Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually saddened to rise today on this particular bill. The 16 heritage areas that are either existing or proposed, many of them are very good, things that I would readily support.

Unfortunately, they have been packaged into what the government book my high school students read called ``A Christmas Tree'' in a very real way, in which bad proposals can be packaged around the few good proposals that are in here in hopes that people will tolerate the bad in hopes of getting a favorable recommendation from the good. My State and most State legislatures would never have tolerated this type of bill. This bill would be split up in our State so that each proposal would stand on its own merits and go up or down. Unfortunately, we do not use that procedure here. We ought to, but we do not.

Even in areas where something like an appropriation can be justified by lumping things together, in an authorization, it should not. That is why I rise in opposition to H.R. 1483.

When this bill was originally introduced, it was to reauthorize nine heritage areas, giving each an additional $10 million. Since the reauthorization on these nine original areas doesn't lapse until 2012, 5 years hence, it is interesting why we are taking the time now to revisit these particular areas. Even though some of these areas are simple technical corrections and changes, for most it appears that the reason we're doing it again is because they have gone through their money and they want more.

It is difficult when the process of a heritage area is supposed to become self-sufficient. It is an affront to heritage areas that are trying to become self-sufficient and break themselves from Federal dependence.

In 1994 when these same nine areas were being discussed, the Democrat hero of heritage areas, the advocate, the chairman of the then subcommittee, the late Bruce Vento stated: ``There is a limit to the length of time or the amount of money the Federal Government can be in a heritage area.'' Not totally grammatical, but you get the point of what he was trying to say.

He went on to say: ``In 10 years, we are out of there. Then they are on their own and we get the benefit of that conservation.''

Thirteen years later, that has not been the case. In fact, it has been said that for every dollar spent on these heritage areas, there is $10 to $20 from the private sector that comes back. It sounds like a great return on our investment if it could be independently verified.

In fact, during the hearings on this bill, the National Park Service testified that no heritage area has become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, it gets worse.

The Heritage Area Alliance, the association which represents all heritage areas, has told us in committee hearing that they should never become self-sufficient and they should always rely on continuous Federal appropriations for every heritage area. In fact, the Heritage Area Alliance has become a cottage industry where groups get grants from the Federal Government to go around telling other people how to get more grants from the Federal Government. And this performance we are now wishing to reward. While a public-private partnership can yield positive results, this program has taken on a life of its own.

In the Resources Committee, the bill was amended to cut back additional funds to existing heritage areas from $10 million to $5 million. I compliment Chairman Grijalva for his amendment and the chairman of the full committee for accepting it. It is like taking the balls off the bottom branches of the Christmas tree so the cat won't play with them.

And after taking that positive step, they reverse course and tacked on six new heritage areas. They have had hearings, but in fairness, only one has gone through the regular order that the chairman of the full committee established when we first met this year.

The Democrats also decided to make changes that were never part of the hearing. The new heritage areas will now receive $15 million each, up from the $10 million that they requested. It is great and lucky to receive a 50 percent bonus without asking for it. This gracious move by the Democrats means the total cost of this bill is now $135 million. Some of our committees thought that was a paltry sum. But $135 million is the total annual Federal income tax paid by 33,276 middle-class taxpayers. And this is how we are being responsible for their particular money.

We have some problems concerning some of the subtitles included in this new omnibus Christmas tree bill.

A journey through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area has been diligently sought by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I commend him for his dedication to this cause, and there is much of his proposed area that I like and I applaud. However, one of the problems still is there are issues that still persist. There is both support and opposition within this proposed area. Two of our colleagues have asked their particular congressional districts be removed from this designation. In committee, an amendment was offered to remove their districts, but it was rejected. And because this is a closed

rule, our colleagues do not have the opportunity of coming down here and on the floor of the House presenting their reasons why they wish to be withdrawn from this particular district.

We should not take Federal designations lightly. When we create a Federal designation, a Member who is opposed to that should be respected in his particular wishes. We were told this would disrupt the continuity of this heritage area. Well, this heritage area spans four States and it is supposed to still be locally operated. One must ask how a Virginia-based management entity will represent the local interests of four States. It is a legitimate question, but the bottom line is we still should respect our colleagues' privilege to represent their constituencies.

There has been criticism that private property protections in this bill are inadequate. The majority claims that the protections in this bill are sufficient because it states that participation is voluntary. Voluntary.

If two of our Members want to voluntarily opt out of this particular bill and are not allowed to do so, how will any property owner sitting in one of these new proposed districts get any kind of confidence that they are safe when it is not voluntary for any Member to remove their districts from these types of recommendations?

In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have simply provided for the right of private property owners to withdraw their land from a heritage area boundary. This is the exact same provision that has been on the 12 prior heritage areas. This is the same provision that Mr. Wolf added in his bill and was taken out by the committee even though he objected to the removal of that language from his own particular provision. Why are we treating these heritage areas different than the precedent we established for the other heritage areas? It is not an additional burden to the management. It would go a long way to assuring constituents that their rights would be protected. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated again because the Democrats claim that their language was sufficient, an argument that has proved inaccurate on other occasions. In light of the infamous Kelo decision, we need to be extra cautious in the House when we deliberate on property rights.

The other side will claim that there is no risk to property rights. While I hope that is correct, we need to be very sure because boundaries have a consequence, or why should we have them. Proponents of this bill on the one hand say we need boundaries to protect historical properties, but on the other hand there is no regulatory authority. You can't have it both ways. It is an invitation to lawsuits. We have already seen cases brought forward based on these recommendations. I would point my colleagues to Pogliani v. United States Corps of Engineers. It has already happened that lawsuits have been filed to discontinue actions based on inclusion in a heritage area. The right to opt out of the boundary we proposed would have prevented this type of situation in the future.

In some respects this legislation is simply not ready for prime time. The Muscle Shoals proposal, which is another one I like a lot, I think it is good, but it has not yet completed a feasibility study. In other words, we don't have the assurance this heritage area could get off the ground before we wish to actually make the check for it.

We were promised in this particular bill that there would be a map included. If you see in the self-executing rule of the Rules Committee, they have put a number in place that used to be blank. A small little detail. But we have not been provided with a map of what the boundaries of this new heritage area actually are. So how can we tell people they can be voluntarily in or out of it when we don't even know yet what the boundary levels are? No wonder this has become a closed rule.

There is another area in this bill that was created, a Niagara Falls region, at the behest of the very powerful chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. Proponents claim it is needed to protect the falls. Protect the falls from what? What potential harm to the falls can be protected by the provisions of this particular bill? Remember, proponents say there are no restrictions or regulations imposed. Perhaps the totally unique commission that is established in this portion of the bill that has the Secretary of the Interior creating a new entity and staffing it with Federal employees and paying for it can finally answer that particular question. There is little more in this particular provision than using the National Park Service to conduct economic redevelopment projects. The Park Service does not have the expertise, or the funds, or the desire to be burdened with this subject.

At the center of the economic development plan for Niagara Falls is a new casino. Niagara Falls, honeymoons, gambling, there may be a nexus there somewhere for us. But while the State of New York has the right to pursue casinos and help their development, it is inappropriate to use national heritage areas to promote the casino. An amendment was offered when the Niagara Falls heritage bill originally went through the committee to put a firewall between the Federal funds in this bill and the casino. Committee Democrats rejected again this simple amendment. Whatever my colleagues feel on the issue of gaming is irrelevant. We should all agree, though, that this is not an appropriate use of Federal funds, especially when one area is given an advantage over the other.

Finally, concerns have been raised that these heritage areas and their boundaries may be used to impede the placement of energy transmission lines. While this may not be the full intent of the sponsors, we must proceed cautiously before we further damage our ability to keep up with the demand for energy. The grid is already heavily taxed, and it would be a tragedy to see blackouts as an unintended consequence of these designations.

Mr. Speaker, because we do not have an opportunity to improve this bill via amendment as a result of the closed rule, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), at the conclusion of which it would be very nice if the other side would have additional time for him because he's supporting your side.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to yield the gentleman 1 minute of our time as well.

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), once again speaking in favor, and I would ask maybe perhaps the other side would be a little bit more generous than the last time with their giving him some additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 110 organizations interested in property rights who are opposed to this particular bill, including such groups as the Taxpayers Union, a supervisor in the affected area, Property Rights Foundation of America, Family Research Council and a mayor in my district.

Coalition Letter Detailing Risks of National Heritage Area Designation

The following letter--signed by a diverse group of more

than 110 organizations, elected officials and citizens--was

delivered on September 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate

Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff

Bingaman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici, House Committee on Natural

Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, House Committee on

Natural Resources Ranking Member Don Young as well as all the

members of the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees.

Dear [Elected Official]: The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in

Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against

government abuse of property rights. The ``bridge to

nowhere'' and other wasteful programs triggered angry

protests against the practice of earmarking National heritage

areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one.

National heritage areas are preservation zones where land

use and property rights can be restricted. They give the

National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many

with histories of hostility toward property rights)

substantial influence by giving them the authority to create

land use ``management plans'' and then the authority to

disburse federal money to local governments to promote their

plans.

As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on

heritage areas states: ``[National heritage areas] encourage

local governments to implement land use policies that are

consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow

the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land

use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their

property.''

The proposed ``Journey Through Hallowed Ground National

Heritage Area Act'' provides a good case study on how

heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and

influence projects. The chief lobbying organization for this

heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground

Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the

2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of

Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage

area--an earmark that was granted before the organization was

even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued

to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense

of the rights of local landowners.

We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to

local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens

they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle

of representative government and this inherently local

function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests

the authority to develop land management plans and federal

money with which to finance their efforts.

Once established, National heritage areas become permanent

units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent

drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-

dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAG, ``sunset

provisions have not been effective in limiting federal

funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas

that reached their sunset dates received funding

reauthorization from the Congress.''

Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will

precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights

protections and less pork-barrel spending--not more earmarks

to programs that harm property rights.

Please do not support the creation of additional national

heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area

management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for

or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

Sincerely,

David Ridenour, Vice President, National Center for

Public Policy Research; J. William Lauderback,

Executive Vice President, The American Conservative

Union; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers

Union; Paul Poister, Executive Director, Partnership

for the West; Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun

Owners of America; William Niemeyer, Mayor, City of

West Alton, MO; Ryan Ellis, Executive Director,

American Shareholders Association; Peter Flaherty,

President, National Legal and Policy Center; Steve

Snow, Supervisor, Loudoun County, VA; Carol W.

LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of

America; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions

for America; Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government

Affairs, Family Research Council; Jay Lehr, Science

Director, The Heartland Institute; Jim Martin,

President, 60 Plus Association; Bill Moshofsky, Vice

President, Oregonians In Action; Niger Innis, National

Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality; Gregory Cohen,

President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance.

Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland

Taxpayers Association, Inc.; Linda C. Runbeck,

President, American Property Coalition; Thomas K.

Remington, Managing Editor, U.S. Hunting Today; Fred L.

Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute;

Matt Kibbe, President, Freedom Works; Mychal Massie,

Advisory Council Chairman, Project 21; Steve Baldwin,

Executive Director, Council for National Policy Action,

Inc.; Caren Cowen, Executive Director, New Mexico

Cattle Growers' Association; Randy T. Simmons, Mayor,

Providence City, UT, Professor, Utah State University;

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American

Family Association; Leroy Watson, Legislative Director,

National Grange; Kelsey Zahourek, Executive Director,

Property Rights Alliance; Roy Cordato, Ph.D., VP for

Research and Resident Scholar, John Locke Foundation;

Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center; Rachel

Thomas, Property Rights Advocate, Huachuca City, AZ;

Rose Ellen Ray, Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights

Loudoun County, VA.

Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for the

Defense of Free Enterprise; Maxine Korman, Korman

Ranch, Hinsdale, Montana; Gerald Hobbs, President,

Public Lands for the People; John Grigsby, Vice

President, Taxpayers for Accountable Government; Don

Parmeter, Executive Director, American Property

Coalition; Leo Schwartz, Chairman, Virginia Land Rights

Coalition; Pat King, Anvil Ranch, Tucson, AZ; Tom

Borelli, Ph.D., Portfolio Manager, Free Enterprise

Action Fund; John and Connie Morris, Members, Tongue

River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus;

Brad VanDyke, Representative, Rural Utahns for Local

Solutions; Jerry Hamilton, Environmental Coordinator,

Formation Capital Corporation; F. Patricia Callahan,

President and General Counsel, American Assoc. of Small

Property Owners; Lew Uhler, President, National Tax

Limitation Committee; Jon Caldara, President,

Independence Institute; Dan Byfield, President,

American Land Foundation; John Taylor, President,

Tertium Quids.

Susan Carlson, Chairman and CEO, American Civil Rights

Union; Gary Palmer, President, Alabama Policy

Institute; Lenore Hardy Barrett, State Representative,

Idaho; Jonathan DuHamel, President, People for the

West-Tucson; Jack and Patricia Shockey, President and

Director, Citizens for Property Rights; Fred Grau,

Executive Director, Take Back Pennsylvania; Mike Dail,

Chairman, American Land Foundation; Chuck Cushman,

President, American Land Rights Association; James

Stergios, Executive Director, Pioneer Institute; Deneen

Borelli, Fellow, Project 21; Marilyn Hayman, Chairman,

Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights;

C.J. Hadley, Publisher/Editor, Range Magazine;

Elizabeth Arnold, Grassroots Consultant, Environmental

Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK; Greg

Blankenship, President, Illinois Policy Institute; Bill

Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government;

Jane Hogan, Secretary, Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc.

Katherine Lehman, President, People for the USA Grange

#835; Howard Hutchinson, Executive Director, Coalition

of Arizona/New Mexico Counties; C. Preston Noell III,

President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; Dr.

William Greene, President, RightMarch.com; Leo T.

Bergeron, President, Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed

Council; Eugene Delgaudio, President, Public Advocate

of the U.S., Inc.; Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D., Charter

Member, Virginians for Property Rights; John

McClaughry, President, Ethan Allen Institute; Richard

O. Rowland, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii;

James W. Jarrell, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Bear

Hunters Association; Erich Veyhl, Publisher, Maine

Property Rights News; Dane vonBreichenruchardt,

President, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; Mark

Williamson, Founder and President, Federal

Intercessors, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, New

Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; Beth Machens, Board of

Aldermen, City of West Alton, MO .

Janet M. Neustadt, Board of Aldermen, City of West Alton,

MO; William J. Richter, Board of Aldermen, City of West

Alton, MO; Deborah Anderson, Treasurer, City of West

Alton, MO; Susan Silk, City Clerk, City of West Alton,

MO; Charlotte Meyers, Assistant Administrator, City of

West Alton, MO; Ora B. Anderson, Jr., Planning and

Zoning Commission, City of West Alton, MO; Ray

Ponciroli, Board of Aldermen, City of Portage, MO; Army

Ridenour, Director, Americans for the Preservation of

Liberty; Bruce Colbert,

Executive Director, Property Owners Association of

Riverside County, CA; Randall and Ruth Lillard, Farmers

and Landowners, Madison County, VA; Joyce Morrison,

Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist, Fieldon, IL;

Donald Castellucci, Jr., Councilman, Town of Owego,

Tioga County, NY; Milari Madison, Property Owner,

Loudoun County, VA; Robert L. Sansom, Farmer and

Landowner, Madison County, VA; Mary E. Darling,

Sonoita, AZ.

James Vadnais, Port Angeles, WA; Floyd Rathbun, Fallon,

Nevada; Steven and Peggy Breen, Boise, Idaho; Peggy

Bogart, Access Advocate; Dan Goulet, Portland, OR;

Susan Freis Falknor, Bluemont, VA; Harold L. Stephens,

Member, Citizens to Protect the Confluence; Jerry

Fennell, Chairman, Jicarilla Mining District; Bonner R.

Cohen, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Center for Public

Policy Research; Judy Keeler, Secretary, Bootheel

Heritage Assoc. (Animas, NM); Alexandra H. Mulkern,

Mechanicsville, MD; Lee Riddle, Brookings, OR; Stephen

L. Ralston, Columbia, PA; Mark Pollot, Boise, ID; Billy

Jean Redemeyer-Roney; D.J. McCarthy, Civil Engineer;

Clifton McDonald, Needles, CA; Kirk and Jeri Hansen,

Clayton, ID; Suzanne Volpe, Sterling, VA.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the GAO report that was just referenced, it is one of those unique things, not wishing to actually criticize the Federal Government for what they do, but in the entire report, not one property owner was interviewed, not a single property attorney was interviewed, nor a Realtor, nor appraiser, nor a local zoning official. Simply put, the report neglected to ask those who actually know what the impact of a heritage area has on the property rights and values of their land.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield an additional 2 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Do I understand you have no more speakers?

Then I'm prepared to close as well, if that's okay.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of this particular debate, on this particular bill there are elements of this bill that I fully support and I think are wise, good moves forward. There are some things in there that simply are not.

We have talked a lot and heard a lot about some of the better parts of this bill. However, we're talking about heritage areas. And I'm sorry, in all due respect, a casino as a heritage area for Niagara Falls? Those are some of the stretches that we have in this particular element.

When we had our committee hearing, there were several people that were talking about the need for these new heritage areas. One particular individual who was testifying told of the importance of having this Federal designation, so I tried to zero in on that and ask what it is specifically about this designation that cannot be done by the local levels, by State government, the local entity. Give me one thing that cannot be done that only the Federal Government can do. There was not one element that was given until somebody behind him simply answered that the correct answer is there are 15 million reasons why you have this designation, and each one has a portrait of George Washington on it.

We have all been lobbied on this bill, even though lobbying is not allowed in this bill. We have tried to put amendments and provisions of these parts that would clarify, clarify that lobbying could not be used by this Federal money going to these entities, and yet the chairman's argument against this, well, it would be making it too difficult for heritage areas to then ask for money. Had we not had a closed rule, some commonsense changes as, for example, where the map actually is, should there be lobbying allowed, should there be real protection for private property owners, should we actually define what these are, they would have been allowed to be discussed and at least voted on this particular bill. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee cut out that opportunity, and now we're here with a closed bill.

Many of my colleagues who do not serve on the Resources Committee may not be aware that the Department does not support these bills. On each and every heritage area that we've had recommended to the committee, the Department has asked the committee to defer action until a criteria for heritage areas is established. And I can see why some deferment makes sense. Perhaps we wouldn't be here debating heritage areas that have not yet finished their feasibility studies or had their maps prepared had we listened to that advice.

A lot of good things, but this is still a classic Christmas tree with a lot of bad things that are hidden by the good ones.

I urge my colleagues not to support this omnibus lands bill, this Christmas tree of lands bill, simply because there are too many bad things that need to be fixed before it moves on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in it's current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular motion to recommit ensures that the rights of State and local governments within heritage area designations will be able to regulate hunting and that it will be unharmed by this legislation.

This bill currently provides that heritage area designations shall not diminish the right of States to regulate hunting, but it is silent on the issue including the right to carry firearms.

The motion to recommit also clarifies that laws regarding fishing and possession or use of a weapon or trap shall be governed exclusively by States and localities.

The second amendment is a critical right. We want to protect our constituents against consequences of this legislation that could harm that right.

National parks have regulations that limit hunting and the right to carry or possess firearms even in States and localities where it is legally permitted. The text you see to my left is title 36 for the National Park Service Department, and this is the language that would prohibit in heritage areas those rights that even are currently allowed by State and local legislation.

These regulations harm wildlife and the environment because even local wildlife management officials are impeded in their work.

Before any attempt is made to restrict the rights of gun owners and second amendment defenders, this motion to recommit protects their legal existing rights now and in the future. It is important that it be said and be said clearly.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

As I am sure the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia knows, each and every one of the divisions within the Department of the Interior has different sets of rules and regulations. BIA land would not be a problem. A national park designation would be. So any of these heritage areas that were under the direction of the National Park Service, and there are some within this new bill, would fall under title 36. That's why this legislation desperately needs to be there,

the same amendment that we actually did present at another time in one of our committees.

So, yes, it's still significant. It's still important. It needs to be there to clarify specifically. If the intent is not to change what has been happening by the locals, this clearly sets in all these areas what has been local will continue and State and local regulations will have precedence.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 765, I call up the bill (H.R. 1483) to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1483.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, as America continues to grapple with the war and citizens throughout these United States deal with their daily struggles, I think it is important for us to harken back to our heritage and to celebrate our culture.

From the coalfields of southern West Virginia to the Land of Lincoln in Illinois; from the awesome beauty of Niagara Falls to the Muscle Shoals of Alabama; from the hallowed ground of the Virginia Piedmont, where battles were fought to unify this Nation, to the Santa Cruz Valley of New Mexico, this is the fabric of America. This is her heartbeat. Let us take time to listen to it and to celebrate it.

The legislation we are considering today was introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ralph Regula, who has been a strong and effective advocate for heritage areas, not only in the area he represents but also throughout the country, and I commend and salute him for that leadership.

Heritage areas help to preserve and interpret the geological history, the natural history and the human history of an area in a comprehensive fashion so that we and our children will better understand how our land has shaped our history and how our history has shaped our land.

National heritage areas are local community-driven preservation projects. Most of them arise out of the concerns of a core group of committed,

local folks who want to work together to preserve the places and resources that make their country or town or region unique. These citizens bring their proposals to their elected representatives in Congress because they need technical and planning assistance from their government and matching funds to use as seed money to help get their program off the ground.

Now, 23 years after the first national heritage area was designated, the program is at a crossroads. The Congress can either provide the program with the tools and support it needs to continue, maturing into a successful preservation model, or the Congress can turn our backs on heritage areas and leave local communities to fend for themselves as they try to save those things that make them special, that make America special.

We are moving this legislation today because we support national heritage areas and we want to see them succeed. Ever since Congress established the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor in 1984, heritage tourism has been growing, and today it is a significant economic engine. These areas are worthwhile, not only as a way to help local economies, but also as a crucial tool for preserving our communities' and our people's links to the past.

By providing Federal recognition and financial support, we encourage preservation and interpretation of important periods in our Nation's history in a way that traditional units of the national park system cannot do.

Our initial investment ``primes the pump,'' if you will, and ensures that those areas get a solid start toward financial and operational independence. Given that each Federal dollar is matched by local funds, the Federal investment in the heritage area program is money well spent.

In addressing the Rules Committee Monday, my colleague Mr. Regula noted that the $8 million made in his heritage area has yielded more than $270 million in non-Federal funding. For affected local communities, heritage areas are a program that works.

H.R. 1483, as amended, would establish six new heritage areas, increase the funding authorization for nonexisting areas, and make mostly technical changes in the establishing legislation for several of those areas. The bill also includes a study of the Northern Neck of Virginia, requested by our late colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Bringing this bill before the House today responds to the frequent and energetic requests of numerous Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. In total, H.R. 1483 includes bills that are cosponsored by dozens of Members in both parties, including the entire House delegation in Illinois and New Jersey.

We also had very helpful input from the administration on this legislation, including detailed studies of the suitability of each new heritage area. Most of the changes being made to existing heritage areas were added at the request of the National Park Service.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his commitment and leadership on heritage areas. We support passage of H.R. 1483 and urge its adoption by the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady that the gentleman from Utah has already referenced, the chairlady of our powerful House Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Louise Slaughter, who has been a true fighter for her Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute, also.

Mr. Speaker, continuing with the strong bipartisan support for this bill, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and dear colleague, the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood), whose bipartisan nature and friendly relations we're going to truly miss in this Congress next year.

I beg your pardon, it's your side of the aisle that should be yielding the time totally, but I'll be glad to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Virginia, who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation, and I appreciate his help.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with the development of such strong bipartisan legislation of this nature, it obviously takes a lot of work by Members' staffs on both sides of the aisle and by members of the originating committee, our Committee on Natural Resources, as well.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Raul Grijalva, one of those gentlemen that has taken the reins of leadership this year as chairman of our Parks Subcommittee and done a tremendous job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I understand I have the right to close.

That's correct. And I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, in summation, these are not good times for the ratings of the United States Congress in the public opinion polls. We all know that in this body; yet I think if the American people would see Congress in action this very moment that those poll ratings might very well go up.

We've seen examples on this legislation of Members on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan, nonpartisan manner, working to preserve what is the best of America. I look at the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), I look at the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I look at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) on the other side of the aisle, and I look at the many Members on this side of the aisle from different parts of the country, south, north, west, that have joined together in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Yes, we have respectful disagreements, and I respect the gentleman from Utah's position, but we also have worked very hard in what I think the American people want to see, and that is a nonpartisan effort to solve this country's problems.

Now, if you looked up the word ``red herring'' in Webster's Dictionary, the definition would be the property rights arguments that the critics of this bill are using against this legislation.

Heritage areas have no regulatory authority. Over 60 million Americans live in heritage areas. The entire State of Tennessee, for example, the entire State of Tennessee is a heritage area. Almost my entire congressional district is a heritage area. There have been no impacts on private property rights, mining, road building, economic development. I believe we've done quite well in each of those areas in my congressional district, most of which is a heritage area.

And the gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, brought out very well where we've seen no instances where there have been private property issues, no instances where such problems have occurred.

Now, those that have expressed concern about property provisions in this bill, let me be clear. In the 20 years plus of this program's existence, opponents have not been able to identify one single instance in which someone has been deprived of the use of their property as a result of such designations as we're considering in this bill.

And nevertheless, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has quoted, we do, in this legislation, provide extensive property, private property provisions. These private property protections are the same language approved by the Senate, the same language proposed by the administration in heritage area systems bills under consideration in this Congress, and the same language included in heritage areas bills passed by the previous Congress under the other party's control.

The history of this program, as we have seen in repeated debate on the floor and in committee, not to mention the GAO report which has been referenced, has proven that there are simply no legitimate private property issues here. It's time to move on, stop flogging this dead horse and bringing up this red herring.

Now, the gentleman from Utah mentioned our late colleague, the gentleman that was elected to Congress with me, the late Representative Bruce Vento, the former chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. And the gentleman from Utah mentioned that he did not intend for the Federal heritage areas to last longer than 10 years. I'm reasonably sure, however, that our late colleague did not foresee these areas having to contend with close to $90 a barrel oil and the other increase in costs, I might add, that the numerous heritage areas created under Republican Congresses that were all authorized for 15 years. We have provided an increase in authorized funding for heritage areas to ensure that heritage areas have enough funds to get on their feet.

So the issue here is not private property rights. The issue is not gaming in these areas. The issue is not earmarks. I would say to my colleagues, imagine, for example, if Yellowstone National Park did not exist and Members of Congress introduced legislation to provide for such a crown jewel of our national park system. Would that be called an earmark?

The issue is not lobbying by local people, our local legislators. They have a right to try to secure that additional State and local funding necessary to match Federal funding. We provide

protections. Federal law prohibits any other lobbying by local groups.

So the issue, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, is not about earmarking, not about lobbying, not about private property rights; it's about the American people and protection of what is theirs and providing our American people a place in which they can take their families, can spend quality time of life in these times when it's so hard to spend quantity time together, that they spend quality time together. And that's what we're talking about in this legislation. That's what we're talking about in our heritage areas, in America's heritage.

So I conclude by urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue the nonpartisan, bipartisan spirit that has brought this bill to the floor and pass this legislation by a tremendous margin.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise maybe not necessarily in opposition to the motion but, nevertheless, to claim time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue, as is typical of a minority of the minority, that has not been mentioned one iota in any of today's debate, in any of the committee debate developed on a bipartisan, nonpartisan nature in bringing this bill to the floor, not in any way brought up in any of the extensive hearings held by our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, and is brought up at this last second out of the clear blue, which, again, I say should not be surprising because it is typical of a minority of the minority to make such efforts.

But I would ask the gentleman from Utah, is he referring to all Federal lands? Because as I am sure he knows, the heritage areas are not part of the national park system, the chart that he just brought forward, nor are they under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The heritage areas are part of a collaborative effort between Federal and State and local people with local governing units with matching dollars, not all Federal dollars, as I am sure the gentleman knows.

So I ask that question. Are you intending this language for all Federal lands?

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

I am not sure we are talking about the same definitions here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1483 back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 765 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 765.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 765 provides for consideration of H.R. 1483, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule also contains a self-executing provision to the base text consisting of a technical correction that

inserts a map reference for a map that was not completed yet by the National Park Service prior to filing the reported bill. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to address the rule and the underlying bill, I want to also extend my feelings of empathy and concern for those out in California dealing with the fires that are plaguing that area of our country. We are all watching and we are all, in spirit, hoping that the fire ravaging will end. We appreciate the hard work and the fearless dedication of our fire service and our firefighters, and we hope that that situation is under control in the very, very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. At the outset, I would like to commend my Republican colleague and neighbor, Congressman Regula, for his leadership in sponsoring this bipartisan piece of legislation.

This bill will provide additional support to nine national heritage areas and allow for the designation of six new heritage areas, making them eligible for Federal support.

I am proud that the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is among these nine national heritage areas. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that I've had with the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, that these heritage areas are an invaluable asset, both to the local communities and to our Nation, from the preservation of local culture and history, to increasing tourism, and as centerpieces for economic growth.

The designation of heritage areas provides for a partnership approach to heritage development, allowing the sites to be locally managed with a local organization coordinating in partnership with local residents.

These areas provide unique opportunities to understand the larger context of these regions' traditions, landscapes and people, and the heritage of this great country.

The Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is not a traditional park. It's a lived-in region where the national, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a nationally significant landscape that celebrates the significance of the Ohio and Erie Canal and its contribution to the region, the State of Ohio, and the United States.

The Ohio and Erie Canal helped connect the Ohio frontier with New York and New Orleans in the early 19th century, playing a key role in linking a previously isolated Ohio with economic centers east and south. And the canal was crucial to the development of Ohio's economy, attracting businesses to the area and providing a viable transportation route for emerging industries.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that with increased Federal support, the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway and other heritage areas included in this legislation will continue to play central roles in their communities and equally important roles in our national heritage.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act will provide support to the National Coal Heritage Act in West Virginia, the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal and National Heritage Area in Georgia, the Steel Industry American Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, the Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America's Agricultural Partnership in Iowa, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in New York.

This legislation will also recognize and bring the benefits of heritage areas to six new communities throughout the Nation: Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area in Virginia, Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in New York, Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in Alabama, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in Illinois, and Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona.

And it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation specifically includes language that protects private property rights. And the bill makes clear that a national heritage area designation does not alter existing regulations or land use plans.

This is a good bill that will help communities and our country celebrate our heritage and use our history for future prosperity and collective pride. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. And, again, I would like to thank Congressman Ralph Regula from my home State of Ohio for introducing this bill and for being a champion of Ohio's heritage.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Washington that this legislation does not affect private property rights. The bill makes it clear that a National Heritage Area designation does not alter existing regulations or land use plans, either.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I only wish the same commitment and tenacity on behalf of veterans that is being expressed here today continues into the future, and I wish that it had been a little bit more at the surface in the past.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats, when they came into the majority in this House, passed the biggest increase for veterans health care in history. They passed in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill $6.7 billion above the fiscal year 2007 budget, which, by the way, was the largest single increase in the 77- year history of the VA, $3.8 billion above the President's request. So we are indeed on the same page in terms of protecting our Nation's veterans, and we are working diligently, not just with our words, but with our votes and with our actions to make sure that we live up to the promise that we make to our veterans.

Returning to the legislation and the rule at hand, Mr. Speaker, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act would provide support for some of our Nation's cultural treasures and will expand support to additional heritage areas. I cannot overstate the importance of many of these areas, not only to the local communities and the regions in which they exist, but to preserving the history of the United States, that history that those veterans fought for, by the way, and these heritage areas stand out for national parks and they are overseen by a coalition of local leaders, community members and local organizations all with an interest in the preservation in their areas' traditions and culture and in the continued vitality of their communities. These heritage areas play a key role in spurring economic development, which serve as a bridge to the future for communities as well as a constant reminder of our past and the cumulative history that has led to where we are today.

I know what the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway means to northeast Ohio, and I know what increased Federal support will do to help it continue serving our community and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material referred to previously by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 765 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Mr. Speaker, this rule is the 39th closed rule the House will be considering this year. The Democrats have not just broken their promise to the American people to cooperate in an open and honest manner, they are actually doing it in a record-setting manner. In fact, this Democrat-controlled Congress has considered more than twice as many closed rules, twice as many, Mr. Speaker, as the previous Republican-controlled Congress did at the same point in the session.

So they didn't just break their promise, Mr. Speaker, they have shattered it. Most troubling of all is that this rule would prevent Representatives from offering amendments to adjust and alter the bill out of concerns directly affecting the districts and people that those Representatives were elected to represent.

The Celebrating America's Heritage Act authorizes $135 billion to be spent over the next 15 years for nine already established National Heritage Areas and six new National Heritage Areas. One of the new National Heritage Areas created in the bill is the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, which includes land in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia. Mr. Bartlett of Maryland and Mr. Goode of Virginia have expressed concerns that the land in the districts they represent is included in this new National Heritage Area and that this bill does not guarantee local residents will be allowed to participate in decisions affecting the area in their districts. If Congress is going to dictate how land is to be used, we must make sure that those who are directly affected by such designations are, in fact, supportive of the legislation.

I believe that all Members should be afforded an opportunity to have their voices heard on behalf of those they represent when their district is directly impacted. It was remarked yesterday in testimony before the Rules Committee by Mr. Young of Alaska, ``That is just good government.'' What he was referring to obviously was to have a Member talk about issues that affect their district. Unfortunately, if adopted, this 39th closed rule of the year will deny Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Goode and, in fact, all Members of the House, the opportunity to bring forth their concerns to attempt to amend--to perfect this bill. Although National Heritage Areas typically do not create additional Federal lands, the Federal Government can significantly impact the use of the land in and surrounding National Heritage Areas.

Mr. Speaker, coming from an area in my area in central Washington that is 40 percent federally owned, I want to take this opportunity to discuss my concerns with future actions that could lead to additional Federal lands. As I have said many times before on this floor, I believe Federal land management agencies simply have too much land to manage effectively. Federal land agencies continue to struggle to maintain trails and facilities on public lands as well as to manage unnaturally high fuel loads that can lead to catastrophic wildfires. We had that discussion on the previous rule; yet, year after year we are spending precious tax dollars to buy up more private property to take off local tax rolls.

There are far more pressing issues affecting public lands management that

we could be considering today. For example, Mr. Speaker, we should be discussing the extension of payments to forested counties for rural schools and roads or for development of clean energy on public lands. These are far more pressing issues, and they are not going to go away. I believe the House should act quickly in a bipartisan manner to address them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. In closing, I would like to read a quote from the distinguished majority leader (Mr. Hoyer) from Congress Daily PM on December 5, 2006, a little more than 10 months ago. He said, Mr. Speaker, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader said that a little bit more than 10 months ago. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority is once again not living up to the promises they made to Americans just less than a year ago. We are shutting out the people and the Representatives who are directly impacted by this legislation with this closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against this, the 39th closed rule of the year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I have highlighted loopholes in the House rules related to earmark transparency. While this is an important issue that still must be addressed, there is still a more pressing issue that the House must act on immediately.

Mr. Speaker, it has now been 130 days, 130 days, since the veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was said in the debate in the last bill, the Senate has appointed their conferees over 6 weeks ago. Sadly, the Democrat leadership in the House has refused to move forward on this bill and name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million.

Last week, Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills that enjoys strong bipartisan support. It is troubling to me that Democrat leadership chose to consider a simple resolution today supporting and encouraging greater support for Veterans Day each year, but thus far, has refused to demonstrate meaningful support for our Nation's veterans by working on this final funding bill. Our veterans, and all Americans, want us to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do what is in the best interests for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I see no better time than right now. Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill and appoint conferees.

The amendment to the rule I am offering would allow the Speaker to declare a recess for the purpose of consulting with the minority leader prior to the appointment of conferees. Further, it would provide that the motion to instruct conferees otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within 2 additional legislative days after adoption of this resolution. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we can act on this as quickly as we possibly can.

By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they have our commitment to write a final bill providing them the funding and increase they need, deserve and were promised.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question on the 39th closed rule the House is considering this year, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Thank you very much for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1483 and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

The Journey Through Hallowed Ground is not Mr. Wolf's bill. It is a

Democrat substitute bill that has been added to a larger bill, H.R. 1483, that is also a Democrat substitute bill. H.R. 1483 reflects a big government, big spending philosophy that tramples over taxpayers' interests and private property rights established and considered fundamental by revered American leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. What's more, it is being brought up under a closed rule. An amendment I offered to ensure majority voting control by congressional district residents over decisions by management entities affecting sites in their district located within heritage areas was rejected.

I was an enthusiastic supporter of the establishment of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground when it was perceived as a collective marketing effort. I thought, gee, what a great idea to include in one marketing effort all these grand historic sites in these four States, many of which are in the district I have the honor of representing. The Battle of Monocacy, the Battle of South Mountain, the Battle of Antietam, the C&O Canal that was mentioned by my friend, Mr. Regula, are all in my district. What a grand name for it, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. In fact, this was such a great idea, it was such a fantastic name, that I was a little embarrassed when I thought to myself, gee, Roscoe, why didn't you think of that, such a great idea. Then, regrettably, it has metamorphosed into this big government, big spending bill. If you read the fine print in this bill, you will see that there is a Virginia-based, Virginia-controlled designated management entity that has an exclusive vision that I don't think is consistent with most of the voters in my district.

I have consistently stated and testified on both September 28, 2006, and March 8, 2007, that any Federal legislation to create the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area should retain local control of its management by Marylanders concerning sites in Maryland. I also believe that if the value of land is reduced as a result of actions by the management entity, or local zoning ordinances, for instance, then affected property owners should be compensated at fair market value. I don't only think this, this is a requirement of the fifth amendment of the Constitution. We have taken value from their land, and we need to compensate them for that. We almost never, ever do that. If the fifth amendment of the Constitution were, in fact, honored, most of the governments would be bankrupt because they couldn't pay for the value they had taken from their taxpayers' lands. It is unwarranted to spend $15 million of taxpayers' money to protect and promote the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. This is such a great idea. There is plenty of money out there in the private sector. We don't need Federal money to do this. Supporters of H.R. 1483 have consistently refused to incorporate protections of taxpayers and private property owners. That is why I introduced an alternate bill, H.R. 1270, and approved an amendment to remove the Sixth District of Maryland if we couldn't have majority voting rights. That was defeated in committee on a party-line vote. Actions by management entities and the $135 million in taxpayers' money that will be matched and spent by management entities speak louder than the weak and toothless language in section 2009.

Let me just quote a couple of things from some outside groups that have looked at this. First from Americans for Tax Reform/Property Rights Alliance Vote Alert: ``We urge all Members to side with Americans and protect the right of land use by voting 'no' on H.R. 1483.''

From the National Taxpayers Union: ``NTU urges all Members to vote `no' on H.R. 1483. NTU testified against H.R. 1483 in committee, and we're dismayed to see that the bill has grown in both cost and potential harm since introduction. Rollcall votes on H.R. 1483 will be significantly weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.''

From the Heritage Foundation, in a report that they issued called ``National Heritage Areas: Costly Economic Development Schemes that Threaten Property Rights, Backgrounder 2080:''

``In fact, non-National Park Service funds amount to nearly 70 percent of the costs associated with the national heritage areas. If this pattern continues, H.R. 1483 would lead to an additional $270 million in NHA spending by Federal, State, local and not-for-profit entities.''

``One of the most controversial aspects of H.R. 1483 is the establishment of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground,'' which is in my district. ``The effort is sponsored and promoted by mainly two factions, Virginia-based environmental groups with a long history of opposition to most residential and commercial development in the region and wealthy estate owners who would benefit from the cachet and exclusivity that the designation might bring. The opposition includes local property owners and a large majority in Congress.

``Other NHAs have used their federally acquired authority to impose restrictive zoning requirements on the region's property owners to limit development and/or to force it into directions agreeable to those who guide the management of the NHA.''

Let me review. Members may be concerned that H.R. 1483 would, one, increase Federal funding by 50 percent from $10 million to $15 million per national heritage area, an amount neither requested nor reviewed in hearings, with total additional Federal spending of $135 million.

Two, it would expand the boundaries of three existing national heritage areas and, in addition, it would create six new national heritage areas, including the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, at a total initial authorization of $90 million.

It would reauthorize, increase and extend Federal funding for nine existing national heritage areas through 2012 at an additional cost of $45 million.

All of our Nation's founders knew of the intimate connection between personal liberty, taxpayers' interests and property rights. H.R. 1483 tramples over, rather than honors, these hallowed principles.