Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site at St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes; and for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4474) to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call up the bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site at St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam 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. 3726.

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

I rise today in strong support of the pending measure introduced by my very good friend and a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen.

The pending legislation establishes the Castle Nugent National Historic Site on the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Castle Nugent area possesses a wide range of historic resources, including the remnants of small Danish cotton, sugar, indigo, and cattle plantations. Pre-Columbian archaeological sites also exist on the property. The cattle ranch there is one of the oldest in the West Indies.

The diverse and undisturbed natural resources of the site include the most substantial black mangrove stand left in the Virgin Islands, sea turtle nesting areas, large and healthy coral reefs, and a lagoon that is home to many different species of birds and wildlife.

Congress authorized a special resource study for this area in 2006. The National Park Service has completed all of the work for that study and found that the area meets all of the applicable criteria for significance, suitability, and feasibility for designation as a National Park Service unit.

The proposed park would include 2,900 acres of privately owned ranch lands as well as 8,600 acres of submerged lands owned by the Government of the Virgin Islands. The family which owns the majority of the site has fought off aggressive developers for years, seeking instead to have their land preserved for future generations to enjoy.

This legislation includes no direct spending, and any land acquisition would be subject to appropriations. This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I commend once again Dr. Christensen for her tireless efforts to preserve the unique and stunning resources that are located in her beautiful district.

Thanks to the recent Public Broadcasting System series by Ken Burns chronicling the amazing history of our National Park System, many Americans are asking themselves and asking this Congress what can we do to build upon the incredible legacy left to us by those who invented the idea of national parks. The answer to that question is simple: work to identify and study significant, unique areas of natural and historic significance and then make certain they are protected.

The answer is to support the pending legislation, H.R. 3726.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy at this point to yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands who has worked so long, so hard, so diligently, and so patiently to bring this bill before us today, Dr. Donna Christensen, such time as she may consume.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time pending any further speakers on the minority side.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the remaining time?

Thank you. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would close this debate by making the following observations on the allegations that we have heard on the other side. With respect to the technicality that a new area study has not been sent to the Congress, let me state that at a hearing before the Parks Subcommittee held last November, the National Park Service testified on the record that the draft study is completed and finds that the site meets the NPS criteria for addition to the National Park System.

The official agency testimony goes on for four pages describing the amazing natural, cultural, and historical resources found on the site. For example, that testimony states that, and I quote, ``Enactment of H.R. 3726 would provide the opportunity to preserve and protect this outstanding Caribbean cultural landscape and interpret the cotton era and related agricultural themes that have been instrumental in the development of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. It would also help protect five pre-Columbian archeological sites, two of which are among the oldest sites on St. Croix.''

I was not able to attend this hearing, but my staff does inform me that at no time did any member of the committee, even for a moment, question the conclusions or opinions that were expressed by the National Park Service. The formal findings contained in the study will be enormously valuable as the NPS moves forward creating a management plan for this area, and in future years as the Congress contemplates appropriating funds for the site.

For now, I am satisfied that the NPS has provided us more than ample information to move forward with the initial designation. The fact that the formal study has not been transmitted to the Congress is a technicality, one that is either significant or not to the other side, the minority, depending upon what day it is. House Republicans have supported designations with incomplete studies. House Republicans have supported designations with no study at all. House Republicans have opposed designations when the study was complete and fully supported designation. So this concern for NPS studies by those on the other side of the aisle is newly discovered. Their record on this is inconsistent and simply not credible.

Like the Republican concern for following the recommendations of NPS studies, this concern for the NPS maintenance backlog is newfound as well. The NPS maintenance backlog is real, no doubt about it, and needs to be addressed. Democrats are serious about addressing it. We continue to work closely with the agency to document the work that needs to be done to prioritize it and provide the funding and the people needed to get the most pressing work done.

But I completely disagree with the Republican claim that the National Park Service, quote, ``can't take care of what it already owns.'' That kind of park bashing may score some points, but it is nothing more than a low blow. Millions of American families visit our national parks every year and come away feeling inspired, energized, and downright patriotic. The National Park Service could use more money, but they are the very best in the world at what they do, and claims to the contrary are false. Our National Park Service takes care of what they already own, to the enormous satisfaction of most Americans, and they can take care of this beautiful area of St. Croix as well.

I would ask the American people to keep an eye on the issue. You watch. When the President submits his budget request for the next fiscal year, it will contain critical funding for the NPS. And Democrats will support that request and pass it. And many of the same Republicans on this floor today expressing deep concern over the NPS maintenance backlog will come to this floor and vote against the funding needed to address it.

In fact, it was Republicans who insisted on drastically underfunding and understaffing this agency that caused the maintenance backlog to increase on their watch. The future health and growth of our NPS system should not be stunted because Republicans mismanaged it when they were in charge of government. Democrats will correct the mistakes of the past, not be held hostage by them. And just like other arguments offered today, the Republican record on this issue is so inconsistent it simply cannot be taken seriously.

Finally, Madam Speaker, H.R. 3726 does not spend one dime, and every Member on this floor knows it. The legislation designates this area as a new unit, but the bill contains no direct spending. Any land acquisition will be subject, of course, to appropriations. Enactment of this legislation is the beginning of the process, not the end. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve a unique and stunning area, and I fully support having this land at least be eligible for land acquisition funding over the next few cycles.

Yes, the former Republican majority went on an irresponsible spending spree that damaged this country and resulted in the largest increase in the deficit since World War II. And yes, fixing the damage caused by those Republican mistakes will be an enormous challenge for all of us going forward. But I believe Democrats can do it. I believe we can get our fiscal house in order, and when we do it, Castle Nugent should be a unit of the National Park System so we can allocate funding to protect it and preserve it for generations to come.

As for unemployment, the unemployment rate on St. Croix was 8.9 percent last November. If this private land is successfully transformed into a popular tourist destination, it will create jobs

and help ease unemployment on the island. It will increase tourism, benefiting airlines, car rentals, travel agents, restaurants, hotels, and might even lead to hiring a few new park rangers. Democrats support creating jobs by building things up--investing in the long-term growth and health of this nation. H.R. 3726 does just that.

I would conclude by pointing out the obvious: We as a Nation have a responsibility to our territorial possessions. And if we shirk from that duty, we would be nothing more than the European empires which once ruled over vast swaths of Africa and the Americas. The U.S. Virgin Islands are a unique and fascinating place. Native people lived on these islands as far back as the Stone Age. And some of the evidence of that can be found on the site protected in this bill.

Christopher Columbus gave the islands early versions of the names we use today, Santa Cruz, San Tomas, and San Juan. And last, as we move forward in this legislation, recognize that these islands were then occupied by foreign nations, England, Holland, France and Denmark, a period that saw the native people enslaved and then driven almost to extinction. Remains of these times can be found on the land protected in this bill as well.

It is not only the history and the culture found in the continental United States that matters, but St. Croix is a part of these United States. And we owe it to those who live there now and those who were there long before this Nation came into being to value this history and to respect its culture. This legislation does that. This legislation deserves our support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it for two reasons.

First, this Congress in prior times enacted a law that authorized and directed the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study on whether this site should be preserved and, if so, in what manner. Madam Speaker, we don't have that report. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on this study, and yet this House is charging ahead, making a decision without having that study in our hands. I think that is wasteful, and I think it's irresponsible.

It has been said that the report is done, but Congress hasn't gotten a copy of that report. We are told its recommendations will support the approach taken in this bill, yet we don't know that because we have not received the report.

Even if the final report were to recommend establishing a historic site, we would benefit from the information they have gathered to better craft such legislation. This bill is clearly putting the cart before the horse.

The Park Service itself has testified on this Castle Nugent bill before us today, and they stated: ``We would ask that the committee defer action on this legislation until the special resource study is completed, which is consistent with the Department's general policy on legislation establishing a new unit of the National Park System when a study is pending.''

Madam Speaker, if the $500,000 study that Congress passed to initiate is nearly completed, then we should wait to consider this bill until we have that information. That seems to be a rather logical conclusion of the events. There hasn't been a single compelling reason given as to the need to act right now before this study is in hand.

Now, Madam Speaker, the second reason for opposition to this bill is its cost. With 10 percent unemployment nationwide and with millions of Americans without jobs and the fact that we are running record budget deficits and the public debt is skyrocketing, now is not the time to potentially spend up to $50 million of the taxpayers' money to buy nearly 3,000 acres of beachfront property on a Caribbean island. And on top of that, it will probably cost an estimate of $1 million a year to maintain.

Madam Speaker, we can't afford the price tag for a new park in St. Croix, just as many Americans will never be able to afford a visit there. I had my staff, Madam Speaker, actually look up the cost of getting to St. Croix over the Presidents' Day weekend next month. From my home town in Pasco, Washington, it would take two plane changes, over 12 hours of time and around a thousand dollars to visit the island which would be the home of this new park.

For a resident in the wild and wonderful State of West Virginia, just to pick a State, flying out of the Charleston airport, the time to get there is a little less, but the price is still around a thousand dollars.

On top of the cost of buying this beachfront Caribbean property and the yearly cost of maintaining it, we need to be honest about the backlog that we have in caring for land already owned by the Federal Government.

Madam Speaker, there is $9 billion, that is billion with a ``b,'' worth of needed repairs and maintenance on existing park lands. If we aren't caring for what we already have, then Congress shouldn't be making the problem worse by authorizing new park lands.

Our existing treasures should be our focus to ensure families that load up the minivan or SUV to take a summer vacation to a national park have a safe, enjoyable, and accessible visit, like my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) expressed a moment ago about the Rocky Mountain National Park. I guarantee you that no family from any State will ever load up their minivan and drive to this park in the Caribbean ocean.

This Congress must get serious about controlling spending. The American people are concerned. They're worried and they're angered by the spending that has gone on in Washington, D.C. In the first year of the Obama administration, the largest spending deficit in our Nation's history has been set.

Whether it's the $787 billion stimulus bill that has failed to create the jobs that were promised or the government takeover--potential government takeover of the health care costs that will cost, if it is put in place--the health care bill that is being debated, over a trillion dollars--I think is very, very clear: spending in America's mind is out of control.

For Congress to buckle down, it needs to not only put the brakes on mega-spending bills but it also must start taking a hard look at smaller bills like this one.

Just take a look, Madam Speaker, at some of the bills that have been advanced out of the Natural Resources Committee this year. We passed a bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses; they've approved another bill to increase spending for neotropical birds by millions of dollars; and, today, there is a committee hearing on a bill to spend millions of more dollars overseas to assist apes.

There is a lot of talk that the President may propose a spending freeze in his State of the Union speech tonight. The news media and blogs have been

talking about it for several days; yet this House is positioned to vote on creating a new $50 million park in the middle of the Caribbean ocean just hours before the State of the Union speech tonight. Madam Speaker, those that control this House will send quite a message on spending and their real priorities if it approves this bill before the President even makes it here to give his speech tonight.

So, Madam Speaker, for those two reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

And with that, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop of Utah.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to a new member of the House Resources Committee, Mr. Chaffetz from Utah.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I understand the gentleman from West Virginia is the final speaker on that side. With that, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. And if you were listening to the debate here of the several speakers that we had on our side of the aisle, if you noticed, we were not criticizing the merits of this purchase. We are simply saying that there is a procedure that this Congress set up. That procedure was a study. Taxpayer dollars funded that study in order to see if this project actually merits congressional support.

Well, that study, Madam Speaker, is not made public. We have not seen the study. We don't know if it is good or bad. It may be good, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) said. In fact, he alluded that he has seen worse pieces of legislation rather than this one. But for goodness sakes, if we are spending taxpayer dollars on a study, then shouldn't we at least find out what the study says? That might lead us in the right direction of spending, as this bill would authorize, up to $50 million without really knowing the ramifications.

So our argument on this side, and I think an argument on this side probably resonates better with the American people due to the fiscal health of our country, I think this resonates very, very well today, especially, as I alluded to in my earlier remarks, since the President is going to come and speak to a joint session of Congress tonight on fiscal responsibility, this is our opportunity on that very day to show some fiscal responsibility by saying ``no'' to this bill and waiting for the study to come back.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Chairman Rahall, for yielding.

Today I rise once again to speak on behalf of H.R. 3726, a bill that I introduced to establish the Castle Nugent Historic Site on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, for the first time in the 110th Congress.

The introduction of this bill, or the reintroduction, stands as testimony to our country's legacy of preserving our Nation's special places. H.R. 3726 deepens the commitment of our conservation trail blazers such as Henry Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh, and John Muir who worked tirelessly to protect our collective natural history in such a way that it would live on for generations.

As noted by Ken Burns when discussing the need to document the National Park System, the chronicle of America's parks isn't a mere celebration of our Nation's national treasures, but also a story of our people, of the forces that help shape our lands and the influences that will guide our children.

The site to be designated as the Castle Nugent National Historic Site continues to be heralded as one of the last pristine areas in the region. Without hesitation, I can attest to the fact that the Castle Nugent Farm is worthy of preservation, worthy of inclusion in the National Park System and truly worthy of being shared as more than just a ``beachfront property in the Caribbean'' but, instead, as an invaluable chapter in our Nation's official record of the American story. The National Park Service testified as such in November at the subcommittee hearing.

H.R. 3726 calls for the preservation of 2,900 acres, which include a Caribbean dry forest, sea turtle nesting areas, large and healthy fringe coral reefs, and Great Pond Bay, home to numerous species of bird and other wildlife. Today the landscape remains pretty much as it did historically with its rolling hills and open grassy shrub plains sloping into the Caribbean Sea.

In addition to guaranteeing the protection of one of the most ecologically sensitive areas on the island, H.R. 3726 also preserves a rich part of our historical and cultural past by preserving the archeological remains of our indigenous Taino inhabitants as well as a Danish estate house now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Estate Castle Nugent is one of the last working cattle ranches on St. Croix and one of the ranches instrumental in the development and exportation of the unique and sturdy Senepol cattle throughout the Caribbean and, really, throughout the world. H.R. 3726 would ensure the rearing of the Senepol cattle with a provision that guarantees a continued relationship with the University of the Virgin Islands Agricultural Experiment Station to support ongoing scientific research.

The family which owns the majority of this property has been incredibly patient. The pressure to sell their land to developers has been overwhelming and has created some conflict among family members, but they have held out because their first choice has always been that the ranch and its assets be preserved, which I agree is the best for all concerned.

There is no intent to interfere with privately held property. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect and preserve the historic, cultural, and environmental assets and the opportunity for the people of the Virgin Islands and our fellow Americans to continue to enjoy the area and to preserve it for future generations.

And while it might cost almost $1,000 to get there on President's weekend, President's weekend is the most heavily traveled time of the year to any part of the Caribbean, and most times of the year the cost to get to St. Croix is far less.

There is also no final assessment of how much the site would cost. This simply authorizes the Secretary to acquire it. We do not know that the entire 2,900 acres will remain in the park, and we expect to acquire some of what would be the National Historic Site through donations, easements, and possibly also exchanges.

There is no substantive reason to oppose this legislation. This is a beautiful and important natural and cultural resource that is in danger of being lost to the Nation's public forever. If we do not move forward now without waiting for the final process to get the study here, after having heard from the National Park Service that it is indeed determined to have been appropriate for inclusion into the park, if we don't move forward today, there is a real risk that when the study is formally transmitted to Congress supporting the designation, the land will already have been sold and condominium owners will be the only people who ever get to visit the area.

In places such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, there is always a danger of development getting out of control and the balance between development and conservation being lost in favor of development. With development brings the risk of restricting local residents' use of the area far more than park regulations would. There are examples, as well, of developers disregarding the relationship between the people of our community and the areas that they have purchased. Bringing this ranch into the Park Service is the best way to allow those who have purchased part of the property or adjacent property to develop, but to do so in a way that is sensitive to the importance of the land and least restrictive to all of my constituents.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have supported this designation every step of the way. The current administration has determined that the site meets the criteria set by the National Park Service to determine national significance, suitability, and feasibility. The designation is supported by my constituents, including those who originally questioned the expansion of the park, and, as far as I'm aware, no one is challenging the conclusions of the study.

The people of St. Croix have long enjoyed the picturesque scenery and use of the area for various activities. For years, thousands of Virgin Islanders and visitors have frequented the property to learn about the natural, cultural, historical, archeological, and marine resources found in Estate Castle Nugent. Anyone who visits the property leaves with a deepened appreciation of our community's treasure and our place in American history. Failure to act now will guarantee the area to be developed privately, risking our historic and natural jewels and having them untold and lost to future generations.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Rahall and Subcommittee Chair Grijalva for their support in ushering this bill through the Resources Committee and back to the floor. I would like to thank the numerous community members and organizations who wrote in support of it.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, on behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3726. This is timely and responsible legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.