Expressing support for designation of April 2009 as "Jazz Appreciation Month" and April 25, 2009, as "Willis Conover Day", and honoring the global impact of jazz music.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 760 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 760.

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

House Resolution 760 provides for the consideration of House Resolution 324, the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clause 9 and clause 10 of rule XXI. Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for the adoption of an amendment printed in the Rules Committee report to clarify that the bill does not in any way modify, alter or amend any border enforcement authority. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 324, designates the Santa Cruz Valley region of southern Arizona as a National Heritage Area. The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back more than 12,000 years. The region was at the center of centuries of Native American cultural history. It also served as a corridor of Spanish exploration, colonization, missionary activity, as well as a frontier of Mexican and early American mining, ranching and agriculture.

The heritage area includes two national parks, two national historic trails, four State parks, six county parks, four major lakes, two designated scenic highways, and hundreds of miles of back-country trails and urban bikeways. It also includes 32 museums, 28 districts, 102 individual buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as dozens of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. A July 2005 study by the Center for Desert Archaeology, on which the bill is based, examined the many resources in the region. The National Park Service reviewed the study and found that the area meets the 10 criteria for proposed heritage areas.

Designating the Santa Cruz Valley as a heritage area allows the Park Service to support the State and local conservation efforts through Federal recognition, seed money and technical assistance. This simply means that local groups will have the resources they need to educate the public about the historic, cultural and natural value of the area.

I would like to commend my good friends, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), for bringing this legislation to the floor today so that we can ensure that America's history and natural wonderment is protected for future generations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in response and in my close that this bill, in fact, does not regulate zoning, as the gentlelady indicated. It does not have any effect on private property rights. In fact, I'm told that the entire State of Tennessee is part of a heritage area, and we would not think of the entire State of Tennessee as being affected with private property rights effects.

I would submit to you that we would know, just from that designation alone, that it is similar to this one that we are passing today, that the citizens of Tennessee are not affected in their private property rights with that heritage area designation. This bill is subject to appropriation, a $15 million maximum over 15 years, that would have to be voted on by the Appropriations Committee, then subject to appropriation in both the House and the Senate, subject to signature by the President.

Mr. Speaker, National Heritage Area designations have no regulatory consequences whatsoever. This bill specifically says that nothing in it diminishes the authority of the State to regulate fishing, hunting and the management of fish and wildlife. It includes extensive protections for private property owners and prohibits the use of Federal funds received under the act for land acquisition. It would in no way have any impact on border protection and any other law enforcement effort. Additionally, the language was self-executed in the rule which specifically states that nothing in the bill modifies, alters or amends any other border enforcement authority.

The gentlelady indicated that the bill failed. The bill failed under a two-thirds requirement. In fact, it got well over 240 votes to 140 votes in the negative. The bill got 100 votes more than a majority. I think this bill has tremendous support on this floor. In fact, it has tremendous support in the State of Arizona. It's a good measure, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly when it comes back under a rule in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we support this bill. As I said earlier, this bill is not only important to our Nation's history, it is also important that America's most treasured resources are protected for future generations. It deserves the strong support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the rule for the bill H.R. 324, the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act, a bill that has already failed when it was offered under suspension earlier this month.

It disappoints me to have to come here and urge opposition to this rule for a bill offered by my colleague Congressman Grijalva. However, there are many reasons to oppose this bill coming to the floor. The bill failed by a vote of 249-145 just 2 weeks ago. It is a

waste of our constituents' time to bring this bill forward again under a rule and take up legislative time to debate something that has already been voted down, especially since the bill did not go through the committee.

I also learned yesterday in the Rules Committee that this bill was a part of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, but it was taken out by the Senate, which is not a good omen for the bill when it goes to the Senate.

When I was in North Carolina over the August recess, my constituents expressed many concerns with Congress in what's going on in Washington. The Democrats in charge are not allowing us to accomplish the work that our constituents elected us to do. Instead, this Congress is borrowing and spending money that we do not have at a rate our country has never seen. While our constituents at home are tightening their belts and struggling to find ways to put food on their kitchen tables, Congress is blindly writing checks for unnecessary measures that do nothing but increase the size of the Federal Government and put our country in debt to foreign nations.

This bill authorizes another $15 million in taxpayer dollars to seize 3,325 square miles of land for control by the Federal Government, some of which is private property. The designation in this bill could lead to restrictive Federal zoning and land use planning that usurps private property rights and blocks necessary energy development. National Heritage Areas are comprised of both public and private lands and are administered by a central managing entity, which includes the Federal Government and Federal funds. The managing entity has the power to regulate zoning and place other restrictions across local government jurisdictions. This means Federal management plans can restrict our residential and commercial property owners to make use of their private property without any notice or warning.

The National Park Service currently has billions of dollars in maintenance backlogs. Earlier this year, Congress passed S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. It created 10 new National Heritage Areas at a cost of $103.5 million. The Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act locks up even more land, infringes on more private property rights, and spends more taxpayer dollars to add yet another heritage area to a system already overburdened.

Furthermore, the proposed 3,325-square-mile heritage area in Arizona is located in the most heavily trafficked drug and human trafficking area along the U.S. border. The U.S. Border Patrol already experiences major difficulties and obstacles patrolling Federal lands. Designating this heritage area along the border would add even more complications to their ability to prevent illegal drug trafficking and crossings. Creating more obstacles for the U.S. Border Patrol is detrimental to our ability to get illegal immigration and drug trafficking under control and represents irresponsible governing.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. national debt stands at $11.8 trillion and counting. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has predicted that huge deficits under the Obama administration's annual budget would force our Nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade. This year's deficit alone is expected to soar past $1.8 trillion. We borrow 50 cents for every dollar we spend. The time to rein in Federal spending is long overdue. Voting down this rule will take one small step in harnessing the Federal Government's spending as well as the Federal Government's increasing control of private land. This Pelosi- controlled Congress seems intent on putting the government in control of every aspect of our lives--education, health care and private property.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill.

Having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 723, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on House Resolution 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 723, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''