Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 722, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In its present form, I am.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

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

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

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

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