[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 74 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4499-H4502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1500
COLUMBIA-PACIFIC NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY ACT
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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 407
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Columbia-Pacific National
Heritage Area Study Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means--
(A) the coastal areas of Clatsop and Pacific Counties (also
known as the North Beach Peninsula); and
(B) areas relating to Native American history, local
history, Euro-American settlement culture, and related
economic activities of the Columbia River within a corridor
along the Columbia River eastward in Clatsop, Pacific,
Columbia, and Wahkiakum Counties.
SEC. 3. COLUMBIA-PACIFIC NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
managers of any Federal land within the study area,
appropriate State and local governmental agencies, tribal
governments, and any interested organizations, shall conduct
a study to determine the feasibility of designating the study
area as the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area.
(b) Requirements.--The study shall include analysis,
documentation, and determinations on whether the study area--
(1) has an assemblage of natural, historic, and cultural
resources that together represent distinctive aspects of
American heritage worthy of recognition, conservation,
interpretation, and continuing use, and are best managed
through partnerships among public and private entities and by
combining diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and
active communities;
(2) reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife
that are a valuable part of the national story;
(3) provides outstanding opportunities to conserve natural,
historic, cultural, or scenic features;
(4) provides outstanding recreational and educational
opportunities;
(5) contains resources important to the identified theme or
themes of the Study Area that retain a degree of integrity
capable of supporting interpretation;
(6) includes residents, business interests, nonprofit
organizations, and local and State governments that are
involved in the planning, have developed a conceptual
financial plan that outlines the roles for all participants,
including the Federal Government, and have demonstrated
support for the concept of a national heritage area;
(7) has a potential local coordinating entity to work in
partnership with residents, business interests, nonprofit
organizations, and local and State governments to develop a
national heritage area consistent with continued local and
State economic activity; and
(8) has a conceptual boundary map that is supported by the
public.
(c) Private Property.--In conducting the study required by
this section, the Secretary shall analyze the potential
impact that designation of the area as a national heritage
area is likely to have on land within the proposed area or
bordering the proposed area that is privately owned at the
time that the study is conducted.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Not later than 3 fiscal years after the date on which funds
are made available to carry out the study, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives a report that describes the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Secretary
with respect to the study.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
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. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 407 for both
procedural and substantive reasons. I am very dismayed that this bill
has been
[[Page H4500]]
rushed to the floor with no hearing or subcommittee or full committee
consideration by the Committee on Natural Resources. The majority might
say a hearing was held on the bill last September, and no opposition
was present so there is no need for consideration by the committee this
year; but I strongly disagree with this logic for several reasons.
First, the committee has received a strong letter of opposition to
H.R. 407 by one of the largest private property rights groups, the
American Land Rights Association, based in Battleground, Washington.
That letter states: ``We are curious why no hearings have been held
on this bill during this Congress. Congress has the time and energy to
congratulate victorious sports teams, but does not have the time and
resources to hold a hearing on this bill which affects millions of
acres of private property in Washington and Oregon.''
Second, I note that one-eighth of the Members of this body, including
me, are new Members of the House and were unable to participate in
hearings held in the last Congress on this bill. Although there might
be some cases where a consensus bill from the last Congress could
justifiably be forwarded to the House for expedited consideration on
the floor, this bill should not be one of them. As I said previously,
it is strongly opposed by a private rights based group in the area
affected by the bill.
The substantive reasons to oppose this bill can best be summarized by
the American Land Rights Association's May 3, 2007, letter to the
Committee on Natural Resources which states: ``Although H.R. 407 is
billed merely as a study, history shows the National Park Service
rarely does a study that concludes a national heritage area is not
feasible. Recent history also shows that national heritage areas cost
the National Park Service $10 million during their 15-year life span.
Moreover, once their 15-year authorization expires, heritage area
proponents come back to Congress asking for even more Federal moneys so
they can ultimately become self-sufficient. At a time when the National
Park Service has a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog for such
basic visitor services as campgrounds, visitor centers and sanitation
facilities, it should not be forced by Congress to create expensive new
heritage areas that siphon precious Federal dollars from these higher
and better uses.''
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter I just referred to.
American Land Rights
Association,
Battle Ground, WA, May 3, 2007.
Re H.R. 407 (Columbia-Pacific Heritage Area Study authored by
Congressman Baird and Wu).
Hon. Nick Rahall,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Don Young,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rahall and Congressman Young, The American
Land Rights Association is headquartered is Southwest
Washington State and is very involved with private property
rights and land use issues here and throughout the United
States.
We understand the House will soon consider H.R. 407, the
Columbia-Pacific Heritage Area Study Act, which affects our
members in this region. We are curious why no hearings have
been held on this bill during this Congress. Congress has the
time and energy to congratulate victorious sports teams but
does not have the time and resources to hold a hearing on
this bill that affects millions of acres of private property
in Washington and Oregon.
Although H.R. 407 is billed as ``merely as study,'' history
shows the National Park Service rarely does a study that
concludes a national heritage area is not feasible. Recent
history also shows that national heritage areas cost the
National Park Service $10 million dollars during their 15-
year life span. Moreover, once their 15-year authorization
expires, heritage area proponents come back to Congress
asking for even more federal money so they can ultimately
become ``self sufficient.'' At a time when the National Park
Service has a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog for
such basic visitor services as campgrounds, visitor centers
and sanitation facilities, it should not be forced by
Congress to create expensive new heritage areas that siphon
precious federal dollars for these higher and better uses.
The American Land Rights Association respectfully requests
the House Committee on Natural Resources hold a balanced
hearing on H.R. 407 before bringing this bill to the House
Floor. We are astonished with the sense of urgency to pass
this bill so early in the new Congress.
Sincerely,
Chuck Cushman,
Executive Director.
As I have stated publicly before, enacting legislation that actually
works for the American people requires thoughtfulness and dialogue so
all options are on the table. To reject that just because a numerical
majority is available does a tremendous disservice to the American
people. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R.
407.
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. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 407,
the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area Study Act.
The Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area Study Act is an important
piece of legislation to my district and the entire Pacific Northwest. I
have been privileged to work with David Wu from Oregon in introducing
this legislation. In the Senate, the companion legislation has been
introduced by Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon and is supported by
Washington Senators Murray and Cantwell, as well as Oregon Senator Ron
Wyden. Hence, this legislation has both bipartisan and bicameral
support.
The mouth of the Columbia is a special place with a very rich
history. Native American communities have flourished there for
thousands of years. It is home to the first American settlement on the
Pacific, Astoria. It served as a major trading post for European,
American, Chinese, and other nations' ships, and earned its nickname
the ``Graveyard of the Pacific'' from the hundreds of shipwrecks along
its dangerous coast. Lewis and Clark ended their westward trek there in
1805. Today, the area is home to the fishing, seafood processing, and
timber communities that embody the Pacific Northwest.
Establishing a national heritage area at the mouth of the river is
fitting in recognition of the region and its importance historically.
As you know, the national heritage area unites parts of historically
and culturally significant areas under a common purpose. In this
[[Page H4501]]
case, it will help continue the cooperative efforts that the Lewis and
Clark bicentennial helped to create. The bicentennial commemoration
helped bring community interests together to plan and work in a
collaborative fashion. A national heritage area will continue this
momentum and ensure the region continues to attract families,
outdoorsmen and women, history buffs, and others to enhance its
sustainable tourism economy.
Most impressive is that the effort to create a national heritage area
at the mouth of the Columbia is really an idea driven by the local
community. We have received letters of support from local governments,
local businesses, trade associations, chambers of commerce, ports and
others who have heard about this effort and wholeheartedly endorsed it.
A brief sample of support includes the Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission, the Office of the Governor of Oregon, the city
of Astoria, Shorebank Pacific Bank, Cannon Beach Chamber of Commerce,
the Port of Peninsula, and the Clatsop County Historical Society.
During the prior Congress, the legislation was subject to an
oversight hearing in the National Parks Subcommittee where the
administration expressed their support for the bill. We were also
joined by small business owners from the area, notably Bob Andrews, who
expressed his particular support.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the National Resource
Committee chairman, Nick Rahall; the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands chairman, Mr. Grijalva; and their staffs,
including David Watkins and Rick Healy, for their work in bringing this
to the floor. I would also like to thank Marc Korman in my office for
his work on this important legislation. And especially, my dear friend,
David Wu. Again, I thank the Chair for bringing this to the floor and
urge final passage.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the creation of a Columbia-Pacific
National Heritage Area. I have worked closely with my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), to introduce H.R.
407 to study the feasibility of a national heritage area at the mouth
of the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington.
Like the river itself, the journey to get to where we are has been
lengthy. In 2001, I took the initial steps with Mr. Baird and with the
help of the National Resources Committee and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder), and we were able to expand Fort Clatsop National Historic
Monument and extend it to the sea.
Next, Congressman Baird and I together created Oregon's and
Washington's newest national park, the Lewis and Clark National and
State Historical Parks. No one person could have accomplished the many
steps to this point. I thank the hard work of the Natural Resources
Committee, Congressmen Baird and Souder, Oregon State Senator Betsy
Johnson and former park superintendent Chip Jenkins.
I would especially like to thank all of the local citizens, such as
Astoria's Cindy Mudge who has put tremendous time and effort into the
heritage area. The history that shaped this part of our Nation should
be preserved and celebrated.
Here, where the Columbia, the great river of the West, meets the
ocean, strong men and women have left their indelible imprint for
millennia. Native cultures, such as the Clatsop Nehalem, Chinook and
other Indian tribes, were joined by the Spanish, Russians and British.
Lewis and Clark began an American tie to the river, and Americans of
diverse descent, including Americans of Scandinavian, Chinese and other
heritages, together built the history of the region.
This is the way that America was or should be, a close-knit community
where everyone, from the Indians to Lewis and Clark to Scandinavians to
Chinese, were and are welcome; where work, and not parentage,
determines one's worth.
From forestry to fisheries, the land and waters have provided. Today,
human hands provide for the future. We are trying to build a college to
help create the education and research-based economy of the future.
Here also are the helping hands of the Columbia River bar pilots who
since 1846 have guided ships across the Columbia River bar, and the
United States Coast Guard, who faithfully protect local and
international commerce on the roughest, toughest water in the world.
The mouth of the Columbia River presents layers of history and
culture like an ancient buried city, except that the river rolls on
today. Unlike the Hudson or the Mississippi, we do not have a large
city at the river's mouth to preserve its stories and heritage; an act
of Congress shall do so.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 407 and note that the opposition
which has been expressed comes from an organization which is not within
the historic study area.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
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.
Mr. BAIRD. I thank my friend from Arizona.
I would just like to correct the record of the gentleman from
Colorado. I know a little bit about Colorado myself. I have lived
there. I doubt the gentleman from Colorado has lived in my district.
I do happen to know that Battleground, Washington, is not anywhere
near the affected area. The affected area encompasses Pacific County
and Wahkiakum County on my side of the river, two counties on the
gentleman from Oregon's side of the river. Battleground is not there.
As far as the massive size of this organization you describe, it is
not so large. I appreciate they have a voice. I am happy to listen to
the voice. This Congress should listen to the voice. But it should not
overwhelm the unanimous sense of the people who sponsored this
legislation. The committee jurisdiction has had a hearing on this, and
I do not think we want to make it the practice of this body, we
certainly never have before, to say that every time a relatively
noncontroversial bill has been heard well out in the prior Congress, we
have to have another hearing.
If the gentleman pretends to say that it is his concern that we try
to save the taxpayers' money, having continuous, multiple hearings
every time a bill does not quite pass out both bodies, both the House
and the Senate, from one Congress to the next, I think it would
actually cost the taxpayers a lot more money than you would hope to
save.
Let me speak to the substance of this. My friend from Oregon said it
well. If you know the history of this great country and if you know the
history of the Pacific Northwest, there can be no doubt that this area
warrants designation such as we think this study will ultimately lend
it.
My friend mentioned Lewis and Clark. Prior to them, the historical
trade that went along among the native tribes at the mouth of the
Columbia River was legendary. Lewis and Clark, the first American
settlement in the Pacific Northwest, the key to trade with Asia in the
early years of this great country, it was this mouth of this river
where the first northwest settlement of the United States by Americans
expanded. The mouth of this river is a key to the commerce, not only of
the Pacific Northwest but the inland Northwest, the greater Northwest
where great quantities of grain and other cargos are shipped out.
This region has a rich cultural, historical legacy that we need to
honor and respect and preserve. That is why the administration supports
this bill. That is why our friend and colleague in the other body,
Senator Smith, supports this bill. That is why we have I think the
unanimous support of both delegations. This should be a
noncontroversial bill.
The gentleman from Colorado I think has raised rather specious
arguments against it, and I think we should pass this fine legislation
and move forward with honoring a very richly deserving part of this
country with this designation.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H4502]]
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the sponsors,
Congressman Baird and Congressman Wu, for this fine legislation and to
remind our colleagues that this is the beginning of a process for a
designation. This is the study process, and it is noncontroversial. And
as mentioned before, the organization opposing it has a protected
record of opposing any heritage area, without any substantive
qualification to that opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 407, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________