Acknowledging and congratulating Western Wyoming Community College in Southwest Wyoming on the occasion of its 50th anniversary of service to the students and citizens of the State of Wyoming.

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, this legislation raises serious concerns about border security and the private property rights of private landowners by establishing an over 3,300-square-mile--let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker--3,300-square-mile national heritage area that includes land along the Arizona and Mexico border.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support the wise and responsible stewardship of Federal lands. We also strongly believe the protection and conservation of natural areas is important. Yet it need not be done at the expense of our homeland security or the private property rights of U.S. citizens.

On the issue of homeland security, some of the most heavily trafficked drug smuggling and human trafficking routes in the United States would be designated as a national heritage area under this bill. To make matters worse, the bill lacks sufficient protections to ensure that border security enforcement, drug interdiction and illegal immigration control is not restricted, is not hindered, and is not impeded by this legislation.

At a time when our borderlands are far from secure, now is simply not the time to place yet another layer of Federal interference in these areas. It is critical that policies meant to conserve natural areas or to preserve or promote unique areas in our Nation do not become corridors for illegal activities that threaten the safety and security of United States citizens.

This Congress must ensure that the responsibilities of the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security are not undercut by the actions of another agency or Department. This is especially true with the Department of the Interior, which, Mr. Speaker, controls 40 percent of the lands along the southern border.

In response to concerns raised about the lack of border security protections in this bill, the Democrat majority has used their power on the Rules Committee to automatically add meager text to this bill that falls far short of meaningful protection of our border security. This meager text simply states that no border enforcement authority is being modified, altered, or amended.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this leaves the barn door open to the reality that this heritage area designation could restrict, could hinder or impede border enforcement or security authority, including drug interdiction and illegal immigration control.

It also completely fails to address the effects that other existing laws are having over the ability of the Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security to achieve operational control of the border.

Instead of addressing the hurdles to border security that exist on public land, this bill, frankly, Mr. Speaker, exacerbates them.

On the issue of property rights, this legislation does include language that expresses support for property protection. I will acknowledge that. However, the bill omits stronger protections that have been included in many of the other recently established heritage areas.

What should be included in this bill is an assurance that the written consent of property owners be acquired before their property is included into the planning activities of the heritage area's management entities. Property owners should also be permitted the choice to opt out of the heritage area's boundaries if they choose.

Now, as I noted, the bill does include language related to private property, and it does say that property owners are allowed to ``refrain from participation.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, nothing changes the fact that this bill places property owners within a new Federal designation.

It would allow a basis for ambitious Federal land managers to claim that now they have a mandate and millions of Federal dollars to interfere with local decisions affecting the private property of others.

The reality is that there are likely a great number of property owners who have no idea that they are being included in this heritage area designation. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about over 3,300 square miles. This House should insist that the weak and ineffectual provisions of the bill are strengthened with real and meaningful protections that protect all landowners with the choice to opt out of this designation.

With deep concern, Mr. Speaker, across the country over the growing intrusion of the Federal Government into our daily lives, as evidenced by the debate on health care in this country and private choices of American citizens, great caution and care should be taken to protect the property rights of the thousands and thousands of property owners located within the over 3,300 square-mile heritage area that is being proposed by this legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, without sufficient protections for private property rights and the security of our southern border from drug smuggling and illegal immigration, I must oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, spoke at length about private property rights, and, as is not unusual, there are differing opinions of that.

I have before me, Mr. Speaker, an article from the North Dakota Farm Bureau written by an individual, Mr. Harold Maxwell, who belongs to the Arizona Farm Bureau. He lives in Yuma. He was involved in a heritage designation in that area and he worked very hard to get private property rights protection included in that area of Arizona. But he has an article that I think spells out a lot of what we were talking about on our side of the need to further protect private property rights.

Get Involved To Protect Property Rights

(By Harold Maxwell)

Arizona, February 27, 2008--Recently, there has been

extensive discussion in Arizona about the proposed Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area. As one of the

individuals that worked to resolve some of the issues that

arose from the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, I have a

unique view on the potential pitfalls and benefits of having

a National Heritage Area (NHA).

First, let me state that the Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area in its final form has been a benefit to our

community. That being said, two main issues exist that must

be addressed to ensure that a National Heritage Area truly is

a benefit to the local community, rather than a threat.

First let's tackle the issue of individual property rights.

Proponents of another proposed NHA, the Little Colorado River

Valley National Heritage Area (LCRVNHA), cite two main

reasons why the local populous should not be concerned about

their property rights. The authors of the proposed Heritage

Area bill like to point to specific language in the bill that

they included in an attempt to afford property owners some

protection.

They also like to cite a 2004 study by the GAO that found

no issues affecting property values or use. Let me address

both of those issues.

Most legislation that designates a NHA and its subsequent

management plan includes language that prohibits the National

Park Service and/or the Heritage Board from using eminent

domain to acquire property. These management plans also

prohibit the use of the Federal funds obtained under the bill

from being used to acquire land. Unfortunately, these

``protections'' are limited.

The proposed LCRVNHA bill does not prohibit local

governments from changing zoning ordinances to conform to the

land use plans suggested by the Heritage Area Board. Local

governments find themselves in a difficult situation: either

adopt the new land use plans and put local property owners at

risk, or reject the land use plans and put their federal

funding at risk.

This is not just idle conjecture. The Wheeling National

Heritage Area, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor, Essex National Heritage Area, Erie Canalway

National Heritage Corridor, and the Journey Through Hallowed

Ground NHAs are just a few examples of where local zoning was

changed to accommodate the management plan and those changes

did negatively impact local land owners' property rights.

The other statement, that no federal funds obtained under

the bill can be used to acquire land, is also misleading.

This statement only applies to funds authorized by Congress

for a Heritage Area. Any matching funds that are raised are

free to be spent however the Heritage Area Board sees fit.

This is not an insignificant problem. Heritage Areas on

average receive $8 in matching funds for every $1 that is

provided under the Heritage Area Act. Far and away the

majority of the funds generated by a Heritage Area are

eligible to purchase private property, or issue conservation

or historical easements. This is of particular significance

in Arizona, as only 13% of our land is privately owned. Any

acquisition that removes land from the tax rolls has the

potential for a huge negative impact on the amount of

property tax collected for our local communities.

Even a more serious issue is the potential of a Heritage

Area to acquire land and then donate the land to the National

Park Service (NPS). This is what happened with the Shenandoah

Valley Battlefield Foundation. The Cedar Creek and Belle

Grove National Historical Park as it is now known was created

in 2003 by using a combination of donated lands and

conservation easements. Though National Heritage Areas do not

impose direct restrictions on property this is not the case

for the NPS. Federal law grants the National Parks the right

to impose specific land use restrictions on properties

adjacent to their boundaries.

A March 2004 Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) study on

heritage areas is the Holy Grail for the National Heritage

Areas' claim that Heritage Areas do not impact property

rights. The GAO study claims to have found no issues

affecting property values or use. This has always been

perplexing to me as I know of three separate incidences

involving property rights and the Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area.

Having read the GAO report, I now believe that I can shed

some light on the subject. In regard to the Yuma events, the

GAO report was published in March 2004. The meeting held in

Yuma concerning property rights, with an attendance of more

than 600 Yuma County residents, was held the end of February

2004. One of the reasons that the GAO did not find any

incidents in Yuma was that the publication had gone to press

by the time of the Yuma meeting.

It was also noted in the GAO's report that the survey was

limited to ``national groups'' and apparently did not include

a survey of individual property owners in the more than

three-dozen NHAs already in existence. It is also evident

that the GAO was only concerned about the immediate impact of

the bill and not the consequences from the land

use planning that was encouraged by the National Heritage

Areas. When one reviews the literature looking for cases

where NHAs have influenced local zoning ordinances, it

becomes apparent even to the casual observer that NHAs can

and do have the ability to affect property rights.

Local control

The second major concern involving National Heritage Areas

is local control. No clearer example of the benefit of local

control can be found than the Yuma experience. After the Yuma

Crossing Heritage Area Bill passed Congress designating 22-

square miles of Yuma as a National Heritage Area, the local

agencies responsible for zoning started to interpret what it

meant to own property in and around the boundaries of the new

Heritage Area. It was these decisions made by bureaucrats

that caused the local population to become concerned about

their property rights. Local pressure was brought to bear on

the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Yuma to pass

resolutions instructing staff not to use the boundaries of

the New Heritage Area in determining zoning issues. This

solved the immediate issue, but the community realized that

the Yuma Crossing Heritage Act was a federal law that would

become more difficult to change as federal monies were

invested.

We also understood that the local resolutions could be

lifted at some time in the future after the Heritage area was

well established. The local community decided, for their own

protection, to reduce the scope of the project back to what

was originally proposed: 4 square miles or 2,560 acres of

downtown Yuma and the Colorado River inside the levee system.

Even with strong local support it took Yuma over 3 years to

change the original legislation. The Yuma community now

believes that this new boundary is focused enough that even

if the local ordinances are changed the community will be

protected from their impact. One of the benefits of such a

focused area is that we have enough money to effect change.

If one assumes that their Heritage Area will get all of the

potential $10 million from the federal government, and no

project has, then the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

has the potential of receiving a little more than $3,900 per

acre for our project, as compared to the $710 per acre it

could have received under the original scope.

The proposed Little Colorado River Valley National Heritage

Area is too large. At over 23,000 square miles or 14,720,000

acres, it falls into the trap that some of the other Heritage

Areas have fallen into: On a per acre basis the Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area will at a

maximum receive only 68 cents per acre under the bill. When a

Heritage area is too large the funds are insufficient to get

the project up and running on a self-sustaining basis. One of

the goals for all Heritage areas is to be self-sustaining at

the sunset of their authorization bill in 15 years.

Yuma learned that local control is critical. When issues

arose it was relatively easy to convince our County Board of

Supervisors and the Yuma City Council to pass resolutions

protecting our citizens. The proposed Little Colorado River

Valley National Heritage Area covers parts of four states,

seven Native American Nations, and 27 counties. How do you

have local control in such a large entity? The only effective

control is on a county, sovereign nation, or city basis. When

a project covers so many different governing agencies the

only way for the project to work is for the local governments

to cede local control to the Heritage Area. After having

looked at some of the major pitfalls with the Little

Colorado River Valley Heritage Area, these are the changes

I would recommend in the plan if your community chooses to

go forward.

First, maintain local control. One 23,000 square mile

heritage area managed out of Tucson with some local people

appointed to the board is not local control. The Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area includes parts

of 4 states, 7 Native American nations, and 27 counties. At

the very least there should be 34 separate Heritage Areas

divided along county and Native American nation lines. This

would give control down to the county or nation level. A side

benefit would be that each heritage area would be eligible

for $10 million in government funds on their own. That is a

potential of $340 million dollars in federal funds vs. the

current proposal of $10 million. Learn from the Yuma

experience. If Yuma reduced the size of its Heritage Area

from 22 square miles to 4 square miles due to concerns over

property rights, one can only imagine the potential issues

with the 23,000 square mile Heritage Area that is being

proposed.

Secondly, be very focused. One of the ways that you can

protect yourselves against property rights abuse is to make

certain that the areas that are included are well defined and

include cultural, historical and environmental areas that can

be developed into self sustaining economic zones. Vast

expanses of the current proposal would not fit these

criteria. Heritage Areas are intended to be self-sustaining

after the first 15 years of existence.

Finally, the legislation authorizing the Heritage Area

should prohibit the Heritage Area from using any of the funds

raised to buy private property or to purchase any form of

easement (conservation, historical etc.). This would ensure

that private property stays on the tax rolls and is not

retired. It also would ensure that land is not ``donated'' by

the Heritage Area to create a new or expanded National Park.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished ranking member on the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and I ask unanimous consent that he control the time after he uses his time for his debate.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 760, I call up the bill (H.R. 324) to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, and for other purposes, 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. 324.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 324, legislation I was proud to introduce earlier this year along with my friend and colleague Representative Giffords.

My own history began in the Santa Cruz Valley at the Canoa Ranch where my father worked. My earliest memories are of life in an extraordinary, scenic valley; and they comprise a very important part of who I am today.

H.R. 324 designates the Santa Cruz Valley region of Arizona as a national heritage area. This would allow the National Park Service to support existing and future State and local conservation efforts through Federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance.

The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, with traces of human occupation extending back 12,000 years. The region was not only the center of centuries of Native American culture and history but also served as a corridor of Spanish exploration, colonization, and missionary activity; and a frontier of Mexican and early American mining, ranching, and agriculture. Today the valley is a leading center of desert ecology, climate research, astronomy, optics, and archeology.

The historic Spanish missions, presidio fortresses, and ranches are found throughout the valley. Streets lined with Sonoran-style adobe houses recall the period when the region was part of Mexico. Ghost towns, old mines, territorial-style ranch houses, remnants of the mining and cattle industries date to the 1850s when this area became part of the United States.

The valley sweeps across the Santa Cruz and eastern Pima County, encompassing cactus-covered slopes, open grasslands, rugged canyons, forested mountain ranges rising to more than 9,000 feet, and lush oases created by rare desert streams. That varied landscape provides many different habitats that are home to a diversity of plant and animal life, including tropical species, unique desert species, and mountaintop survivors from the Ice Age.

The heritage area designated by H.R. 324 includes two national parks, four State parks, six large county parks, four major lakes, two designated scenic highways, and several hundred miles of backcountry trails and urban bikeways.

The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, designated by Congress in 1990, runs along the Santa Cruz River for the length of the heritage area. The Butterfield Overland Dispatch Trail also crosses the valley. Also included are 32 museums, as well as 28 districts and 102 individual buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and dozens of prehistoric and historic archeological sites.

A July 2005 study by the Center for Desert Archaeology, on which the bill is based, examined the many resources of the region and found that the area meets the 10 criteria set forth by the National Park Service for proposed heritage areas.

H.R. 324 designates the area; sets out the duties of the management organization and the requirements for a management plan; requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve or disapprove of the plan within 180 days; provides criteria for judging that plan; allows the Secretary to provide technical assistance and grants; and authorizes $15 million over 15 years, with no more than $1 million to be appropriated in any fiscal year. All Federal funds must be matched by contributions from non-Federal sources. The bill includes extensive protections for private property owners and prohibits the use of Federal lands received under the act for land acquisition.

H.R. 324 is strongly supported throughout the Santa Cruz Valley. All incorporated local governments have supported it and have given this proposal their formal support. Other supporters include two Native American tribes, chambers of commerce and other civic organizations, the Arizona Office of Tourism and other tourism councils, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association, conservation groups and developers, and many other businesses and individuals.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to say a few words about the heritage areas in general. This is a well-established, well-tested program that has been operating for 25 years. There are 49 heritage areas running in 29 States. Well over 50 million people live, work, and recreate inside the national heritage area.

Mr. Speaker, the National Park Service and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas commissioned Michigan

State University to study the economic impacts of the national heritage area. The study found that just one national heritage area resulted in $780,000 in wages and salaries; $1.2 million in value added, mostly from dining and lodging; and created 51 jobs. If you extend this to all the heritage areas, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefit to local communities and roughly 2,500 jobs.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me once again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 324, my bill to help preserve a fascinating area full of history and culture and the wonders of nature.

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

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I would just extend congratulations to my colleague that just finished speaking. He caught us. This is a grant- funded program. Heritage areas have been grant-funded programs for 25 years, and I am glad that he was able to find that and point that out.

Those of us that represent the border understand how painful, how divisive, and in some areas how devastating what is going on on the border is. Not only with unauthorized entries, but with the drug cartels coming one way, the gun runners going the other way sending guns to Mexico, we understand it is very painful, and the inactivity of this Congress to deal with that immigration issue has made that pain even more severe. But I think it is wrong to try to deal with an immigration issue that people are either afraid to deal with or exploit for political purposes and try to layer that on to a heritage area in the Santa Cruz Valley.

I say that for far too long when we talk about the border region, it is always in a negative context. Always. And for too long, the people that live there, the people that raise their families there, the people that work there, the culture, the natural heritage that that area has is ignored, underfunded, and never really dealt with.

This is an opportunity to do something along a border region that is not going to promote illegal crossings, that is not going to impede any law enforcement, including Border Patrol, from carrying out their duty and the application of the law; to do something for an area, a part of the United States of America, to do something for that area and say this is special, this is unique, we want to work with this area and show that uniqueness to the rest of the country.

I think it is an opportunity to do more than just scapegoat and fear monger about border issues and do something positive, something necessary, and something that will tell the people that live there, like many of us do, you are worthy, you are in this country, you are United States citizens, and we acknowledge that because of the special unique heritage that you bring to this country.

I think this is part of this discussion today, and we shouldn't let fear- mongering and we shouldn't let scapegoating dominate the decision that needs to be made on this legislation, which is to approve it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

No.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, I think H.R. 324 is a good piece of legislation. When the heritage areas were formed 25 years ago, I don't believe Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, knew how successful they were going to be, how popular they were going to be, how much private money that these initiatives would leverage in communities, and, because of that, it continues to be popular with Members of both sides of the aisle.

The other issue is, as we go through this legislation and debate what is in there or not, I don't believe that there is a level of appeasement that we can put into this legislation that would garner the support from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

It is a good piece of legislation. I consider this not only good for the region that I represent, but beginning the process of on-the-border lands dealing with issues comprehensively. One of those issues is to recognize the richness, the diversity and the history of the region.

The other area that I want to talk about briefly is the issue of border enforcement. The problems along the border with enforcement are not due to the creation of heritage areas. They are not the reason that we have unauthorized crossings. They are not the reason that we have drug cartels. They are not the reason that we have organized gun runners from the United States. Those are not the reasons. Heritage areas are not to blame for that horrible situation. And the inability of Homeland Security over the last 5 years to effectively put their technology to work, to effectively do the kind of border security initiatives that they needed, environmental issues are not the cause of that.

I would say ineptitude, inefficiencies and waste of money were the reasons that that didn't get done. This bill solves a problem. It solves a problem of a region badly needing a shot in the arm, an acknowledgement that it is and continues to be a valued part of this great Nation of ours.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask that the legislation be supported.

I object, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have come to accept the fact that redundancy is part of the process here that we go through. So in accepting that reality, let me just state one more time, nowhere in this legislation is there an infringement, a taking of private property rights. Nowhere.

The motion asks that close to a quarter of a million property owners, if not more, be notified and asked to either be part of or not be part of this heritage area. That process would create a Swiss cheese designation for that area; and in the previous 49, there is not one incident where a private property owner has been forced, coerced into being part of or permitting their private property to be used as a designation. That is already in the legislation.

With regard to the issue of border enforcement, again, I asked the Rules Committee to insert that so there would be clarification that the activities of Homeland Security, plus all other local enforcement--the sheriffs, local police, tribal police, et cetera--that their ability to carry out their mission and enforce the law was part and parcel and that the heritage area in no way would impinge, infringe or restrict that ability. That is already in the legislation.

So why the motion to recommit? I think it's just part of a very cynical exploitation of a very, very divisive issue in this country, the issue of immigration and the issue of unauthorized people in this country. The heritage area is not responsible for that situation. It has been the inability of this Congress to come to grips with the situation that has aggravated and made it worse. And as a person who represents the border and has to deal with constituents that are affected by this decision every day, the lack of attention, serious, rational, mature attention to this issue, rather than exploitation of this issue, is what they're asking this Congress to do. The heritage area has nothing to do with how we're going to resolve this issue. The heritage area, for once, is an acknowledgement of a part of this country that for too long and, most recently, in a very cynical way has been exploited both as a region and the people who live there. We are saying, this heritage area is your acknowledgement that you're part and parcel of this country.

I ask that the motion to recommit be defeated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 324, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think a couple of the speakers have given what is one of the crux problems, not of this, the Santa Cruz Heritage Area, but of the overall issue itself. The gentleman from Arizona, who does a good job in representing his constituents, did say there are 49 heritage areas that have been heritage areas for the last 25 years, and therein is the problem.

When Mo Udall was chairman of that committee and Bruce Vento was the subcommittee chairman, that is the first time this concept of a heritage area was introduced. The concept was going to be that this was start-up money, and then the heritage areas would be on their own. Bruce Vento did say, 10 years and we are out of there. This was never supposed to be a 25-year program for any of these areas.

The problem is that when the 10 years are up, we keep extending the time limit on these areas and we keep extending the life and giving more and more money to these areas. In fact, it has become such a part that there is a cottage industry that has developed going out to areas to train them on how they can become and stay a heritage area to get more and more funding. It violates the very concept of why heritage areas were there in the first place.

This year alone we have added nine new heritage areas. This bill itself has $15 million, which is a 50 percent increase on what the majority of heritage areas do receive.

The problem is very simple: This heritage area is to try to expand its tourism and other elements, and other areas pay for it. So if you are in tourist area A, you are now being taxed and your money will go to promote tourism in area B. And if that was simply a start-up fund, simply to get them started, none of us really have objections to that. But it isn't. It is becoming perpetual as we extend and extend and spend and spend more and more on these elements.

This particular heritage area in front of us covers 3,300 square miles, private and public land. When Republicans were in charge of this committee, as a standard we always included language in heritage area legislation that gave property owners the ability to opt out of boundaries. It was a compromise. It was weak, but at least it was there.

What we are trying to say in that is that people should have a voice in what is done to them. People should be given choices and options. And we should not refrain from doing that. We should not have the government setting what the standard is, what the boundary is, what the requirement is. And there are instances when outside groups have tried to pressure local zoning entities because of these boundaries.

It is not right that people should be locked inside a boundary, oftentimes with little prior knowledge of what is actually happening, because boundaries do have consequences. Otherwise, why have these boundaries?

If these heritage areas are so innocuous, there is no reason to lock an owner in. Give them the opportunity for full information so they can make decisions and, again, give them the choices of what they wish to do. That is how we should be treating individuals and property owners.

This area is one that is heavily traveled with narcotic trafficking, human trafficking, and now I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Arizona and the Rules Committee in a self-executing rule did give some modicum of protection on these areas.

As late as last July we attempted in committee to try and put language similar to this to give some protection

in these areas. Rejected--not on a partisan vote, because several of the opposition side actually did vote with us, but nonetheless rejected in committee. I am proud of Representative Grijalva for now including this language in this bill, but it could be better, and that is the issue before us.

Less than a week ago, the GAO revealed that secure border initiatives are behind schedule, are years behind schedule, because of environmental delays. That simply means there are people out there within the National Park Service that blame the Border Patrol for environmental damage.

The Park Service's own admission is that it takes 6 months to complete documents necessary to place critical border protection technologies, like observation towers. There was one tower stopped on the border areas until they could prove in some kind of scientific study that the Sonoran pronghorn deer would leave that area of their own volition and would not be scared by these towers. I am sorry, that is ridiculous, but that is the reality of why we are here and the reality of what is happening.

So there are some concerns with this area. The majority did put language in there to try and protect border security and the border areas, and I am thankful for that and I applaud you for doing that, but you could have taken a big step further.

In this bill you did put some language in there to try and protect personal property, but you could have gone further just simply to say people should have the choice and the option of what they are doing. And once again we have a problem of heritage areas, supposed to be temporary, supposed to be start-up, staying year after year after year, getting fund after fund after fund of public money from point A to fund the exact thing that is happening in point B in competition with point

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

In its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity.

As I said, this bill could definitely be improved, and we are presenting some amendments in here that take the bill and make it a much better, stronger, significant bill.

I said in the original remarks that of course we have problems with heritage areas that simply will not go away. Even though they were supposed to be around for only 10 years, they keep living and living and consuming more and more funds. Having said that, I could still be supportive of this amendment if there were some specific guarantees placed in there for those specific issues that we have addressed in the past that actually could be a way we can move forward with other bills of a similar ilk.

Specifically in there, it deals with the idea of property rights. The gentleman from Arizona did sponsor legislation that dealt with the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. This was an area created in the year 2000 and, according to the Arizona Farm Bureau, was much larger than local farmers were expecting. Further exacerbating the problem, local zoning bureaucrats began to use the heritage area boundaries in planning. The problem is, once established, those entities had no recourse as private property owners to exempt themselves unless you came to Congress and had Congress adjust the boundaries. The gentleman from Arizona did that. We passed a law that shrunk the size of those areas down. That is a cumbersome and silly process to go through when all we need to do is give people the opportunity of being informed and make decisions for themselves so they can remove themselves when they wish to. That is what this amendment does. It asks the properties owners, before being included, to give their consent to be included in this new entity.

Now some will say, well, that's burdensome and difficult. It's hard to find all the property owners in an area. Yet when tax time comes, the government entities have an easy time finding all the property owners in an area. We could do the same thing, because the matter is not how efficient it is or how easy it is. The matter should be that private property rights are not a burden to government, and they should be respected in every way that is possible, especially in these areas where the National Park Service, who will be administering this, does not have a celebrated history of respecting private property rights and finding unique ways of having willing sellers.

This language that we are proposing should become the standard template for all legislation that deals with heritage areas and how we handle private property rights within those. This bill draws boundaries on a map. It covers and surrounds private property owners and then gives them no real recourse to remove themselves from those boundaries. Even if it says they don't have to participate, that is not the same thing, and it does have consequences. When it comes to border security, this bill is a perfect effort for us to move forward in some specific way.

Now, as I said, I commend the gentleman for actually adding some language that we have been trying to add to these types of bills in committee. But the language here is not necessarily enough. The sad situation that we find--not because of this bill, nor will it be solved because of this bill unless we add this particular language--is that the Border Patrol finds itself in a position of subservience to the National Park Service. I don't think Americans really know that when a Border Patrol agent crosses into a national park, he has to get out of his car, park it and walk. I don't think they realize that the Border Patrol has to consult with the National Park Service before they can put up an antenna on that border. Their amendment gets some language in there to try to not impede or prohibit. But what we also put in this amendment is language that says that nothing will happen that will hinder or restrict our homeland security on border areas. This is a perfect opportunity to do so. It is there.

This amendment, for the first time, says that when those land use plans--and the bulk of the border in which the drug traffic and human traffic is coming are on public lands--it says that Homeland Security must be consulted in coming up with the land use plans. So they are an equal partner because this is significant. Right now they are not. This amendment is going to move us forward so that Homeland Security will not be impeded in their element. They will not have to wait to put up surveillance to see if a particular sheep will, on its own volition, move or not move. That is ridiculous, but that is what we are trying to do with this amendment.

Once again, this amendment takes the bill and improves it, which is why I'm proud of this amendment. This amendment clearly states what property rights are and which property owners may be in a heritage area which, as we have noted, does not go away in 10 years but tends to last on and on and on.

This amendment clearly gives Homeland Security, for the first time, a right to be an equal player in the decision of how to handle these lands, and this also gives us the right to make sure that nothing hinders or restricts what we do on the border.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 324, the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area.

This 3,300 miles shares already overlapping jurisdictions between the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, the Department of Defense, and then there are some residents of the tribes, the Pascua and the Tohono people, as well.

This area is a very high traffic volume for contraband, that being illegal drugs and illegal people, coming up through this corridor. I have traveled that corridor and visited as recently as last July, a little over a month and a half ago. We know that in some cases there have been national park lands marked off limits to the people of the United States because the illegal drug traffic and the litter has gotten so bad. It is too dangerous. They wouldn't take me there.

We need to enforce the laws on our border and not complicate the overlapping jurisdictions that are there. We know that the Border Patrol has enough trouble trying to get to an operational control of the border without having to deal with an additional area that would be a national heritage area added on top of it.

I am not sure about the State of Tennessee, but I would wonder if the TVA didn't come in there about the time Tennessee was declared a national heritage area, and it seems to me that the private sector was nudged out with that move, if my recollection of history is accurate.

But the bill still lacks sufficient protections that would allow the free flow of our U.S. border security personnel for drug interdiction and illegal immigration enforcement.

I would add also on the Coronado National Forest, that is in the center of this location and that is a direct conduit of illegal traffic coming through. So we need the jurisdiction to be such that it is free- flowing, and we need to enforce our immigration laws. We need to provide operational control of the border.

I would also point out that some of the difficulties we have in enforcing our immigration laws are also rooted in our inability to enforce even under current circumstances. And in this designation, I will be able to roll out my map and point to you, Mr. Speaker, the spot or locations, mountaintop after mountaintop, that are surveillance locations for the U.S. law enforcement that is trying to enforce illegal immigration and illegal drugs and the interdiction of same coming up through this corridor.

This serves no real purpose to accomplish anything other than to draw down Federal moneys. And as I look through this bill, and I didn't get them all marked, but I see the word ``fund'' or ``funds'' or ``resources'' being used over and over again.

The attention I would draw to page 5 of the bill, line 12, specify existing and potential sources of funding or economic development strategies to interpret, fund, manage.

And the same page of the bill, line 25, recommend fund, manage. And it goes on and on. As I go through the bill, it looks to me like it is a method to figure out how to drawn down Federal funds.

Page 9 of the bill, line 5, enhance, interpret, fund, manage.

Federal funds implementation, on page 10.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I would continue. On page 10, it references implementation. The local coordinating entity. It references use of Federal funds.

On page 13, the amounts leveraged with Federal funds is referenced again.

On page 14, lines 19, 20 and 21, ``heritage planning; obtain funds from any source, including Federal programs,'' Mr. Speaker.

Page 15, line 4, ``The local coordinating entity may not use Federal funds authorized under this act.'' So there is a prohibition there in reference to funds.

Then with regard to the property rights component of this, we have seen this language before. ``Nothing abridges the rights of any property owner.'' That is kind of like the bill that came to the floor that said there are no earmarks in this bill, but there were thousands of them. To define it away doesn't mean it goes away.

I rise in opposition to this, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 324.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure that is sponsored by our good friend from Arizona, the chairman of the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, Representative Grijalva. I also rise, as I have said, and as I have done time and time and time again, to point out that the claim that national heritage areas harm the rights of private property owners is utterly false. F-A- L-S-E. Utterly false.

As Chairman Grijalva has already pointed out, H.R. 324 contains the extensive property rights protections included in every heritage area which has passed the House in recent years under both Democratic and Republican majorities, and signed into law by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

So I would urge my colleagues to simply read the bill. On page 16, starting on line 4, it states, and I quote, ``Nothing,'' N-O-T-H-I-N-G, ``in this Act (1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether public or private), including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the National Heritage Area.''

Furthermore, the bill makes clear that private property owners may not be forced to provide access to the public or any government agency, and the bill does not alter or expand any existing land use or other regulatory authority. These provisions cover every possible contingency however farfetched that the minority may dream up.

Let's look at the facts one more time. National heritage areas have been around for 25 years. Ronald Reagan signed the first one into law. Today we have 49 heritage areas in 29 States. Well over 50 million people live, work and recreate in a heritage area, 50 million people, and not one of them has been adversely affected. That's because heritage areas have no regulatory powers, no zoning authority, no power of eminent domain. Forty-nine heritage areas; 50 million people. That's almost my entire congressional district in a national heritage area.

As a matter of fact, the entire State of Tennessee is a national heritage area. It is the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area. That is the entire State of Tennessee. Think about it.

Last I heard, Dollywood was still booming. The Grand Ole Opry was still swinging. People were still engaging in commerce, holding homes, and contributing to the economy in Tennessee. I believe it is still on the map. And not one of them has had their private property rights diminished. And in all of these areas over all of these years, there has never been a single instance where an individual's right to private property was abridged.

The Government Accountability Office interviewed property rights advocacy groups, and even they were unable to provide a single example. Not a single one. So this is the biggest red herring that I have ever come across.

Nevertheless, we have included these property rights protections in H.R. 324 to make clear once again that national heritage areas do not threaten private property. At some point in order to retain even a shred of credibility, those who make these claims will either have to produce some evidence or admit their mistake.

Seriously, folks, these allegations are beginning to wear thin. You have no evidence whatsoever.

As to the pending measure, the Santa Cruz Valley is a treasure trove of natural and cultural resources and it would be shameful, simply shameful indeed, if we lost the opportunity to protect and preserve these resources based on irresponsible accusations that were proven false long, long, long ago. So I urge support for H.R. 324.