[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.

                          ____________________