Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Modification Act of 2010

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many things in my view that are wrong with this bill, but I just want to point out three of them. First, this bill represents wasteful and unnecessary spending at a time of exploding Federal debt. Second, it lacks needed protection for private property rights. Third, it expands the already bloated Federal Government at a time when our priority should be on jobs and economic growth, not the growth of government.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that at a time of near double- digit unemployment and trillion-dollar debt, we really ought to be working to unleash private-sector economic growth so more Americans can find jobs, can pay their mortgages, and provide for a better life for their families. Instead, as usual, with the current Democrat leadership, we are talking about borrowing more money from foreign countries to pass a bill to further aggrandize the Federal estate.

The National Park Service estimates that it would cost $10 million to buy the land targeted in this bill. Now this isn't beachfront property in the Virgin Islands like we saw targeted earlier in this Congress. Instead, it is in the Arizona desert. But we are hearing the same argument why we should go along with this.

Are these private lands in danger of being injured by development? Hardly. It seems some of the land may be owned by the State or a wealthy nonprofit presumably created to protect the land from development. There is no urgent need to borrow money to buy this land right now. No one can claim that these lands are in imminent danger.

Further, this legislation does not protect the rights of private property owners. Instead it continues the disturbing practice of Congress drawing boundaries of Federal land management areas around private property, even in cases where the landowners have not given their written approval.

When Congress expands Federal boundaries to encircle private property, we sometimes shower ourselves in praise for protecting private property from the dreaded private property owner. But Congress should only draw boundaries around lands the Federal Government already owns, not around what it wants to own.

I know the bill purports to protect private property, but it does nothing, Mr. Speaker, and this is important, it does nothing to restrain the eminent domain authority already possessed by the Secretary of the Interior according to both Federal case law and the Congressional Research Service. This bill expands an area previously designated under the Antiquities Act. As the Committee on Natural Resources learned from recently leaked Department of the Interior documents, this administration is strongly interested in creating new national monuments or expanding existing ones, and doing so with or without Congress.

The American people are way ahead of Washington on these issues, Mr. Speaker. They know that what we should be doing is controlling spending, protecting private property, taking better care of the land we already own, and reducing the dead weight of taxation and Federal bureaucracy that is stifling free enterprise, which is the engine of economic growth.

With that being said, there are parts of this bill that I could support, such as clearing up administrative jurisdiction issues and a boundary modification to remedy trespassing issues for an irrigation project. However, I am sorry that these sections, which had broad support, weren't allowed to stand on their own.

So for those reasons I've cited, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5110.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentlewoman from Arizona did not yield to me so I could ask her a question as we have heard a great deal of talk here on the floor about jobs creation. I am certainly one who believes that we need to create jobs, particularly in the private sector, because the private sector is the engine of growth in our country.

I was simply going to ask the gentlewoman if she could document officially how many jobs have been created. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is that this existing area is already some 1,600 acres. To suggest that an area which is 1,600 acres is not creating jobs but that adding some 400-plus acres would create jobs flies in the face of common sense.

What this bill is all about, once again, is the Federal Government's buying more land when we have a backlog of some $9 billion of maintenance in this country. Yet here we are, trying to add more land, which presumably adds more to the backlog. The American people get it. They understand it. While this is small, I understand, Mr. Speaker, it is the reason I think this bill is ill-advised today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 5110, the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Modification Act.

In Coolidge, Arizona, we have the largest prehistoric structure in the Nation--the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. Throughout Coolidge and the nearby city of Florence, there is evidence of prehistoric structures--homes, irrigation canals and potential recreational facilities.

Each year, thousands of visitors come to Pinal County to visit the ruins, to learn about the ancient Hohokam culture that lived there, and to see the amazing prehistoric architecture they left behind. Protecting more of these sensitive areas will allow further development of tourism to the area, and it will help fulfill the mission of the monument.

The legislation under consideration today does two things. First, it allows an expansion of the boundary of the monument to include land nearby, which will greatly enhance the existing site. Second, it provides for a study to determine what additional sites in Coolidge and Florence could be incorporated in the future.

This bill is critical to the economic development of Coolidge and Florence and of the entire county. It is critical for the preservation of cultural and historical sites, which is unequaled anywhere else on the continent. It is the kind of low-cost, job-creating project we need in Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Congress, I have been the voice of fiscal discipline, and I have been looking for low-cost, job-creating projects. This is one of them. This project would create hundreds of jobs in an area where it does have double-digit unemployment. Talk about double-digit unemployment--that's in my district. That is what this is going to address. This is a low-cost jobs project.

Let me tell you that this is exactly why the American people right now are so angry and frustrated. It is why I am angry and frustrated, and it is why you are angry and frustrated. It is because Washington is not listening to the local people. The people of Coolidge and Florence have worked on this project for years. It is not about partisanship. They have come together as local community leaders and as private businesses to support this job-creation project. It makes common sense. Yet, once again, Washington is not going to listen to the voices of the American people. Once again, Washington is going to impose its partisan bickering to stop jobs and to not listen to the American people. That is what is wrong with Washington.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this critical legislation.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5110) to modify the boundary of the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5110 would add 415 acres to Casa Grande Ruins National Monument located south of Phoenix, Arizona.

Currently, the 472-acre monument represents only part of the historic Native American community that once existed in that area. A 2003 National

Park Service report identified seven parcels for potential addition to this monument.

H.R. 5110 authorizes the acquisition of three properties ``by donation, exchange, or purchase with donated or appropriated funds from willing owners only.''

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5110 is a good bill. Representative Ann Kirkpatrick has worked hard to bring it to the floor, and I urge the House to approve it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of this important piece of legislation, the gentlewoman from Arizona, Representative Ann Kirkpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend Congresswoman Kirkpatrick for her leadership in preserving the culture, history and artifacts of this important area.

Just like Castle Nugent, enacting this bill spends no money and acquires no land--none. What it does is puts in place the authority necessary to acquire these invaluable pieces of our ancient past if and when the time is right and the money is available. Given the value of the resources involved, this should be an easy decision. It would be a shame if political gamesmanship and partisan bickering allowed these pieces of our past, the jobs that would be created, and the hard work of the people of this part of Arizona to be lost forever.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

I do, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the rules of the House are important. Following these rules increases the trust of the American people in our institution, in our actions, a trust that is pivotal to the survival of our Republic.

The questions of privilege of the House in this resolution come to the floor by virtue of rule IX, which states in part: ``Questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' Integrity of its proceedings, Madam Speaker.

Further: ``Those questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of its Members.''

Madam Speaker, the reputation and the conduct of Members and the integrity of our proceedings is in question and is highlighted in this resolution. What could be more questionable than having this House adopt further affronts to this great country in a lame duck session.

As the resolution states in just one ``whereas,'' ``Whereas reconvening the House of Representatives in a lame

duck session to address major new legislation subverts the will of the American people, lessens accountability, and does lasting damage to the dignity and integrity of this body's proceedings.''

Madam Speaker, the intent of the majority is very clear. They want to spend more, they want to tax more, they want to borrow more, and they wish to harm more job creation in this lame duck session. And the American people don't want this.

To positively represent our constituents, I urge the Speaker to allow this resolution to be considered.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 537. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 537: ``Yea''--Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Modification Act of 2010.

Stated against: