Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act

Mr. President, I am really very glad we were able to reach agreement today to pass these four bills by unanimous consent and will send them to the President to be signed into law.

I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague and friend from Nevada Senator Cortez Masto. I also want to acknowledge Senator Markey from Massachusetts. They worked with us to try to get us to the place we are today in which we were able to move these bills across the floor.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy Committee and the ranking member, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich. Their teams worked with us on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the cloakroom teams, to make sure we were able to be successful today.

The Senate passed all four of these measures last December, so we have seen them once. Now we have seen them twice. But the House ran out of time at the end of the last Congress to take them up, so we are where we are. But now these bills are going to be going to the President for his signature.

Two of the bills we just passed are important for Alaska Natives, and I am proud to have been able to work on these important measures. It has been a multiyear effort to get them to the President's desk. Again, I don't care, really, if we send an H.R. or if we send a Senate bill to the President; we just want to get it accomplished. We want to get some things done for Alaska.

The first measure, which is H.R. 42, amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA. It amends it to ensure that when Alaska Native elders, the blind, and the disabled receive dividends from their settlement trusts, they do not inadvertently become, then, ineligible to participate in Federal needs-based assistance programs.

This is pretty common sense. You have a situation where Alaska Natives who are aged, blind, or disabled should not have to choose between accepting the settlement trust income they are entitled to or qualifying for Federal benefits such as supplemental security income, SSI, or SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as housing assistance. Now, with this bill, they are not going to have to make that choice.

The second measure is H.R. 43, the Alaska Native Village Municipal Lands Restoration Act. What this does is eliminate a requirement under ANCSA, section 14(c)(3), that Alaska Native village corporations convey land to the State of Alaska to be held in trust for future municipalities, which are not likely to ever be established.

So what we are doing with this measure is sunsetting this requirement and allowing village corporations to regain title to conveyed lands. This will allow village corporations to fully utilize their lands for the benefit of their communities. This is what we want to see happen. Again, it has been a long time coming. So I am pleased that we are here.

I am hopeful that the Senate can pass more of these similar, very noncontroversial bills through the unanimous consent process. We shouldn't get into the practice where we wait until the end of a Congress or perhaps even multiple Congresses for a package to be knit together. People in these communities are waiting on us, as Senator Cortez Masto noted in her State of Nevada and in my State of Alaska. They are waiting on us to deliver these small legislative priorities that will allow them to move forward, whether it is economic development or just making sure that there is a level of equity and fairness.

So I thank my colleagues, I thank the Energy Committee, as well as the floor team, and my staff who helped us move these measures forward.

I yield the floor.

I know of no further debate on the bills en bloc.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, we just passed a bipartisan package of bills. Some of them were passed by the Senate in the last Congress, and recently some of them were passed by the House.

The package includes one of my pieces of legislation which was needed in Nevada, which was H.R. 618, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act. This bill will cut through redtape at the Apex Industrial Park in North Las Vegas and speed up the cumbersome and unnecessary permitting process for businesses looking to build or expand there. Here is how:

All Nevada developers know that the Federal Government owns more than 80 percent of the land in our State. That requires us to have this Federal partnership. Every time a company wants to develop a project on public land, they need a permit from the Bureau of Land Management. That process, as we all know, can take years, and in that time, we are losing out on economic growth and on new job creation. That is what is currently happening at the Apex Industrial Park in North Las Vegas.

APEX has over 7,000 acres of developable land where various companies are building new sites. That includes Air Liquide's largest hydrogen plant in the world, an 885,000 square foot distribution center for the grocery chain Smith's, and a 1 million square foot distribution center for the footwear company Crocs. The Smith's center is projected to add 250 jobs for Nevadans, while the Crocs center could create up to 1,200 jobs.

Unfortunately, because of an outdated permitting law, too many businesses that want to set up shop at APEX are bogged down by burdensome obstacles.

When the Apex Industrial site was created in 1989, Congress passed legislation to transfer Federal land to private ownership, but the Bureau of Land Management maintained control over large utility corridors that crisscrossed throughout the whole development. That means every business that wants to start constructing or even expand at APEX has to go through the complicated Federal permitting process if they want to access necessities like gas, power, sewage, access roads, and broadband lines across those BLM-controlled corridors.

In the initial law passed in 1989, Congress gave Clark County, NV, the authorization to speed up the permitting process, but since then, APEX's primary management has changed to the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association as well. Unfortunately, these two entities don't have the authority to permit new pipelines, power connections, or roads for businesses and their facilities. That has caused delays that could last years.

That is why I am fighting to pass the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act. This bill will give the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association the authority they need to issue permits and get new and existing businesses the utilities they need to operate.

This legislation cuts through unnecessary government obstacles and allows our businesses to grow at a sustainable pace. It is essential to ensure businesses can efficiently continue to build and expand in Nevada, including at the Apex Industrial Park, bring new jobs to North Las Vegas, and continue to strengthen our economy.

This bill has already passed through the House of Representatives, and I look forward to the President signing it into law soon.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2215) to redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2215, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Moulton's bill, the Salem

Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act. This legislation would redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site in Salem, Massachusetts, as the Salem Maritime National Historical Park.

Known for its rich history dating back to the colonial era, this area was the first historic site to be included in the National Park System in 1938. Today, the historical park includes 12 historic structures, a downtown visitors center, and a replica of a famous sailing ship, the Friendship of Salem. The site attracts over 800,000 visitors annually and showcases over 600 years of New England's maritime history.

Since most historical sites focus on a singular historical feature, designating Salem Maritime as a national historic park would align with the naming conventions of other National Park System units around the country. Community leaders in the area also hope the redesignation will lead to more visitors by highlighting the various attractions.

In addition to the redesignation, this legislation also requires the National Park Service to conduct a boundary study of related sites to assess their feasibility for future inclusion in the historical park.

I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill will more appropriately reflect the varied and unique history of the timeless landmarks in Salem, Massachusetts.

I thank my friend and acknowledge Representative Moulton for his work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and acknowledge Representative Moulton for his work on this bill, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation, especially my good friend and workout buddy from Arkansas.

I urge support for my bill, H.R. 2215, the Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act. Salem Maritime was established in 1938 as the Nation's first national historic site. It has spent the ensuing 87 years preserving and interpreting over 600 years of American history. This redesignation is overdue.

National historic sites tend to contain a single historical feature and focus on one theme or period of time, but the Salem Maritime National Historic Site contains a dozen historical structures across nine acres. These sites preserve and share diverse histories, ranging from early American maritime trade to slavery and emancipation to the creation of the National Guard.

In many ways, Salem's history is our Nation's history. Take, for example, the Salem Gunpowder Raid of 1775, which was the first armed resistance to the Royal authority, laying the groundwork for the Battles of Lexington and Concord and, later, the American Revolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is history that our children and our communities should learn. The Salem Maritime National Historic Park does that critical work.

This redesignation will also help to bring more visitors to Salem, including to the city's many small businesses, promoting year-round stability in a city that receives a third of its tourism revenue in 1 month.

As America's 250th anniversary approaches, we should expand Salem Maritime's capacity to share our region's rich history with visitors from across Massachusetts and the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 2215.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

This bill would redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site in Salem, Massachusetts, as the Salem Maritime National Historical Park, and it would require a study into including additional sites and resources.

The Salem Maritime National Historic Site preserves more than 600 years of our history, documenting the development of international maritime trade and the journey to American economic independence following the Revolutionary War.

Due to the importance of preserving the maritime history of New England, Congress chose to designate a piece of the Salem waterfront as the country's first national historic site in 1938. The site has since grown to nine acres of land, 12 historic structures, and a visitors center hosting an average of over 300,000 visitors per year.

The bill before us today would redesignate the site to more accurately reflect the scope, scale, and significance of the resources managed there by the National Park Service.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important update to an important historical resource, and I thank Representative Moulton for his leadership on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.