.6% unemployment is unacceptable. it's dangerous to our economy. jeament said it's inconceive -- the gentlelady said that it's inconceivable that we're here. couldn't have said it better. how could our federal bureaucracy have failed so poorly? we need to pass this bill, mr. chairmanment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield four minutes to my colleague, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for four minutes. mr. ellison: i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding the time. i have no doubt that these issues are important to the people involved. i have no doubt that the people who support and oppose this bill care deeply about it. it's a local issue and i come from a locality and therefore understand. but the fact of the matter is

that our country is in some seriously grievous harm. because we, yes, we do have an exorbitant unemployment rate. it's been going down, we've been adding private sector jobs. but there's still too many people unemployed. and yet the majority is not -- has not taken the time on the floor today to deal with how we're going to get all americans back. they're taking time to anything out how they can do an earmark after they've said there's no earmarks. this is remarkable. i'm actually not against earmarks, mr. chairman. i'm for them. i think they're a good thing. but you know what? the majority has said no earmarks and yet this is like the second time in the last couple of weeks we see them floating their earmarks right on through. you know, h.r. 2087 would allow a county in a particular representative's district to acquire full ownership of a little less than 32 acres of federal land worth more than

$800,000 for free. now, that's an earmark. yet the rest of us cabinet get them. but if you are -- can't get them. but if you're in among the favored few, you can. that's wrong. that's unfair. that's unjust. and it's particularly unjust given the grievous problems that we're facing as a nation. we should be voting on a real jobs bill to create good jobs all across america. but apparently that's not what we're going to be doing with our time today. we're going to be talking about a now proinvention interest in trying to give away federal land for free for a particular interest in a particular locality. we should be talking about how we're going to save and protect medicare guarantee for all americans which is in threat, given the ryan budget, but, no, we're talking about a narrow smalltown interest which i think is important but which the majority in their infinite wisdom has said we can't do because that's an earmark. you know, the g.o.p. has wasted

the last 441 days that they've been in charge and failed to produce a single jobs bill. in fact, they're trying to cut jobs. the transportation bill would lead to a loss of over 500,000 jobs. now, you know, i definitely sympathize with the folks who are out of work in the county where this earmark is going to be taking place. i do. i'm very concerned about the unemployed. that's why i wish we had a real jobs bill as opposed to these giveaways of federal land and we really don't know who's going to end up benefiting at the end of the day. bottom line is, we have real problems in america. we got transportation needs, we got environmental needs, we got health care needs. we got real debates to take care of. but if we're going to be debating those things, we got to be on the floor taking the

time to do those things, not dealing with disguised earmarks for certain people because they happen to, i don't know, i don't know why they get privileged treatment over people like me who don't get to offer earmarks anymore. i say this, mr. speaker, at the end of the day america as a country -- is a country that needs the attention of this congress so that everybody can get a job that pays well across this country. and we're not doing that. we're failing. what we're doing is we're allowing one county in one member's district to acquire full ownership of a valuable piece of land for free. and that's wrong. the chair: the gentleman yields back? the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me yield five minutes to

congressman mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. or, mr. chairman. when we came into this session we heard a lot of talk in this house about the fact that we needed jobs. lots and lots of talk on the other side about how they were going to take care of this economy, we were going to finally get some jobs. there hasn't been one single bill put out here in 441 days. we're still waiting for a jobs bill from the republican leadership. now, i don't want to dismiss the piece of legislation we're discussing here. i'm sure it's very important, those 32 acreser of virginia and perhaps -- acres of virginia and perhaps maybe there will be 100 jobs there. those will be important job for

those peoples jobs for those people. we're in favor of that. but what's hard to understand is the republicans' idea of priorities. mr. speaker, i can't understand how the republican leadership could let the highway bill expire in 11 days and end highway construction in the united states of america and bring out instead a bill for 32 acres in rural virginia that most of us would have a tough time finding, accomack county, on a map. there's 550,000 people working in rebuilding infrastructure in this country and the highway system and the republican leadership won't bring it out because they got a fight inside. they got a fight inside, they got a bill that is so bad that it bankrupts the highway trust

in 2016 and creates a $78 billion funding shortfall over the next 10 years. that's the highway bill that they won't bring out here. i understand why they won't bring it out here. they'd get chewed up. by the fiscal irresponsibility. they have a bill sitting on the desk from the senate they could bring up tomorrow. and we could ensure corruption jobs all over this country for 550,000 people. but no, we're out here with this little -- as the last speaker said, it's really interesting, all the jumping and shouting and waving of arms and we're not going to have any more earmarks in the house of representatives. earmarks are evil. they're evil things crautcreathed by the devil and -- created by the devil and we have wiped them out. now if this ain't an earmark, i don't know what is. if you put a bill out here for

32 acres in two members' districts, that's an earmark, folks. that's an earmark. and if the people -- i'm not saying earmarks are bad. frankly i went to three of them today or last weekend in my district. one was the restoration of the king street station in the railroad system. another one was a museum which is a national monument. and these kinds of things make sense. and i think this piece of legislation makes sense. and it will probably go out of here without a single vote against it. but it can't go out without somebody saying, where are your priorities? where are they? why is it that the leadership of the republicans can't get their people in line to get a highway bill out here when it's 11 days from the day it expires? what is the matter? well i think really what it is,

it's driven by the ideology that is creating most of the problems in this two years in terms of recovery. nobody wants to give president obama one single success. and they will kill the highway department and the highway construction fund and everything else if they can just make sure they don't re-elect president obama. that's what it's all about. it's very clear. we see it going on tomorrow. it begins over across the street in the supreme court. they've spent 3 1/2 years fighting providing health care for all americans. 3 1/2 years fighting it. not trying to improve it, not trying to make it work better, trying to repeal it. that's what's going on in this

city. and in fact thousands of people have got health care now that didn't have it. the fact that you can now keep your kids on your policy until the age of 26 has added million of young people to those who were insured against health problems. there are people who have health care if in spite of the fact that they have a pre-existing condition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. mcdermott: thank you. they've got their health insurance because the bill that the president got through to congress, with our help, was one that made it possible for you to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. now, there are thousands of people who have benefited from that in this country. but not one single attempt has been made by the republicans in 3 1/2 years to do anything to make that work better.

all they want to do is destroy it. this is the party of dis-- destruction. the destruction of the infrastructure of the country, the destruction of an attempt to do health care, and you can go right down the list. 441 days, no job bill, and what we get out here is this earmark. it's really kind of laughable if it wasn't so serious. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i advise my friend, i have no requests for time. if he's prepared to close, i'll close. mr. grijalva:, yes, i'm prepared to close. mr. hastings: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. chairman. as we heard continually from my friends on the other side of the aisle, before us we have a seemingly innocent piece of legislation that would allow

accomack county to develop a mere 32 aches of land for -- acres of land. one might even wonder why we're taking up valuable time on the house floor debating this measure. this is not innocent ledge slailings -- legislation. this is a federal land giveaway that under any other circumstances would be considered an earmark. it is also the opening shot of a larger effort on the part of the republicans to privatize our federal lands. in 1976 accomack county made a deal. they received 32 acres of federal property free of charge. in return they promised to use the land for public recreation purposes. now they want a different deal. only they don't want to pay for it. the deal they want is to commercially develop the land they got for free and relocate the displaced recreation activity to a former landfill. while it is just 32 acres, it represents what appears to be the republican platform, that

our parks, forests, wildlife areas and monuments are cash cows. as ets to sell and develop during these tough -- assets to sell and develop during these tough economic times. mitt romney told a nevada newspaper that he doesn't know what the purpose is of public lands. while in idaho presidential candidate rick santorum told a crowd that public lands in idaho should go back to the hands of the private sector. this theme is not new. in 2005 former chairman of the house committee on natural resources, proposed selling national parks to mining companies. today, as part of the ryan budget, it is proposing to sell off 3.3 million acres of public lands. most recently energy and commerce subcommittee chairman suggested selling off some of our national parks. we can't get through a meeting of the house committee on natural resources without someone from the majority suggesting that lands need to

be transferred to the states or sold or fully developed for gas and oil. . my view and the view of most americans are completely different. as renowned documentary filmmaker ken burns put it, our national park system is america's best idea. our forests and desert lands represent what is best in america. a long-term view what we should protect and value. the majesty that god has blessed our nation with for this generation and the generations to come. i urge my colleagues to join with me to defeat this legislation. we need this congress to affirm to the american people that we value our parks, our forests and wildlife areas for their inherent value. we value them as places to recreate with our families. we value them as places to hunt and fish. sometimes we value them for just knowing that they are there in hopes that one day we

can visit. i urge a no vote and vote to protect our valuable lands from the precedent that's being set by h.r. 2087, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle on this debate on this issue is rather interesting. let me take a couple of the issues that were brought up and try to address them. first, the issue of an earmark. now, just to remind our bodies, we must have a very short attention span, this house acted not too long ago on the question of earmarks and said we should proceed, that's why we are debating this bill. why? because h.r. 2087 does not contain an earmark. it is in full compliance with the earmark definition, provided for in the house rules 21, and the earmark ban that was instituted by the house

republicans in january of 2011. why is that or how is that? because the house definition of an earmark requires that there be spending in some form directed to an entity. and h.r. 2087, we do not direct any spending or any money in any form. it has no fiscal impact. so, mr. chairman, to repeat once again, we had this debate earlier and the house confirmed the debate, by the way, there is no earmark in this bill. now, let me make a couple other observations of the previous speakers that have spoken. my colleague on the other side of the aisle came down here and said there have been x number of days, i forget how many he said, without one job bill. he's right, mr. chairman. there is not just one job bill. there are are a multitude of job bills that have been addressed by this body

generally on a bipartisan basis. and i might add, if you just go back just prior to our last district work period, we passed some bills over which were a series of bills that passed with bipartisan support over to the senate. i encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rather than talk about a lack of activity, go talk to your colleagues on the other side of the rotunda over there and say, move these jobs bills. that's what we ought to be doing. and furthermore, if there's two big issues that the american people are confronted with it today, it's jobs and energy. last year we passed energy jobs that created american jobs. don't come down on the floor and say we have not addressed energy jobs. this house has done its work. generally with bipartisan support, but i will note those that spoke on that voted no. i don't know what they want to do, create government jobs? is that the idea? so, mr. chairman, i just want to point out that i guess rhetoric and debate on the

floor you get all sorts of different takes, but the facts are the house has passed job-creating bills. they have created job energy-creating bills. this ball potentially falls in line with that, and i urge my colleagues to support that and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for generally debate has expired. pursuant to the bill, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the congressional record of march 19, 2012, and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of

debate. each amendment so printed may be offered only by the member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read. are there any amendments? for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk preprinted in the record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 2087. this is a very simple amendment. it ensures that federal taxpayers are compensated for the land that is moving out of public ownership and into private development. the federal land to parks program provides federal land to local governments with the agreement through the deed that the lands will stay in public use primarily for recreation. ack mock county, virginia, --

accomack county, virginia, is developing this land for hangars and our development. this is valued over $800,000. meanwhile, the county is asking congress to intervene to take the land they got for free and develop it without compensating the federal government. the underlying bill is the legislative equivalent of writing accomack county a check for $815,000. it is only through a deed amendment that it isn't called an earmark. my amendment simply requires the county to repay the federal government for the fair market value of the lands from the proceeds of the development. by ensuring the taxpayers are protected, we also send a signal to other local governments that are facing economic or development pressures that their lands are not piggybacked to tap into

when times get -- piggy banked to tap into when times get tough. i understand the challenges accomack county faces but they want this land not necessarily to put people back to work. they want them to attract the lucrative aerospace industry to the eastern shore, not to build a job-training facility. i urge support of the amendment. it assures that the taxpayers are protected, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona does not help accomack county create jobs and that is the underlying purpose of this bill. recall that this property was obtained by accomack county because the federal government did not need it or want it any more. the federal government washed their hands of this land.

indeed, there was a deed restriction but the underlying intent was to benefit the citizens of accomack county. today we are asking again to help those same citizens by allowing them to use the property as they see appropriate. this deed restriction was put in place 36 years ago and it no longer serves as a benefit to the county. just because we could demand that they give it back -- give the land back to the federal government does not mean that we should do it and demanding that they buy the land they already own makes even less sense. in the same vain in which accomack county requested this land in 1976, they are back helping us -- asking us again to help their citizens. i understand the gentleman is looking out for the federal government, and i respect that. out of fairness that somehow a small county in rural virginia

might take advantage of it. but i do want to assure my good friend from arizona that the federal government and its countless millions of acres of land can and will go on without these 32 acres. we hear time and again how grateful we should be for massive federal ownership in the west and of the bounty of tourist dollars it produces. now in this very narrowed example of 32 acres, perhaps you will see the blessing of local control and what you can do without washington's central planning and land management. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is unwarranted and does not do nothing to produce much-needed jobs and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does anyone else seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, on that i ask for the -- a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk and it's preprinted. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to preface my remarks by indicating at the close of my remarks and when the debate is concluded on this amendment, i do not intend to call for a vote largely for the reason that i believe that the ranking member, mr. grijalva's

amendment, covers much what i offered in this amendment and, second, out of respect for my colleague from accomack, mr. rigell, who i believe has brought this matter as many of us may be -- want to do in the future regarding the economic concerns that exist in his community. i would only add, he cited 16% unemployment earlier today in his presentation on the floor. and i could take him to some places in the congressional district that i'm privileged to serve and show him 40% unemployment in a rural area that happens to be in the same contiguous area as the national everglades park, and i'm sure i could come back here and offer

some measures that would allow us, including south bay, canal point, to have an opportunity to convert land that is in our national park that was given for that purpose to leave the reversionary restriction aside and go about the business for allowing those counties, palm beach county and broward to be able to utilize the land they see fit. land has a market value at some point, and as i understand it, and i stand to be corrected srnl by my good friend and -- certainly by my good friend and colleague from washington, this property allowed that if the parcel was no longer used for recreational purposes that it would revert to the federal government. well, clearly that reversionary clause is what we are seeking in this particular measure in this specific one to overturn.

i believe it's wholly unnecessary, but more importantly, i think it's sets a bad precedent, involving congress in consensually agreed agreements. as i understand it, the county was granted the land under the condition it would be used as a park. i understand and understood further from my good friend, mr. hastings, his comments at the rules committee, that this would not -- that the land cannot even be accessed and therefore it is important that they make this change. congress shouldn't grant special treatment on something as erratic as market value because the market value of land is always changing and all i have to do is look at my

mortgage and look at how the prices have gone down as they have all over this country. i heard this statement in the rules committee that the land is useless, and i don't think any land is useless. mark twain said we ain't going to have much more land. just to paraphrase him. they are not manufacturing it, although i think singapore might take issue with that comment. it's important that the federal government condition the transfer of the land to the county in the first place on the promise it would be used as a park and the county agreed to those terms when they initially received the land and with all due respect they want to back out. they want to change it. in fact if the county doesn't want to use the land as a park

the remedy is within the federal land and parks program they could choose from. consequently, changing the agreement today because a shift in market value sets a bad precedent. we don't know what the market value of the land will be a year from now, five years now and have no idea what it will be 200 years from now. before you know it, every county and state -- and this is why i feel very strongly about this -- will be here asking congress for the same special treatment as soon as the market shifts in their favor. my amendment requires apraisals of the land, i believe mr. grijalva's does as well and all i ask is if we don't want it to be a park anymore, the county doesn't, the county should look to remedies it has available to them and i believe the market value will shift. i hope mr.ry gell is successful and -- mr.ry jell is successful and i believe -- mr. rigell is

successful and i believe the measure will pass. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i would like to congressmen my good friend from florida on his unique approach to this bill with this very unique amendment. but make no mistake, if it were to pass the effect would be to hobble and kill this job-creating bill. so let's set that aside this would require appraisals to be conducted in each of the following years. 1776, 1865, 2013, 2017, 2032, an 2212. the amendment as -- and 2212. the amendment as it is written, in the amendment, as it is written, these appraisals must

be done in those years. we did not have a federal government in 1776, for example. in 1865, virginia was part of the confederacy that means, however, we have a requirement to have an appraisal in each of these year, that would require we go back 236 years and into the future 200 years before this legislation would go into effect. now there may be a miscob co--- misconception or maybe a misidentification, i would tell my friend. i am doc hastings, i am not doc brown, the mad scientist from "back to the future." i do not own, nor do i have access to, a plutonium-powered deloirn that will allow me or michael j. fox to complete the complexities of this amendment. i can't go back 236 years, i

can't go forward 200 years so notwithstanding some new technology, i have to say, mr. chairman, in all sincerity, we should defeat this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the plans of his time. mr. hastings: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. -- mr. hastings: my good friend doc hastings is mindful we are going to have a future. i ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 seconds. the chair: seeing no objection. mr. hastings: i just want to comment that there is a future and we tend to do it arn here, as a matter of fact, we do it in budgetary matters and all the way around. i preebt very much my friend pointing out that creativity i offered at the very same time. i think mr. grijalva's amendment is deserving of serious consideration and i art

-- and i support it. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman have unanimous consent -- unanimous request. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in the con fregsal record by the gentleman from arizona on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote is requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 178, the nays are 226. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accord gri, under the rule, the committee rises.

the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 578, think -- h.r. 20 7, i report the same pack to the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 587, reports the amendment back to the house -- the rule back to the house. the question is on dopping of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading.

the clerk: a bill to approve -- to remove restrictions from a parcel of land in accomack county, virginia. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> in its present form, i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: ms. loretta sanchez of california -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will please come to order. members will take their conversations from the floor an clear the well. the clerk may continue.

the clerk: h.r. 2087 to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same to the house forthwith, with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, add the following, section 2, prohibition on sale or use of lan for adult entertainment or by foreign governments. any instrument executed pursuant to section 1-a shall specify that the lans described in section 1-c shall not be sold or leased to, one, an opener or operator of an adult book, video, arcade or other facility, or two, any foreign government that may pose a threat to the nasa wallace flight facility. if the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. sanchez: i rise to offer a final amendment to h.r. 2087 --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. if members will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentlewoman may continue. ms. sanchez: this final amendment if passed, would bring the bill promptly back for a vote on final passage this final amendment is noncontroversial an aims to do one simple thing, that is to protect the land of taxpayers. the bill itself goes against so many things that the majority has said that they are for, would fight for in this congress. this legislation would provide a local county in virginia an $800,000 wind fall by allowing the county to violate a contractual agreement without any justification. that's the current bill. that's what the bill that you

want to pass does. i'm against that. here in the congress, we did agry -- did away with earmarks. but when i look at this $00,000 wind fall that you are voting on, i say that's an earmark. it's a very small step and what the republicans have been doing, selling off our land, valuable federal land, such as national parks, forests, public lands, to developers. however, even if you're for giving away land the way -- as in this bill mitigating circumstance final amendment would give us the opportunity to ensure that this land would not be owned and used for adult entertainment facilities or sold to or used by a foreign government that could use toyota steal our national security secrets.

so i ask my colleagues on the other side, will you join us in protecting taxpayer-owned land? the final amendment is very simple. it would outlaw the sale or use of land to any ownership or operation of an adult bookstore, a novelty adult store, a video adult store, an arcade or live inter-- entertainment facility. i think we can all agree that we should not be giving away federal property to facilitate adult live entertainment. in fact, if you're not convinced over that, then let me tell you the second thing we don't want to happen close to that land, that is that land adjoining this piece of property we're talking about today should not fall into the hands of those who would want to spy on our top secrets. a and as you probably know, i'm

a member, a senior member of both the house armed services committee ap the homeland security committee. every day, i deal with the issues of national security threats. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. members will please take their conversations from the floor. ms. sanchez: the issue is the proximity of the nasa-wallace space flight facility to the land in question. my final amendment aimed at protecting national security secrets from countries like china or iran, what if a country like iran or china would purchase that land and eavesdrop on our nasa space flight facility? i am sure that my colleagues would agree that this land is worth protecting. in fact, to remind my

colleagues on the other side this is the final amendment to this bill. it's not going to kill the bill and it won't take it back to committee. so if adopted, the bill would be amened and it would go to final passage. i ask my colleagues to do the right thing, protect our taxpayer-owned land system of regardless of how you feel about the bill, this amendment is one that i believe we should all be behind. i believe that we can all vote yes on this final amendment. and thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is correct. members will please take their conversations if the floor. the gentleman may continue. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the author of this motion to recommit did not hear the debate this land is owned by accomack count y -- county in virginia. it's not a transfer, it's a deidre strix lift. that's it. the land is owned by a county in virginia. mr. speaker, when we had testimony on this bill in the committee, the government of accomack county testified obviously in favor of it. they said they wanted this for industrial use. this is local control. doesn't the other side even trust local control, for goodness' sake? in testimony before n front of a committee? i have to say also that history tends to repeat itself. in this body it tends to repeat itself, it seems like, on a weekly basis. why do i say that? the two issues facing the

american people are jobs and the price of energy. and yet here we have a bill in front of us that would certainly create jobs and what does the other side do? they want to put up more impediments to it. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to recommit and yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. sanchez: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes any time for a recorded vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]