On the recordJune 25, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is not a significant bill. We are talking about a couple of acres of property that used to be owned by the Federal Government that had no purpose and use for it. So they gave it up. But instead, Congress decided to include a reversionary clause with this stuff so that if they ever wanted to do something different with these 2 acres of property, they would have to come crawling back to us to ask for our permission to do it, which is silly. It is ridiculous that we have to go through this process time, after time, after time. The Federal Government didn't need this land originally. They still don't need it, but they still have that particular clause attached to it. This land needs to be given over to the city who uses it so they can make improvements on facilities that have been used since the 1800s. And that we have to go through an actual law to do this, is a silly practice that we maintain here in Congress. It should not be done. This is a perfect example of why the reversionary clause is no longer needed. If you really care about people, put a clause in there that says that if they want to change the practice, it has to be for the public interest and the public good. That would be logical. But what we have to do now is illogical in doing this particular bill. It needs to be done. It has to be done for the people who live there and for these properties, but it is silly that we have to go through this process. Mr.…





