[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 127 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H9402-H9409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS AND WATERTRAILS NETWORK CONTINUING 
                           AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 726, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 965) to amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 
1998 to provide for the continuing authorization of the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateways and Watertrails Network, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 965

       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 ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
     Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 
     (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by 
     striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in House Report 111-249 if offered by the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) or his designee, which shall be considered as read, and 
shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will control 30 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 965.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
965, introduced by our friend and colleague, Representative John 
Sarbanes. H.R. 965 is a simple, straightforward bill that would 
permanently authorize the highly successful Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network.
  Over 10 million people each year visit one of the 166 gateway sites 
supported by this program. They come to kayak or canoe, hike or bike, 
picnic, hunt or fish, or to watch wildlife. Others come to visit the 
Chesapeake's many maritime museums or to renew their acquaintance with 
the turning points in our Nation's history, such as the sites at Fort 
McHenry and Yorktown battlefield.
  Each of these visitors comes away with a strengthened awareness of 
the crucial role the Chesapeake Bay plays in our national story and as 
the ecological and economic heart of the mid-Atlantic. And that is the 
goal of the gateway network, to renew our connection with that great 
Bay. The program

[[Page H9403]]

is so successful that the National Park Service has heaped praise upon 
it, and the White House in 2005 declared it to be a ``cooperative 
conservation success story.''
  Congress originally authorized this program for 5 years and renewed 
that short-term authorization in 2002. In 2004, a National Park Service 
special resource study concluded that a permanent commitment to the 
program would ensure its long-term viability and enhance the 
Chesapeake's status among America's national treasures.
  Anyone who reads The Washington Post knows that the Bay's oyster 
population is in trouble. That situation is both a symptom and one of 
the causes of the precarious health of the Bay. Keeping people 
connected and concerned about the Bay is vital to each step in 
restoring that great estuary, from its headwaters to its oyster beds. 
The Gateways Network does just that. This program is a proven success 
and should be permanently authorized.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 965.
  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, 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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, at this point, let me yield as much time 
as he may consume to the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Sarbanes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank Chairman Grijalva, and Chairman Rahall 
as well, for their strong support of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network.
  This is a bill that is, I believe, quite noncontroversial. We are 
here today debating it because there is some difference of perspective 
with respect to whether there ought to be a permanent authorization to 
this bill or not. That is something I strongly support because I think 
it sends a very powerful message to the citizenry in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed that the Federal Government is ready to be a partner on a 
permanent basis. If we want people to step forward and take ownership 
at the community level and across the watershed, we need to send that 
message to them, and there is no better way to send that message than 
to permanently authorize this program.
  The Chesapeake Bay has a tremendous story to tell. I'm from Maryland, 
of course, and we consider ourselves in many ways principally stewards 
of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a national treasure. It is the largest 
estuary body in the United States. But it doesn't just touch the State 
of Maryland; it touches six States and the District of Columbia. It 
touches New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West 
Virginia.

                              {time}  1045

  The watershed stretches from Michael Arcuri's district, where he 
represents Cooperstown, New York, where it begins, to Bobby Scott's 
district in Virginia. The cosponsors of this bill are both Democrat and 
Republican, indicating the strong support that it has had from the 
beginning of the program.
  Some of you know I have introduced other legislation which is focused 
very specifically on how we engage the next generation, engage our 
young people in the environment and get them outdoors learning.
  The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network is a wonderful resource for that. 
There are over 156 sites, historic, natural, cultural, recreational 
sites across the watershed that are available because of the funding 
that comes through technical assistance and other grant funding, that 
are available as a resource for the next generation to take advantage 
of, available for older generations to pass on the history of this area 
and this region to the next generation.
  So I am excited. And I appreciate the gentleman's sympathies to me, 
but I must say any opportunity that I have to talk about the importance 
of this network is one that I would seize happily.
  I do want to reiterate that this represents the National Park 
Service's component of a larger partnership that exists on behalf of 
the Chesapeake Bay on the part of the Federal Government that includes 
the National Park Service, that includes the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, that includes the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and this is a partnership that has just worked fabulously over 
many, many years.
  In closing, let me just emphasize again, and I know we will debate it 
a little bit later with respect to the amendment that is going to be 
proposed by Congressman Bishop, but let

[[Page H9404]]

me just emphasize again how important it is that this be a permanent 
authorization. We need to send a message, a powerful message, to the 
citizens that are part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed that the Federal 
Government is here to stay when it comes to preserving and protecting 
this incredible resource that we have.
  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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our majority leader, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, Chairman Grijalva, for yielding, and I 
thank Mr. Sarbanes for his leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 965, 
legislation introduced by Representative John Sarbanes, whose father 
established this program some years ago and who was one of my closest 
friends, and still is, and with whom I worked very closely on this 
particular piece of legislation and so many other items directed at the 
environment in general and the Chesapeake Bay in particular.
  This bill permanently reauthorizes the National Park Service's 
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Program. Those of us 
fortunate enough to live in the region have been blessed with a 
multitude of magnificent national resources, not the least of which is 
the Nation's largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water that 
has played such an important role in shaping the cultural, economic, 
political and social history of our region.
  Unfortunately, the Chesapeake Bay of 2009 is not the pristine body 
that Captain John Smith first chartered on his expedition some 400 
years ago. Indeed, earlier this year, the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 
released the Chesapeake Bay's 2008 Health and Restoration Assessment 
which found the overall health of the bay remained degraded and that 
the Bay Program is still far short of most restoration goals. Shortly 
thereafter, the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental 
Science issued a report card grading the bay's health as a C-minus for 
the second year in a row. That obviously is not good news, nor is it 
acceptable.
  Over the years, I have joined with many of my colleagues in 
supporting a number of legislative initiatives and securing millions of 
dollars focused on the restoration effort. While some progress has been 
made, clearly, as those reports indicate, much remains to be done.
  I am heartened, Mr. Speaker, by the commitment of President Obama and 
his administration to the Chesapeake Bay. On May 12, President Obama 
issued an Executive order declaring that the restoration of the Bay 
requires a renewed commitment to controlling pollution, protecting 
habitat, conserving land, and improving management of natural 
resources. I have the privilege of living on one of the tributaries 
that flows into the Chesapeake Bay, the Patuxent River, and I know how 
critical it is. We have the Anacostia River here and the Potomac River 
here in our city.
  The President declared that the Federal Government should lead this 
effort and established a Federal Leadership Committee for the 
Chesapeake Bay consisting of relevant agencies which would be chaired 
by the EPA administrator. The agencies were directed to draft and 
submit reports to the committee making specific recommendations for 
protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The initial reports are slated to be 
made public today, which makes this effort very timely.
  H.R. 965, the legislation we are now considering, takes another 
important step forward in our efforts by permanently authorizing a 
program that has already done so much to raise awareness of the fragile 
health of the bay and directly engage our region's citizens and 
visitors to take an active role in fulfilling our shared goal of 
restoring the Chesapeake.
  The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, which includes more than 150 
museums, State parks, wildlife refuges, and other sites in six States 
and the District of Columbia was established, Mr. Speaker, to link 
together these wonderful places in the hopes of enabling visitors to 
better understand and appreciate the role they can play in the bay's 
survival.
  Unfortunately and tragically, much of the bay's stress is man-made. 
The program enables sites to compete for grant funding which must be 
fully matched for projects that will help conserve, restore, and 
interpret their roles in the bay's natural, cultural, and social 
history. The Gateways Program is a critical component to fostering a 
commitment among our citizens to restore the bay, and I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  In closing, let me thank Mr. Grijalva for his leadership in bringing 
this to the floor and Mr. Sarbanes for his sponsorship and continuing 
the extraordinary legacy that his father over 30 years in the United 
States Senate and 6 years in the House of Representatives contributed 
to this country and to the Chesapeake Bay and our environment in 
particular.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this will be a debate on a bill of 
complete congeniality, because I don't think any of us are really 
opposed to a lot of what is attempted in this underlying bill.
  I certainly am not, Mr. Speaker, one who likes to say ``I told you 
so,'' but I told you so. You see, it was said in the history of this 
particular bill, the first time it was passed it was passed with a 5-
year reauthorization and it passed unanimously in both houses. The 
second time it was reauthorized 5 years and it passed unanimously in 
both houses. Last year you decided to take the reauthorization away, 
not impose the 5-year limit, and we said on the floor if you actually 
put that back in there it would have a significant enhancement of its 
ability to pass the Senate, and you didn't do it. It didn't pass the 
Senate, so we are back here a year later doing the same thing again.
  So I don't want to say I told you so, but to quote that great 
philosopher Yogi Berra, this is like deja vu all over again. For, 
indeed, a year ago, last year, instead of talking about energy issues, 
which were primarily on the minds of the American people, we brought up 
this particular bill and apparently did the same thing we are doing 
this year when health care is primarily on the minds of most people.
  This is a particular bill which, in fact, is the only bill we are 
going to debate this week under a rule. I appreciate the majority 
leader being here and his statements on this particular bill. I don't 
know if I appreciate flying back for 4 hours just to do this bill this 
week. But, nonetheless, it is still the only one we are going to have 
here, even though there are significant issues we should be discussing, 
that the American people want us to discuss.
  The majority leader was slightly in error in what he said though. 
Everything he said about the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay was 
accurate. But this is not a cleanup bill. This is not an environmental 
protection bill. This is not an EPA bill. This is a recreation bill. I 
don't oppose that, but it is clear this is a recreation bill. And the 
National Park Service has made several suggestions, because once again 
there are no Federal waters or Federal assets associated in this 
particular area, the National Park Service did say that we should give 
technical assistance to this area, but they did not recommend fully 
funding on a nonrenewable basis other types of grant programs to this 
particular area. Indeed, the Obama budget does not have money in it for 
this particular bill.
  So one of the things we need to talk about is if we are going to 
abrogate our oversight responsibilities, and if we decide not to 
abrogate our oversight responsibilities and treat this bill as other 
bills from the Resource Committee have been treated, we will probably 
have a better chance of actually passing the bill this year in both 
Houses of Congress and not coming back for a third try next time 
around.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I flew back 4 hours to deal with this very 
important piece of legislation, but also to listen to our President 
last night, which I thought was worth the trip.
  I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Kratovil), a cosponsor of the legislation.

[[Page H9405]]

  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 965, the 
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing 
Authorization Act offered by my friend and colleague from Maryland, 
Representative John Sarbanes.
  This act is vital to the residents of Maryland's First Congressional 
District and all those who rely on a healthy Chesapeake Bay for 
commercial, recreational and historical purposes. The act provides 
grants to parks, volunteer groups, wildlife sanctuaries, historic 
sites, museum and water trails. A network has been developed that ties 
sites together that provide meaningful experiences and fosters citizen 
stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay, not only by those who have the good 
fortune to live within its watershed, but all who come to visit or are 
able to benefit economically from it.
  Since 2000, the network has grown to include 156 gateways in six 
States and the District of Columbia and over 1,500 miles of established 
and developing water trails, many of which are located in my district, 
within the boundaries of Maryland's First Congressional District.
  From Sandy Point State Park on Maryland's western shore, traversing 
the Bay Bridge to the schooner Sultana in Chestertown, the Blackwater 
Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester County, down the lower shore to the Smith 
Island Center and the Tawes Museum in Crisfield, network destinations 
literally dot the landscape of the First Congressional District with 
historical, environmental and cultural landmarks.
  The ultimate goal of this network is to create an atmosphere of 
natural, cultural, historical and recreational sites throughout the 
Chesapeake Bay region. Residents and visitors are able to visit these 
places to learn about the bay's diverse stories, experience its history 
and enjoy its natural beauty. Whether it is a family paddling a water 
trail, riding on a ferry or driving a scenic tour route, each and every 
visitor will hopefully develop a greater sense of appreciation for our 
Nation's largest estuary.
  For these reasons, I support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act and urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Thank you again to Mr. Sarbanes for sponsoring the bill.
  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. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 965, the legislation to reauthorize the 
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. I represent Virginia's 
First Congressional District, better known as America's First District, 
which is largely defined by the Chesapeake Bay. My constituents live, 
work and play in the bay watershed.
  My district includes many components of the Gateways Network, from 
historic Yorktown and Jamestown to George Washington's birthplace in 
Westmoreland County. The Gateways Network links together over 100 
parks, museums, wildlife refuges, and other cultural and historic sites 
into a comprehensive system.

                              {time}  1100

  The gateway program connects visitors with the natural beauty and 
rich history and recreational opportunities within the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed, and I've had the privilege to travel the trail, specifically 
the Captain John Smith Water Trail. It is an amazing asset that we 
have. I've heard from many constituents that realize how valuable that 
is and what a great experience it brings to them to travel up and down 
the bay to link all the history and the resources that are there in our 
wonderful bay watershed.
  One of those recreational opportunities, as I said the network 
provides, is the chance to kayak or sail the Captain John Smith Water 
Trail. It's an amazing experience, and that traces John Smith's 17th 
century voyage of discovery, and you can put yourself in the place of 
Captain John Smith and the experience that he had when he first arrived 
on these shores.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I offer my support of this bill and I want to 
commend my friend from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for his effort in 
leadership in our efforts to focus on the bay and its restoration.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may inquire of Mr. Hastings if he has any 
additional speakers.
  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. GRIJALVA. No, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Bishop of Utah:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.

       Section 502 of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 
     (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105-312) is amended by 
     striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2014''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of 
presenting this particular amendment, not because we have any antipathy 
towards the Chesapeake Bay or the recreational purposes that may be 
there, and I appreciate the fact that you enjoyed the first speech, but 
because it's about time we do it right way. Surely we can bully through 
this any way we want to, but we need to do it the right way, the way it 
was done the first time and the second time and the way it should be 
done this particular time.
  When this bill last year came out of the Resources Committee, it was 
compiled with six other bills, all of which had 5-year 
reauthorizations. Some of the bills that Resources has sent out here 
have not had those type of reauthorizations. However, they had another 
factor which put a cap on the kind of appropriations that could be 
there, and that's why a 5-year reauthorization process is the perfect 
kind of compromise.
  It's a position between the National Park Service which last year 
said there should be technical assistance, but was opposed to any kind 
of grant process going through this because they said this program had 
matured to the point it no longer needed to be supported by the Federal 
Government, or the sponsor's approach, which simply says, take off 
limit and continue on with what has been now close to $9 million of 
earmarks for this program.
  It's not a problem. The appropriations is not a problem. What is the 
problem is we are now giving up our rights to review these types of 
programs, which is not what an authorizing committee ought to do. There 
is, in past experience, not here but in past experience, where sites 
that no longer have to be renewed by Congress do become lethargic and 
no longer have that desire for innovation to produce results. That's 
not necessarily to say it will happen here, but that has been the 
process that we have learned through history.
  The purpose of an authorizing committee is to authorize and then 
review those authorizations, which is why it has been tradition for 
committees to put in an authorization period for those particular 
reviews. And it is not wise for Congress to abrogate our congressional 
responsibility for those purposes. What we're talking about is simply 
saying, look, what we need, as a Congress, are the options to review 
this in the future and not take the options off the table.
  That's the one thing all Americans are talking about more than 
anything else is the idea of options. Like my family just gave me an 
Ipod. And I don't know how to download stuff, but they can put music on 
there. When I was growing up, if I wanted a song and,

[[Page H9406]]

Mr. Speaker, you're probably in the same situation I was, I had to buy 
the entire record to get the song. I don't need to do that. I now have 
more options. If I want to go and buy cereal, I look at an entire store 
and there is an entire wall of potential cereals up there which I can 
buy. I am given options. If I want to order vanilla ice cream, I can 
still go to a store that offers me 31 flavors. There are 59 different 
kinds of Eggo waffles.
  Our entire life is provided by options. And yet, as a Congress, we 
decide and seem to have this tendency to take options off the table so 
we don't have them for the future. That, to me, is just a mind-boggling 
approach to it. It's the same thing that we're talking about in health 
care, which is the topic on the minds of the American people which we 
should be talking about today on this floor, rather than reauthorizing 
a bill we all like and support.
  But in that, the issue once again, is options for the American 
people. There are myriad types of proposals being put out there by some 
of my Republican colleagues, all which deal with the concept of giving 
options to the American people: options to buy their own health care, 
options to get HSAs, options to have new association pools, option in 
which they can buy across lines, options in which we can have tort 
reform. All those things should be on the table, and that's what we 
should be doing.
  In like manner to this particular bill, we are, once again, limiting 
our options, which is the exact opposite thing government should be 
doing. Now, that's what's important, and that's where we should be 
going. Like I said, a year ago we had this particular bill, this 
particular amendment again, which would have made it better and 
probably then had helped the Senate to actually include it in their 
list of bills to be passed.
  If we do this particular amendment, to do what we have traditionally 
done with other bills, what we are doing is simply providing Congress 
with the options Congress should accept, and make sure that we are 
always reviewing the programs we have to see what they are doing, and a 
5-year period is the norm. It is traditional.
  This simply would say we're going to do this bill and we're going to 
do it the right way, do it totally the right way, so once again it 
might be passed unanimously, as it was the first time when they had a 
review in there and the second time when they had a review in there, 
and was not passed the third time when they decided not to put a review 
in this particular piece of legislation.
  We've got options. We should be doing it. Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment offered by my friend, Representative Bishop.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the National Park Service has found that 
this is a very, very successful program in large part because the 
Federal commitment leverages funding and support from State, local and 
nonprofit partners who care deeply about the health of the Chesapeake 
Bay. There is a broad agreement that making the Federal commitment to 
this program permanent will send a strong signal to the program's 
partners and make the program even more effective in the long run.
  I would point out that both the Save America's Treasures and Preserve 
America programs have permanent authorizations. Conversely, amending 
the bill to make the authorization time-limited would cause funding 
partners to question the level of Federal commitment and could cause 
private contributions to drop off.
  The purpose of granting this program a permanent authorization is to 
avoid having to return to Congress every 5 years to get new legislation 
for what is, by all measures, a successful program. I should add that, 
despite my friend's arguments about a permanent authorization, this 
program will continue to receive annual oversight through the 
appropriations process.
  Regarding the existing cap on annual funding for the program, such a 
cap may have been appropriate when the program was first authorized in 
1998. However, as more and more people become aware of the importance 
of the bay, the challenges it faces, Congress should provide more 
funding for the grant program. Proponents would like to be able to seek 
increased funding through the appropriations process and not have to 
get new authorization legislation each time they seek more funding.
  This is an important and successful program. It deserves a permanent 
authorization. I urge Members to vote against the Bishop amendment and 
for H.R. 965 to permanently authorize this very excellent program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank my friend, Mr. Bishop from Utah, for letting me 
speak. I enjoy serving on Natural Resources and certainly this is an 
important topic; but I do want to bring up what happened on this very 
floor last night with regards to health care.
  The Congressional Research Service, which, as you know, are experts 
when it comes to whatever happens in terms of academics in Congress, 
came out with a report this morning on the controversial topic of does 
ObamaCare, or H.R. 3200, or whichever Democrat version of the bill 
we're talking about, does it cover illegal immigrants. And let me give 
you a quote from the CRS. It says: ``Under H.R. 3200, an insurance 
exchange would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans 
alongside a public option. H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions 
on noncitizens, whether legally or illegally present or in the United 
States.''
  So it's very clear that despite the fact that our President claims 
that this does not cover illegal immigrants, it absolutely does. In 
fact, in the SCHIP bill earlier this year, we tried, on our side of the 
aisle, to get language that was specific to require some sort of proof 
before someone could sign up for coverage under SCHIP that would show 
that they were not illegal immigrants. And, of course, that tougher 
language was removed.
  Also, with regard to $900-or-so billion that our President mentioned 
last night, cost of the health plan, which really most believe is more 
like $1.6 trillion, he talked about savings that would come as a result 
of removal of fraud, waste, and abuse. Now, these programs, Medicare 
and Medicaid, which are government-run programs, have been in existence 
for around 45 years. What have we learned recently that we haven't 
known for all of these years that we can now remove fraud, waste, and 
abuse that we couldn't for 45 years?
  In a 48-minute speech last night, the President did not bring up one 
new idea, any new strategy or techniques that would allow us to remove 
fraud, waste and abuse any better than we have been able to for all 
these years. The truth of the matter is that in order to reduce what we 
already have as waste in the system, we would have to create even 
another level or two of extremely expensive bureaucracy that would cost 
even more than what we would recover.
  The fact of the matter is that a government system, whether it's 
running Cash for Clunkers, or the post office, is inept at controlling 
fraud, waste and abuse. It creates many new bureaucracies, in this case 
53 new bureaucracies in the health care system; and, consequently, 
without moving to a private industrial form this wouldn't be possible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. FLEMING. Yes, to kind of summarize, I think that there were, I 
was personally offended last night when our President insinuated, if 
not coming out right and condescendingly saying that somehow we've been 
lying about what we've been saying about these health care bills. But 
the fact is, if you look at the details, if you look at the truth, you 
find that what we've been saying we can back up with facts, whether it 
is taxpayer-funded abortions, which is definitely covered in all 
versions of the bill on the Democrat side, coverage of illegal 
immigrants, definitely covered, and then of course the cost of this 
monstrosity, which is going to start at $1.6 trillion, and after about 
10 years it's going to go up from there, never bending the cost curve 
down.
  So, again, I would like to suggest that rather than being called out 
for

[[Page H9407]]

so-called myths, I think we should really get to the bottom and the 
real truth of this matter.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to reintroduce germaneness to 
the debate on the amendment, let me recognize Mr. Sarbanes for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I agree there's going to be plenty of time 
to debate the health reform bill and to demonstrate very clearly that 
it does not extend benefits to those who are here unlawfully. But I 
hope the American people have the confidence that we can debate the 
health bill at the appropriate time and in the appropriate ways, while 
also conducting other business that faces the Nation which, of course, 
is what we're trying to do this morning with respect to the Chesapeake 
Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.
  And responding to some of the points raised by my colleague, 
Congressman Bishop, I do just want to emphasize we understand that it's 
not maybe standard to move to a permanent authorization that typically 
would go to 5-year reauthorizations.

                              {time}  1115

  I want to make sure people understand that this is not being done 
lightly. This is being done for a very specific reason. There are times 
when, based on the experience of a program and an initiative, as in 
this case, you reach the conclusion that the program is worth 
authorizing on a permanent basis because you want to send a message, 
and it's particularly important to do that in circumstances where a key 
ingredient of the success of the program is the fact that you have 
thousands of ordinary citizens through community groups and nonprofits 
and other organizations stepping forward on a daily basis, saying, Yes, 
we want to be partners in this effort.
  The last thing we want to do at that moment when so many people are 
saying, Yes, you can count on me at the community level to take up this 
charge to protect and preserve the Chesapeake Bay, is say to them, 
Well, we're not sure this commitment on behalf of the Federal 
Government is going to be there for the long term. That's why it is 
critical to this program that we authorize it on a permanent basis, so 
I want to urge that we do that.
  I do also want to note that this program couldn't be further away 
from an earmark program. There was a suggestion made there. In fact, 
the National Park Service makes judgments on which partners to 
recognize based on applications that come in for grant funding, and the 
Congress has never approved an earmark as part of the Chesapeake Bay 
Gateway program.
  So this is a good program. I think it's one that deserves to be 
authorized on a permanent basis for the reasons that I indicated, and I 
would urge that we oppose the Bishop amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am ready to use my final minute if I might, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I don't want to be cantankerous about this. We are talking about a 
decent bill from a decent program with a decent sponsor, but we are not 
in the system of sending out messages. We are a legislative body that 
is supposed to review and that is supposed to budget, and in that way, 
we should not be abrogating our responsibilities over to the 
appropriators. It's an authorizing concept. It's what authorizers ought 
to do. It's what we should be doing. NEPA is renewed. Endangered 
Species is renewed, as is the Clean Water Act. In fact, the only thing 
we have not renewed--and it's on a permanent basis--is the Nautical 
Charting Act that was started in the 1700s by Thomas Jefferson.
  So what we are talking about is doing what is the norm and doing what 
is rational and doing this bill the right way and actually--I hate to 
say this--but once again, to try and not limit what we are doing as a 
body.
  Health care is what we should be talking about. The bill that Pelosi 
has put on the floor is not the only idea. There are better bills out 
there that think outside of the box, but unless we put the Price bill, 
the Shadegg bill, the Ryan bill, and the Gohmert bill on the floor to 
be discussed and debated, we will not have all of the options open to 
us. That is also why I am arguing that we should have a permanent 
review, a review every 5 years, of this program. It is what Congress 
does, and we should do it and do it the right way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the NPS, the National Park 
Service, gave the subcommittee testimony, and they said, through 
technical and financial assistance, the National Park Service has 
assisted Gateways to develop hundreds of partnerships across the 
watershed to help people understand and appreciate the Chesapeake Bay.
  It has been mentioned, nevertheless, that the Bush administration 
testified that it opposed this financial assistance or the grants 
program. When I asked the Park Service witness at that 2007 hearing 
about that contradiction, he said that the Park Service would love to 
continue the grants program, but it was a financial decision made by 
OMB, by the Bush administration.
  This is a good program. It is all linked together. A permanent 
authorization would secure this program for the future. It is a vital 
environmental link to the Mid-Atlantic which must be saved. With that, 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 726, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill and the amendment by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Hastings of Washington moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     965 to the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

        The amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect 
     until the national deficit is less than $1,000,000,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  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.

[[Page H9408]]

  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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the motion doesn't tell us who would have 
the certification power or how we would meet the standard that the 
motion to recommit attempts to make. It's like saying we on the 
Republican side ran up a huge deficit. Now we want to penalize this one 
little program until you clean up the mess.
  Why this program? Why not a program that was done this morning during 
the Natural Resources Committee meeting where the sponsor of the motion 
to recommit, the gentleman from Washington, had legislation that passed 
for a road which runs through his district? Should we put the same 
standard on that legislation?
  This is arbitrary, this motion to recommit. While it attempts to 
score political points, it also, if passed, jeopardizes a very valuable 
resource that, if not restored and protected through the legislation, 
will cause disastrous economic, environmental, cultural, and health 
consequences--bad consequences for the Mid-Atlantic and for the Nation 
as a whole. The motion to recommit, while an attempt to score points, 
has no merit. It is arbitrary and I urge its defeat.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 229, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 694]

                               YEAS--194

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boyd
     Clay
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Issa
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     Payne
     Roskam
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1207

  Mr. NADLER of New York, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. CHU, 
Ms. KILROY, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Ms. EDWARDS of 
Maryland, Messrs. HONDA, WELCH, CUMMINGS, CARNAHAN, WEINER, ACKERMAN, 
PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, LANGEVIN, FATTAH, JOHNSON of 
Georgia, NADLER, RANGEL, WALZ and Ms. BALDWIN changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. JORDAN of Ohio, AKIN, SULLIVAN, NEUGEBAUER, TIAHRT, Ms. 
GIFFORDS, and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''

[[Page H9409]]

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________