Jeff Denham

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Senate bill 1710 would designate the United States courthouse located at 222 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. Just last week, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, which I chair, marked up the House companion bill introduced by Congressman Don Young of Alaska, and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. Judge James M. Fitzgerald had 47 years of experience as a judge, both in the State of Alaska and on the Federal bench. He was one of the first judges appointed to the Superior Court in Alaska when Alaska became a State in 1959 and was later appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court in 1972. In 1974, President Ford appointed Judge Fitzgerald to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, where he remained until his retirement in 2006. I think it is more than fitting that a Federal courthouse in Anchorage bear his name. I support passage of this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1710.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, you know, the last couple of amendments we've talked about the inconsistencies on how they affect other counties in the community. Certainly my county and Stanislaus County has been excluded, even though it certainly has impact in this area. But even San Joaquin County, this amendment contradicts itself, because West Side ag districts in San Joaquin County, West Side Irrigation District, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Del Puerto Irrigation District, their water is going to be shut off in prior years. Their water will be shut off this year with a 30 percent water allocation. The City of Tracy is important. They should have their water. Thirty percent water allocation is unacceptable. So the inconsistencies around the valley are certainly interesting as these different amendments come up. But why even divide a community that relies on the water that comes out of this allocation?

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about our area of the State, where you have 30 to 40 percent unemployment in some areas. It's not a Republican issue; it's not a Democrat issue. It is an American jobs issue--to put people back to work. Some people say, Well, those aren't the kinds of jobs that we want. You know, it's a dusty, dirty way to earn a living. Yeah, it is dusty; it is dirty. I'm a farmer. And without water, you shut down not only my farm, but you shut down farms throughout the valley, you shut off our food supply, you shut off all of those jobs that desperately rely on water. Now, a lot of people like to talk about a deal is a deal. Back in 1994, we had this grand deal that took CVPIA water, took 800,000 acre- feet for environmental purposes. The deal was that water was supposed to be replaced. The Department of the Interior never did that, just stole 800,000 acre-feet of water, which still has to be paid for by the contract; but nevertheless, we need to make sure that our valley farmers are held whole. Let me talk about a couple of different issues within this bill. Again, this is about our priorities as the House. The Senate may or may not agree with them, but we'll never know if we don't have the debate. Shouldn't the Senate at least have an opportunity to look at this bill and vote on the bill and debate the bill? If they don't like the bill, present us your own; but don't just ignore valley farmers. Don't just ignore the amount of jobs that we're losing as a State. You don't like it, come up with your own bill. We'll vote on that; we'll debate on that. But we're going to express our priority, and our priority is about the jobs of the Central Valley. We're going to send you a bill that not only deals with greater water certainty, but also deals with duplicative regulation. I'm also on the Transportation Committee; and whether it's the Resources Committee or the Transportation Committee, when you have a higher environmental law, like California does, why go through these same environmental policies twice? Why not streamline NEPA so that you don't have that duplicative regulation that shuts down our water projects? And while we're at it, we can fight all we want on where the water that we currently have is delivered or who wins and who loses; but we lose as a State, we lose as a country until we get more water storage. We've put an amendment in this bill in committee that will authorize new water storage, whether it's Sites Reservoir, Los Vaqueros, Shasta or, in my area, Temperance Flat. But we have to have more off-stream storage. And in Los Vaqueros, in Congressman Garamendi's own district, in his own backyard, we can have water storage today without any cost to the Federal taxpayers. Where we've got users that are willing to pay for more water storage, and the water is desperately needed, why wouldn't we approve those projects? That's authorized in this bill. This bill deals with certainty. This does deal with a number of years of a problem, and it certainly deals with drought years, as well as certainty in wet years. But it also deals with greater water storage. So if you want to end this debate once and for all, let's make sure we keep up with the population growth of California. Let's have greater water storage, and let's solve this problem so that we don't have the double-digit unemployment in the Central Valley.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing the inconsistencies in the amendment itself. Here the gentlelady is talking about San Jose, yet San Jose is south of the area we're talking about, and yet Silicon Valley receives water exports from the delta. But let's take a different inconsistency. I represent Stanislaus County, which is north of Stockton. Maybe we need to look at a map. We actually have Stanislaus County that reaches up past Stockton, San Joaquin County, the Sacramento area, and yet we're going to be excluded. So it's one thing to pick winners and losers in this, but what we try to do is not pit north versus south. We're trying to use natural resources in the best option available. I find interesting another inconsistency: This amendment, does it include forestry, which resides under the jurisdiction of USDA? Are the authors not concerned about the devastating effects of the timber industry and how it's suffered due to the ESA issues associated with the spotted owl? There are many inconsistencies here. Pick your battle.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. It is time that we come up with a solution that avoids further cost, that avoids further delay, that avoids us having to continue to cut jobs in the Central Valley and in California. It's time to come to an agreement that will actually save the Central Valley and our farming industry and making sure that we've got certainty in water year in and year out. This bill will show the priority of the House. If the Senate has a different priority, let them show that. But the California public expects the Senate and the House to work together, just as we've come together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill.

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this not only in support of the rule, but in support of the bill. This is something we went through in committee with very great debate, but it goes well beyond the debate of committee. We've debated this in the State of California for many, many years, if not decades now. To have Members from California come down to the floor and say that this is mindless, this is anything but mindless. These are jobs. When you go down to Dennis Cardoza's district and see 30 percent unemployment in the Los Banos area or down to Jim Costa's district and see 30 to 40 percent unemployment in Firebaugh or over in Mendota, and you call it mindless? Come down and talk to the people in our districts and tell them that their jobs are mindless, that their homes are mindless, that their cars that they're having to give up are mindless. These are farmworkers. These are individuals. These are farmers that are seeing their families destroyed right now. It is not mindless. They are certainly not special interests. Come down to these districts. We have invited the President, on a bipartisan basis, many times now to come to California. Don't just go to L.A. and San Francisco, but come see the Central Valley and the challenges that we have. See how, when the water is shut off, we see our farms destroyed. This absolutely has impact on the rest of the Nation. If you want a safe food supply, if you want a reliable food supply, make sure we have reliable water delivery. That is simply all this does. Anytime that we talk about water throughout the Nation, or certainly throughout California, it becomes a battle. A lot have talked about pre-'94 when a deal was a deal. That deal hasn't been changed by the farmers. That deal has been changed by Members of Congress that have preempted State water rights. We want a deal. We want a deal every year. We want an agreement that says that if you're going to have a contract for 100 percent of your water, you actually get 100 percent of your water. This year, because we had a lack of storage last year on the wettest of water years in California, this year we're going to have a 30 percent water allocation. We're still going to pay 100 percent of the cost of the contract but have 30 percent of the water, which means once again we will see 30 percent unemployment in Jim Costa's district, in Dennis Cardoza's district, in my district, and in many of the districts throughout the Central Valley. Before you start to ignore many of our agriculture acres and many of the jobs that go with it, let's come together in a bipartisan fashion as we've done in the committee level, as we've done elsewhere within the State, but making sure that Republicans and Democrats are working together and, more importantly, that the House and Senate are working together. I give a great deal of praise to the author of the bill, Congressman Nunes, for getting a regional perspective for this, getting north and south and central California to actually work together. That is a tremendous accomplishment. The bigger accomplishment is actually getting the Senate and the House to work together.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor Dewz Restaurant in its success as an OpenTable Diner's Top 100 ``Best Overall'' restaurants in the nation for 2011. This prestigious award comes from the OpenTable Diner's Choice ``2011 Annual Winners--Best Overall Top 100 Restaurant List,'' based on the reviews of more than 10 million users surveying 20,000 restaurants nationwide. This year, this fine Modesto establishment was one of only ten California restaurants to receive this award. The Aspesi family, Judy and her son Scott, opened Dewz in 1997, and shortly after, teamed up with executive chef Vicente Alvarado. Since then, Mr. Alvarado has enriched Dewz Restaurant with exceptional recipes. Dewz Restaurant's unique twist on combining American cuisine with Asian and French influence has made it a well known place for dinning in the Central Valley. The restaurant is known for its fresh food as well as its extensive wine selection, which features varieties from around the world. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending Dewz Restaurant for this prestigious recognition and in wishing them great success in their future endeavors.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is to the honor of our service members that when they wear the uniform, they do so with the full knowledge that their engagement for our Nation will take them on long, sometimes dangerous missions far from home. Each one is conscious of these dangers but chooses to confront them in the defense of our values. As a veteran I understand that this choice to serve is not just personal, it is shared with their families who must also accept the risks, the absences and in the ultimate circumstance--the loss of the one they love. It is to you the families that I now turn my thoughts to express with humility, my gratitude and respect. It is fitting that the symbol chosen to mark this shared sacrifice is a Gold Star--fitting because we do not remember simply to mourn but rather to hold high the example of their courage, their willing abnegation. A star, fixed always in the firmament of heroes that we have been blessed to know. Outside my office door, unique to the halls of Congress is a flag displaying one such star. It stands in tribute to the son of a staff member of mine who gave the fullest proof of his love for our Nation. That flag reminds me of my duty as a Congressman to ensure that those who fight for our country and their families receive the support and care that they earned through their service. As the original author of the California Gold Star License Plate Bill, these families have a very special place in my heart and I am humbled to continue my support and commitment in their premium sacrifice being recognized. Allow me once again to express my respect and fervent prayer that the strength we witness in you affirms in each of us the courage to serve our country in all ways we are able.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the Turlock Irrigation District as it gets ready to celebrate its 125th anniversary this year. Established in 1887, the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) was the first publicly owned irrigation district in the state. Organized under the Wright Act, the District operated as a special district under the provisions of the California Water Code. In 1893, TID and the neighboring Modesto Irrigation District built La Grange Dam to divert water into their canal systems; and in 1900, Henry Stirring was the first farmer to receive irrigation water from TID canals in Ceres. Beginning in 1923, TID began a system of expansion to provide electric retail energy, as new dams and powerhouses were constructed. Since then, TID has been able to provide safe, affordable and reliable electricity to a growing retail customer base, which has expanded to include over 98,000 residential, farm, business, industrial and municipal accounts in portions of Stanislaus, Merced, Tuolumne and Mariposa counties. 2003 was a monumental year for TID, when they purchased a 225-square-mile electric service territory from PG&E and designated it the Westside Service Area. In 2005, the Turlock Irrigation District became certified as an independent control area and opened the Walnut Energy Center, a natural gas-fired plant, in 2006. The most recent development occurred in 2009, when TID purchased the Tuolumne Wind Project, a wind generation facility capable of producing 136.6 megawatts, and began installing SMART Meters in its service area. Currently, TID provides irrigation water to more than 5,800 growers in a 307-square-mile service area that incorporates 149,500 acres of Central Valley farmland. The Tuolumne River is the District's primary source of water, originating at Mt. Lyell in Yosemite National Park. Water for irrigation and hydroelectric power production is kept at Don Pedro Reservoir--about 50 miles east of Turlock in the Sierra Nevada foothills, near the historic gold rush era town of La Grange. On February 24, 2012, the Turlock Irrigation District will be hosting a VIP showing of the documentary film they helped to produced entitled, The Irrigationist: The Story of the Turlock Irrigation District. The documentary will serve as an educational tool to inform people of all ages about the District's rich history and is a wonderful way to involve TID customers in celebration of the District's 125th anniversary, which occurs on June 6, 2012. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the Turlock Irrigation District on the release of the new documentary film and the upcoming 125th anniversary of aathis pioneering institution.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to Mayor Jim Ridenour, as he completes his second term and concludes his service as Mayor of Modesto, California. Born and raised in Modesto, Mayor Ridenour enjoyed a successful career in the ambulance industry before embarking on a career in public service. In 1974, he became the first paramedic certified in Santa Barbara County and served in law enforcement as a reserve deputy in both Stanislaus and Santa Barbara Counties. In forty years of service, Mayor Ridenour became Vice President for Central Valley Operations for American Medical Response and served five terms as chairman of the California Ambulance Association. Since 2003, Mayor Ridenour led the city of Modesto under the premise that local government should be responsive to its citizens by providing basic services, while still being a responsible steward of taxpayers' dollars. The Mayor's background in business proved to be a perfect foundation for his commitment to making the City of Modesto a safe and prosperous community. During his time in office, Mayor Ridenour focused on improving the city's economic development, its transportation problems, and the citizens' overall quality of life. In addition to his many daily tasks as Mayor, Mayor Ridenour also served as chair of the Audit Committee for the Modesto City Council. Mayor Ridenour further demonstrated his commitment to public service during his tenure as the 2010-2011 President of the League of California Cities. He demonstrated true leadership by bringing leaders together to address regional and State challenges. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring and commending the outstanding contributions made to the City of Modesto by its long-time public servant, Mayor Jim Ridenour. He has been a true inspiration to those he has served; and although he has completed his service as Mayor, I know he will continue to make a meaningful difference in the lives of those around him.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, first of all, the President's Commission, in his BRAC, includes VA properties. As well, former VA Secretary Anthony Principi testified in front of our committee that we ought to be looking at all properties, including VA. If we're going to do the best interest of American taxpayers, we've got to address waste in government overall, across the entire Nation, across every agency. If there's a property not being used today, then we ought to look at either redeveloping it or selling it off. And this gives us an opportunity to have Republicans and Democrats come together on something that the President included in his jobs bill to actually create American jobs. The Old Post Office right here in Washington, DC is the perfect example of waste in government. We've had a property sitting well over a decade that costs us $6.5 million in upkeep every single year. Now we've got redevelopment happening, where we've got different hotel companies coming in and not only bidding on it, creating 150 new jobs in construction, but an additional 150 jobs in ongoing jobs once the facility is redone; keeping it in its historic fashion and actually being able to utilize it once again; an opportunity to redevelop things that aren't being used today, but also selling off things that have been sitting for decades. Our Federal Government has a horrible track record of selling properties that aren't being used. In fact, we've sold 82 properties in the last 25 years. We can do much better, and the American taxpayers demand that we do much better. Here's a bipartisan opportunity to get both parties to come together and just sell things that we don't need. If you want to bring in revenue to reduce our debt, here's an opportunity to get rid of the things we don't need, redevelop the things that aren't being used, and get rid of the waste in government. Almost $2 billion we waste every year just in maintaining properties that, again, aren't needed in government. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor Mr. Richard L. Cotta on his retirement from the California Dairies, Inc., and to thank him for his dedication to the agriculture community. Since 2007, Richard L. Cotta held the title of President and CEO of California Dairies, Inc. (CDI). He spent his entire career in the dairy industry in virtually all aspects of the dairy business--from the dairy farm to genetics, to dairy processing and dairy politics. Cotta's career at CDI began in 1993, when he joined San Joaquin Valley Dairymen--a dairy processing and marketing cooperative--as its General Manager. In 1999, San Joaquin Valley Dairymen merged with Danish Creamery and California Milk Producers to form CDI. Cotta was named Senior Vice President of Producer Affairs and Government Relations at CDI, a role he held until he was named CEO in 2007. Under his leadership, CDI profits reached record levels. From 1984 to 1993, Cotta served as the CEO of Western United Dairymen, the largest producer trade association in the state. From 1980 to 1984, he was the CEO of United Dairymen of California, a producer trade organization, until it merged to form Western United Dairymen. Cotta testified before the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature on behalf of the dairy industry. At the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he participated in world trade missions to open the U.S. dairy market overseas. Previously, he worked as a sire analyst for American Breeders Service, a classifier for the Holstein Association of America and a principle in Genetics, Inc. For several years, he was a dairy consultant with many successful dairies on feeding, breeding and management systems. Cotta graduated with honors from California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, with a degree in Dairy Husbandry. He currently owns and operates Cotta Farms and is a partner in Terra Bella Farms, both almond farming operations. Cotta currently sits on the following boards--U.C. Davis Deans Advisory Council, California State University Chancellors Agriculture Advisory Council, Sacred Heart School Foundation, and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. In addition, he sits on the Globalization Operating Committee for the U.S. Dairy Export Council. Past board seats include--California Creamery Operators Association (Chairman), Dairy Cares Board (Chairman) California Dairy Research Foundation, U.S. Dairy Export Council, National Holstein Foundation, DairyAmerica (Chairman) and Challenge Dairy Products. Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending Richard L. Cotta for his hard work in the California Dairy Industry and in congratulating him upon his retirement from the California Dairies, Inc.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the life of a beloved leader in the Stanislaus County community, Mr. Dick Monteith, on his 80th birthday. Dick Monteith was born in Los Banos, California, spent his early years attending Merced and Stanislaus County public schools, and graduated from Turlock High School. He continued his education at Menlo College and Stanford University, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Sociology. Soon after graduation, Dick started a life-long career in agri- business as a partner in Monteith Tractor/Truck Company. He subsequently served in the Marketing Department of Gallo Wines, and then as a Sales Representative for Weyerhaeuser Company. He retired as General Manager of Sales and Distribution for Middleton Packaging prior to seeking his first elective office. He was elected to the California State Senate representing the 12th District in 1994 and then again in 1998. In 2006, Dick was elected to the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. During his time on the Board, he witnessed the collapse of the housing market, which caused a reduction in property taxes. The county was faced with the worst budget crisis since the Great Depression. Yet, even during the darkest days, the Board of Supervisors accomplished many projects, including the Crows Landing-West Park Project, Federally Qualified Healthcare Look Alike, New Residency Program, and the sale of the Behavioral Health Center to DMC. Some of the Capital Projects that have been completed during his tenure include the completion of Gallo Center for the Arts, the Empire Pool Project, the Expansion of the West Modesto Clinic, a new Animal Shelter, the Salida Library Remodel Projects and the ground breaking for the Juvenile Commitment Facility. In addition, he has attended 189 Board meetings, considered 4,331 Resolutions and served as Chairman of the Board in 2011. Dick and his wife Jeanine make their home in Modesto. He has two sons, three step-daughters, and four grandchildren. Dick is a member of Christ Community Church and serves on the boards of Modesto Gospel Mission, Youth for Christ and Stanislaus County Prayer Breakfast. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Dick Monteith for his unwavering leadership and recognizing his accomplishments and contributions. Dick serves as an example of excellence to those in our community.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of H.R. 1734 is to shrink the Federal real property footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling what we don't need and better utilizing what we keep. In fiscal year 2009 alone, the Federal Government wasted more than $1.7 billion in operating underused properties. Unfortunately, under existing law, solving this problem is not easy--the process is too cumbersome and congested with red tape. The administration has tried but has realized it cannot achieve major savings without reform. As a result, H.R. 1734 includes a bipartisan solution to this problem--establishing a civilian BRAC-like process. However, unlike BRAC, the purpose of H.R. 1734 is to save money, and the commission would have to recommend actions that would result in net savings. The administration believes there are several billion dollars worth of high-value properties that could be sold quickly, and I agree with their assessment. Federal real property has been on GAO's high- risk list for nearly a decade now, and our committee, which oversees public buildings, has seen the waste firsthand. The amended bill creates a nine-member commission that would review Federal properties and recommend specific actions to reduce the Federal building inventory and, more efficiently, house Federal employees. The commission could recommend property sales, consolidations, redevelopments, or other property actions. The bill does not apply to military bases, national parks and recreation areas, or a variety of other Federal properties. The administration would have 30 days to reject the recommendations or forward them to Congress for an up-or- down vote. If approved, agencies would be required to implement them. In conclusion, let me say that both Republican and Democrat administrations have tried to work within the system to get rid of unneeded Federal property and have failed. Both parties know the process is broken and have proposed an independent BRAC-like commission to solve the problem. I believe this bill is a big step in the right direction, and I thank you for your consideration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1734.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. DENHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate one more time, I support the gentlelady's amendment. I look forward to voting on it as long as she brings it up. We support the homeless in this bill. We agreed to it in Rules. We still support it today, and there will definitely be sufficient votes on this side of the aisle if she decides to bring it up. And you know what? If it doesn't pass, then vote against the bill. But if you believe in the homeless issue, then put your amendment up and let's have the votes on it. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), also a former subcommittee chairman.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects what was agreed to by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on the homeless issue. The amendment ensures that there is a reasonable review of properties for use by the homeless. Under current law, the review process is covered by the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This amendment applies that law in a streamlined way to the civilian property realignment process created in H.R. 1734. The streamlined review process would set a clear timeframe and apply to the types of properties normally used for the homeless, those less than 25,000 square feet or not more than $5 million in value. Over the 25 years since McKinney-Vento was enacted, 82 properties have been conveyed for homeless use. In 25 years, just 82 properties have been conveyed, and we want to continue to extend that, seeing as there may be other opportunities. Typically, these are small properties used for shelters and similar types of assistance. The larger properties tend to be warehouses for food banks. Given this, the amendment provides two triggers, one based on size, and another on value to ensure properties that may be appropriate are considered for homeless use. This is a reasonable compromise to this issue. I worked closely with the ranking member of our subcommittee, and on Friday we had agreed to this solution. Despite reversing her decision, I'll move forward on the agreed-upon language. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. However, since the bill was modified to require the approval of Congress before it can be implemented, CBO now says the savings will be scored on the future approval resolution, and not in this bill before us today. The savings that will be generated by this commission still exist. This will be scored at a later date. Only in Washington, DC can you get rid of properties, get rid of the cost of maintaining these properties, have billions of dollars in revenue, actually create jobs in the redevelopment and sale of the properties and still be able to argue against the savings.

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1734. This has been a bipartisan bill all the way through. It's something we've worked on for well over a year now, including having the President, OMB and the administration working directly with us on this bill. It is something that is important for the American taxpayer. We have enough partisan divide here. To be able to find something that cuts waste, something that brings in revenue without raising taxes, and just a more efficient way of doing business is something that both Republicans and Democrats should agree on. But certainly politics enters into many different situations. As of Friday, we had a bipartisan agreement. I was willing to accept all of the various amendments, including the amendment to NEPA, including the homeless amendment. We've accepted the amendments on several different occasions. First, it was a $2 million exemption for homeless to be able to grab a $2 million piece of property. Then it was renegotiated to $3 million, and then five million. Why the homeless would need a $5 million piece of property is beyond me. But in the sense of bipartisanship, we were willing to agree to that. So that amendment is still on the floor today. We still accept that amendment. We stand by our word. But the other side has decided to interject politics into this, and we will see how that works out in the future. But the last issue I wanted to just touch on was clarifying an important point about the savings of this bill. This will generate significant savings, but I just wanted to touch on how CBO scores those savings. First, the bill authorizes $20 million for the commission itself, just to set up a commission, and $62 million to fund relocation or cleanup costs that may be needed if one of these properties actually has some occupants in them. This $82 million is subject to appropriations and requires Congress to approve a future appropriation. Second, within the first 180 days the bill requires the commission to recommend at least five properties worth a minimum of $500 million for sale. When CBO scored this provision in the reported version of the bill, CBO said it would save at least $160 million in the first 5 years. This requirement to sell at least $500 million in property is still in the bill.

Mr. DENHAM

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that tends to divide this House. Tonight, in a rule, and tomorrow morning, in debate, we will address a bill, H.R. 1734, which can pull both parties together, something that can address the waste in government, getting rid of a lot of the expenses that we have in the ongoing maintenance of properties that we just don't need, getting rid of a waste of properties that we can sell off, and actually bringing in new revenue, not by raising taxes, but new revenue by selling off the properties that are underutilized or excess or have yet to be declared excess properties. We can also bring in local tax revenue by putting private development back in these properties. And most of all, if you really want to create jobs, not only do we have 30 jobs bills sitting over in the Senate right now, but here's yet one more, with bipartisan support, to sell off properties we don't need, reinvest in properties that we can redevelop, rein in the abuse by leasing authority from other agencies, and get government accountable again. H.R. 1734 will be on the House floor, and we'll be looking forward to bipartisan support.