Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule, yet another closed rule before the Congress, and I object to the process by which this bill was brought to the floor. Last week, both of the bills we're discussing today under this rule failed to get the two-thirds vote in this body. Instead of working together to resolve the differences with the bills between the leadership, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the majority, simply rescheduled them for floor action today with no Republican input.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to debate these bills, and once again, the Democrat leadership's priorities in this Congress--let's be honest about that--it's about spending money. Spending money, Mr. Speaker, is what this Democrat leadership priority is all about. However, tonight our body will welcome the President of the United States. And the President will be here for the State of the Union, and we will be able to hear from the President about his priorities and about--I think we will hear about how he wants us to work together, work together. Ideas from both sides.

Hey, I get it. The Republican Party is not in the majority. The American people get that. We're in the middle of Democrat majorities that have been in place for 3 years now. And I suspect we'll hear from the President about how important it is to work together and use bipartisan measures to reconcile our differences for the American people so that they can have confidence in Congress, our ability to work together on big issues and small issues, set priorities that the American people can understand.

Yet, Democrat leadership just last week took down the Idaho Wilderness bill and then placed it on the calendar for today with the exact same language, but they removed my colleague, a Republican, Dr. Mike Simpson, as sponsor of the bill and replaced him

with a member of the majority party. Payback time, I guess, is once again in order here on the floor of the House of Representatives, on the exact same day that we're going to welcome the President, and we're all going to put that big smiley face on tonight. We're all working together. Boy, we don't know what's wrong with the problems of the country, but we're going to work together, and then be admonished about telling the truth, which is, Congress is the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is here to do the people's work. We're here to work together. We continue to have ideas that are shut out in the room just above this floor, just above this body, up there called the Rules Committee. We've been trying for years to do that. I wonder if the President would consider that working together by the way we're doing this. I hope he does not. I hope he admonishes us, and I hope he takes us to task and says that foolish political gamesmanship is wasting America's money and America's time, because time is important to the American people, because there are a whole lot of people who are without jobs. They're without jobs because of the lack of bipartisanship and working together in this body, all for spending money because that's what this Speaker wants to do. I think the American people want Democrats to rein in their borrowing, taxing, and spending ways. That's what I think. I don't know. Maybe you'd have to ask the American people.

Oh, by the way, I think they've spoken in New Jersey and Virginia and again last week in Massachusetts. I think they want Congress to stop talking about what they will do to provide jobs and talk about all the things that are happening and actually get to the work of getting it done.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say today, but at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who, last night, very clearly in the Rules Committee, as ranking member talked about what Republicans' hopes and dreams were just on this bill and the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. I know he was busy. I find times when I cannot attend a Rules Committee meeting, and I know the gentleman was not there yesterday. But I need to help him with what actually happened.

As a matter of fact, the Republicans did ask for an open rule. We were not without ideas. You have to open the rule to get amendments in, and we were denied. I also would point to, you know, the idea that we're all sitting around here, Oh, golly gee, we're all bipartisan-- when, in fact, the gentleman voted against the bill just this last week, I assume because he disagreed with the substance of the bill. But he was joined by lots of Democratic colleagues that actually took down the bill because once again, I assume substance--not because it was a Republican's name on there. It will be interesting to see what happens today when there is a Democrat Member's name on there to find out if the same policy differences that existed last week, even though it's the exact same bill, whether those same policy problems still exist today or really whether it was just politics.

And we'll be able to know this afternoon. We'll be able to know because it's the exact same bill and the argument the gentleman is making, We're just all getting our job done around here.

Mr. Speaker, we disagree with the bill. And we spoke yesterday not just about Dr. Simpson's bill; we also spoke about the bill with the $50 million in St. Croix. And I am going to outline part of that here. But it's based upon substance. And the substance that we believe is important is directly related to the National Park Service giving us their study which they spent $500,000 doing. And last night upstairs, we just blew it off: don't worry about that recommendation; National Park Service, they're going to say it's okay.

I'm sorry. In testimony: Do you know what the substance, what they're going to say? No, but I have a good idea. You know, I sit on the committee. I am a ranking member or I am the committee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to run this House. It's the wrong way to run the Rules Committee. That's the wrong way to do things, to ask somebody to do a study and spend half a million dollars and just go ahead and move the legislation without even hearing from people about the substance of the issue.

Forget about it being beachfront property, $50 million, $9 billion backlog of taking care of national parks in this country, and yet it's going to take another million dollars annually just to take care of this beachfront property that the Democratic leadership wants to push.

Americans across the Nation are struggling, Mr. Speaker. They're struggling to provide for their own families and their loved ones. Last week, the Department of Labor released data showing that 12 million Americans are collecting unemployment benefits and over 15 million are currently unemployed. That is double, that is double in 1 year.

There is only so much blame that goes around. At some point the Democratic leadership is going to have to say after 3 years of running this economy into the ground, they're going to have to stand up and be big about it. It's the policies of taxing and spending that the Democratic leadership, the Democratic Members are letting them get away with in this body.

I think somebody is going to have to explain the priorities at some point: why they're putting these two bills back to back, why they're trying to oppose it 1 week with the same policy, the next week presumably will pass it. I will watch with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to see exactly what happens today on the vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's all about priorities; and, you know, I welcome the debate that we're having here today.

We asked that we not do this. We asked, at the Rules Committee, let's not do this bill. Isn't it better that we don't go spend $50 million right now?

It is an island. By the way, every piece of land on the island is not beachfront property.

The bottom line is that we are choosing because it's a priority to do this. It's a priority, and those priorities the Republican Party disagrees with.

Additionally, the second bill that comes under this rule that failed to get two-thirds vote last week is the one we're talking about, H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act. And what this bill really does, as we've heard, is it authorizes but does not appropriate $50 million. If there is anybody in this body who believes that we're going to have a significant debate about the $50 million when it comes in a huge package of appropriations, they're wrong. This puts it in line to be a part of another massive spending bill.

Meanwhile, as we go and buy new Federal land in the Virgin Islands, unemployment rate at 10 percent, that's problematic to me. Even more, Americans, lots of them, don't even have the opportunity to go visit this new $50 million purchase because economic climates are so bad. And you know, even if we weren't running a $1.4 trillion deficit and raising the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion in the next few weeks, there's still this backlog that we could prioritize and put the $50 million in to take care of the $9 billion maintenance backlog that we have in this country.

And by the way, that's cultural. Lots of sites in this country are cultural that are national parks. And the priorities should be of existing decisions that we have made.

I just think it's a bad way to go. But I think it represents exactly the mindset of the Democratic leadership: another good way to spend money, put a happy, smiley face on it, and talk about it's a really good thing for taxpayers.

We're going to find out more when the National Park Service finally releases their study. We are going to find out what they would say. But the Republicans up in the room in the Rules Committee last night said let's wait. Let's not spend the money. Let's wait to find out what we do. And most of all, let's make this an open rule so every Member can bring their ideas down here.

It's not going to happen. Party-line vote.

So what today's legislation should show the American people is about this Congress' priorities: First, that the Democrats refuse--once again, nothing new--to work with Republicans on anything from water bills to national health care reform. Secondly, that jobs and the economy come second to the $50 million worth of taxpayer funds for beachfront property that most Americans will never, never, ever see.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want jobs. They want fiscal responsibility by this body. They want us to work together on the issues and the problems facing this country. And I think they are seeing, once again today, after what was called the wake-up call last week, that we are not doing any of those.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority continues to serve initiatives and policies that will lead to more unemployment, more debt, and more taxation. This administration and the Democrat Congress promised Americans they would be serious about jobs, economic recovery, health care, cleaner energy, and better education. The list goes on and on and on. And what we see after 3 years, now entering the fourth, of Democratic leadership majority in this body is that they are driving our country to record deficits, record unemployment, record spending, and record inability to take responsibility for what they have done on their watch being the policy arm of this government.

This rule does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability, either. And with this legislation, Congress only continues to increase Federal debt, slows down our economic recovery, increases the Federal burden and the financial burden placed on our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised Americans if Congress passed the stimulus bill that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent. That was a long time ago. They promised that it would save millions of jobs. Here we are 1 year later, record unemployment and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the package that was called the ``jobs bill,'' a $1.2 trillion stimulus package, and today in the papers we read about not only is it not working, it is doing what Republicans said at the time. It is going to add to unemployment and debt that will increase at an exponential rate.

In June of last year, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-trade bill that would also raise prices on energy and goods and services for hardworking Americans across this country. In my home State of Texas, the average household would expect to pay more than $1,100 extra a year. No wonder--no wonder there is an outcry. Once again, part of a legislative package, an initiative, that would lose 1.38 million manufacturing jobs. They are in the middle of that right now.

Somebody is going to have to stand up and take accountability for this, because it is happening on the leadership of the Democratic Party's watch. And today, despite these facts, we are spending more money and going to place America in a deficit position again.

Mr. Speaker, in November this last year, the Democrat-controlled House passed sweeping health care reform that effectively diminished employer-based insurance and now is a part of a debate as we continue to lose jobs. It's time that the Democratic Party began working with Republicans if you want to bring jobs back.

Mr. Speaker, the majority party is out of touch. They are out of touch with Americans. Their priorities on borrowing, taxing, and spending are killing our economy and ruining progress for job growth. I know, once again, today I, Republicans, are the minority party. All we can do is stand on the floor and talk. But we believe that the processes up in the Rules Committee are important. That's why we were there even last night trying to say this is the wrong thing to do and that $50 million more does matter. We cannot remedy the economic circumstances that we're in by increasing spending, not on national parks in the Virgin Islands and not on a $1.3 trillion health care bill that will destroy 5\1/2\ million jobs.

Huge energy and health bills are going to raise taxes and kill jobs, and certainly raise expenses for States. And people over the last year, we've heard our constituents say that they want stability, they want us to work together, and they want us to focus on the things that would bring about a better tomorrow.

I disagree with what we are doing again today, and I respectfully would say to the American people and my colleagues we should defeat this bill. It's the wrong direction. It's a bad idea, and the timing of this is very bad.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to welcome the President of the United States tonight. I hope we listen to what he says.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for representing the Democratic Party today. I think that it's important as we approach today that the hopes and expectations of a Nation who tonight will listen to our President will be in our hearts and our minds.

This country has had serious days in our past, and we are in serious days today. I don't think there is any problem bigger than a solution in this country. I do believe, however, and I have believed this, that when it comes to the economy, building jobs and working to create a better environment where America is competitive in the world, that it will require not just a basic sense of understanding marketplaces, but really, Mr. Speaker, of discipline, of seeing the problem for what it is.

It is a problem that has been self-induced. It is self-induced by this body, who in the midst of the greatest expansion--and I remember just a few years ago with my friends who were Democrats, oh, all this money that this country has, we are not spending it the right way. The priorities are mixed. We should go spend more money and help people who do not have the advantages because this booming economy has not gotten to them yet.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that. I do understand that a lot. I spend a lot of time working with disabled people in this country. But what happened in that process was we flipped so far over to where we are now killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and that is the free enterprise system. The free enterprise system, as a result of this Speaker and the policies of the Democratic Party, are pushing an agenda that would lose this country 10 million jobs. We are in the middle of that.

The assault on employers is part of the political agenda. I get that. I think the free enterprise system gets that. But the American people have now caught on. And I think it's time, if we really want to talk about having jobs, jobs that can be competitive with the world, jobs that are not nickel-and-dime jobs or here today and gone tomorrow, that it will require a discipline and a philosophy of understanding how jobs are created and the free enterprise system and the decisionmaking.

The decisionmaking is that this Congress needs to do at least three things:

Number one, they need to make sure that we cut capital gains taxes so that people will invest in this country. They will invest in this country, and the creation of jobs will occur.

Secondly, we need to make sure that we do away with, or greatly diminish, depreciation. Depreciation is government competing against the free enterprise system for money.

And perhaps most importantly, or lastly, the death tax. The death tax because literally, after three generations, anybody who owns a family- owned business has to lose it. It's gone. It's gone from taxation from a Federal Government that is controlled by those who want to tax and spend and diminish that for the spending of the government rather than people who have jobs.

So, look, I think we ought to take the responsibility today. I think, just like somebody going to a meeting and admitting that they made a mistake and they were wrong and they have a problem, being honest about the problem, the creation of jobs won't come through some trickery. It will only come from doing the things that business itself will tell you it needs: reducing capital gains on a permanent basis, reducing the problem that we have with depreciation, and lastly, the death tax. We don't have to take it to $1 billion or half a billion dollars. We could move it probably to $50 million or $60 million and stop the burden, the bleeding, that is happening where people are losing their land, their property, and their businesses. But it takes someone who understands that.

I spent 16 years in the free enterprise system, 16 years where I never missed a day of work. I loved what I did. But I saw Washington as the problem. That's why I came to Congress. I still see government as being the problem. And here today, we give a lot of lip service to jobs, and people act like, well, I just really don't know what to do.

The fact of the matter is the political agenda of losing 10 million American jobs, which we are in the middle of, health care, cap-and- trade, and card check are strangling this country. If we want to be honest about this, just like an alcoholic showing up at an AA meeting and admitting there is a 12-step process to coming back, we need to understand that we are taxing too much, we are spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and the debt is strangling this country.

Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1038.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1038 is a single rule that provides for separate consideration of two measures. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act, and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act.

Each bill has 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule also allows a motion to recommit with or without instructions for each of the two bills.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010, and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act, are 2 pieces of legislation that represent years of hard work by their sponsors and the local communities that are at the heart of both bills. H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010, introduced by Congresswoman Donna Christensen, will add a new treasure to our Nation's National Park System. From the early times of Yosemite and Yellowstone to the national monuments right here in Washington, D.C., our country has had the foresight to preserve the tangible places which house our Nation's character, identity and history. Today, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 does the same for the history and identity of a unique place in our country, the U.S. Virgin Islands.

This area of St. Croix holds a great number of historical remnants, not only from the colonial age, when the West Indies played a prominent role in shaping world history, but also pre-Columbian archeological sites, continuing a proud and long tradition of preserving the remnants and artifacts of our first nations in this hemisphere begun by the Park Service in my State of Colorado with Mesa Verde National Park. Largely of Danish origin, the colonial history of St. Croix preserved at Castle Nugent is among the oldest in the West Indies. This national historic site preserves much more than history. It also preserves a great deal of natural habitat. The site includes sensitive sea turtle nesting areas and habitat, healthy and increasingly scarce coral reefs, and a lagoon that provides habitat to a wealth of wildlife and plants.

For any proposed National Park System addition, the first step is to have the Park Service complete a study of the proposed addition, and to ensure that the proposed addition does, in fact, deserve to be included among the treasures of our Nation that the Park System includes. The National Park Service concurred, and found that Castle Nugent area does in fact deserve to be included as a part of our Nation's national parks. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act, a bill that has undoubtedly been the focus of a great deal of work by its key sponsors, Congressman Minnick of Idaho and Congressman Simpson.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 provided our Nation with a tool to preserve its last remaining wild places untrammeled by man. Like my home State of Colorado, Idaho's sweeping beauty, rugged mountains, wildlife, and waterways form the foundation of our country's cultural identity and our civic pride. The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area was created in 1946 as one of our country's first wilderness areas and has preserved the wild nature of a truly breathtaking landscape. Adjoining the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area is the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness area designated in 1980. Predating the existence of these two wilderness areas, private land owners had received permits to maintain and repair water diversions that existed on National Forest Service lands. Many of these permits have since expired, leaving those who own the water diversions unable to mechanically maintain their water systems since they're within designated wilderness areas.

H.R. 4474 would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to issue special use authorization to owners of these water storage transport or diversion facilities to allow for their continued maintenance of their water facilities, allowing local water rights and ensuring that they continue to access their water.

Mr. Speaker, this rule and both these bills are straightforward and provide a great deal of benefit, not only to our country, but also to the communities and residents who are most directly involved and impacted. I urge passage of the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I find little objectionable in what my colleague from California said. Certainly there is great opportunity for trade with South Korea and Panama and Colombia to create jobs, but none of those agreements are the topic of the rule before us today.

And I want to give a little background on this and talk about how we can move forward.

First of all, we could have moved forward in a more bipartisan way had these passed on suspension. What does suspension mean? A suspension requires a two-thirds vote of the House. The bills are nonamendable in that form. Both bills passed with a majority instead of two-thirds. H.R. 3726 passed 241-173 and H.R. 3538, which was the version identical to H.R. 4474, passed by 225-191.

So since they both passed by majorities but not two-thirds, they came before us in the Rules Committee. And we would have loved ideas. My colleague, Mr. Sessions, talked about how can we work better together. Well, there weren't any amendments that were submitted. This would have been the time, whether the ideas came from Republicans or Democrats, and our Rules Committee has an excellent record of allowing amendments from Members in the minority party as well as the majority party. And I know we take our role very conscientiously in terms of making sure that both parties are represented. There simply weren't any better ideas represented.

The fact is that both of these bills deal with important local issues. They have important buy-in from the stakeholders.

I have personally more familiarity with the wilderness designation aspects because we're working in Colorado in wilderness designation. It's a very real issue when you're dealing with legacy water installations, how can they be maintained if they're on wilderness, how do you grandfather them. And this affects real people.

And it took both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Minnick working across the aisle in Idaho coming together and coming before Congress and saying this is our local solution and asking for us to approve it. It would have been nice if we had been able to get that done on suspension. If there weren't any other ideas to improve it, well, now is a good chance to have a good bipartisan vote to pass the bill.

Same with the other bill, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act. One key thing about this bill is it doesn't spend any money, doesn't spend one dime. You've heard the figure tossed around, oh, it might be worth $40 million, might be worth $25 million. This is merely an authorization bill, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fully aware.

The bill simply designates this area as a new unit. But the bill contains no direct spending. And any land acquisition, if it occurs, would be subject to appropriations or to fund-raising or donations.

Enactment of this legislation is just the beginning of a very important process that we've been through with many other national monuments to preserve a unique and stunning area for inclusion in our national park system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take some degree of offense coming from Colorado if people were to call our wilderness area kind of denigrated as mountain-front property. It so happens that our State is a mountainous State so property happens to be mountainous.

Likewise, when you're talking about an island, you can call it beachfront property, but it's an island. It's by the beach. That is what an island is. We're a mountainous State; St. Croix is an island.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter.)

MR. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend, Mr. Polis, and Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend from Texas talk about our Rules Committee meeting last night, and what he forgot to mention to you and to this body was that this bill that is before us concerning the Virgin Islands is an authorization bill. Now, to the world, what does that mean? It means it only gives the authority for the National Park System to decide whether they want to accept a donation of the property, they want to pay for the property, or make an exchange for the property. There is no appropriation. There is no money spent.

And I appreciate my friend's comment about the need for the study. Well, the study will be there before any money is spent by the United States of America.

But according to the testimony, this is property that has cultural value as

well as scenic value, something that is important to the preservation of these islands and that is important to the United States of America. So this bill just authorizes it; doesn't pay anything for it.

Now, my friend from Texas talked about jobs. What he forgot to tell you, tell all of us, was that when George Bush left office last year, we lost 785,000 jobs in that month. Last month in December, we lost 85,000. Still not good enough, and we all know that. Still not good enough. But 785,000 at the end of the Bush administration and in 1 year we reduced that to 85,000 a month.

Now, we've got a lot of work to do, and we need to do it in a bipartisan way. So my friend is right: we need to work together. And I intend to work with him and with others to reverse this system and get people back to work. We've got to roll up our sleeves. We've got a big job ahead of us to get people back to work and to create jobs in this country.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to reiterate that this bill does not cost $50 million, does not cost $40

million, does not cost $30 million, and does not cost one penny. It's simply an authorization. And as my colleague knows in the scene he has gone through, it is just simply part of the process.

If there ever is an appropriation--and there are a number of avenues under which there might not even be an appropriation. There could be a donation of the property. There could be other involvement from other sources. If there is an appropriation, that's when this would be debated. That would be part of a bill, and somebody could offer an amendment that would come before the Rules Committee. And I would certainly support ruling that in order to make sure that that is a topic that this body has the time to discuss. But now is not the debate with regard to the expenditure of any Federal dollars with regard to this matter.

The procedure that has been used, again, when bills come up on suspension, as these bills did, there was no opportunity for the minority party or the majority party to amend the bills or offer alternatives. When the bill then did not get the requisite two-thirds, it came before our Rules Committee. There were no other amendments that were offered by members of the minority party or the majority party.

We are very open, along with my colleagues on the Rules Committee, and I know the House, as a whole, to ideas from both sides of the aisle regardless of where they come from. If somebody had an improvement to the settlement of the water rights in Idaho or adjustments to the borders of the proposed designation in St. Croix, I'm sure that they would have been likely referred to the House for full consideration.

In fact, the minority party has, under both this rule, the opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions with regard to each of the bills. So there is ample opportunity, and we are hearing a deafening silence from the other side with regard to how to improve these bills. The door is more than open.

The first step, again, in finding that they were unable to reach a two-thirds majority was that they would be open for input. There were no amendments, not one, that was presented to the Rules Committee for either of these bills. And I look forward to seeing what the motions to recommit may entail. Again, if they are constructive and improve these bills in any substantial way, I'm confident that my colleagues will join me in supporting them.

I am the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas has closed for his side and yielded back the balance of his time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned health care, cap-and- trade, and card check are strangling the country. Fortunately, none of those are included in this rule.

I hope my colleague will join me in support of this rule which simply brings to the floor two very important issues: the Castle Nugent designation as well as the settlement of access to wilderness area with regard to water rights in the State of Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, my district in Colorado is very lucky to have in it protected places, places that are important not only for the economic well-being of our State, but important for the very foundation of our civic pride and our identity. In many cases, these protections are also part of the fundamental basis of the economy in many of our tourist areas. We know the benefits to local communities from the National Park System. Recreation and tourism provide a long-term and sustainable economic base. Gateway communities thrive from recreationists basing their adventures and their experiences from these nearby communities.

Both the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 and the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act share the story that land preservation done right is a winning local

policy, and yes, a job creator and winning economic policy.

For the Castle Nugent area, this bill represents the preservation of historic habitat that will lead to future tourism and future small businesses and local sustainable jobs. The park proposal would preserve nearly 2,900 acres of former ranch lands as well as 8,600 acres just off the coast which is owned by the Virgin Islands, respecting the wishes of the local and current landowners that their land go towards preservation instead of development, landowners who have fought for years to fend off aggressive development.

For the communities that surround the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness areas, this means that the land that is protected will continue to draw backpackers, fishermen, hunters, climbers, and adventurers from all around to Idaho, and would ensure that the preservation of these valuable local assets would not mean the loss of others.

This bill includes a well-thought-out approach to this challenging set of circumstances, and ensures a number of safeguards that protect the wilderness and the wilderness act while protecting individual rights as well. The permits that this bill creates would only be issued if the owner could prove that the facility existed prior to the designated wilderness area designation, the facility had been used to deliver water to the owner's land since the designation, and the owner had a valid water right, and it would not be practical to move the facility outside the wilderness area.

Again, I would encourage any colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have constructive ideas to improve this bill, it would have been nice if they had offered amendments before, and I hope to hear any additional ideas in the motion to recommit.

It is estimated that several dozen different individuals or businesses have water diversions in the aforementioned wilderness areas. And this bill is a commonsense solution that balances the protection of wilderness areas with the important ability to maintain and access water rights for those who have historically used that water.

Mr. Speaker, passage of both these bills today will be a quick step forward that will benefit local economies at the same time as providing recreational users and tourists seeking exploration and discovery a great experience with history and nature.

I do share with my colleague from Texas, I agree that there is the opportunity to reduce capital gains tax to promote growth. I have two bills in that regard, H.R. 1783 and H.R. 1784, and I encourage my colleague to join me in cosponsoring these efforts. However, much to my chagrin, neither are scheduled for floor consideration in this rule either.

Again, this rule simply schedules for floor consideration the designation of the Castle Nugent Wilderness National Historic Site Act of 2009 and the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act. Both have the opportunity to have a strong bipartisanship majority to settle the access to water rights in Idaho.

And again, with regard to St. Croix, there is zero taxpayer money being spent at this juncture. It is a very legitimate discussion when and if that time needs to arise do we want to spend money on this. That is a totally separate question, and I look forward to a debate regarding that matter. But the authorization is the first step. And I am hopeful that we can preserve the historic legacy and attract good jobs to the U.S. Virgin Islands.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

I thank both of my Rules Committee colleagues for being here. And I will say that this is obviously a very important day. We're anxiously looking forward to the message that the President of the United States will be delivering right behind me here as he provides his State of the Union address. And there is an early indication of what it is that he might say. He is, according to reports, going to be talking about the need for fiscal responsibility, the need for us to do everything that we can to bring about a freeze in spending, and we all think that that's a good first step. I will say that if you look at the two omnibus appropriations bills, coupled with the stimulus bill, the report that we just got of an additional $75 billion on top of the $787 billion for the stimulus bill, we have over the last 2 years seen an 86 percent increase in spending. An 86 percent increase. And I guess freezing with an 86 percent increase that is proposed in spending for the next 2 years is something that may not be all that painful for people who want to maintain a high level of Federal spending.

So, as we look at that, and then recognize that this measure that is before us, that allows for the up to $50 million, $50 million, not billion, not trillion, which are the terms we use around here, but $50 million to be authorized for the purchase of beachfront property in St. Croix, I just don't understand how, on the day that we're going to have the President of the United States stand here talking about a spending freeze, that we could possibly consider taking action such as this.

The American people get it. Last night I had a telephone town hall meeting with my constituents in southern California in the Los Angeles area, and they have been raising grave concerns about the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government, and they have made it clear that they want us to work, not just to have a freeze, but to bring about major spending cuts. The message that the American people have been sending to us that we got, as my friend from Dallas said, a week ago yesterday, is that getting the economy back on track is a very, very high priority. Job creation is a high priority. And we know that.

In my State of California, where we have a national 10 percent unemployment rate in the area that I represent, suburban Los Angeles, we have an unemployment rate in some areas that is in excess of 14 percent. People are losing their homes and their businesses, and they want us to focus on creating good, long-term, private-sector, not temporary government, jobs, not jobs that are going to be engaged in collecting the numbers and information through the census and that sort of thing, those sorts of temporary jobs. They want long-term job creation. And we have an opportunity, in fact, the President has an opportunity, to do just that, Mr. Speaker.

If he were to send us the three pending trade agreements, and I know I've talked to my friend from Colorado about the issue of trade, and I know that he joins me in being a supporter of free trade. I would hope that if the President were to send the three pending trade agreements, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, here to the Congress, I am convinced that at least the Panama and Colombia agreements, based on conversations that I've had with Members on both sides of the aisle, we could have a bipartisan win, and that in passing, if we passed these three agreements, we could create more than a quarter of a million good, private-sector jobs.

Why? Well, if you look on average, the tariff on manufactured goods and other products going into the 40 million-consumer-strong Colombia is 14 percent. That means union and nonunion members who are working for Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, manufacturers working for Whirlpool in Ohio, would have an opportunity to sell their manufactured products, their tractors, their washing machines and refrigerators into this market.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what that would do is create again, good, long-term private-sector jobs. If we were to be able to do the Korea deal it would be the single largest trade agreement in the history of the world. Korea has a $1 trillion economy, Mr. Speaker, a $1 trillion economy. We have about $83 billion in trade with Korea right now. By and large, Korean products, automobiles and other things get to the U.S. consumer tariff free, virtually tariff free. I think that's a good thing. I think imports benefit the consumer.

What we need to do is we need to pry open their market, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I won't take the 5 minutes. I am going to wrap up here because I think what we need to do is we need to not just talk, we need to engage in action.

So, Mr. Speaker, I was just mentioning Korea. The fact is we would have the single largest agreement that has ever been put together. They're our seventh largest trading partner right now, South Korea; and it would mean that while we have their products coming here virtually tariff free, there would be an opportunity for us to have access to the millions of consumers in South Korea which we don't today.

And I also have to say that our inaction, the fact that we've had these agreements signed by our executive branch, the executive branches of those countries, they're awaiting passage here in the United States Congress. Our inaction has really jeopardized our potential for economic growth. Why? If you look at the fact that Colombia has already embarked on a free trade agreement with Canada, if you look at the fact that South Korea is working with the European Union right now, there are other countries and blocs in the world that are taking advantage of our inaction here. And remember again, Mr. Speaker, our action is going to create probably in excess of a quarter of a million good private sector jobs.

So as the President talks this evening about job creation and economic growth and fiscal responsibility, I hope that he will follow his words because he has told me that he believes in free trade and wants to do this Colombia deal. We're awaiting it. We anxiously look forward to his sending it up

so that U.S. workers will have the opportunity to enjoy the kind of success we've seen in the past and I am convinced we will see in the future.

And I thank my friend for his yielding and for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will first speak to the merits of this legislation before focusing on the partisan reasons why the House is having to debate this bill and this legislation for a second week in a row. This bill was originally introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho to require the Forest Service to issue special use maintenance permits to owners of a small number of existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas. Although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners currently lack the authority to maintain and repair these facilities. Failure to maintain these facilities can harm not only those who depend on access to the water that these structures provide but also damage the environment and watersheds of the Forest Service land.

H.R. 4474 will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do the necessary maintenance. The legislation is narrowly tailored to apply only to a small number of sites that meet specific criteria. To qualify, the water diversion facility must have been in existence on the date that the area was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It must have been in substantially continuous use since the date of that designation, and the owner of the facilities must hold a valid water right under Idaho law that predates the wilderness designation.

Additionally, sites can only be covered by the bill if it is not practical or feasible to relocate the facilities to land outside the wilderness area and continue the beneficial use of water recognized under State law.

This is a bill and policy that I believe merits strong support in this House. Congress needs to have a reasonable and commonsense approach to managing our Federal lands. Wilderness designations preclude such commonsense management. The restrictions on activity are so severe and inflexible, the designation is often applied to unsuitable lands, and problems and conflicts arise out of that designation.

And so here we are today. Congress must go back once again and fix the problems created by previous wilderness designation law. Congress needs to execute far more caution and care and forethought before designating wilderness areas, as the effects are to lock up these areas for human activity. We ought to be wise enough to devise sound conservation practices on our land without creating the unintended threats to neighboring families that poorly thought out wilderness designation can bring to many. There is no reason why we cannot be both good stewards and good neighbors.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a matter of good public policy, and I support the changes this legislation will make in the law. However, as a matter of how the Democrat leaders who control this House are choosing to operate this House, I object to the extreme partisan maneuvering surrounding this bill. Last week the House voted on this exact same bill, but there are only two differences between that bill and this bill. First, this is a new bill with a new number. And second, the lead sponsor is now a Democrat instead of a Republican. Last week this bill was H.R. 3538, sponsored by Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho. Today the bill is numbered H.R. 4474, and the lead sponsor is Democrat Walt Minnick of Idaho. So let me repeat. The bill is word for word the same that the House voted on last week, except the sponsorship has been switched so that a Democrat is now the prime sponsor.

Now, I have to say, Madam Speaker, this is truly a remarkable display of partisanship. First, Democrat leaders directed their Members to vote against this legislation last week because a totally separate piece of legislation failed to pass on the suspension calendar. And now these Democrat leaders are playing a partisan switcheroo in sponsorship of this bill so a Democrat gets credit for this bill's passing. I assume it's going to pass now that the switcheroo has happened. I might add, by the way, that the area that we're talking about is in Mr. Simpson's district.

So, Madam Speaker, with unemployment in double digits, millions of Americans without jobs, and with record deficits set last year by a Democrat President and this Congress, one would think that this House would have more important things to do than to engage in such overt and obvious partisan tactics.

With that, Madam Speaker, I support the bill.

I reserve my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to respond to my distinguished chairman. It is true that we do have a lot of bipartisanship on our committee, and I appreciate the gentleman for making that point, and I am certainly doing everything on my part to ensure that that continues on. However, I will make the point we did have a hearing on H.R. 3538, the measure sponsored by Mr. Simpson.

We have not had a hearing, however, on H.R. 4474 which is before us today sponsored by Mr. Minnick. I just wanted to point that out because we try to be in regular order as much as we possibly can, and I think that is worth pointing out.

So I would hope that this legislation does pass the House with strong bipartisan support. Maybe it will be able to send the signal that we can indeed work in a bipartisan way if only we change sponsorships of certain bills; but that remains to be seen, Madam Speaker, but I look forward to that time.

I yield back my time.

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

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

This bill, as introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho, would require the Forest Service to issue special use permits to owners of small, existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas. And although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners currently lack the authority to maintain or repair these facilities. Failure to maintain or repair these facilities would harm not only the farms and ranches that need to be assured of having access to water that they own to be viable, but also will be important for the Forest Service to maintain the environmental needs and watersheds on these particular Forest Service lands.

This bill, H.R. 3538, will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do this necessary maintenance.

Let me just say this legislation has been very narrowly tailored to apply to

only a small number of sites that are within the wilderness areas and meet a very specific criteria. So to qualify for this bill, they would have to be a water diversion facility that was in existence before the wilderness area was designated. It has to be continuously used since the wilderness area was designated. The owners have to have a valid water right under Idaho law that predated the wilderness designation, and the sites only can be covered in this bill if there is no other alternative than to continue the use of these facilities within the wilderness designation. And so it is beneficial not only to the Forest Service but to these private property owners individually for the water rights that they have recognized that are valid.

Let me say that this bill illustrates one of the problems that we here in Congress have. Wilderness designation is the most inflexible and restrictive of any of the land use weapons that are at our disposal and in our arsenal. Too often we find after the fact of that designation that there are simple activities that are denied because of that designation that should not have been there in the first place. We ought to be wise enough to devise a conservation practice for our lands without creating unintended consequences to neighboring families that were poorly thought out when the designation was originally made. There is no reason we cannot be both good stewards and good neighbors. This shows one of the problems we have when we rush into designation of land without doing a thorough understanding of what the consequences of that designation of land will be.

I understand also there was another change in this particular bill. And although I stand, as I did on the other, to support it, I want to make public that we do not approve of the change that was made in that bill. Just as in the DeFazio bill, the word ``shall'' would have made it a better bill, and it should have remained, and that was the concept that the committee voted, so in this bill the word ``shall'' was changed to more permissive language after the committee voted on the bill. That ``shall'' should have been in here, which would have been the better language for this particular piece of legislation.

Even though I support the bill with the change, that change was done in a poor process. That change should have been done before the committee actually allowed this bill to leave their jurisdiction. And in all sincerity, the mandate would be the appropriate policy we as Congress should have insisted upon. So I am not happy with that particular change, but I still support the bill because overwhelmingly it does a great deal of good in areas where otherwise there would be a great deal of harm done by the unexpected consequences of some rash action many years before. So I support this bill as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.