Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, as America continues to grapple with the war and citizens throughout these United States deal with their daily struggles, I think it is important for us to harken back to our heritage and to celebrate our culture. From the coalfields of southern West Virginia to the Land of Lincoln in Illinois; from the awesome beauty of Niagara Falls to the Muscle Shoals of Alabama; from the hallowed ground of the Virginia Piedmont, where battles were fought to unify this Nation, to the Santa Cruz Valley of New Mexico, this is the fabric of America. This is her heartbeat. Let us take time to listen to it and to celebrate it. The legislation we are considering today was introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Ralph Regula, who has been a strong and effective advocate for heritage areas, not only in the area he represents but also throughout the country, and I commend and salute him for that leadership. Heritage areas help to preserve and interpret the geological history, the natural history and the human history of an area in a comprehensive fashion so that we and our children will better understand how our land has shaped our history and how our history has shaped our land. National heritage areas are local community-driven preservation projects. Most of them arise out of the concerns of a core group of committed, local folks who want to work together to preserve the places and resources that make their country or town or region unique. These citizens bring their proposals to their elected representatives in Congress because they need technical and planning assistance from their government and matching funds to use as seed money to help get their program off the ground. Now, 23 years after the first national heritage area was designated, the program is at a crossroads. The Congress can either provide the program with the tools and support it needs to continue, maturing into a successful preservation model, or the Congress can turn our backs on heritage areas and leave local communities to fend for themselves as they try to save those things that make them special, that make America special. We are moving this legislation today because we support national heritage areas and we want to see them succeed. Ever since Congress established the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor in 1984, heritage tourism has been growing, and today it is a significant economic engine. These areas are worthwhile, not only as a way to help local economies, but also as a crucial tool for preserving our communities' and our people's links to the past. By providing Federal recognition and financial support, we encourage preservation and interpretation of important periods in our Nation's history in a way that traditional units of the national park system cannot do. Our initial investment ``primes the pump,'' if you will, and ensures that those areas get a solid start toward financial and operational independence. Given that each Federal dollar is matched by local funds, the Federal investment in the heritage area program is money well spent. In addressing the Rules Committee Monday, my colleague Mr. Regula noted that the $8 million made in his heritage area has yielded more than $270 million in non-Federal funding. For affected local communities, heritage areas are a program that works. H.R. 1483, as amended, would establish six new heritage areas, increase the funding authorization for nonexisting areas, and make mostly technical changes in the establishing legislation for several of those areas. The bill also includes a study of the Northern Neck of Virginia, requested by our late colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis. Bringing this bill before the House today responds to the frequent and energetic requests of numerous Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. In total, H.R. 1483 includes bills that are cosponsored by dozens of Members in both parties, including the entire House delegation in Illinois and New Jersey. We also had very helpful input from the administration on this legislation, including detailed studies of the suitability of each new heritage area. Most of the changes being made to existing heritage areas were added at the request of the National Park Service. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for his commitment and leadership on heritage areas. We support passage of H.R. 1483 and urge its adoption by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady that the gentleman from Utah has already referenced, the chairlady of our powerful House Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Louise Slaughter, who has been a true fighter for her Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute, also.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, continuing with the strong bipartisan support for this bill, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend and dear colleague, the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois (Mr. LaHood), whose bipartisan nature and friendly relations we're going to truly miss in this Congress next year.

Mr. RAHALL. I beg your pardon, it's your side of the aisle that should be yielding the time totally, but I'll be glad to yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Virginia, who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation, and I appreciate his help. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Sam Farr.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation.

Mr. RAHALL. That's correct. And I reserve the right to close.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, with the development of such strong bipartisan legislation of this nature, it obviously takes a lot of work by Members' staffs on both sides of the aisle and by members of the originating committee, our Committee on Natural Resources, as well. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Raul Grijalva, one of those gentlemen that has taken the reins of leadership this year as chairman of our Parks Subcommittee and done a tremendous job.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I understand I have the right to close.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise maybe not necessarily in opposition to the motion but, nevertheless, to claim time to speak.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue, as is typical of a minority of the minority, that has not been mentioned one iota in any of today's debate, in any of the committee debate developed on a bipartisan, nonpartisan nature in bringing this bill to the floor, not in any way brought up in any of the extensive hearings held by our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, and is brought up at this last second out of the clear blue, which, again, I say should not be surprising because it is typical of a minority of the minority to make such efforts. But I would ask the gentleman from Utah, is he referring to all Federal lands? Because as I am sure he knows, the heritage areas are not part of the national park system, the chart that he just brought forward, nor are they under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The heritage areas are part of a collaborative effort between Federal and State and local people with local governing units with matching dollars, not all Federal dollars, as I am sure the gentleman knows. So I ask that question. Are you intending this language for all Federal lands?

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 505.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. Without the hard work, dogged determination, persistence and leadership of our colleagues from Hawaii, we would not be where we are today on this legislation. Indeed, Mr. Neil Abercrombie has been at this for many years, and it is because of his dedication to his people that I have also agreed to strongly support this bill. I also want to commend Mazie Hirono for her work, and the entire delegation deserves words of praise for their leadership. This bill has been years in the making and Mr. Abercrombie, in particular, never failed to take every opportunity to educate and encourage the rest of us on the need for this important legislation. H.R. 505 would establish a process by which the Native Hawaiian governing body would be reorganized and the political and legal relationship with the United States would once again be reaffirmed. Starting in 1920, Congress began passing legislation specifically for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To date, over 160 laws have been enacted authorizing Native Hawaiian participation in government programs ranging from housing to the repatriation of Hawaiian bones from our Nation's museums. Recent court challenges have necessitated the need for this legislation to codify a government-to-government relationship with the indigenous peoples of Hawaii. Simply put, this legislation will finally bring parity to the way the United States relates to Indian tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. I will tell you a bit about what H.R. 505 does not do: It does not allow for gaming of any kind. It does not provide for additional land to be transferred to Native Hawaiians. It does not change any current civil or criminal jurisdiction by the State or Federal Government. It does not provide for any new eligibility for Native Hawaiians into Indian programs. Mr. Speaker, Congress's authority to address the conditions of the aboriginal indigenous people, regardless of how organized, stems from our United States Constitution. In recognition of this authority, we passed similar legislation in the House under the suspension of the rules during the 106th Congress. My committee, the Committee on Natural Resources, has passed similar legislation three times, each time with overwhelming bipartisan support. We need to make a clear statement. We need to pass H.R. 505 overwhelmingly, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 6 minutes to the main drive behind this legislation, a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield to another Representative from Hawaii, the gentlelady, Ms. Mazie Hirono, for 5 minutes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to another distinguished member of our Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left for each side?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my next speaker, I do want to certainly recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) who has, for the first time in quite a few months if not this year, been so gracious and so kind to give us at least 5 minutes' notice of what the minority side's motion to recommit is going to be all about instead of at the last nanosecond receiving such recommittal motions as we have on so many bills before this body in an effort to play gotcha. So I do appreciate knowing what that recommittal motion is going to be ahead of time. Thank you, Mr. Flake. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, according to the American Bar Association, ``The right of Native Hawaiians to use of property held in trust for them and the right to govern those assets is not in conflict with the equal protection clause since it rests on independent constitutional authority regarding the rights of native nations contained within articles I and II of the Constitution.'' The ABA further adds, ``Our courts have upheld Congress' power to recognize indigenous nations and has specifically recognized that this power includes the power to re-recognize nations whose recognition has been compromised in the historical past.'' Indeed, I would note that this body, the Congress, has recognized 530 of the 561 federally recognized Indian tribes. It is clear that we have this power and this authority and that is simply what we are doing today with respect to Native Hawaiians. I again want to commend the delegation from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie and Ms. Hirono, for the work that they have put into this legislation. I commend our Committee on Natural Resources and the staff that have worked so hard to, once again, bring this effort to the floor of the House in a nonpartisan, bipartisan piece of legislation. I join my colleague from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in hoping that the motion to recommit is not offered by the gentleman from Arizona. But should it be offered, then I hope my colleagues will certainly recognize that what we are attempting to prevent by arguing against that motion is a discrimination against Native Hawaiians. And we are asking that we treat them no differently than other Indians. I would close by again urging my colleagues to join, once again, in supporting this legislation in a strong bipartisan manner and I would urge a ``no'' on any motion to recommit.