Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act

Mr. Speaker, this will be a debate on a bill of complete congeniality, because I don't think any of us are really opposed to a lot of what is attempted in this underlying bill.

I certainly am not, Mr. Speaker, one who likes to say ``I told you so,'' but I told you so. You see, it was said in the history of this particular bill, the first time it was passed it was passed with a 5- year reauthorization and it passed unanimously in both houses. The second time it was reauthorized 5 years and it passed unanimously in both houses. Last year you decided to take the reauthorization away, not impose the 5-year limit, and we said on the floor if you actually put that back in there it would have a significant enhancement of its ability to pass the Senate, and you didn't do it. It didn't pass the Senate, so we are back here a year later doing the same thing again.

So I don't want to say I told you so, but to quote that great philosopher Yogi Berra, this is like deja vu all over again. For, indeed, a year ago, last year, instead of talking about energy issues, which were primarily on the minds of the American people, we brought up this particular bill and apparently did the same thing we are doing this year when health care is primarily on the minds of most people.

This is a particular bill which, in fact, is the only bill we are going to debate this week under a rule. I appreciate the majority leader being here and his statements on this particular bill. I don't know if I appreciate flying back for 4 hours just to do this bill this week. But, nonetheless, it is still the only one we are going to have here, even though there are significant issues we should be discussing, that the American people want us to discuss.

The majority leader was slightly in error in what he said though. Everything he said about the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay was accurate. But this is not a cleanup bill. This is not an environmental protection bill. This is not an EPA bill. This is a recreation bill. I don't oppose that, but it is clear this is a recreation bill. And the National Park Service has made several suggestions, because once again there are no Federal waters or Federal assets associated in this particular area, the National Park Service did say that we should give technical assistance to this area, but they did not recommend fully funding on a nonrenewable basis other types of grant programs to this particular area. Indeed, the Obama budget does not have money in it for this particular bill.

So one of the things we need to talk about is if we are going to abrogate our oversight responsibilities, and if we decide not to abrogate our oversight responsibilities and treat this bill as other bills from the Resource Committee have been treated, we will probably have a better chance of actually passing the bill this year in both Houses of Congress and not coming back for a third try next time around.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of presenting this particular amendment, not because we have any antipathy towards the Chesapeake Bay or the recreational purposes that may be there, and I appreciate the fact that you enjoyed the first speech, but because it's about time we do it right way. Surely we can bully through this any way we want to, but we need to do it the right way, the way it was done the first time and the second time and the way it should be done this particular time.

When this bill last year came out of the Resources Committee, it was compiled with six other bills, all of which had 5-year reauthorizations. Some of the bills that Resources has sent out here have not had those type of reauthorizations. However, they had another factor which put a cap on the kind of appropriations that could be there, and that's why a 5-year reauthorization process is the perfect kind of compromise.

It's a position between the National Park Service which last year said there should be technical assistance, but was opposed to any kind of grant process going through this because they said this program had matured to the point it no longer needed to be supported by the Federal Government, or the sponsor's approach, which simply says, take off limit and continue on with what has been now close to $9 million of earmarks for this program.

It's not a problem. The appropriations is not a problem. What is the problem is we are now giving up our rights to review these types of programs, which is not what an authorizing committee ought to do. There is, in past experience, not here but in past experience, where sites that no longer have to be renewed by Congress do become lethargic and no longer have that desire for innovation to produce results. That's not necessarily to say it will happen here, but that has been the process that we have learned through history.

The purpose of an authorizing committee is to authorize and then review those authorizations, which is why it has been tradition for committees to put in an authorization period for those particular reviews. And it is not wise for Congress to abrogate our congressional responsibility for those purposes. What we're talking about is simply saying, look, what we need, as a Congress, are the options to review this in the future and not take the options off the table.

That's the one thing all Americans are talking about more than anything else is the idea of options. Like my family just gave me an Ipod. And I don't know how to download stuff, but they can put music on there. When I was growing up, if I wanted a song and,

Mr. Speaker, you're probably in the same situation I was, I had to buy the entire record to get the song. I don't need to do that. I now have more options. If I want to go and buy cereal, I look at an entire store and there is an entire wall of potential cereals up there which I can buy. I am given options. If I want to order vanilla ice cream, I can still go to a store that offers me 31 flavors. There are 59 different kinds of Eggo waffles.

Our entire life is provided by options. And yet, as a Congress, we decide and seem to have this tendency to take options off the table so we don't have them for the future. That, to me, is just a mind-boggling approach to it. It's the same thing that we're talking about in health care, which is the topic on the minds of the American people which we should be talking about today on this floor, rather than reauthorizing a bill we all like and support.

But in that, the issue once again, is options for the American people. There are myriad types of proposals being put out there by some of my Republican colleagues, all which deal with the concept of giving options to the American people: options to buy their own health care, options to get HSAs, options to have new association pools, option in which they can buy across lines, options in which we can have tort reform. All those things should be on the table, and that's what we should be doing.

In like manner to this particular bill, we are, once again, limiting our options, which is the exact opposite thing government should be doing. Now, that's what's important, and that's where we should be going. Like I said, a year ago we had this particular bill, this particular amendment again, which would have made it better and probably then had helped the Senate to actually include it in their list of bills to be passed.

If we do this particular amendment, to do what we have traditionally done with other bills, what we are doing is simply providing Congress with the options Congress should accept, and make sure that we are always reviewing the programs we have to see what they are doing, and a 5-year period is the norm. It is traditional.

This simply would say we're going to do this bill and we're going to do it the right way, do it totally the right way, so once again it might be passed unanimously, as it was the first time when they had a review in there and the second time when they had a review in there, and was not passed the third time when they decided not to put a review in this particular piece of legislation.

We've got options. We should be doing it. Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am ready to use my final minute if I might, Mr. Speaker.

I don't want to be cantankerous about this. We are talking about a decent bill from a decent program with a decent sponsor, but we are not in the system of sending out messages. We are a legislative body that is supposed to review and that is supposed to budget, and in that way, we should not be abrogating our responsibilities over to the appropriators. It's an authorizing concept. It's what authorizers ought to do. It's what we should be doing. NEPA is renewed. Endangered Species is renewed, as is the Clean Water Act. In fact, the only thing we have not renewed--and it's on a permanent basis--is the Nautical Charting Act that was started in the 1700s by Thomas Jefferson.

So what we are talking about is doing what is the norm and doing what is rational and doing this bill the right way and actually--I hate to say this--but once again, to try and not limit what we are doing as a body.

Health care is what we should be talking about. The bill that Pelosi has put on the floor is not the only idea. There are better bills out there that think outside of the box, but unless we put the Price bill, the Shadegg bill, the Ryan bill, and the Gohmert bill on the floor to be discussed and debated, we will not have all of the options open to us. That is also why I am arguing that we should have a permanent review, a review every 5 years, of this program. It is what Congress does, and we should do it and do it the right way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 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 must begin the debate today by expressing my sympathy to the Democrat sponsors of this legislation for the poor luck that has befallen this bill for now 2 consecutive years. It seems like when the going gets tough and there is a need to fill a void on the House floor, someone on the Democrat side says, hey, let's roll out the Chesapeake water trails bill.

Last year, when gas prices were at record levels, at an average of $4.19 in my home State of Washington, Democrat leaders put this bill on the floor to be debated for several hours as they sought to avoid voting on a Republican plan to lower gas prices and open additional offshore areas to drilling. And so now here we are this year, after the vigorous debate over health care that took place all across America in August, after the President's speech last night, with the government takeover of health care in America very much alive and a threat in these halls of Congress, with the economy struggling, with more and more Americans losing their jobs, with unemployment nearing 10 percent, Democrat leaders have once again sent this Chesapeake Bay bill to the floor to fill a void.

Mr. Speaker, this bill passed last year with over 300 out of 435 votes; in fact, specifically 321 Members voted for this bill. This bill could be considered and passed by the House in just a few minutes under the expedited process of the suspension calendar. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we are this morning with several hours dedicated to debate on water trails when this Congress should be focused on creating jobs and getting control over massive government spending--spending, I might add, that has led to a $1 trillion budget deficit in just a few months of this new Obama administration.

So, Mr. Speaker, just like last year, Republicans will explain our concerns with this bill, and then we will focus on the higher priorities facing our country and the American people.

Chairman Grijalva has very clearly explained this bill. It is a very simple bill that renews a government program that has bipartisan support from the States surrounding the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, after the August discussion around the country of a more than 1,000-page health care bill, I am pleased, very pleased, that this Chesapeake Bay bill is not even one-half page in length. Despite the shortness of the bill, however, Republicans believe it can be improved upon and have proposed an alternative that is even shorter and that recognizes the need for this Congress to exercise some degree of fiscal discipline.

As currently written, this bill would extend the current Chesapeake Bay program forever without any constraints or limits on how much money can be spent on the program. Mr. Speaker, this may be a popular program in the mid-Atlantic region of our country; yet I don't believe the Natural Resources Committee and this Congress should be in the habit of granting eternal life and unlimited sums of money to government programs.

Bills creating or renewing government programs are typically renewed for a set period of time, usually 5 years, to ensure that there is accountability in these programs, there is a review of these programs, and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being misused, wasted, or unnecessarily spent. There is simply no reason to exempt this Chesapeake Bay program from a periodic review of 5 years, and there is certainly no reason to lift the cap on spending for this program.

The substitute amendment by Congressman Bishop of Utah, who is the ranking Republican on the National Parks Subcommittee, would renew the bill for 5 years and retain the current limit on spending. This Chesapeake Bay program has previously existed on 5-year periods of time and can continue to do so in the future if that amendment is agreed to.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bishop amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have several Members that are not on the floor, so at this point I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), a very distinguished and valuable member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

I have a few others, but they're not here. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have anymore speakers on his side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very simple motion to recommit.

Many times in this body--and I think rightfully so--we are accused of not reading bills or amendments that are before us. I cite, of course, the cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax bill, when we were thrust an 800-page amendment only 8 hours or so before we debated it. We had an 1,100-page health care bill that America is now seeing and is digesting, and they are responding back to us. This is a very short bill, as I have mentioned, and this motion to recommit is also very, very short. In fact, I am going to read it, Mr. Speaker, so that everybody can hear it. It is that short.

It says at the end of the bill, Add the following new section: Section 3. Effective date. The amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion.

It is a small, small measure of fiscal discipline.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 15 years; you've been here slightly longer than I have, but I have to say that this is the first Congress that I can ever remember using the term ``$1 trillion'' in terms of fiscal budgets in this country. In fact, I would suggest everybody take this little test. Go back to your offices, and write down yourself what ``$1 trillion'' is. It's a ``one'' followed by 12 zeros. It would kind of wake you up.

The reason I offer this motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, is with unemployment approaching 10 percent, with upside-down mortgages and with homeowners facing foreclosure, I think it is hardly time to add eternal life and unlimited money to a very nice but unnecessary Federal program at a time when we are contemplating adding several massive new government programs such as health care, which I just mentioned, and cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax.

As I mentioned, I think it might be time to pause and consider the difference between things we need and things that we merely want. Of course, additional water trails and interpretive centers are nice to have, but increasing their numbers is not a necessity at this time. I am not opposed to them, by the way, but I am not prepared to support a law that says that this particular earmark program must be extended for all time with unlimited funds regardless of the deficit.

One of the popular jokes of our constituents when they want to disparage Washington is that the only earthly thing that has perpetual life is a government program. We need not add to their low view of how we operate, so I urge my colleagues to support this MTR, and we will add a degree of fiscal restraint to this legislation. I think that that restraint is badly needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something that probably has never been done. I am going to reread this motion to recommit because it is so short.

At the end of the bill, add the following new section: Section 3. Effective date. The amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 726, I call up the bill (H.R. 965) to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 965.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 965, introduced by our friend and colleague, Representative John Sarbanes. H.R. 965 is a simple, straightforward bill that would permanently authorize the highly successful Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

Over 10 million people each year visit one of the 166 gateway sites supported by this program. They come to kayak or canoe, hike or bike, picnic, hunt or fish, or to watch wildlife. Others come to visit the Chesapeake's many maritime museums or to renew their acquaintance with the turning points in our Nation's history, such as the sites at Fort McHenry and Yorktown battlefield.

Each of these visitors comes away with a strengthened awareness of the crucial role the Chesapeake Bay plays in our national story and as the ecological and economic heart of the mid-Atlantic. And that is the goal of the gateway network, to renew our connection with that great Bay. The program

is so successful that the National Park Service has heaped praise upon it, and the White House in 2005 declared it to be a ``cooperative conservation success story.''

Congress originally authorized this program for 5 years and renewed that short-term authorization in 2002. In 2004, a National Park Service special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.

Anyone who reads The Washington Post knows that the Bay's oyster population is in trouble. That situation is both a symptom and one of the causes of the precarious health of the Bay. Keeping people connected and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step in restoring that great estuary, from its headwaters to its oyster beds. The Gateways Network does just that. This program is a proven success and should be permanently authorized.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 965.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, let me yield as much time as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I flew back 4 hours to deal with this very important piece of legislation, but also to listen to our President last night, which I thought was worth the trip.

I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil), a cosponsor of the legislation.

If I may inquire of Mr. Hastings if he has any additional speakers.

No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, Representative Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, the National Park Service has found that this is a very, very successful program in large part because the Federal commitment leverages funding and support from State, local and nonprofit partners who care deeply about the health of the Chesapeake Bay. There is a broad agreement that making the Federal commitment to this program permanent will send a strong signal to the program's partners and make the program even more effective in the long run.

I would point out that both the Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs have permanent authorizations. Conversely, amending the bill to make the authorization time-limited would cause funding partners to question the level of Federal commitment and could cause private contributions to drop off.

The purpose of granting this program a permanent authorization is to avoid having to return to Congress every 5 years to get new legislation for what is, by all measures, a successful program. I should add that, despite my friend's arguments about a permanent authorization, this program will continue to receive annual oversight through the appropriations process.

Regarding the existing cap on annual funding for the program, such a cap may have been appropriate when the program was first authorized in 1998. However, as more and more people become aware of the importance of the bay, the challenges it faces, Congress should provide more funding for the grant program. Proponents would like to be able to seek increased funding through the appropriations process and not have to get new authorization legislation each time they seek more funding.

This is an important and successful program. It deserves a permanent authorization. I urge Members to vote against the Bishop amendment and for H.R. 965 to permanently authorize this very excellent program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to reintroduce germaneness to the debate on the amendment, let me recognize Mr. Sarbanes for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the NPS, the National Park Service, gave the subcommittee testimony, and they said, through technical and financial assistance, the National Park Service has assisted Gateways to develop hundreds of partnerships across the watershed to help people understand and appreciate the Chesapeake Bay.

It has been mentioned, nevertheless, that the Bush administration testified that it opposed this financial assistance or the grants program. When I asked the Park Service witness at that 2007 hearing about that contradiction, he said that the Park Service would love to continue the grants program, but it was a financial decision made by OMB, by the Bush administration.

This is a good program. It is all linked together. A permanent authorization would secure this program for the future. It is a vital environmental link to the Mid-Atlantic which must be saved. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the motion doesn't tell us who would have the certification power or how we would meet the standard that the motion to recommit attempts to make. It's like saying we on the Republican side ran up a huge deficit. Now we want to penalize this one little program until you clean up the mess.

Why this program? Why not a program that was done this morning during the Natural Resources Committee meeting where the sponsor of the motion to recommit, the gentleman from Washington, had legislation that passed for a road which runs through his district? Should we put the same standard on that legislation?

This is arbitrary, this motion to recommit. While it attempts to score political points, it also, if passed, jeopardizes a very valuable resource that, if not restored and protected through the legislation, will cause disastrous economic, environmental, cultural, and health consequences--bad consequences for the Mid-Atlantic and for the Nation as a whole. The motion to recommit, while an attempt to score points, has no merit. It is arbitrary and I urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank Chairman Grijalva, and Chairman Rahall as well, for their strong support of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

This is a bill that is, I believe, quite noncontroversial. We are here today debating it because there is some difference of perspective with respect to whether there ought to be a permanent authorization to this bill or not. That is something I strongly support because I think it sends a very powerful message to the citizenry in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that the Federal Government is ready to be a partner on a permanent basis. If we want people to step forward and take ownership at the community level and across the watershed, we need to send that message to them, and there is no better way to send that message than to permanently authorize this program.

The Chesapeake Bay has a tremendous story to tell. I'm from Maryland, of course, and we consider ourselves in many ways principally stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a national treasure. It is the largest estuary body in the United States. But it doesn't just touch the State of Maryland; it touches six States and the District of Columbia. It touches New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia.

The watershed stretches from Michael Arcuri's district, where he represents Cooperstown, New York, where it begins, to Bobby Scott's district in Virginia. The cosponsors of this bill are both Democrat and Republican, indicating the strong support that it has had from the beginning of the program.

Some of you know I have introduced other legislation which is focused very specifically on how we engage the next generation, engage our young people in the environment and get them outdoors learning.

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network is a wonderful resource for that. There are over 156 sites, historic, natural, cultural, recreational sites across the watershed that are available because of the funding that comes through technical assistance and other grant funding, that are available as a resource for the next generation to take advantage of, available for older generations to pass on the history of this area and this region to the next generation.

So I am excited. And I appreciate the gentleman's sympathies to me, but I must say any opportunity that I have to talk about the importance of this network is one that I would seize happily.

I do want to reiterate that this represents the National Park Service's component of a larger partnership that exists on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay on the part of the Federal Government that includes the National Park Service, that includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, and this is a partnership that has just worked fabulously over many, many years.

In closing, let me just emphasize again, and I know we will debate it a little bit later with respect to the amendment that is going to be proposed by Congressman Bishop, but let

me just emphasize again how important it is that this be a permanent authorization. We need to send a message, a powerful message, to the citizens that are part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed that the Federal Government is here to stay when it comes to preserving and protecting this incredible resource that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I agree there's going to be plenty of time to debate the health reform bill and to demonstrate very clearly that it does not extend benefits to those who are here unlawfully. But I hope the American people have the confidence that we can debate the health bill at the appropriate time and in the appropriate ways, while also conducting other business that faces the Nation which, of course, is what we're trying to do this morning with respect to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

And responding to some of the points raised by my colleague, Congressman Bishop, I do just want to emphasize we understand that it's not maybe standard to move to a permanent authorization that typically would go to 5-year reauthorizations.

I want to make sure people understand that this is not being done lightly. This is being done for a very specific reason. There are times when, based on the experience of a program and an initiative, as in this case, you reach the conclusion that the program is worth authorizing on a permanent basis because you want to send a message, and it's particularly important to do that in circumstances where a key ingredient of the success of the program is the fact that you have thousands of ordinary citizens through community groups and nonprofits and other organizations stepping forward on a daily basis, saying, Yes, we want to be partners in this effort.

The last thing we want to do at that moment when so many people are saying, Yes, you can count on me at the community level to take up this charge to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay, is say to them, Well, we're not sure this commitment on behalf of the Federal Government is going to be there for the long term. That's why it is critical to this program that we authorize it on a permanent basis, so I want to urge that we do that.

I do also want to note that this program couldn't be further away from an earmark program. There was a suggestion made there. In fact, the National Park Service makes judgments on which partners to recognize based on applications that come in for grant funding, and the Congress has never approved an earmark as part of the Chesapeake Bay Gateway program.

So this is a good program. I think it's one that deserves to be authorized on a permanent basis for the reasons that I indicated, and I would urge that we oppose the Bishop amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 726 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during the consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 726.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 726 provides for consideration of H.R. 965, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. I want to recognize my colleague from Maryland, Mr. John Sarbanes, for his leadership on this issue. He has worked diligently in a bipartisan fashion to protect the Chesapeake Bay so that it remains a vibrant recreational and economic network.

H.R. 965 will continue the important restoration and conservation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed by permanently authorizing the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation's largest estuary. Many people often think of the bay as only part of Maryland and Virginia. But the bay's watershed covers 64,000 square miles in five States and the District of Columbia. In fact, the watershed's most northern point, or what we in upstate New York would call the starting point, extends into a significant portion of my congressional district in the village of Cooperstown.

As a result of its size and location, the Chesapeake Bay has played an important role in our country's history, from early settlement and commerce, to military battles and transportation development, as well as recreational uses. It truly is worthy of preservation, both for its natural beauty and its impact on our Nation's culture and economy.

The Chesapeake Bay Network is a comprehensive protection program for the bay. The programs authorized serve to identify, conserve, restore and interpret the natural, historical, cultural and recreational resources within the watershed. These programs also educate local communities on the significant sites in the region and how their community impacts the overall health of the bay. This law requires a full matching requirement for grants awarded by the National Park Service to State and local agencies and not-for-profit corporations and organizations for such projects.

The resulting network is a system of over 150 parks, museums, historic communities, scenic roadways, water trails and water access points located within the vast Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each of these sites tells a piece of the vast Chesapeake story, while providing Federal support for the preservation and improvement of these sites to enhance both the historical and recreational user experience. The network is overseen by the National Park Service, but the Park Service only manages 10 of the network's sites. Other gateways are managed by local State and nongovernmental organizations.

The Chesapeake Bay Network has always been a bipartisan program. The legislation that created it in 1998 passed the House on suspension by voice vote, was agreed to by unanimous consent in the Senate, and signed into

law by President Clinton. In 2002, a clean 5-year reauthorization received similar unanimous support in Congress and was signed into law by President Bush. Last year, an identical bill, H.R. 5540, passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

H.R. 965 will permanently reauthorize this bipartisan program, which the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation, headed by the Department of the Interior, has called a success story. It's worth noting that the National Park Service has also recommended permanent reauthorization of the network.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill and to continue to support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. This is a program that did not have a single Member of Congress oppose its creation or its subsequent reauthorization. The program has been heralded as a success by the Bush administration and was unanimously reauthorized during that administration. This rule provides for consideration of the legislation that would now permanently extend the authorization for this bipartisan program, a move endorsed by the National Park Service.

We all agree that the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network is a good program that has had a positive impact on preservation and recreation within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but it's clear that some of us disagree on whether to make the reauthorization permanent, which is why we've made in order a substitute amendment that would reauthorize the program for 5 years to allow a full debate.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.