Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, health care reform should be focused on lowering the cost of health care and health insurance. Yet Democrats are pushing a bill that would increase costs by having the government take over our Nation's health care system.

Under the Democrat bill, seniors will be forced to pay more for fewer Medicare benefits. Families will pay more out of their pockets for health care, and it will be more expensive for small businesses to offer health benefits.

On top of these higher individual premiums and prices, the Democrat bill increases government spending by over $1 trillion in the first decade.

We need to lower costs and give families and individuals more choices, not increase costs and restrict choices through a government takeover.

One of the clear ways to reduce costs is to end lawsuit abuse. Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of health care for everyone. Yet on this issue Democrats are on the side of lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, legislation that increases spending over a trillion dollars while increasing the costs paid by seniors and families is legislation that I cannot support.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats, contrary to what we have been hearing, are behind closed doors, writing a sweeping change to our health care system. Unfortunately, a government takeover of health care, as we know, would raise taxes, eliminate choices, fine small businesses, and cut Medicare by more than $500 billion. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the proposed cuts would result in millions of seniors losing their current plan, including 100,000 in my State of Washington. I have spoken with many hospitals in my district who say that Medicare cuts would have serious consequences on them.

We need reform, Mr. Speaker, but Americans deserve better than secret deals. I support proposals to make purchasing insurance more affordable, expand health savings accounts, help small businesses afford their benefits and end lawsuit abuse. It's time to begin open, transparent, bipartisan work on legislation that actually increases choices and lowers cost.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2806 is a limited bill that allows for continued public access to the North Cascades National Park from the community of Stehekin, Washington.

Stehekin, located at the western end of Lake Chelan, is the gateway to the North Cascades National Park and is accessible only by boat, floatplane, or a multi-day hike. From the town of Stehekin, the Stehekin Valley Road has long allowed residents and visitors to access some of the most beautiful scenery in the North Cascades in what is now the Park's Stephen Mather Wilderness.

At the July 30, 2009 hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, the Subcommittee heard testimony from local officials on how flood damage to the upper Stehekin Valley Road has limited public recreational access to the North Cascades National Park Complex. This reduced access has been particularly painful for the small, tourist-dependent community of Stehekin which serves as the gateway to the Park.

During legislative consideration of the Park's creation in 1988, Congress determined that Stehekin Road would remain outside of the wilderness boundary to ensure continued public access. Otherwise, no cars, mountain bikes, or other mechanized vehicles would have been allowed to transport area residents or Park visitors into the wilderness areas in the center of the Park north of Stehekin.

As the Stehekin River has shifted and damaged the road, the Park Service has been unable to rebuild the road out of the path of the river because of the narrow road corridor in the original Park designation. H.R. 2806 would simply allow the Secretary limited authority to adjust the road corridor out of the path of the Stehekin River, with no net loss of land to either the Park or the Stephen Mather Wilderness. These changes and road rebuilding would still be subject to review and comment under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This is a limited bill that protects the public access into the Park Complex promised at the Park's creation, and I encourage my colleagues to give their support to H.R. 2806 and the Stehekin community.

Mr. Chair, we must get serious about producing more American-made energy in order to prevent skyrocketing energy and gas prices in the future, grow our economy and protect our national security. There is widespread and bipartisan agreement that we must move toward a cleaner, cheaper, more diverse energy system. That means expanding solar, wind, hydrogen fuel cell, biomass and other new energy sources, more hydropower, more nuclear plants, and tapping into our nation's oil and gas reserves.

My district in Central Washington state is home to massive hydropower dams, the only nuclear power plant in the region, the Pacific Northwest National Lab which is conducting world-class energy research, wind farms, and solar.

There is no question that solar power has a key role to plan in our energy future. The federal government should encourage and incentivize all types of solar power production and research. We must make tax credits for solar permanent and we must open up new opportunities for solar on our federal lands.

It is with regret, today, that I cannot vote for H.R. 3585. I have long-supported solar energy--but it need not require an expansion of the federal government and $2.25 billion dollars at a time when Congress is already spending more than ever and our nation is facing historic levels of debt. In addition to the cost of this legislation, I am concerned that it does not provide a level playing field for all types of solar technologies. The federal government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

I am a cosponsor and a supporter of H.R. 2846. This bill represents an all-of-the-above energy bill. Under the bill, a portion of federal government's revenue from offshore drilling would be used to provide funding for renewable energy programs such as solar, biomass, hydropower, clean coal, wind and others. In fact, over $8 billion would be directed to renewables in the first 10 years at zero cost to taxpayers.

As we move forward, I am committed to finding new opportunities to encourage all solar technologies whether it is through research support, federal land options, tax incentives and other means.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule. As a former member of the Rules Committee, and currently as the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I want to address several arguments that have been made that try to justify blocking amendments to provide relief for tens of thousands of suffering people suffering an economic disaster in the San Joaquin Valley as a result of a man-made and government-enforced drought.

First, I want to specifically dispel the notion that allowing the House to vote on relief to these suffering communities wasn't possible because amendments were nongermane. Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within the power of the House Rules Committee to allow debate on any amendment that it wishes and, conversely, to shut down debate on any amendment they do not want to see discussed on the House floor. The Rules Committee does, can, and regularly does, waive the germaneness rule. It simply refused to do so on this matter because the Democrat leadership of this House doesn't wish to have this matter, this matter of the man- made drought in the San Joaquin Valley, debated or discussed on the House floor. Any notion, any notion, Mr. Speaker, that they couldn't allow these amendments even 10 minutes of debate time followed by a vote is simply not true.

So let's be clear about what we're debating here. The underlying bill relates to Federal water recycling projects in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The amendments not made in order relate to Federal water supply and a man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley in California. This is hardly a case of mixing apples and oranges. The truth is that the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose to hand a shiny red apple to the San Francisco Bay Area and give a giant raspberry to the people in the San Joaquin Valley.

The other argument I wish to address and dispel is that the drought in California is an issue only for those in California to resolve. Mr. Speaker, if this House can debate and vote on a bill to provide millions of taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, for water projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, then this House can certainly debate and vote on providing relief to farmers and farmworkers that are denied Federal water by Federal lawsuits and Federal policies, again, in the San Joaquin Valley of California. This isn't a case of having your cake and eat it, too. It's a matter of water for San Francisco and none for the San Joaquin Valley.

Lastly, to the argument this is a California issue for Californians to resolve, I will note that the votes in the Rules Committee to block the amendments from being heard were by a margin of six ``no'' and five ``yes.'' All four Republicans voted to allow the amendments to be heard on the floor, as did Mr. Cardoza from California, and a Democrat, but not one single one of Mr. Cardoza's Democrat colleagues joined him. We were told this is a California matter, and yet relief for the San Joaquin Valley is denied because of the votes of Democrats on the Rules Committee from New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Maine, and Colorado, who all voted ``no'' to block discussion of these amendments on the House floor.

The arguments of germaneness and it's a California only matter are simply excuses being used to try to hide the fact that the Democrat leaders who control this House don't want to allow a vote on solutions and provide relief to the tens of thousands of people suffering in the San Joaquin Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. I say reluctantly, because I and colleagues on my side of the aisle do support water recycling. We think it's a valuable tool for providing water to our farmers and communities across America, just as water storage is, Mr. Speaker, a tool for providing water for our communities.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat sponsor of this legislation, and the manager of this bill, the gentleman from California, has said previously, and is correct, that Republican water recycling bills have passed this House. That's correct. The question is, then, why is this bill different?

And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. When there is an economic disaster occurring in the San Joaquin Valley of California, when man-made and government-enforced drought has dried up farm after farm in that valley, with 40,000 workers unemployed, standing in food lines and being ignored by the leadership in this House, when solutions to bring water and relief to this area have been blocked and stymied again by the leadership in this House, then a point comes, Mr. Speaker, when Members of this House have to say enough is enough.

The water recycling bill before us benefits the San Francisco Bay Area. The Speaker of the House represents the city of San Francisco, and one of her top deputies, who happens to be the sponsor of this bill, is also from the Bay Area.

This bill provides millions of Federal taxpayer dollars for the Bay Area while tens of thousands of their fellow citizens suffer economic devastation just a few hours south and inland in the San Joaquin Valley.

All that was sought by the two Republican Members from the San Joaquin Valley, with the express support, I might add, of one of their Members from California in the same area on the Rules Committee, was to a have a chance, just a chance, to make their case on the House floor and to vote for a solution to this disaster in the San Joaquin Valley.

Mr. Speaker, they didn't ask that the amendments that they wanted made in order be passed. They just asked for the ability to be heard so they could persuade others to perhaps vote with them. That is all any of us could ask. Mr. Speaker, that chance has been denied. It has been blocked. Their amendments were deemed nongermane. It has been labeled as irrelevant to the bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, might does not make right when it comes to who controls the House because what the leadership is unwilling to do is potentially provide relief to those that have been hurt by

this man-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley and the policies of this Federal Government.

It has been stated, also, that the drought disaster is a California issue. The implication of that is that this is not of concern to other Americans. Mr. Speaker, that simply is wrong. What is happening in the San Joaquin Valley of California does affect all Americans. If this water recycling bill to benefit the Bay Area is worthy of consideration by the representatives of all 50 States in this House, then so is the drought disaster issue.

Mr. Speaker, if this can happen in California, then what of the farmers in the central Washington district that I represent? Hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland are irrigated in my district with water delivered by Federal pumps and from Federal reservoirs. I do not ever want to see the day that a government-enforced drought devastates these communities that I represent.

This isn't the first instance when Federal policies have threatened to cut off water to tens of thousands of people. Earlier in this decade, the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was threatened with the loss of its water supply due to the presence of the silvery minnow. Congress acted rightfully to provide relief to New Mexico when the House and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, voted for a remedy to Albuquerque's problem. Today, unfortunately, there is no relief to come to the San Joaquin Valley as relief did come to those in Albuquerque.

And the relief that is being sought, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is not a bailout. The amendments that were offered simply were a plea, and it was not a plea for stimulus funding or for any money. It was simply for an opportunity to allow the Federal Government to provide for water flow. It didn't cost anything. But yet it was not given an opportunity.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the House is going to provide authorization to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to provide recycled water to the Francisco Bay Area, then this House should be voting on legislation that brings relief to Californians suffering from this devastating man- made drought.

Mr. Speaker, it's on these grounds, even though I support the concept of water recycling, it's on these grounds that I have to stand here and urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Calvert.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking Republican on the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the southern San Joaquin Valley, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, reference was made as to why we are debating this bill on the floor, which obviously the concept of this bill brings forward water recycling and has broad support in this House. I certainly support that concept. But the inference was made that the only reason we are debating this is because of one Member--they didn't say where he is from, but I assume he is from California--who has been very, very outspoken about the economic disaster that is going on in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that individual is defending what he thinks is right for his constituents, and he is doing all the right things within the rules of this House to bring this issue forward so that we can have a debate.

The inference was also made by those remarks that this was partisan in nature. Well, I would just remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that on the rule, bringing this bill to the floor of the House had bipartisan opposition. As you know, when there are rule votes, they are generally along party lines. Yet, Mr. Speaker, 23 Democrats voted against this rule.

Now, I don't know the motivation of all of them, but I would certainly hope, and I would guess that they probably voted ``no'' because they felt this issue was worthy of debate. And, I might add, of those 23, four of them are from the Natural Resources Committee, in which this bill passed out of by unanimous consent, but there was some discussion in the subcommittee on the issue, and the cost, as Mr. McClintock pointed out so well.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make this point: if somebody is accused of defending their constituents and that is done in a negative way, that is not what this House is all about. Every Member should be doing everything they can to defend their constituents.

So the debate on this really, I believe, is evolving into a bipartisan debate to have a debate on the underlying issue.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

But we have been denied that. I would just hope that there will be some opportunity later on for us to revisit that and have these potential solutions that were brought forward by my colleagues that live in these areas in a bipartisan way to be debated.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the San Joaquin Valley, California (Mr. Nunes).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

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

Mr. Speaker, I stood up and asked my dear friend from California (Mr. Farr) to yield, and he said he didn't have time to yield, because I wanted to point out something that he had said and to clarify at least what I think is his interpretation of what he was saying.

He was saying that these water recycling bills are a 25/75 match, and that's

what the bill says. There's no requirement, however, in this bill for those recipients of these Federal dollars to repay these Federal dollars.

On the other hand, I come from central Washington, the Columbia Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation area, irrigated by Grand Coulee Dam, and while they were built by the Federal Government, it's true, those monies have to be paid back by those irrigation districts. We don't get a 25 percent cut or a 50 percent cut. So I just wanted to point that out. We're not talking about apples and oranges, no pun intended on that.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, the reason that I reluctantly oppose this bill is because of what it does not do. And of course what it does not do is to provide for an opportunity to address a very, very serious economic problem in the San Joaquin Valley of California.

As I mentioned on the rule, there were 23 Democrats that supported Republicans on this. This would indicate to me, I would hope, that there is growing support for having this addressed in a manner in the House, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. I certainly hope that that is the case. And if opposition from me and others is a way to get to that point, I will be very, very proud of that.

But with that, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up and reluctantly oppose this bill for the many reasons I said in my previous remarks.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 627, a resolution honoring Washington's National Guard, and specifically the members of the 81st Brigade Combat Team. The brave men and women of the Army National Guard who make up the members of the 81st Brigade recently returned to Washington after a one-year deployment to Iraq where they served with honor, valor and distinction.

The 81st Heavy Brigade Combat Team is headquartered in Seattle, and is comprised of units from all over our state filling its ranks. Deploying to Iraq in August of 2008, this Brigade spent the next year in support of the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom and our efforts to protect America and promote freedom and security in the Middle East. During their time in Iraq, the members of the Brigade were most frequently tasked with convoy security, force protection, provincial reconstruction and base operations.

Many members of the 81st Brigade live in Central Washington, with units headquartered in Pasco, Yakima and Moses Lake within my district. These soldiers are also members of our local communities. They are husbands and wives, small business owners, lawyers, and farmers. Not only do they fight to protect our freedoms overseas, but they also work every day for a brighter future back home.

The deployment of combat troops does not just affect those serving in Iraq, however. I must also recognize the support and sacrifice of the families of these brave soldiers. The patient and steadfast support of all the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers and children should be applauded; I send my thanks to each and every one of them today.

Our community and the entire nation are proud of these brave men and women, and we are glad to see them home safely. Soldier-citizens who voluntarily make such a tremendous sacrifice are what have kept our nation safe, free and strong for over 200 years. The work performed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom is important--requiring personal commitment and sacrifice. Your service to our country will not be forgotten.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my friend from American Samoa said, a terrible tragedy occurred on September 29, 2009, in the South Pacific. American Samoa and Samoa were struck by separate tsunami waves which devastated numerous communities on each of the islands. We offer our deepest sympathies and condolences to the many victims in the region.

The outreach of support and humanitarian efforts to assist each of the islands in their recovery efforts has to be commended. Federal agencies, military services, foreign governments, relief organizations, and private citizens have all reached out to assist these island nations.

These islands face months, if not years, of recovery actions. They will depend on Congress and the continued efforts of the Federal Government, relief organizations, and private citizens to recover.

I urge all of us to be steadfast in our support for the communities on American Samoa and Samoa and assist them to recover from this terrible event.

Finally, I would like to commend and extend my best wishes to our friend and colleague, Eni Faleomavaega, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents to meet the needs of his

constituents who have suffered much during this very, very difficult period.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my namesake and friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Interior Secretary Salazar stated that the Obama administration would ``move expeditiously'' on finalizing a new offshore drilling plan. While I hope this to be true, unfortunately, this administration has proposed one delay after another to block new energy production and new jobs.

In February, the administration stalled new offshore drilling with an extended 6-month comment period. Now we've learned they may wait until 2012 before implementing a new offshore drilling plan. This means the offshore drilling ban that was lifted last year by the President and by the Congress would effectively remain in place for 3 more years. With 10 percent unemployment, Mr. Speaker, Americans can't wait 3 more years to begin producing more energy and millions more jobs.

It's time to lift the de facto ban on new offshore drilling. It's time to act on the Republicans' all-of-the-above energy plan that will create green jobs, drilling jobs, wind and solar jobs, and nuclear jobs.

Let's get America to work producing more energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

Get Involved To Protect Property Rights

(By Harold Maxwell)

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

extensive discussion in Arizona about the proposed Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area. As one of the

individuals that worked to resolve some of the issues that

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

unique view on the potential pitfalls and benefits of having

a National Heritage Area (NHA).

First, let me state that the Yuma Crossing National

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

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

be addressed to ensure that a National Heritage Area truly is

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

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

Proponents of another proposed NHA, the Little Colorado River

Valley National Heritage Area (LCRVNHA), cite two main

reasons why the local populous should not be concerned about

their property rights. The authors of the proposed Heritage

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

they included in an attempt to afford property owners some

protection.

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

no issues affecting property values or use. Let me address

both of those issues.

Most legislation that designates a NHA and its subsequent

management plan includes language that prohibits the National

Park Service and/or the Heritage Board from using eminent

domain to acquire property. These management plans also

prohibit the use of the Federal funds obtained under the bill

from being used to acquire land. Unfortunately, these

``protections'' are limited.

The proposed LCRVNHA bill does not prohibit local

governments from changing zoning ordinances to conform to the

land use plans suggested by the Heritage Area Board. Local

governments find themselves in a difficult situation: either

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

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

funding at risk.

This is not just idle conjecture. The Wheeling National

Heritage Area, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage

Corridor, Essex National Heritage Area, Erie Canalway

National Heritage Corridor, and the Journey Through Hallowed

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

changed to accommodate the management plan and those changes

did negatively impact local land owners' property rights.

The other statement, that no federal funds obtained under

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

This statement only applies to funds authorized by Congress

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

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

This is not an insignificant problem. Heritage Areas on

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

provided under the Heritage Area Act. Far and away the

majority of the funds generated by a Heritage Area are

eligible to purchase private property, or issue conservation

or historical easements. This is of particular significance

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

acquisition that removes land from the tax rolls has the

potential for a huge negative impact on the amount of

property tax collected for our local communities.

Even a more serious issue is the potential of a Heritage

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

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

Valley Battlefield Foundation. The Cedar Creek and Belle

Grove National Historical Park as it is now known was created

in 2003 by using a combination of donated lands and

conservation easements. Though National Heritage Areas do not

impose direct restrictions on property this is not the case

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

to impose specific land use restrictions on properties

adjacent to their boundaries.

A March 2004 Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) study on

heritage areas is the Holy Grail for the National Heritage

Areas' claim that Heritage Areas do not impact property

rights. The GAO study claims to have found no issues

affecting property values or use. This has always been

perplexing to me as I know of three separate incidences

involving property rights and the Yuma Crossing National

Heritage Area.

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

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

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

Yuma concerning property rights, with an attendance of more

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

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

incidents in Yuma was that the publication had gone to press

by the time of the Yuma meeting.

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

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

a survey of individual property owners in the more than

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

that the GAO was only concerned about the immediate impact of

the bill and not the consequences from the land

use planning that was encouraged by the National Heritage

Areas. When one reviews the literature looking for cases

where NHAs have influenced local zoning ordinances, it

becomes apparent even to the casual observer that NHAs can

and do have the ability to affect property rights.

Local control

The second major concern involving National Heritage Areas

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

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

Crossing Heritage Area Bill passed Congress designating 22-

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

agencies responsible for zoning started to interpret what it

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

Heritage Area. It was these decisions made by bureaucrats

that caused the local population to become concerned about

their property rights. Local pressure was brought to bear on

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

resolutions instructing staff not to use the boundaries of

the New Heritage Area in determining zoning issues. This

solved the immediate issue, but the community realized that

the Yuma Crossing Heritage Act was a federal law that would

become more difficult to change as federal monies were

invested.

We also understood that the local resolutions could be

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

well established. The local community decided, for their own

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

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

downtown Yuma and the Colorado River inside the levee system.

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

change the original legislation. The Yuma community now

believes that this new boundary is focused enough that even

if the local ordinances are changed the community will be

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

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

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

potential $10 million from the federal government, and no

project has, then the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area

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

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

could have received under the original scope.

The proposed Little Colorado River Valley National Heritage

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

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

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

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area will at a

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

Heritage area is too large the funds are insufficient to get

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

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

the sunset of their authorization bill in 15 years.

Yuma learned that local control is critical. When issues

arose it was relatively easy to convince our County Board of

Supervisors and the Yuma City Council to pass resolutions

protecting our citizens. The proposed Little Colorado River

Valley National Heritage Area covers parts of four states,

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

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

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

a project covers so many different governing agencies the

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

to cede local control to the Heritage Area. After having

looked at some of the major pitfalls with the Little

Colorado River Valley Heritage Area, these are the changes

I would recommend in the plan if your community chooses to

go forward.

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

heritage area managed out of Tucson with some local people

appointed to the board is not local control. The Little

Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area includes parts

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

the very least there should be 34 separate Heritage Areas

divided along county and Native American nation lines. This

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

benefit would be that each heritage area would be eligible

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

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

current proposal of $10 million. Learn from the Yuma

experience. If Yuma reduced the size of its Heritage Area

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

property rights, one can only imagine the potential issues

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

proposed.

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

protect yourselves against property rights abuse is to make

certain that the areas that are included are well defined and

include cultural, historical and environmental areas that can

be developed into self sustaining economic zones. Vast

expanses of the current proposal would not fit these

criteria. Heritage Areas are intended to be self-sustaining

after the first 15 years of existence.

Finally, the legislation authorizing the Heritage Area

should prohibit the Heritage Area from using any of the funds

raised to buy private property or to purchase any form of

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

that private property stays on the tax rolls and is not

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 722, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

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 must begin the debate today by expressing my sympathy to the Democrat sponsors of this legislation for the poor luck that has befallen this bill for now 2 consecutive years. It seems like when the going gets tough and there is a need to fill a void on the House floor, someone on the Democrat side says, hey, let's roll out the Chesapeake water trails bill.

Last year, when gas prices were at record levels, at an average of $4.19 in my home State of Washington, Democrat leaders put this bill on the floor to be debated for several hours as they sought to avoid voting on a Republican plan to lower gas prices and open additional offshore areas to drilling. And so now here we are this year, after the vigorous debate over health care that took place all across America in August, after the President's speech last night, with the government takeover of health care in America very much alive and a threat in these halls of Congress, with the economy struggling, with more and more Americans losing their jobs, with unemployment nearing 10 percent, Democrat leaders have once again sent this Chesapeake Bay bill to the floor to fill a void.

Mr. Speaker, this bill passed last year with over 300 out of 435 votes; in fact, specifically 321 Members voted for this bill. This bill could be considered and passed by the House in just a few minutes under the expedited process of the suspension calendar. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we are this morning with several hours dedicated to debate on water trails when this Congress should be focused on creating jobs and getting control over massive government spending--spending, I might add, that has led to a $1 trillion budget deficit in just a few months of this new Obama administration.

So, Mr. Speaker, just like last year, Republicans will explain our concerns with this bill, and then we will focus on the higher priorities facing our country and the American people.

Chairman Grijalva has very clearly explained this bill. It is a very simple bill that renews a government program that has bipartisan support from the States surrounding the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, after the August discussion around the country of a more than 1,000-page health care bill, I am pleased, very pleased, that this Chesapeake Bay bill is not even one-half page in length. Despite the shortness of the bill, however, Republicans believe it can be improved upon and have proposed an alternative that is even shorter and that recognizes the need for this Congress to exercise some degree of fiscal discipline.

As currently written, this bill would extend the current Chesapeake Bay program forever without any constraints or limits on how much money can be spent on the program. Mr. Speaker, this may be a popular program in the mid-Atlantic region of our country; yet I don't believe the Natural Resources Committee and this Congress should be in the habit of granting eternal life and unlimited sums of money to government programs.

Bills creating or renewing government programs are typically renewed for a set period of time, usually 5 years, to ensure that there is accountability in these programs, there is a review of these programs, and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being misused, wasted, or unnecessarily spent. There is simply no reason to exempt this Chesapeake Bay program from a periodic review of 5 years, and there is certainly no reason to lift the cap on spending for this program.

The substitute amendment by Congressman Bishop of Utah, who is the ranking Republican on the National Parks Subcommittee, would renew the bill for 5 years and retain the current limit on spending. This Chesapeake Bay program has previously existed on 5-year periods of time and can continue to do so in the future if that amendment is agreed to.

So I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bishop amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have several Members that are not on the floor, so at this point I will reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), a very distinguished and valuable member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

I have a few others, but they're not here. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have anymore speakers on his side?

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

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

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very simple motion to recommit.

Many times in this body--and I think rightfully so--we are accused of not reading bills or amendments that are before us. I cite, of course, the cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax bill, when we were thrust an 800-page amendment only 8 hours or so before we debated it. We had an 1,100-page health care bill that America is now seeing and is digesting, and they are responding back to us. This is a very short bill, as I have mentioned, and this motion to recommit is also very, very short. In fact, I am going to read it, Mr. Speaker, so that everybody can hear it. It is that short.

It says at the end of the bill, Add the following new section: Section 3. Effective date. The amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion.

It is a small, small measure of fiscal discipline.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 15 years; you've been here slightly longer than I have, but I have to say that this is the first Congress that I can ever remember using the term ``$1 trillion'' in terms of fiscal budgets in this country. In fact, I would suggest everybody take this little test. Go back to your offices, and write down yourself what ``$1 trillion'' is. It's a ``one'' followed by 12 zeros. It would kind of wake you up.

The reason I offer this motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, is with unemployment approaching 10 percent, with upside-down mortgages and with homeowners facing foreclosure, I think it is hardly time to add eternal life and unlimited money to a very nice but unnecessary Federal program at a time when we are contemplating adding several massive new government programs such as health care, which I just mentioned, and cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax.

As I mentioned, I think it might be time to pause and consider the difference between things we need and things that we merely want. Of course, additional water trails and interpretive centers are nice to have, but increasing their numbers is not a necessity at this time. I am not opposed to them, by the way, but I am not prepared to support a law that says that this particular earmark program must be extended for all time with unlimited funds regardless of the deficit.

One of the popular jokes of our constituents when they want to disparage Washington is that the only earthly thing that has perpetual life is a government program. We need not add to their low view of how we operate, so I urge my colleagues to support this MTR, and we will add a degree of fiscal restraint to this legislation. I think that that restraint is badly needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something that probably has never been done. I am going to reread this motion to recommit because it is so short.

At the end of the bill, add the following new section: Section 3. Effective date. The amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect until the national deficit is less than $1 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 3293, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Amount: $600,000

Account: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--Health Resources and Service Administration

Entity receiving funds: Central Washington Hospital located at 1201 South Miller Street, Wenatchee, WA 98807.

Description: These funds will be used to expand Central Washington Hospital's medical campus so that the hospital can continue to meet the health care needs of North Central Washington. This region is currently facing a shortage of hospital beds.

Amount: $400,000

Account: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--Health Resources and Service Administration

Entity receiving funds: Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences located at 111 University Parkway, Suite 202, Yakima, WA 98901.

Description: Funds will be used to help the new College of Allied Health and Sciences and Postgraduate Studies develop and implement new programs to teach medical specialties where there are doctor shortages in the region.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 3288, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2010.

Amount: $750,000

Account: Federal Highway Administration--Transportation and Community and System Preservation

Entity receiving funds: City of Pasco, located at 525 North Third Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301.

Description: These funds will be used to replace the Lewis Street railroad undercrossing with a four-lane overpass to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians, while improving freight mobility and response times for emergency services.

Amount: $500,000

Account: Federal Transit Administration--Buses and Bus Facilities

Entity receiving funds: Link Transit of 2700 Euclid Avenue, Wenatchee, WA 98801.

Description: Funds will be used to replace old buses and ensure that Link Transit can continue to provide current services.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 3326 the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Amount: $3 million

Account: Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

Entity receiving funds: Army and General Dynamics located at 9256 Randolph Road NE, Moses Lake, WA 98837.

Description: The U.S. military has stated that it needs a compact, low-cost accuracy kit to place on existing mortar and rockets. This funding will be used to develop this technology for the U.S. military.

Amount: $1.5 million

Account: Army National Guard, Operations and Maintenance

Entity receiving funds: Army National Guard and the HAMMER facility, located at 2890 Horn Rapids Road, Richland, WA 99354.

Description: These funds will be used to ensure that Army National Guard units receive the training needed to respond to weapons of mass destruction attack.

Amount: $1 million

Account: Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

Entity receiving funds: Army and Infinia, located at 6811 West Okanogan Place, Kennewick, WA 99336.

Description: These funds will be used to provide the Army with a small, efficient, reliable way to equip American troops with both electricity and hot water.

Amount: $2 million

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Defense Wide

Entity receiving funds: Battelle Northwest located at 902 Battelle Boulevard, Richland, WA 99352 and Heritage University located at 3240 Fort Road, Toppenish, WA 98948.

Description: These funds will be used to provide a security protected collection of technical reports, scientific studies, and reference documents on chemical and biological warfare available to the U.S. intelligence community. This supports the intelligence community's mission to make all relevant documents available to intelligence analysts.