Floor Statements

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2314 and the substitute text that will be offered by my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate, it is important for all Members to understand that the substitute text that they will ultimately be voting on today is fundamentally changed from the original underlying bill that the House voted on in 2007. This rewritten text, the Abercrombie substitute, was drafted behind closed doors away from public view. It was unveiled less than 48 hours before we in the House were to be debating and voting on that substitute. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this lack of transparency has become the standard operating procedure for this Democratic-controlled House.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain we will hear appeals from the bill's advocates that the vote on this bill should not be a partisan matter. I would agree. This is not a partisan matter; rather, it is a question of what is right and constitutional. But appeals to nonpartisanship ring hollow when the bill was rewritten in secret by just one party and then rushed to the floor with little time for scrutiny by the minority, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, little time for scrutiny by the American people or the citizens of Hawaii.

There is nothing more troubling about the House voting on a fundamentally rewritten bill than the position made public by the Governor of Hawaii. Something is very wrong when that Governor, a longtime vocal advocate of Native Hawaiian recognition, feels compelled to issue a statement last night that she can't support this rewritten bill.

Now, the Governor and I disagree on the fundamental question of recognition, I want to make that clear, just as I fundamentally disagree with my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) but I also strongly disagree with the House acting to impose a changed bill on one of the 50 States over their Governor's objections, especially when this Governor has long supported, as I mentioned, the concept of Native Hawaiian recognition and the original text of the bill.

Let me explain the difference between the underlying bill, which is basically what the House passed in the 110th Congress, and the Abercrombie amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is very important, Mr. Speaker. The original bill extended recognition to the Native Hawaiian entity but withheld any tribal powers and privileges, such as immunity from lawsuit and State jurisdiction, until after negotiations with--and the consent of--the State of Hawaii and this Congress. Though this does not resolve my fundamental objection to the bill, it was an arrangement that drew the strong support of Governor Lingle of Hawaii.

In contrast, the substitute alters this fundamental nature of the bill. Let me quote the words that the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Linda Lingle, used to describe this rewrite: ``The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.'' Again, the original bill starts with negotiations, followed by a grant of powers and authorities that are subject to the consent of the State. But the substitute starts with the grant of powers and authorities without the consent of the State, followed by negotiations for yet more benefits and powers.

Let me be specific, Mr. Speaker, in two instances. First, section 9 of the substitute clearly spells out the powers granted to the Native American governing entity before negotiations without the consent of the State; it is immunity from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with only minor exceptions. Second, it is that ``governmental'' activities pursued by the entity or its officers and employees shall not be subject to State regulatory or taxation authority. The wording of this section suggests that the State criminal authority will not even apply to officers and employees of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as long as they are acting within the scope of their duties.

To once again quote from the Governor of Hawaii's statement from last night, ``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for Hawaii.''

Quoting further, ``In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawaii.'' And I am quoting from Governor Lingle.

Without question, this rewritten bill strikes at the heart of the State of Hawaii's authority to enforce health and environmental regulations, taxes, and criminal law enforcement equally among its citizens. Congress should not be party to imposing this upon this State, or for that matter any State. Yet, despite the State of Hawaii's concerns with the rewritten bill, here we

are tonight debating it on the floor of the House of Representatives. This legislation violates also, in my view, the United States Constitution because it establishes a separate, race-based government of Native Hawaiians.

The authors and advocates of this bill have argued that Native Hawaiian recognition is no different than Congress recognizing an Indian tribe, and yet, Mr. Speaker, there are very important and real differences. Native Hawaiians are not and never have been members of an Indian tribe. Native Hawaiians do not share the same political and legal history as Federally recognized Indian tribes. The historical record on this point is very, very clear. For example, in the Hawaii Organic Act of 1900, section 4 states that all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii in 1898 were declared citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, if Congress then believed it was recognizing the existence of a separate Native Hawaiian community, the Organic Act would have expressly reflected this; instead, all Hawaiians were recognized as full citizens. Mr. Speaker, this is in stark contrast to our Nation's history of less than equal treatment of individual Indians and Indian tribes.

But try as we might, Congress cannot revise historical and political facts. H.R. 2314 attempts to do just this, to rewrite legal history. Mr. Speaker, this observation is shared by constitutional and civil rights experts. For example, in its 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano commented on the proposition of Native Hawaiian recognition, saying that it, and I quote from that case, ``would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.''

Just yesterday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reiterated its standing opposition to any legislation, and I quote from the commission, ``that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according to varying degrees of privilege.''

Mr. Speaker, in 1959 a vote was taken in Hawaii on the question of becoming a State. Over 94 percent voted in favor of statehood. In other words, citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly to join our Union as one unified State.

Today, under this bill, Congress will vote on dividing the State of Hawaii through the creation of a separate governing entity based solely on race. If Congress is going to impose this division on Hawaii over the objections of its Governor, then I believe the citizens of Hawaii themselves deserve to have a vote on this matter.

In a Zogby poll from December 2009, a couple of months ago, only 34 percent of Hawaiians supported the concept of the Federal Government's imposing a new racially based subpopulation of citizens on the islands. Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for Statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago. The same poll found that 58 percent want a Statewide vote on this issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that will be offered which would require just such a Statewide vote, and I hope all Members will join me in adopting that amendment.

As I noted at the outset of my remarks, the House last voted on Native Hawaiian recognition in 2007. I want to reiterate today, Mr. Speaker, that we will be voting on a different bill today. The 2007 legislation was rewritten. I believe the changes today are so fundamentally different that those Members who voted ``yes'' in 2007 should take the time to reconsider their votes.

There is another compelling reason for reconsideration when the Governor of Hawaii, the State that is impacted, has gone from an enthusiastic supporter of the 2007 bill to not supporting the rewritten bill. I hope many of my colleagues will recognize this dramatic change from just 3 years ago. The Governor remains a committed supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition. Her position has not changed. It is the bill that has been fundamentally changed and rewritten. Like the Governor, who supported the 2007 bill, they, too, have good reason to oppose this rewritten version today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before concluding my opening statement, I want to take a moment to publicly state that I have a great deal of respect and affection for my colleague from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie. He is departing the House at the end of this week, and I do regret that I am leading the opposition to his bill in his final days here in the House. To be very honest, Mr. Speaker, I would much rather be on the floor supporting his bipartisan legislation to write into law a 5-year plan to develop America's offshore oil and gas reserves. Regrettably, such reasonable legislation stands no chance of making it to the floor in this Congress, and I do regret that.

So I hope that my good friend knows that my opposition to this recognition bill is based on my view of the matter and is not a reflection of the high regard for which I hold him as my friend. I want to wish him well in his future endeavors--well, maybe not real, real well.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentleman has checked with the Ethics Committee; but having been a long-time member, I gladly accept that from my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the gentleman from Hawaii certainly will be missed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

If the gentleman's the last speaker, then I am the last speaker on my side. I yield myself the balance of the time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just let me kind of summarize some of the overreaching debate that we've had here today.

This issue has been around this Congress for over 10 years, and this issue has had broad support within the State of Hawaii, Mr. Speaker, for over 10 years. And the underlying bill, before we will vote on the substitute, the underlying bill has broad support in the State of Hawaii.

But now we are going to have an amendment that was not written in public, and, in fact, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Governor Lingle is opposed to this approach on this bill, even though she agrees wholeheartedly with the issue of recognition for Native Hawaiians.

So, Mr. Speaker, I take everybody's word that's involved in this that it will be worked out to everybody's satisfaction. But, Mr. Speaker, why should we, on the floor of the House----

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute. I'll talk about that later.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As I said in my opening statement, this amendment was crafted in a manner that has become the hallmark of this Democrat-led House, this behind closed doors, with very little time for the American people or the people of Hawaii to review it. It has been available for public review, Mr. Speaker, for less than 48 hours.

Just last night, Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, a strong supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition, announced her opposition to this substitute.

As introduced, the basic bill, H.R. 2314, provides that matters such as transferring lands and preempting Federal and State civil, criminal, and tax jurisdiction must be subject to negotiation with and the consent of the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Congress.

But this substitute short circuits that public process. It immediately preempts the State of Hawaii's jurisdiction over civil, tax, and possibly criminal matters. All the Native Hawaiian entity would have to do is undertake any activity in the name of an official government action and immunity from the State authority applies.

The substitute makes a number of major revisions, all written in secret, away from public view. And let me, Mr. Speaker, just highlight a few:

It creates a new membership criteria that is six pages in length. They do not require one to reside in Hawaii to be a member of this newly created entity.

Second, these six pages of membership criteria are ultimately meaningless. Once the governing entity is formally recognized, it may discard these criteria and grant, deny, or revoke membership for any reason.

In the substitute, section 6C-1 establishes the White House as the lead agency to implement this act.

Mr. Speaker, this unreasonably injects the political operatives of the White House into the formation of the governing entity.

A new section 7 also requires the Attorney General to assign a Department of Justice attorney to assist and protect the government entity. This will wrongfully color the objectivity of the Justice Department when a challenge of the constitutionality of this act is inevitably made. And, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced there will be one made.

Mr. Speaker, there are fundamental changes from the original bill that deserve more scrutiny than we can provide on the House floor today because we've only had, as I mentioned, 48 hours to look at it.

But let me repeat that perhaps the most objectionable provisions are the ones in which the race-based entity is immunized from lawsuits in any Federal or State court, and shielded from State civil, tax, and possibly criminal jurisdiction.

Now, I realize this debate has been going on. I realize the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has attempted to accommodate the objections of Governor Lingle and the Attorney General of Hawaii, and he should really be commended for that effort. But the accommodations, at least thus far, do not resolve their fundamental problems with this bill, which is the preemption of State civil, taxation, and possibly criminal jurisdiction without the consent of the State.

Governor Lingle, as I mentioned, last night formally announced her opposition to this substitute. In referring to the changes made by the substitute, the Governor said, ``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for Hawaii.''

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this impasse could have been avoided if the Governor and the Attorney General had been privy to those negotiations, at least to the details where they could or could not agree. But, again, those decisions were kept from these people apparently because they did not agree with this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, then what will be the practical result of this substitute if it becomes law? Does it mean the native entity can construct a government building for its officers and employees in violation of State zoning laws? Does it permit the entity to discharge waste material in violation of State law? Will it prevent anyone from enforcing contracts made with the entity?

Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law, those questions are left unanswered. And so perhaps we will learn the answers to these questions after it's too late. The State will be unable to enforce its laws and regulations over the entity because of the new provisions in this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize this point. It is not reasonable to roll over the sovereign rights of a State. And it is especially not reasonable when the Governor of that State, in this case Governor Lingle--who has long been a proponent of the principles embodied in this issue--disagrees and cannot support the amendment in the nature of a substitute that we are discussing here tonight.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute.

Statement by Governor Linda Lingle on the Native Hawaiian Government

Reorganization Act

``For more than seven years, my administration and I have

strongly supported recognition for Native Hawaiians and

supported the Akaka Bill.

``We have supported a bill that would set up a process of

recognition first, followed by negotiations between the

Native Hawaiian governing entity, the State of Hawai`i, and

the United States. Once that was completed, it would be

followed by the Native Hawaiian governing entity's exercise

of governmental powers and authorities.

``Amendments made to the bill in December 2009 turned that

process around. The current bill establishes that the Native

Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental

powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.

``Although I believe the original plan to negotiate first

makes more sense, my administration has tried to work with

the Hawai`i Congressional delegation on the new structure to

establish governing powers first, with negotiations to

follow.

``Ultimately, although we had good and productive

discussions, the current draft of the bill is not one I can

support.

``The basic problem as I see it, is that in the current

version of the bill, the `governmental' (non-commercial)

activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, its

employees, and its officers, will be almost completely free

from State and County regulation, including free from those

laws and rules that protect the health and safety of

Hawai`i's people, and protect the environment. `Governmental'

activity is a broad undefined term that can encompass almost

any non-commercial activity.

``This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness

and litigation, rather than negotiation and resolution.

``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely

different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of

the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and

employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for

Hawai`i.

``In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian

governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from

lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits,

and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of

Hawai`i.

``My decision to not support the current version of the

Akaka Bill is done with a heavy heart, because I so strongly

believe in recognition for Native Hawaiians.

``If the bill in its current form passes the House of

Representatives, I would hope it can be amended in the United

States Senate.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time on both sides remains.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the exchange between my friend from American Samoa and my friend from Hawaii, the issue was brought up that Governor Lingle was contacted today and that there would be a way to try to satisfy her concerns, and I don't doubt at all that that effort will be tried. Hopefully it will be successful. But let me just review where we were.

When we started the process, when we started this Congress, the original text of H.R. 2314 was something that Governor Lingle endorsed. The Senate bill, which I think was identical or very close, she also endorsed that. But now with the action of the other body, with the Senate in passing what is commonly referred to as the Akaka amendment, which is similar to what we are debating here today, the Governor does not support that.

Now we have the base bill here which the Governor does support, and we're debating now a substitute--which I hope doesn't pass but I am a realist. And it may pass. And now we will have a bill in both Houses or two bills, one in each House, in which the Governor disagrees with.

Now, if you're negotiating in good faith, it would seem to me that you should at least start with the position where the Governor of the affected State is in agreement with what you're trying to do and that's not the case today if the substitute were to pass.

Now, again, I am going to say that I take my good friend from Hawaii at his word that he is going to negotiate. Maybe if he was the only negotiator it could be worked out. I don't know because I don't know what is going on behind those doors. Nobody knows, unfortunately.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Well, reclaiming my time, maybe we could work together on that right now if that would be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply pointing this out because this is evolving into a process, and who is being left out of this process happens to be the elected Governor of the State of Hawaii. And to me that is regretful.

With that, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Reference was made to how this would affect the laws of Hawaii.

Let me read from the Abercrombie substitute, page 51, line 1H: The Native American governing entity shall be immune from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with some exceptions as I had noted earlier.

On the same page, page 51 of the Abercrombie substitute, line 18: Governmental nonbusiness, noncommercial activities undertaken by the Native Hawaiian government entity shall not be subject to the regulatory or taxation authority of the State of Hawaii.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out this is what the substitute says, and these are the concerns that the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii and the Governor of Hawaii have, because we all know when we are writing laws here that the word ``shall'' as opposed to ``may'' has very, very strong meaning, and in both cases it says ``shall.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could inquire of my friend from Hawaii if there are any more speakers on their side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to congratulate and commend my good friend from Hawaii, because I know he has been working on this all the time that he has been here and probably before. But I just fundamentally disagree with the approaches taken with his substitute simply because, at least in the broadest sense, this is the only State that is affected by this legislation, the State of Hawaii.

Why should we push forward when the Governor of this State does not agree with the substitute and when the chief legal officer has some question, apparently--in fact, it is not apparent, it is pretty obvious--with some of the remarks I think that my friend just made as it relates to laws and regulations to the State of Hawaii?

Since this legislation only affects one State, wouldn't it be prudent for this body and representatives of the other 49 States to suggest to the State of Hawaii and all their elected officials, Why don't you come up with something that you can fundamentally agree on? But that has not been the case. It has not been the case in the other body, and, if this substitute passes, it will not be the case in this body. And that disturbs me. That disturbs me that we completely apparently don't want to take into consideration their concerns on issues that affect the citizens of the State of Hawaii.

So it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues to vote against the Abercrombie substitute; because if the Abercrombie substitute is defeated, we will now have a bill that the Governor of Hawaii can support. That is a good starting point in future negotiations if the House or the Senate, the other body, were to pass this legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Abercrombie amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment simply requires a statewide vote of approval in Hawaii before the Federal recognition is extended to the Native Hawaiian entity.

The use of a statewide vote in Hawaii is not uncommon. For example, it has been used to establish staggered terms for the State Senate, to modify the term length for the State Tax Commission, to issue bonds for private schools, and to establish residency requirements for candidates seeking higher office.

My amendment merely proposes that before Congress changes the civil rights of all Hawaiians and establishes a two-tiered government in Hawaii, one of which is based on an individual's ancestry and race, a vote of all Hawaiians should be held to approve these changes.

The most important statewide vote held in Hawaii occurred in 1959, when 94.3 percent of Hawaiians voted in favor of the Hawaiian Admissions Act in joining the Union as one unified State. When the outcome of the statewide vote was published, there was no footnote indicating that Native Hawaiians would be separated from their neighbors as a distinct political unit.

In fact, there is ample testimony and statements from public officials describing the racial harmony in the melting pot that was and still is Hawaiian culture. This is not to say Native Hawaiians should not have a distinct culture and history though, Mr. Speaker. We all honor and respect their culture and its contributions to all Americans, but this does not mean that there must be a separate legal and political status for them just as there must not be a separate legal and political status for anyone else based on their race and ancestry. It would be a grave mistake for Congress to impose this new separate government affecting the citizens of Hawaii without their consent, as H.R. 2314 proposes to do.

I must point out that even if my amendment is adopted, Mr. Speaker, it will not relieve the serious concerns that many of my colleagues and constitutional experts outside of Congress have with the underlying subject of this legislation, but what this amendment does do is that it puts the question to the people this legislation affects most, the citizens of Hawaii. In 1959, as I said, 94-plus percent of Hawaiians voted for statehood. Today, Hawaiians should be afforded a statewide vote on the question of creating a separate government based on race.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just in response, the State of Hawaii can and does hold statewide votes during general elections. Article 17 of the Hawaii Constitution describes the process for holding such votes, and it takes the action of the legislature. This is consistent with Hawaii's political culture.

Since 1994, for example, the State of Hawaii has considered 25 different statewide votes. They include a number of things, and I talked about that in my opening remarks. But Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that if we were to pass this bill, article 17 would come into play, because I believe in all likelihood, because of recent polling, the legislature of Hawaii would say, you know, we have the ability to put this to a vote; maybe we ought to do this since we are creating another governmental entity that has different rules and regulations than the State of Hawaii. That seems self-evident to me. My amendment simply facilitates that by saying that that should happen and it can happen under article 17 of the Hawaiian Constitution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me just make reference to the 1959 vote. The vote was not whether you accept statehood--because if they had voted no, they could not have been a State--the question is whether they wanted statehood. Over 94 percent said yes, they want statehood. So that is a little bit of semantics there, but it is very important.

This issue to me is equally as important because the vote there said we want to become part of the United States as a unified State. This action that we are debating here today could divide the State of Hawaii. They ought to have the opportunity to vote. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hastings amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last week Americans were encouraged when President Obama mentioned offshore drilling in his State of the Union address; yet, it took only 5 short days for the President to reveal his true intentions on offshore drilling. The President's budget plan shows revenues for new offshore leases dramatically declining in the next 5 years. If more areas are opened to exploration, revenues would increase, not decrease. Less revenue means less exploration. This shows this administration has no intention of opening up new areas to offshore drilling.

In 2008, the decades-long ban on offshore drilling was ended because the public demanded it. As a result, we now have over 500 million new acres available for energy production. But this administration is purposely choosing not to act. The President's words don't match his actions. This administration's policies are preventing the creation of millions of new American jobs. Mr. Speaker, it's time for America to move forward with an all-of-the-above energy plan that includes new offshore drilling.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

House Resolution 1020 has been adequately explained by the majority, and we have no objection to this resolution.

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

I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands has her time also.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will first speak to the merits of this legislation before focusing on the partisan reasons why the House is having to debate this bill and this legislation for a second week in a row. This bill was originally introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho to require the Forest Service to issue special use maintenance permits to owners of a small number of existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas. Although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners currently lack the authority to maintain and repair these facilities. Failure to maintain these facilities can harm not only those who depend on access to the water that these structures provide but also damage the environment and watersheds of the Forest Service land.

H.R. 4474 will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do the necessary maintenance. The legislation is narrowly tailored to apply only to a small number of sites that meet specific criteria. To qualify, the water diversion facility must have been in existence on the date that the area was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It must have been in substantially continuous use since the date of that designation, and the owner of the facilities must hold a valid water right under Idaho law that predates the wilderness designation.

Additionally, sites can only be covered by the bill if it is not practical or feasible to relocate the facilities to land outside the wilderness area and continue the beneficial use of water recognized under State law.

This is a bill and policy that I believe merits strong support in this House. Congress needs to have a reasonable and commonsense approach to managing our Federal lands. Wilderness designations preclude such commonsense management. The restrictions on activity are so severe and inflexible, the designation is often applied to unsuitable lands, and problems and conflicts arise out of that designation.

And so here we are today. Congress must go back once again and fix the problems created by previous wilderness designation law. Congress needs to execute far more caution and care and forethought before designating wilderness areas, as the effects are to lock up these areas for human activity. We ought to be wise enough to devise sound conservation practices on our land without creating the unintended threats to neighboring families that poorly thought out wilderness designation can bring to many. There is no reason why we cannot be both good stewards and good neighbors.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a matter of good public policy, and I support the changes this legislation will make in the law. However, as a matter of how the Democrat leaders who control this House are choosing to operate this House, I object to the extreme partisan maneuvering surrounding this bill. Last week the House voted on this exact same bill, but there are only two differences between that bill and this bill. First, this is a new bill with a new number. And second, the lead sponsor is now a Democrat instead of a Republican. Last week this bill was H.R. 3538, sponsored by Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho. Today the bill is numbered H.R. 4474, and the lead sponsor is Democrat Walt Minnick of Idaho. So let me repeat. The bill is word for word the same that the House voted on last week, except the sponsorship has been switched so that a Democrat is now the prime sponsor.

Now, I have to say, Madam Speaker, this is truly a remarkable display of partisanship. First, Democrat leaders directed their Members to vote against this legislation last week because a totally separate piece of legislation failed to pass on the suspension calendar. And now these Democrat leaders are playing a partisan switcheroo in sponsorship of this bill so a Democrat gets credit for this bill's passing. I assume it's going to pass now that the switcheroo has happened. I might add, by the way, that the area that we're talking about is in Mr. Simpson's district.

So, Madam Speaker, with unemployment in double digits, millions of Americans without jobs, and with record deficits set last year by a Democrat President and this Congress, one would think that this House would have more important things to do than to engage in such overt and obvious partisan tactics.

With that, Madam Speaker, I support the bill.

I reserve my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to respond to my distinguished chairman. It is true that we do have a lot of bipartisanship on our committee, and I appreciate the gentleman for making that point, and I am certainly doing everything on my part to ensure that that continues on. However, I will make the point we did have a hearing on H.R. 3538, the measure sponsored by Mr. Simpson.

We have not had a hearing, however, on H.R. 4474 which is before us today sponsored by Mr. Minnick. I just wanted to point that out because we try to be in regular order as much as we possibly can, and I think that is worth pointing out.

So I would hope that this legislation does pass the House with strong bipartisan support. Maybe it will be able to send the signal that we can indeed work in a bipartisan way if only we change sponsorships of certain bills; but that remains to be seen, Madam Speaker, but I look forward to that time.

I yield back my time.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose this and the two other claimed settlement bills that are being considered on the House floor today.

As a Member from the western part of the United States, I am well aware of how important these settlements can be to tribal and non- tribal communities. In general, Indian water rights settlements are instruments to reduce litigation and bring water supply certainty to communities in the western part of the United States. When done right, they provide not only certainty to all parties, but they also benefit the American taxpayer, who could end up paying much more if the litigation went forward.

It is indeed Congress' statutory role to consider and approve these settlements when these settlements are complete. The Congress should have all the information it needs to conduct a proper review and pass judgment on the merits of approving these settlements. Yet we do not have all such information on these three bills today. The most critical missing element is a clear, direct answer from the Department of Justice, through the Attorney General, on whether these settlements represent a fair resolution to the taxpayer.

As I mentioned during committee consideration of these bills, it is appropriate that these agreements are largely worked out by the people at the local level, but taxpayers from across the country have to pay for such agreements.

So, Mr. Speaker, in that context, while I applaud the idea that local groups are working it out in their best interests, which I think is a positive statement, these do have to be paid for by the American taxpayers. So we must be able to answer this question: Is this the best deal that can be reached and is it in the interest of the parties to the settlement, as well as to the taxpayers of this country?

The three bills that the House will consider today total over $500 million in potential Federal expenditure. Before Congress spends over one-half billion dollars, we certainly should know whether the taxpayers are getting fair treatment.

The American people are highly concerned about the spending that's gone on in this Congress. Whether it's the stimulus spending that has failed to create the promised jobs or the government takeover of health care with a price tag of well over a trillion dollars, the spending in this Congress is out of control. Congress needs to get serious about the record debt being run up during President Obama's first year in office. This means not only stopping the

megaspending bills, but also taking a hard look at the smaller bills, such as the $500 million bills that are represented under these three bills. We need the Attorney General to provide us with a clear, direct answer.

The ranking Republican of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. McClintock of California, has been working to elicit such answers. Months ago, in September and October of last year, he wrote to the Attorney General asking direct questions. No response was received until 2 days ago, just as these bills were headed to the floor of this House for a vote. Regrettably, this bill does not provide the direct answer to the questions asked. They finally replied at the 11th hour with ambiguity and generalities, but not with a clear answer that this Congress and the American taxpayers deserve.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again, while I support the concept of the settlement bills because, by definition, these are people, local people on the ground making decisions in their best interest, and the possibility that these three bills merit passage by the House, without a clear answer, as I talked about earlier, from the Department of Justice on whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal, I cannot support this legislation. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose all three of these bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend, the distinguished chairman, if he has any more speakers on this bill?

If that's the case then, Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So with that, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we've made it very clear in this debate that the agreement and the settlement of the claims is preferable to litigation when fair resolutions are met. I think most people would agree with that. We certainly do on this side of the aisle. That it is better for those to be worked out at the local level, rather than resorting to expensive lawyer fees and years of fighting. And these bills have had a long time of years of fighting, we know that.

Yet we, as Representatives, owe it to our constituents to make certain that settlements are not being made that overly compensate or benefit one community or locality while ultimately being paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Settlements must be fair to claimants, the effected community and to taxpayers. Despite several months of efforts to get a clear, direct answer from the Attorney General on the question of whether these settlements are in the interest of taxpayers, they responded, unfortunately, at the very last minute with a short and vague letter that leaves the question largely unanswered.

These three bills, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, spend over $500 million. Taxpayers deserve a transparent and straightforward reply. Because that has not been forthcoming, as I mentioned, I must oppose all three bills. But, Mr. Speaker, in the future, I would hope that the Democrat majority would be put on notice that we expect to hear directly from the Justice Department on the merits of the proposed settlements while this is being considered in the Natural Resources Committee. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, these settlements need to be fully vetted and explained in a fully transparent manner with clear answers from the Justice Department. Until that happens, these types of bills should not be advanced to the House floor, as these three bills were advanced to the House floor.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The arguments that I made on the previous bill are exactly applicable to this bill. So let me simply summarize. To summarize, I believe, and we believe on this side, that settlement agreements are in the best interests for all parties involved. But there is an element that needs to be highlighted because settlement agreements generally at the end cost money, and the missing part of these agreements on these three bills that we are considering today is, What is the cost to the taxpayer?

We need to have transparency when we make that decision, and that decision, unfortunately, was not afforded to us in committee, and at the last minute, it was afforded to us in a very ambiguous way. So it's for that reason, while I support the claims settlements as a general principle, not having all the information, I must oppose this bill, as I did the last bill. And with the next bill coming up, I will say essentially the same thing.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are debating here is not the settlement claims per se. I think we all in this House agree that if you can get agreement with parties involved in litigation and come to agreement amongst them, that is good policy. That has very well been explained by my friends on the other side of the aisle. But what is at issue here is the third part, and that is: Is this claim going to be beneficial to the taxpayers by not costing the taxpayers more than if they went through litigation? That is what the issue is. It is very clear.

Now, the gentleman from New Mexico just a moment ago said something to the effect that this would save the taxpayers money by not going through litigation. I would like to ask the gentleman, and I will yield to the gentleman if he can provide me documents as to that fact. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he can provide that to me.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the gentleman was about a statement that he made that it would be more costly to go through litigation than to settlement. I asked the gentleman very specifically if he has documentation to that effect. And so I hope that the gentleman would respond to me on that point because that is the difference in this debate on this bill and the last bill.

I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he has that documentation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to interrupt.

Do you have documentation to that point? We asked the Department of Justice specifically on that point, and they have not responded. Do you have documentation on that point? Listen, if this saves the taxpayer money, I am totally in favor of it. All we are asking is for that documentation. If the gentleman has it, please provide it. Does the gentleman have it?

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize, this is the core point. The gentleman just said he doesn't have it, and yet we are being asked here, Members of the U.S. House, representing everybody in this country, taxpayers who may not be involved with this, to pass judgment and support this settlement agreement when we don't know if the cost is beneficial or not. That's the issue.

I would hope, as I said in my closing remarks on the first bill, when we have future settlements coming forward we can have this information, full transparency, Mr. Speaker, in committee so we don't have to go through this drill on the floor and go back and forth and then unfortunately have somebody say we don't have this documentation.

Mr. Speaker, that's the issue here. We are not arguing about the benefits of the claims. I am sure that they are very good. There have been long negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if I understand, the gentleman will be the last speaker. I know my friend Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So I will close and I will yield myself the balance of the time by simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that the issue here is not the benefits of these settlements. We think those settlements are good. The one element that we have a question on is what is the cost to the taxpayer? I think that is a very, very legitimate issue for us in the U.S. House to consider.

So with that reason, as I mentioned earlier, I have to reluctantly oppose all three of these bills. And I would hope in the future at the committee level we can have this full transparency on future settlements that we will inevitably have in this Congress.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again this is the third of three settlement bills. The arguments that I had made on the first two bills are applicable to this one. I will just add one other point. And that is that these three bills have a cost to the taxpayer of a half a billion dollars, $500 million. And there certainly is an unrest in this country as to what this Congress has done in a fiscal manner. This is small. We are talking about millions, when other programs we are talking about in this Congress unfortunately total trillions. But if we need to get our house in order, this is simply something that we need to have more information on before we pass judgment on it.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just simply repeat what I said at the outset. I must reluctantly rise to oppose all three of these settlement bills based on the simple fact that we don't have all the information we need.

While we applaud people on the local level settling tough disputes, especially water issues, and I am especially sensitive to that, Mr. Speaker, because I am from the western part of the United States, it is in the best interests of all of the people in this country to know what the cost to them would be because they're all taxpayers. I think that's self-evident.

So this debate, at least from our side of the aisle, didn't question the merits of those settlement agreements mainly because, at least from this Member's perspective, I know how difficult that is when you have these types of disputes. Our issue is simply the transparency of what the cost will be to the taxpayers of this country. We deserve to have that before these settlement issues come to the floor of the House. We deserve to have this information so we can do due diligence in committee and then make a judgment if the settlement is in fact in the best interests of the taxpayers. That is really all this debate has been about on these three bills.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that we don't have transparency on this potential half-a-billion-dollar assessment that's going to go to the taxpayer. We should have that and we don't. So it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in opposition to this bill and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Let me just reiterate his last point. I agree with that. In fact, I made that observation when we were in committee on this. I just have a problem with wild and scenic designations that I've pointed out.

But I just wanted to correct a little bit because you and I worked very hard on the rural school issue. I was on the Rules Committee at that time, and I know my friend from California heard me over and over on that. Let's just go back in history. It was a Forest Policy Act that caused that to happen. It was a Republican Congress that put the rural school program in place. So, you know, finger-pointing is not going to get us anywhere.

I know that when you took over, the Senate, for example, had passed the rural school bill, something like 92-3. I forget the exact figure, but it was overwhelming, and it was never taken up by your House leadership. Now, it eventually got done, but it does have a date, and we're going to have to come back and revisit it. The point of all of this debate is that the end result, this is only a very small acreage, but we are going to forever take it out of potential logging. That is what the issue is.

And so I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just wanted to clarify that particular point because he and I did work on that rural school problem along with our colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden). He is very much involved with that.

So I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We will have more discussion on this issue when, if, this rule passed. I certainly hope it doesn't pass because then we can, you know, go and do the right thing. But, at any rate, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to oppose this legislation, and I do so with a degree of conflicting views. Let me explain. On the one hand, I have fundamental concern with the impacts that wild and scenic river designations can have on surrounding property owners, river users, either upstream or downstream, and the restrictions that such designations can have on private citizens. Most importantly, such designations preclude the ability to make future decisions without--I say, Mr. Speaker--without an act of Congress. There are many ways to protect and manage our rivers without imposing such absolute, permanent, and inflexible mandates that do not allow us to adapt to new circumstances, evolving environmental science, and changing public needs and views.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic when a Member of the House proposes legislation that directly affects the district that he represents. I believe that we must be respectful of the views of those who are elected to represent a district, and this, Mr. Speaker, is a two-way street. It means affording a level of deference when a Member has a proposal that affects just his district, and it means an even stronger degree of respect and deference when a Member opposes an action that is proposed in the district he was elected to represent.

It is very troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, to see bills introduced and referred to the Natural Resources Committee, as an example, that would have extensive and often drastic negative impacts on the economic livelihoods of local communities, workers, and their families in the Western part of the United States, but that are authored and sponsored by Members from the east coast and the Nation's biggest cities.

Mr. Speaker, this lack of respect on these issues is very troubling to me. Therefore, while I generally do not support such inflexible and restrictive river designations, I do have respect for the fact that Mr. Schrader of Oregon is a sponsor of this bill, and it directly affects his district.

At the same time, I must agree with the position clearly stated by Mr. Schrader during his testimony at the subcommittee hearing on this bill. At that hearing, Mr. Schrader said that he was sensitive to the fact that this river designation would impact over 400 acres of timber matrix lands. When timber is responsibly and sustainably harvested on these matrix lands, funds that come from these harvestings are provided directly to the local schools and communities in that area. This is a way of partially compensating areas of the West that are home to high percentages of Federal land for Federal policies that limit economic development. These timber matrix lands are a commitment that's been made, and they're critical to the ability of hundreds of schools to properly educate their children and for the communities in these areas to provide essential services.

Mr. Schrader, to his credit, said he was sensitive to this harm that his bill would have on these lands and the schools and communities that depend on these lands. In his October 1 testimony, Mr. Schrader specifically stated, ``I would ask the chairman and ranking member to work with me and my staff to ensure there will be no net loss of the acres available for timber management as a result of this legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, no such provision or protection or offset has been included in this bill despite the honest recognition and explicit request from Mr. Schrader that action needed to be taken to protect the lands important to the schools and communities in his district. Several efforts to amend the bill to simply provide that the lands be identified elsewhere to replace the 400-plus acres locked up under this river designation bill have been blocked.

The first blockage was in the Natural Resources Committee markup. On Tuesday, it was blocked by a Democrat majority on the Rules Committee. So it's been blocked two times. The need to address the loss of these timber matrix lands and the schools that depend on such lands was clearly identified and then ignored.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we learned on Tuesday, the day before yesterday, that 7 days earlier, on November 10, Mr. Schrader had sent a letter to the Natural Resources Committee chairman that appears to shift away from his subcommittee testimony that clearly asked for help in ensuring that the loss of timber lands be addressed in this legislation. This letter states, ``I am satisfied that this designation will not remove trees from the timber stock: there are no timber contracts in that area, and no timber sales are planned.''

Mr. Schrader's letter further states that on the question of offsetting logging acreage, which he alluded to in his statement before the subcommittee, he says, ``I see no need to add such language to H.R. 2781 at this time.'' This letter of November 10 appears to directly contradict the gentleman from Oregon's public testimony on October 1.

Was the statement made in his testimony a mistake made in understanding the bill that he authored? Or is the position taken in his letter a reversal of his request for help on fixing the timber matrix land issue? When he states that language is not needed at this time, does he mean that his view on the need for offsetting the acreage may change in the future?

Mr. Schrader later implies that there is no reason to offset these lands because no current timber contract exists, nor are there logging plans at the current time. So this begs the question, Mr. Speaker: is the concern for school funding only today and not what will happen tomorrow or in the future?

Of course there are no logging jobs at this moment. It is well-known throughout the Northwest that timber harvest is at a standstill due to the struggling economy and the sharp drop in housing starts. In fact, just yesterday the Natural Resources Committee approved a bill to allow for existing Federal logging contracts to be extended due to the poor economic conditions. I think that's a good idea.

So yesterday, just to put this into perspective, the bad timber market is used to push legislation to ensure existing contracts can be carried forward, but today the bad market is used as an excuse for legislation that will lock up hundreds of acres, not just until the market turns around but forever.

Mr. Speaker, these are not insignificant questions, and I think that there needs to be some clarification of that. So I hope very much that we have an opportunity to resolve this apparent discrepancy as this debate continues.

Again and again, this Congress acts to remove more and more land from the West from active, sustainable timber management. It is our schoolchildren that are paying the highest price, as school budgets are squeezed even tighter due to the actions of the Federal budget. You can't advocate for these schools and for wiser timber and forest management to ensure jobs in towns across the Northwest while at the same time advancing legislation that makes the problem permanently worse, and that's exactly what this bill does.

Some may say, well, it's only 400 acres. Yet if that was such a small amount, then why the resistance to offsetting these lands? The offset ought to be easy if this issue is just a small acreage. The fact of the matter is is that this 400 acres comes on top of thousands and thousands of acres that have been locked up in recent years. Excusing these 400 acres today feeds the notion that tomorrow or next week perhaps we can excuse taking another 6,000 acres away from helping schools and rural communities.

I believe that Congress must take responsibility for its actions and the impact that it's having. It's time to demand that schoolchildren in small towns don't pay the price for the unwillingness of those in Congress to provide offsets for their actions. So it's for these reasons, Mr. Speaker--again, with deference to the gentleman who sponsored this bill, affecting only his district--that I must oppose this bill.

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

Would the gentleman from Oregon yield?

I thank very much the gentleman yielding.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am very sensitive to Members of Congress who have projects or issues within their districts to be able to do them. I just, as I mentioned in the committee and as I mentioned on the floor, I just have a general problem with the wild and scenic designation. It is on that principle that I rise to oppose this.

But I do want a clarification because I spent extensive time in my opening statement talking about your testimony in front of the subcommittee on this issue where you said very specifically that you recognized this as timber matrix land, and you wanted to work with the chairman and the ranking member, myself and Mr. Rahall, so there would be no net loss, meaning you would be open to transfer of lands or whatever the case may be. We attempted to accommodate you with an amendment that we had that unfortunately was ruled nongermane, and so we didn't get a chance to address that. The second chance we had at that was in the Rules Committee where they can waive the rules, and they decided not to.

I would like to ask the question, it appears to me that now you have reversed your position because you have said that there is no potential timber harvest, and I would like you to clarify what you mean by that.

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

I just wish the gentleman would have yielded to me because he did not acknowledge his change of view of his testimony where these matrix lands are potential revenue if in fact they are harvested. He just simply said there will be no harvesting. But by passing this bill, you will forever, you will forever, Mr. Speaker, take those 400 acres out of ever being harvested. So that begs the question, if there is no logging now, what about in the future if the market turns around and there is a higher demand, how do we go back and get these 400 acres or potentially 6,000 acres in the future? That is the question, and that is always the fundamental question on these issues.

Keep in mind, our national forest lands and our Federal lands were designed to be for multiple purpose, and that means commercial purposes. On timberland, that obviously means logging activity which benefits local communities.

And in this bill, I acknowledged in my opening statement, it is a small sector of land. Nevertheless, it is the principle. And the gentleman, unfortunately, did not respond to that particular issue. He just simply said the government when he said the bureau, but he didn't talk about the impact it would potentially have on local communities because of the lack of potential harvesting in the future.

I think a land transfer and trade would have been very easy to do, and that could have been accomplished if we had adopted the amendments that we offered in committee, and the amendment that was denied to be even debated on this floor, which seems to be a pattern, but that is another story. So these potential 400 acres will now be gone forever if this bill were ever to become law. The drip, drip, drip of acreage being taken away leads to other issues.

So while I respect the gentleman, and he talked very clearly about the potential benefits, I suspect that there will be a time in the future, if this bill were to become law, that there will be an ensuing lawsuit that will probably tie up some of the activity that he hopes to preserve for future tourism. Why do I say that? Because that has been a pattern, unfortunately, in many parts of the West.

I have always felt that Federal lands ought to be multiple use, and when you put restrictions on them, you put restrictions not only on commercial activity but on recreational activity. That is where this goes. But this issue here is very simple. The communities

that depend on the revenue coming from commercial activities on these lands are, under this bill, denied forever in the future from getting any revenue from those lands.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to my friend from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, he said that logging, or commercial activity, could happen on these lands, specifically logging. But there is a proviso in there, as long as there is, and I will paraphrase, nondegradation of the existing area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been around this business long enough to know that when there is a term like that and someone is opposed to some action or commercial activity, boom, you go to court right away, which means the costs go up, and, therefore, there are no contracts. And so you have de facto locked up these lands from any commercial activity. I think that is wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would hang around, I will be more than happy to interact with him. He made a point I would like to elaborate on, and I will yield to him to follow up.

He said two things in his remarks. He said, I believe, that this is an area that should never be logged. Listen, I respect the fact that he has that position. He's very straightforward. I mean, I have no problem with that position. I may disagree with it, but I certainly have no problem with that position. But if that is the case and that is the argument and the fact is that this land is never going to be lost, then for goodness sakes why didn't we take into consideration the fact that there are 400-plus acres that could have easily been transferred in a land transfer to someplace else to keep at least the economic viability in hand? That was not done. The gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this bill, asked for that. I was certainly willing to accommodate that, and we did that in our amendment.

Now, if the idea is that you're going to lock up these lands forever, at least that's being straightforward. But that certainly isn't how this has been talked about and debated here on the floor today.

Secondly, the gentleman from Oregon, again, the one from downtown Portland, made this observation: he said that Washington has more lands that are designated like this than Oregon, the implication meaning that maybe they want to catch up.

Let me offer maybe a little different twist on that because I stated, based on my experience in my State that when you have designations like this, you restrict the access to those areas. Now, hopefully that doesn't happen. Hope springs eternal. Every time we have this sort of activity in Washington State, this issue is brought up and don't worry, and then you look in the future and it happens. It happened with a particular part of my district, for example, that was designated a wilderness area 20-some years ago, and we're

having a dickens of a time just trying to get the road to that area opened. Why? Because of the restrictions.

So I will just tell my friends from Oregon that if they want to catch up with Washington, then you'd better watch out what you're trying to catch up to, because what you're catching up to is more restrictive activity.

Now, it's 10 minutes to 10 back in the Pacific time zone. I am sure there are a lot of interested folks that are affected by this. I hope that they would take that part into consideration, and I hope they would take that part into consideration that, yes, these lands could be potentially logged as long as there was no degradation. Look at that word ``degradation'' and connect the dots as to how that would end up in court if, in fact, there were a contract.

All of these things are real, Mr. Speaker, and so I just bring them up.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

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

I really appreciate my friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, making his statement because this is just a very, very small part of the complex issues surrounding our national forest lands, and I thought he put it very much into perspective.

I too in my State in the last several years have suffered from a number of forest fires. And it gets very, very frustrating that after the fire is put out that the potential harvestable leftover there is subject to litigation and you can never harvest it, which simply means that that timber becomes fuel for the next fire, and yet that is our policy.

How that relates to this bill is that the focus, at least on my part, and I acknowledge that it is a very small portion and it's only 400 acres, but we are forever taking those 400 acres out of potential commercial activity.

And it just seems to me that this is one part of it that we ought to be at least working and dealing cautiously with, because it's symptomatic of the larger issue of timber management in this country, as so eloquently stated by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I inquired a moment ago how much time. How much time again? And if I could inquire of my friend from Arizona again if there's any speakers. I noted that the gentleman from Oregon came down, and that's why I reserved. And I just wonder if the gentleman has any more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I made reference several times in my remarks of the unintended consequences, or alluded to unintended consequences, that happen with legislation like this. And let me give you a real-life example, and again, I alluded to it in my remarks.

I'm talking specifically about the Stehekin town at the end of Lake Chelan in my district. This is a town that has no roads going into it. The only way you can get there is by boat, up the Lake Chelan, or by an airplane that can land on the lake. This is a gateway to a wilderness area, and this wilderness designation was made some 20 years ago. There's a road that goes back about 20 miles to hit the wilderness area. This is an economic driver for the town of Stehekin.

Well, unfortunately, the road is in a wilderness area, and this is the unintended consequence, because you get a lot of snowfall in the Cascades, and this road gets washed out occasionally. It got completely washed out several years ago, and the obvious solution to that is to repair the road so that you can still have access to the wilderness area. But you have the one problem in this particular case, and that is, the road is in a wilderness area, which means there's no wiggle room. And so, it is literally taking an act of Congress, Mr. Speaker, to rebuild a dirt road to give access to a wilderness area.

Now, I'm sure that that wasn't intended when this bill was passed by the Congress before I got here in the late 1980s. I'm sure that that was not the case, and yet, we passed the bill out of the House, I'm very pleased, in a bipartisan note. But just think about this principle. This is a road that gives you access to a wilderness area, but it happens to be on wilderness land. An act of nature washes out that land, and it takes an act of Congress, for goodness sakes, to make it whole again so you have economic activity.

Several Members, several of my colleagues from Oregon have talked about the great economic activity that this designation is going to have. I hope they're right. But they should take into account a real life example in a small part of a State just north of them, namely, what's happened to the community of Stehekin at the top end of Lake Chelan in my district, because these are the real-life happenings and the unintended consequences that happen when you give total authority to the Federal Government.

I hope it doesn't happen on the Molalla River, I truly don't. But I suspect, as I said earlier in my remarks, that that very well may be the case. And so I think that story is worth retelling, Mr. Speaker, because it's not told enough. The town of Stehekin is a very small town, and the issue isn't done yet. That bill is in the Senate. I certainly hope it passes.

But I might mention one other irony. Those that are opposed, that were opposed to rebuilding that road, they don't live in Washington State. They live in other areas of the country. Why? Because you cannot damage wilderness. Even though this happens to be an economic lifeline, I'm sure it was the unintended consequences that they're talking about.

So, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise, as I said in my opening remarks, to oppose this designation, not because the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of the bill, is doing what he thinks his constituents want. I respect that. I really do. I just have experienced firsthand enough in my time in Congress to

see that this leads to unintended consequences, and there are better ways to management and probably to provide economic activity surrounding the Molalla River than going this far.

The second point is, we could have accommodated the gentleman from Oregon's concern about taking this timber matrix out with a simple land exchange. We're only talking about 400 acres. Yet, it was denied twice: once in committee and once by the Rules Committee. So those 400 acres, albeit small, are locked up forever. But, as I said, 400 acres today, maybe it will be 6,000 acres in the future. There's certainly been thousands of acres in the past.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agency Appropriations Act of 2010. This earmark in the Environmental Protection Agency's State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program is for $500,000 to the City of Rock Island, P.O. Box 99, Rock Island, WA 98850.

This project would construct a wastewater collection and treatment system for the City of Rock Island and a portion of the unincorporated area of Douglas County. More than five years of technical study have demonstrated the need for a central sewer system to address the high risk of drinking water contamination that exists as a result of failing on-site septic systems, inadequate soils and a high water table. Design of the system is complete, and the project is ready for construction.

Madam Speaker, as Ranking Republican of the House Natural Resources Committee, I am today introducing legislation to protect American taxpayers and existing customers of the Western Area Power Administration, WAPA. It is called the ``The American Taxpayer and Western Area Power Administration Firm Power Customer Protection Act.'' I'm pleased that Tom McClintock, the Ranking Republican on the Water and Power Subcommittee, is joining me in sponsoring this bill.

Earlier this year, the Democrat Majority passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is better known as the stimulus spending bill. Many of the new programs in this law were never debated beforehand and were inserted behind closed doors without transparency or an opportunity for Members of Congress or the American people to review and scrutinize them.

Included among these new programs was WAPA's Transmission Infrastructure Program's borrowing authority. This new $3.25 billion borrowing authority allows the WAPA Administrator to provide loans to develop new transmission aimed solely at integrating renewable energies. As some envisioned, the loans would be mainly given to private wind and solar developers for transmission investments. This new borrowing authority is quite unlike the Bonneville Power Administration's, BPA, longstanding borrowing authority, which can be used for integrating all generation sources, as well as for fish and wildlife mitigation and conservation efforts.

Madam Speaker, there is another key difference between the two borrowing authorities and it's one that my legislation directly addresses: the risk of a bailout funded by American taxpayers. The actual WAPA statute describes it best: ``If, at the end of the useful life of a project, there is a remaining balance owed to the Treasury under this section, the balance shall be forgiven.'' This means that American taxpayers will foot the bill for any outstanding balances on a project that cannot be repaid. This would be similar to a homeowner defaulting on a 30 year loan and having the bank pick up the remaining balance, except that the taxpayer would end up paying for the bad investment. BPA, which proudly boasts about repaying its debts with interest and ahead of schedule, does not have a similar taxpayer bailout provision in its borrowing authority. I might also add that the Tennessee Valley Authority repays its debt with interest as well.

To date, WAPA has announced one project under the borrowing authority: a wind transmission project owned by a Canadian company. Under the taxpayer bailout provision, if this project failed, then the American taxpayer would have to bail out a foreign company for up to $161 million.

It is also important to recognize that some of WAPA's existing customers, who are theoretically not impacted by this program, remain concerned that they will now bear some costs even if they do not benefit due to the lack of defined rules and regulations to govern the borrowing authority. It's critical that the principle of ``beneficiaries pay'' is maintained and not undermined. It is not the responsibility of those who may not benefit from a project, or the federal taxpayers, to fund such projects. Those who build and benefit from a project must bear its full costs.

For these reasons, I am introducing this legislation to amend WAPA's borrowing authority to both add protections for existing customers and to eliminate the taxpayer bailout provisions. I hope for this action on this bill.

Madam Speaker, the Democrat health bill is not about lowering costs or making health care more affordable, it's about government control and higher spending. It's about a government takeover of our health care system. It follows that it's about the Federal Government deciding how, where and when you get your health care.

At its most basic, the bill creates a government-run health insurance system that will end private health insurance options and, in doing so, will force Americans to purchase coverage only from a government- controlled program. The Federal Government would therefore decide which health care plans are acceptable. A Federal commissioner would decide which health care benefits are offered and how much is to be charged for those benefits. The proposed Medicare cuts would eliminate options for seniors and place recipients under a Medicare without

choices, choices like the current Medicare Advantage program.

In page after page of this massive bill, Federal health programs are expanded while private health care is restricted. In section after section, personal health care choices dwindle, and Federal control over decisions that should be made by you and your doctor increase.

One of the most striking examples, Madam Speaker, begins on page 481. The Democrat bill arbitrarily bars doctors from opening new doctor- owned hospitals, including the 124 hospitals that are currently under construction, and it severely restricts the existing 235 doctor-owned hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district from expanding their services.

The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center is a top-rated hospital that serves a rural underserved area. It was founded in 1940 by three doctors and today is owned by 150 doctors, each with an equal share. The medical center employs 1,500 people; serves a population of a quarter of a million people in an area the size of the State of Maryland; and treats 150,000 patients a year, half of whom are Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

Democrats, though, have decided that doctors cannot own hospitals regardless of the quality of care or degree of need. Under the Democrat bill, doctor-owned hospitals would face unprecedented reporting requirements, punishing new restrictions and strict limitations on their ability to expand. In fact, with the exception of a small handful of facilities selected by Democrat leaders, hospitals that are owned by doctors are barred from growing, barred from adding even a single hospital bed ever.

Madam Speaker, something is very, very wrong when this Congress is blocking access to health care, banning new hospitals and blocking the growth of top-quality facilities because they are simply doctor owned. But now the position of Democrats in charge of writing health policy in this House is very, very clear: They want to outlaw all doctor-owned hospitals, period.

Madam Speaker, we are headed down a very dangerous road when the Federal Government is getting in the business of deciding who can and who cannot own a hospital. But I am convinced that this is only the start. A Democrat Ways and Means subcommittee chairman was quoted this week as saying, ``Get your toe in, get your knee in, get your shoulder in, and pretty soon you're in the room.'' This is a blunt admission that if Democrats succeed with this government takeover, those in Washington, D.C. will already have bigger plans to seize even more control of every American's health care.

Madam Speaker, I don't think that's where America wants to go. There is a better solution, and it doesn't involve penalizing hospitals, raising taxes or cutting Medicare. The plan I support focuses on lowering costs by expanding health care choices and tools to help families save, making it easier for small businesses to afford and offer health care; ending lawsuit abuse; and, Madam Speaker, more importantly, protecting the doctor-patient relationship from government intrusion.

Madam Speaker, I wish to record that had I been present I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1168, the Veterans Retraining Act; H. Res. 291, Recognizing the crucial role of assistance dogs in helping wounded veterans live more independent lives; and S. 509, to authorize a major medical facility project at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Walla Walla, Washington. The late notice by the Majority of this week's schedule made it impossible to secure a flight back from my district in time for these votes.

S. 509 is of particular importance, as it authorizes $71.4 million to design and construct a new veterans outpatient clinic and renovate existing facilities at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center at Walla Walla, Washington State. The Walla Walla facilities serve 70,000 veterans in Oregon, Idaho and Washington State, including many in my own Congressional district. This bill has my strong support and I commend my colleagues for supporting it.