Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution would celebrate the 200th anniversary of John James Audubon's arrival in Henderson, Kentucky. John James Audubon spent nearly a decade living in Henderson, Kentucky, and it is certainly appropriate that residents of this community would want to celebrate the accomplishments of one of its most famous citizens. I want to compliment the author of this resolution, Congressman Ed Whitfield, who is a classmate of mine, who worked extremely hard on this resolution. I urge support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to, as I mentioned, the author of this resolution, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is an amended version of the bill as reported, and I thank the chairman of the committee and the sponsor of the legislation for their willingness to engage the Republicans on a bipartisan basis in what is a rather complex body of law. The Republicans hope this bill accomplishes its primary goal, which is to increase the outsourcing to tribes of programs and functions of the Department of the Interior that are provided to Indians because of their status as Indians. At the core of H.R. 4347 is the principle that Washington, DC, is not capable of managing tribal programs as effectively as the governments of Indian people--the Indian tribes. This bill could be a template for proposals to outsource Federal programs, where appropriate, to States, tribes, and the private sector. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that the Obama administration has not provided a formal statement on the position of H.R. 4347, as amended. Bipartisan staff sought to address concerns expressed by the Department of the Interior in its testimony on the bill as introduced. For this reason, I think the House is owed something in writing from the Department clarifying its views on the amended bill. Regardless, I do not see this silence from the administration as a reason to hold up the progress on the bill.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands has adequately described this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentlewoman from Arizona did not yield to me so I could ask her a question as we have heard a great deal of talk here on the floor about jobs creation. I am certainly one who believes that we need to create jobs, particularly in the private sector, because the private sector is the engine of growth in our country. I was simply going to ask the gentlewoman if she could document officially how many jobs have been created. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is that this existing area is already some 1,600 acres. To suggest that an area which is 1,600 acres is not creating jobs but that adding some 400-plus acres would create jobs flies in the face of common sense. What this bill is all about, once again, is the Federal Government's buying more land when we have a backlog of some $9 billion of maintenance in this country. Yet here we are, trying to add more land, which presumably adds more to the backlog. The American people get it. They understand it. While this is small, I understand, Mr. Speaker, it is the reason I think this bill is ill-advised today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are many things in my view that are wrong with this bill, but I just want to point out three of them. First, this bill represents wasteful and unnecessary spending at a time of exploding Federal debt. Second, it lacks needed protection for private property rights. Third, it expands the already bloated Federal Government at a time when our priority should be on jobs and economic growth, not the growth of government. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that at a time of near double- digit unemployment and trillion-dollar debt, we really ought to be working to unleash private-sector economic growth so more Americans can find jobs, can pay their mortgages, and provide for a better life for their families. Instead, as usual, with the current Democrat leadership, we are talking about borrowing more money from foreign countries to pass a bill to further aggrandize the Federal estate. The National Park Service estimates that it would cost $10 million to buy the land targeted in this bill. Now this isn't beachfront property in the Virgin Islands like we saw targeted earlier in this Congress. Instead, it is in the Arizona desert. But we are hearing the same argument why we should go along with this. Are these private lands in danger of being injured by development? Hardly. It seems some of the land may be owned by the State or a wealthy nonprofit presumably created to protect the land from development. There is no urgent need to borrow money to buy this land right now. No one can claim that these lands are in imminent danger. Further, this legislation does not protect the rights of private property owners. Instead it continues the disturbing practice of Congress drawing boundaries of Federal land management areas around private property, even in cases where the landowners have not given their written approval. When Congress expands Federal boundaries to encircle private property, we sometimes shower ourselves in praise for protecting private property from the dreaded private property owner. But Congress should only draw boundaries around lands the Federal Government already owns, not around what it wants to own. I know the bill purports to protect private property, but it does nothing, Mr. Speaker, and this is important, it does nothing to restrain the eminent domain authority already possessed by the Secretary of the Interior according to both Federal case law and the Congressional Research Service. This bill expands an area previously designated under the Antiquities Act. As the Committee on Natural Resources learned from recently leaked Department of the Interior documents, this administration is strongly interested in creating new national monuments or expanding existing ones, and doing so with or without Congress. The American people are way ahead of Washington on these issues, Mr. Speaker. They know that what we should be doing is controlling spending, protecting private property, taking better care of the land we already own, and reducing the dead weight of taxation and Federal bureaucracy that is stifling free enterprise, which is the engine of economic growth. With that being said, there are parts of this bill that I could support, such as clearing up administrative jurisdiction issues and a boundary modification to remedy trespassing issues for an irrigation project. However, I am sorry that these sections, which had broad support, weren't allowed to stand on their own. So for those reasons I've cited, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5110. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses support for the goals and ideals of National Estuaries Day, which has been designated for September 25, 2010. We have no objection to this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the measure's many sponsors recognizing the anniversary of the Blue Ridge Parkway, which was first proposed by Senator Harry Byrd in 1933, but was completed under President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park was authorized as a unit of the National Park System in 1935 as one of the first battlefield parks. Most of the park consists of Confederate positions. This bill will allow the Wallis House, one of the few remaining structures associated with Union forces, to be added to the park. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 8 acres that are owned by Cobb County and will be donated to the National Park Service. Congressman Gingrey should be commended for his work on this bipartisan bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Andrea Lawrence was a successful Olympic skier, a long- time member of the Mono County Board of Supervisors, and founder of the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers. This bill, as was explained, designates an unnamed 12,000-foot peak located on the boundary between the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area and Yosemite National Park as Mt. Andrea Lawrence. This designation is a fitting tribute to Andrea Lawrence, who died last year at the age of 76 after a long career as a pioneering woman and civic leader. Congressman McKeon should be commended for his work on this bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Apparently the gentlelady from Arizona wasn't listening to what I said in my opening remarks as to what concerns I had with this bill. I wish that she had yielded to me because I could have asked a question and maybe she could have enlightened me. But my understanding is there is absolutely nothing in Federal law that designates or describes what a scenic area is. Unlike a wilderness area, unlike a wild and scenic river, nothing describes what a scenic area is. I said in my opening remarks that the reason I oppose this is simply because the vagueness of this opens up potential litigation that will likely affect those surrounding this area. That's what my concern is. I would be willing to work with anybody to try to resolve these issues, but to suggest that my opposition to this is because I am opposed to jobs, it simply misses the point. The gentlelady was simply not listening to what I was saying. Now, I do have a concern when there are Federal dollars that are spent, but there are no Federal dollars on this; it's simply that we don't have what a designation is. In fact, one could say, Mr. Speaker, if one were thinking in a mischievous way, that the only job creation that legislation like this would create, if it were passed, would be for the trial bar because they could sue over something that is not described in statute. Who wins by that? I don't think the private property owners around this area would win by that. So I'm disappointed that she would use the tone of argument against our opposition as not trying to work together. There is just simply no designation for ``scenic'' in Federal statute. Don't you think we ought to have some designation before we designate something ``scenic''? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about how this ``National Scenic Area'' designation will affect the safety, welfare, and economic livelihoods of those who live and work within this 160,000-acre proposal. Mr. Speaker, there is no underlying act for national scenic areas, as is the case for wilderness proposals and wild and scenic river designations. Instead, unless guidelines are set limiting how restrictive the designation will be, a National Scenic Area designation is accompanied by only hope and uncertainty. H.R. 4823 is silent on everything but the fact that land exchanges are prohibited. This sort of vague and open-ended delegation of authority is an invitation to litigation and bureaucratic overreach. So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this legislation in its current form. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4195 has once again been adequately explained by the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. However, I would like to emphasize--and I think this is important in the discussion we're having today--that this project would be planned, constructed, and maintained using non-Federal funds. We ought to look at that probably more often in programs we address here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands has adequately explained this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We may as well have a discussion here. If you need time, I will yield the time. First of all, I can see the passion that the gentleman has on this issue. Coming from the West, where that manufacturing facility won the West, I can understand that and respect that, but I do want to point out that there is a process here. We had a hearing on this in June. The Park Service expressed their concerns here in testimony. I quoted part of those concerns. They expressed their concerns, and we expressed some concerns that we may have had because the private property aspect to it was part of the dialogue. We marked the bill up in July, once again, expressing our concerns. I am one who respects when Members want to put something in their districts. Listen, they know their districts better than anybody else, and they should be given a lot of leeway; but there is a responsibility, if we are going to have national input, to know what the facts are so that we can respond accordingly, as it is not just the citizen taxpayers of Connecticut who are funding this; it is the taxpayers of the 50 States, so we need to have some answers. Now, this bill was put on the suspension calendar last night. I have checked with my staff. We have yet to hear from the Park Service as to if it has changed its mind or not. You alluded to that fact, but we haven't gotten anything at all. The gentleman knows that the approval rating of this Congress is very, very low, and it is precisely for these reasons. Even though we don't have the answers, albeit on a project that is small in terms of the overall scope of the Federal Government, it deserves to have answers, especially when we have been working on this. You said that you've been working on it, I think, if not publicly, then in private conversations for at least 10 years. These concerns that we have raised go back to this summer. They should at least be raised or answered, and they have not been adequately answered. So, in the waning days of this session, I will tell the gentleman that I am more than willing to work with him, if this does not pass the Congress this year, to get these things resolved so that, indeed, we can memorialize that factory. Yet, with the information I have right now, I respectfully say to my friend that we have focused on the Park Service, but there is a cost associated with this, which I alluded to in my opening remarks, and there is a private property aspect. Those are all important issues. With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I have to say that I oppose this, and I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' though I certainly want to revisit this sometime in the future so we can get this legislation passed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5131 proposes to create a new unit of the National Park System honoring the Colt family and their contribution to our Nation through the innovation of precision manufacturing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has been so little precision, apparently, in developing this legislation, that even the National Park Service has opposed the bill. I know the sponsor of this bill has worked extremely hard on this legislation, but the National Park Service conducted a study on this proposal and found that although the Coltsville site is ``nationally significant,'' there are so many unresolved issues that they were unable to conclude that the park proposal is feasible. In fact, they were unable to determine which parts of the site they would own or even manage. Further complicating this proposal, the Park Service found--or rather I should say didn't find--that the public would have basic access to the site because it is under private ownership, among a variety of parties, including 55 condominiums and nine cottages. It probably goes without saying that visitors to this park would want to see the factory where the famous revolvers and other firearms were produced. Upon their arrival, they will probably be very disappointed because, quoting the Park Service, ``no commitments to permit visitors internal access to the Colt Fire Arms factory building currently exist.'' How about a stop at the historic home of Samuel Colt? It is now a private, multiunit residential complex whose owners have determined that visitors touring through their homes would be, as the Park Service report states, ``problematic.'' Regardless of the will of these property owners, this legislation would create Federal boundaries around their property and raise serious questions about whether their property rights are being violated. We talked about that a few times earlier today. This is yet another reason why this bill in my view is not ready to move today. In addition to the Park Service report, the agency testified in June on this legislation, and to quote from that testimony: ``The department does not support enactment of this legislation due to the uncertainty associated with the ownership and long-term financial sustainability of the Coltsville development project.'' They continue, ``In concert with the lack of feasibility, the study was also unable to determine the need for the National Park Service management, or specifically which resources the National Park Service would manage.'' As a very basic matter of priorities, I would remind my colleagues that the National Park Service already has a $9 billion maintenance backlog. Authorizing $10 million more for a new park that the Park Service doesn't believe is feasible to me makes no sense. The American public is pleading for this Congress to stop out-of- control spending. While the concept and the intent behind this proposal may have merit, and I think it does have merit, we need to also acknowledge that the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars in rehabilitation costs just to prepare this site for visitors, if the visitors could get in, plus additional millions to manage the site from now to eternity. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that at the request of this Congress, the National Park Service conducted a study on this proposal and found substantial obstacles to it becoming a successful park. They reiterated that in testimony in June in front of the Natural Resources Committee. While this proposal may have its day, and I think it should have its day because of the historical significance of the Colt factory, in my view we are not there yet. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, having Congress authorize semipostal stamps to raise funds to support causes is indeed a rare event. As the ranking Republican on the Insular Affairs, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Henry Brown, was tireless in clearing this bill through the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, the Committee on Natural Resources, and through the Senate. So I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for his persistence and leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).