Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, sponsor of the legislation (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Bishop amendment arbitrarily slashes the boundary adjustment at the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site by 95 percent. This reduction is based on no science, no studies, and would substitute the judgment of a few for those of the many. The National Park Service has invested 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars in a public planning process to determine the future of this very important historic site. With extensive analysis and public input, a 115-acre boundary adjustment was determined to be necessary to protect park resources and provide for the enjoyment of the public. Mr. Bishop's amendment simply ignores this, undermining good public policy. The amendment flies in the face of the wishes of the local community, including the village council and the local county commissioners. It defies the many State and Federal agencies that participated in and supported the outcome of the multiyear planning process. It contradicts the wishes of the Bush administration, who testified in support of this legislation at a hearing just last month. And it goes against the desires of two Senators from North Carolina, both Republicans, I might add, who have sponsored companion legislation in the Senate. Mr. Chairman, this amendment also flies in the face of the desires of landowners in question who have agreed to have their properties included in the proposed boundary expansion. It virtually guarantees these lands will be developed. The owners would like the opportunity at some future date to sell their property or an easement on their property to the historic site for conservation purposes. If and when these landowners are ready to sell their land, this amendment assures that the Federal Government would not be at the table, but a developer surely will. Mr. Chairman, the Natural Resources Committee has moved this year Republican-sponsored park expansion bills that have added more than 3,000 acres at a cost of millions of dollars with no amendment of this type offered. Money and expanding parking are clearly not the real issue here. The Bishop amendment has no science, no studies, no local support, and it should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is inconsistent and unfair. As I stated earlier, the enhancement and preservation of this site is a national responsibility. This amendment abdicates that responsibility by prohibiting the use of Federal funds to fulfill this role. Strangely, it allows Federal funds to be used for development but requires State and local landowners to shoulder the costs of protecting the historic viewshed. Philanthropy has and will continue to play an important role in the care of our national parks and is something that we are all thankful and grateful for. A perfect example is the State of North Carolina. Recognizing the importance of protecting the historic viewshed, it has purchased 22 of the 110 acres identified as needing protection and would like to donate them to the National Park Service. The National Park Service will, of course, continue to welcome any donation of land or money to help protect the remainder of this land. However, it is irresponsible to expect the State to shoulder the total responsibility of purchasing all 110 acres, nor should small landowners have the responsibility to donate their property to the National Park Service. We need to maintain the option to purchase the land from willing sellers, so that when it is on the sale block, the Federal Government's hands are not tied. The amendment is not about the availability of Federal funds. This is a funding source specifically set aside for Federal acquisitions of land identified as important for conservation. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has a current balance of $16 billion. I would say that is sufficient to allow the possibility of using appropriated funds for this 110-acre addition. This amendment is also inconsistent. It allows the use of Federal funds to purchase 5 acres for construction of a visitor center, yet does not allow the use of Federal funds to purchase 110 acres of land or easements to protect the historic viewshed. Finally, this amendment is unfair. Committee Republicans raised no objections nor offered any amendments when the Natural Resources Committee favorably reported a Republican bill that would add more than 3,000 acres to the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park. That bill allows appropriated funds to be used, and the CBO estimate put the cost at up to $5 million. Why should appropriated funds be available for that bill but specifically protected in this bill? Mr. Chairman, land protection at a national historic site is a national responsibility, as recognized by my Republican colleagues in the Jean Lafitte legislation. The Heller amendment is inconsistent and unfair. I believe Mr. Shuler's predecessor did not recognize the importance of enhancing and protecting this valuable viewshed. We should not penalize the author of this legislation for recognizing it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Shuler for his comments.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Just in closing, on the issue of cost, CBO scored this bill as costing $7 million because they included the cost of the future visitors center that was estimated at $3.5 million. Just for the record, I note that both Mr. Bishop's amendment and Mr. Heller's amendment allow the $3.5 million to be spent on the visitors center. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, this motion is an attempt to kill the legislation. The use of the word ``promptly'' in the motion to recommit effectively kills the bill. The issue of this motion to recommit is redundant, not necessary, and I would urge its defeat and urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this legislation, H.R. 1100, went through full committee hearing, it went through subcommittee hearing, was referred to this floor by voice vote, and this whole discussion we have had on the bill today and the debate was under an open rule. So I fail to understand why we need a motion to recommit. I believe it is a red herring. It is a non-issue. I remind Members that in the legislation itself under section 3, acquisition authority, let me quote: ``The Secretary may acquire from willing sellers,'' willing sellers, ``by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange of land.'' Willing sellers. The concept of willing seller means that you cannot use eminent domain. I think the legislation before us is good legislation. The motivation for its defeat is something that we have not been able to get to the root of that reason. But the legislation has merited support from the full committee, the subcommittee, and through the discussions today. I would continue to urge that we defeat the motion to recommit and pass the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the author of the legislation, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1100.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1080) to modify the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park to include certain land within the GT Park Subdivision, and for other purposes.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1080 was introduced by our colleague from Wyoming, Representative Barbara Cubin. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park to include approximately 50 acres that landowners in the adjacent Grand Teton Park Subdivision wish to donate to the park. The subdivision is located adjacent to the park's eastern boundary and is visible from the park's main road. According to the National Park Service, the land is similar in character and quality to the adjacent parklands and offers unobstructed views of the Teton range and across the broad valley of Jackson Hole. One lot in the subdivision was owned by the Gerald Halpin family. The remaining seven lots were donated by the Halpin family to private organizations, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the National Park Foundation, and the Grand Teton National Park Foundation. All of these owners would like to donate their land to the park, but the parcels lie outside the existing park boundary. The 1950 law creating the park includes a provision forbidding expansion of any national park or monument in Wyoming without the express authorization of Congress. H.R. 1080 would authorize the Secretary to accept the donation of lands within the subdivision and, upon acquisition, adjust the boundary of Grand Teton National Park. The bill would also prohibit the future sale, donation, exchange or other transfer of the acquired land without congressional approval. Related legislation passed the other body in the 109th Congress and has been reintroduced by Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming and approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, the National Park Service has testified in support of the bill, and it cleared the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, and the full Natural Resources Committee on voice votes without any amendments. Mr. Speaker, Representative Cubin is to be commended for her work on this legislation. We support passage of H.R. 1080 and urge its adoption by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 407) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area in the States of Washington and Oregon, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 407, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of designating a national heritage area in western Washington State. Specifically, the study would examine coastal areas in Clatsop and Pacific Counties at the mouth of the Columbia River, as well as inland areas along the river in two adjacent counties. The bill includes standard criteria for national heritage area studies, and requires completion of the study 3 years after the date funds are made available. Mr. Speaker, the area included in this proposed study is not only beautiful, but is rich in Native American and European history. The area was a busy stop on European trade routes many years before Lewis and Clark famously visited the west coast. Representative Baird is to be commended for his hard work on behalf of this legislation. We look forward to working with him on the designation of a national heritage area should the study support such an action. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would first point out that almost identical legislation, H.R. 5485, was the subject of a subcommittee hearing in the Resources Committee during the previous Congress. During that hearing, the Bush administration and local business leaders expressed support for the legislation. That hearing, organized by then-Republican majority, featured no testimony opposing the bill. Further, the companion to this bill was sponsored by the Republican Senator from Oregon. Given that bipartisan and noncontroversial legislative history, and the fact that the bill simply authorizes a study, it is perfectly appropriate that the measure be before the House today. We have used similar procedures to bring other measures left over from the previous Congress to the floor, measures sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. The one organization mentioned as opposing the bill failed to make their opposition known to the committee or the sponsor, nor did they testify at last year's hearing. Further, the group has no real relevance because it opposes all heritage area study proposals on ideological, rather than substantive, grounds which have nothing to do with this specific proposal. Lastly, this legislation simply authorizes a study, not a national heritage area. To oppose the study because you assume you will oppose what the study will recommend is premature at best. There is no real controversy regarding this legislation, and we urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), for such time as he may consume.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the sponsor of the legislation.