|
Off-site Links GET TO KNOW WHO REPRESENTS YOU |
A New Wiki with Data on Lawmakers. |
Who is Receiving Federal Loans & Grants? |
Who's Giving Money to Your Elected Officials? |
Who's Giving Money to Your State Elected Officials? |
Does Your Opinion Match the Polls? |
|
Legislation News & Report (TM) TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Managing America: Public Land |
|||||||||||||||
|
TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Week Ending May 25, 2006
H.R.1100 To revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes.
The Secretary of Interior is authorized to acquire from willing sellers by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds or exchange up to 110 acres of land, water and interests to be added to the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in Henderson County, North Carolina. An additional five acres may be acquired to develop a visitor center and parking.
Sandburg was an American poet, writer and historian. The site is called Connemara and housed his family for 22 years.
Opposition attempted to reduce the expansion to 5 acres but failed on a 7 to 8 vote. Opponents hold that the additional 110 acres is for a view shed but can not be seen from the site. They do not see where the expansion can improve the site and hold that the National Park Service is backlogged and doesn’t need more land to manage. An amendment to acquire the acreage without appropriations was defeated.
Sponsor: Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC-11th) Vote: Passed House 268 to 150 May 23, 2007 (RC 409. A Motion to recommit the bill failed 192 to 228 RC 408 Cost to the taxpayers: “CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1100 would cost $7 million over the next several years. We estimate that about half of that amount would be used by the NPS to acquire about 115 acres of land near the existing historic site.” Earmark Certification: H.R. 1100 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or (f) of rule XXI. ## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
MORE INFORMATION
AMENDMENTS Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop (UT). An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 110-165 to delay the acquisition of any new land for the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site until after deferred maintenance has been completed at the site. Failed 185 to 243 RC 406
Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop (UT). An amendment numbered 2 printed in House Report 110-165 to reduce the total amount of acreage which can be acquired for the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site form 115 acres to 5 (for use as a visitor center and parking lot). Amendment offered by Mr. Heller. An amendment numbered 3 printed in House Report 110-165 to eliminate the use of appropriated funds to acquire 110 acres of land for the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site, but still allows the land to be acquired by donation, purchase with donated funds, or by exchange with other lands. Failed 183 to 243 RC 407 DISSENTING VIEWSH.R. 1100 is an egregious example of land-grabbing legislation. Despite a legislative hearing and two markups, neither the Majority, nor the bill's sponsor have ever made a compelling case for this boundary expansion. To be fair, the National Park Service did make a case for a five acre expansion for a visitor center and parking lot to address safety concerns and to enhance the visitor experience. The additional 110 acres have been proposed to protect a `viewshed.' Notwithstanding the inherent problems with creating buffer zones, this bill has the additional complication of attempting to protect a view that is not visible from the actual park unit. From the evidence presented to the Committee, and accepted by the Majority, the land in question is not visible from nearly the entire historic site. Rather the viewshed is on the other side of a ridge which marks the park's boundary. The 110 proposed acres are clearly out of view of the Carl Sandburg home, which this National Park unit is designed to preserve and interpret. We have seen no evidence that this augmentation of the immense federal estate will in any way enhance the visitor experience or even protect the National Historic Site. A Henderson County Commissioner testified on the bill that when the Sandburg Historic Site was established, it was limited to preserving the home of Carl Sandberg. Now, as he explained, the park has `evolved', and here we are, having found yet another way to increase the federal inventory of land. This site was designed to recognize the great author Carl Sandberg, not about creating another plan for federal land use controls on private property. The County of Henderson appears to be in much better financial shape than the U.S. Government, with revenues exceeding expenditures. If this land is critical to its future, perhaps it should float a bond issue for open space and buy it. On April 19, 2007, in subcommittee markup, Congressman Rob Bishop offered a responsible amendment to reduce the authorized boundary expansion from 115 acres to 5 acres, providing sufficient land for the Park Service's needs. This amendment was defeated on a party line 7-8 vote following a shameful extension which delayed the vote's conclusion long enough for the Majority to round up the necessary votes to defeat it. Equally abhorrent was the Chairman's decision to disenfranchise a Republican committee member who was present. After the Majority located a sufficient number of votes to defeat this reasonable amendment, they ended the roll call despite the presence of another Republican Committee member who wanted to vote. At the full committee markup on May 2, 2007, again the Majority offered no convincing justification for the land acquisition, but offered that National Park Service wants this land. This Committee rarely hears from the National Park Service about land it does not want, and its desire to own more property hardly constitutes a hurdle. Congressman Bishop again offered his amendment to authorize acquisition of 5 acres to enhance the visitor experience. This was rejected by Majority as was a compromise amendment offered by Congressman Heller that would have authorized the 115 acre boundary expansion if the land was donated, purchased with donated funds, or acquired by exchange. Characteristically, the Majority rejected this reasonable amendment. We realize that our colleagues in the Majority have grown weary of hearing
about the National Park Service's maintenance backlog, but even they should be
able to understand that there are more immediate needs in the National Park
System than its endless expansion. Now is not the time to continue feeding the
National Park Service's appetite for land acquisition and further exacerbate its
backlogged responsibilities.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM) No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)
|
|
||||||||||||||
