[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 135 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H9844-H9854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 760, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 324) to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National 
Heritage Area, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to House Resolution 
760, the amendment printed in House Report 111-263 is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 324

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Santa Cruz 
     Valley National Heritage Area Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Designation of Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area.
Sec. 5. Management plan.
Sec. 6. Evaluation; report.
Sec. 7. Local coordinating entity.
Sec. 8. Relationship to other Federal agencies.
Sec. 9. Private property and regulatory protections.
Sec. 10. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 11. Use of Federal funds from other sources.
Sec. 12. Sunset for grants and other assistance.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act include--
       (1) to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage 
     Area in the State of Arizona;
       (2) to implement the recommendations of the ``Alternative 
     Concepts for Commemorating Spanish Colonization'' study 
     completed by the National Park Service in 1991, and the 
     ``Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Valley National 
     Heritage Area'' prepared by the Center for Desert Archaeology 
     in July 2005;
       (3) to provide a management framework to foster a close 
     working relationship with all levels of government, the 
     private sector, and the local communities in the region and 
     to conserve the region's heritage while continuing to pursue 
     compatible economic opportunities;
       (4) to assist communities, organizations, and citizens in 
     the State of Arizona in identifying, preserving, 
     interpreting, and developing the historical, cultural, 
     scenic, and natural resources of the region for the 
     educational and inspirational benefit of current and future 
     generations; and
       (5) to provide appropriate linkages between units of the 
     National Park System and communities, governments, and 
     organizations within the National Heritage Area.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) National heritage area.--The term ``National Heritage 
     Area'' means the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area 
     established in this Act.
       (2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local 
     coordinating entity'' means the Santa Cruz Valley Heritage 
     Alliance, Inc., which is hereby designated by Congress--
       (A) to develop, in partnership with others, the management 
     plan for the National Heritage Area; and
       (B) to act as a catalyst for the implementation of projects 
     and programs among diverse partners in the National Heritage 
     Area.
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the plan prepared by the local coordinating entity for the 
     National Heritage Area that specifies actions, policies, 
     strategies, performance goals, and recommendations to meet 
     the goals of the National Heritage Area, in accordance with 
     this Act.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. DESIGNATION OF SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE 
                   AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the Santa 
     Cruz Valley National Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--The National Heritage Area shall consist 
     of portions of the counties of Santa Cruz and Pima.
       (2) Map.--The boundaries of the National Heritage Area 
     shall be as generally depicted on the map titled ``Santa Cruz 
     Valley National Heritage Area'', and numbered T09/80,000, and 
     dated November 13, 2007. The map shall be on file and 
     available to the public in the appropriate offices of the 
     National Park Service and the local coordinating entity.

     SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) Requirements.--The management plan for the National 
     Heritage Area shall--
       (1) describe comprehensive policies, goals, strategies, and 
     recommendations for telling the story of the heritage of the 
     area covered

[[Page H9845]]

     by the National Heritage Area and encouraging long-term 
     resource protection, enhancement, interpretation, funding, 
     management, and development of the National Heritage Area;
       (2) include a description of actions and commitments that 
     Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, private 
     organizations, and citizens will take to protect, enhance, 
     interpret, fund, manage, and develop the natural, historical, 
     cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the National Heritage Area;
       (3) specify existing and potential sources of funding or 
     economic development strategies to protect, enhance, 
     interpret, fund, manage, and develop the National Heritage 
     Area;
       (4) include an inventory of the natural, historical, 
     cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the National Heritage Area related to the national importance 
     and themes of the National Heritage Area that should be 
     protected, enhanced, interpreted, managed, funded, and 
     developed;
       (5) recommend policies and strategies for resource 
     management, including the development of intergovernmental 
     and interagency agreements to protect, enhance, interpret, 
     fund, manage, and develop the natural, historical, cultural, 
     educational, scenic, and recreational resources of the 
     National Heritage Area;
       (6) describe a program for implementation for the 
     management plan, including--
       (A) performance goals;
       (B) plans for resource protection, enhancement, 
     interpretation, funding, management, and development; and
       (C) specific commitments for implementation that have been 
     made by the local coordinating entity or any Federal, State, 
     Tribal, or local government agency, organization, business, 
     or individual;
       (7) include an analysis of, and recommendations for, means 
     by which Federal, State, Tribal, and local programs may best 
     be coordinated (including the role of the National Park 
     Service and other Federal agencies associated with the 
     National Heritage Area) to further the purposes of this Act; 
     and
       (8) include a business plan that--
       (A) describes the role, operation, financing, and functions 
     of the local coordinating entity and of each of the major 
     activities contained in the management plan; and
       (B) provides adequate assurances that the local 
     coordinating entity has the partnerships and financial and 
     other resources necessary to implement the management plan 
     for the National Heritage Area.
       (b) Deadline.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funds are first made available to develop the 
     management plan after designation as a National Heritage 
     Area, the local coordinating entity shall submit the 
     management plan to the Secretary for approval.
       (2) Termination of funding.--If the management plan is not 
     submitted to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (1), 
     the local coordinating entity shall not qualify for any 
     additional financial assistance under this Act until such 
     time as the management plan is submitted to and approved by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Approval of Management Plan.--
       (1) Review.--Not later than 180 days after receiving the 
     plan, the Secretary shall review and approve or disapprove 
     the management plan for a National Heritage Area on the basis 
     of the criteria established under paragraph (3).
       (2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the 
     Governor of each State in which the National Heritage Area is 
     located before approving a management plan for the National 
     Heritage Area.
       (3) Criteria for approval.--In determining whether to 
     approve a management plan for a National Heritage Area, the 
     Secretary shall consider whether--
       (A) the local coordinating entity represents the diverse 
     interests of the National Heritage Area, including Federal, 
     State, Tribal, and local governments, natural and historic 
     resource protection organizations, educational institutions, 
     businesses, recreational organizations, community residents, 
     and private property owners;
       (B) the local coordinating entity--
       (i) has afforded adequate opportunity for public and 
     Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental involvement 
     (including through workshops and hearings) in the preparation 
     of the management plan; and
       (ii) provides for at least semiannual public meetings to 
     ensure adequate implementation of the management plan;
       (C) the resource protection, enhancement, interpretation, 
     funding, management, and development strategies described in 
     the management plan, if implemented, would adequately 
     protect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and develop the 
     natural, historic, cultural, educational, scenic, and 
     recreational resources of the National Heritage Area;
       (D) the management plan would not adversely affect any 
     activities authorized on Federal land under public land laws 
     or land use plans;
       (E) the local coordinating entity has demonstrated the 
     financial capability, in partnership with others, to carry 
     out the plan;
       (F) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from the 
     appropriate State, Tribal, and local officials whose support 
     is needed to ensure the effective implementation of the 
     State, Tribal, and local elements of the management plan; and
       (G) the management plan demonstrates partnerships among the 
     local coordinating entity, Federal, State, Tribal, and local 
     governments, regional planning organizations, nonprofit 
     organizations, or private sector parties for implementation 
     of the management plan.
       (4) Disapproval.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary disapproves the 
     management plan, the Secretary--
       (i) shall advise the local coordinating entity in writing 
     of the reasons for the disapproval; and
       (ii) may make recommendations to the local coordinating 
     entity for revisions to the management plan.
       (B) Deadline.--Not later than 180 days after receiving a 
     revised management plan, the Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove the revised management plan.
       (5) Amendments.--
       (A) In general.--An amendment to the management plan that 
     substantially alters the purposes of the National Heritage 
     Area shall be reviewed by the Secretary and approved or 
     disapproved in the same manner as the original management 
     plan.
       (B) Implementation.--The local coordinating entity shall 
     not use Federal funds authorized by this Act to implement an 
     amendment to the management plan until the Secretary approves 
     the amendment.
       (6) Authorities.--The Secretary may--
       (A) provide technical assistance under the authority of 
     this Act for the development and implementation of the 
     management plan; and
       (B) enter into cooperative agreements with interested 
     parties to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 6. EVALUATION; REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years before the date on 
     which authority for Federal funding terminates for the 
     National Heritage Area under this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct an evaluation of the accomplishments of the 
     National Heritage Area; and
       (2) prepare a report in accordance with subsection (c).
       (b) Evaluation.--An evaluation conducted under subsection 
     (a)(1) shall--
       (1) assess the progress of the local coordinating entity 
     with respect to--
       (A) accomplishing the purposes of the authorizing 
     legislation for the National Heritage Area; and
       (B) achieving the goals and objectives of the approved 
     management plan for the National Heritage Area;
       (2) analyze the Federal, State, Tribal, and local, and 
     private investments in the National Heritage Area to 
     determine the impact of the investments; and
       (3) review the management structure, partnership 
     relationships, and funding of the National Heritage Area for 
     purposes of identifying the critical components for 
     sustainability of the National Heritage Area.
       (c) Report.--Based on the evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate. The report shall 
     include recommendations for the future role of the National 
     Park Service, if any, with respect to the National Heritage 
     Area.

     SEC. 7. LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITY.

       (a) Duties.--To further the purposes of the National 
     Heritage Area, the Santa Cruz Valley Heritage Alliance, Inc., 
     as the local coordinating entity, shall--
       (1) prepare a management plan for the National Heritage 
     Area, and submit the management plan to the Secretary, in 
     accordance with this Act;
       (2) submit an annual report to the Secretary for each 
     fiscal year for which the local coordinating entity receives 
     Federal funds under this Act, specifying--
       (A) the specific performance goals and accomplishments of 
     the local coordinating entity;
       (B) the expenses and income of the local coordinating 
     entity;
       (C) the amounts and sources of matching funds;
       (D) the amounts leveraged with Federal funds and sources of 
     the leveraging; and
       (E) grants made to any other entities during the fiscal 
     year;
       (3) make available for audit for each fiscal year for which 
     the local coordinating entity receives Federal funds under 
     this Act, all information pertaining to the expenditure of 
     the funds and any matching funds; and
       (4) encourage economic viability and sustainability that is 
     consistent with the purposes of the National Heritage Area.
       (b) Authorities.--For the purposes of preparing and 
     implementing the approved management plan for the National 
     Heritage Area, the local coordinating entity may use Federal 
     funds made available under this Act to--
       (1) make grants to political jurisdictions, nonprofit 
     organizations, and other parties within the National Heritage 
     Area;
       (2) enter into cooperative agreements with or provide 
     technical assistance to political jurisdictions, nonprofit 
     organizations, Federal agencies, and other interested 
     parties;
       (3) hire and compensate staff, including individuals with 
     expertise in--
       (A) natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, and 
     recreational resource conservation;
       (B) economic and community development; and
       (C) heritage planning;

[[Page H9846]]

       (4) obtain funds or services from any source, including 
     other Federal programs;
       (5) contract for goods or services; and
       (6) support activities of partners and any other activities 
     that further the purposes of the National Heritage Area and 
     are consistent with the approved management plan.
       (c) Prohibition on Acquisition of Real Property.--The local 
     coordinating entity may not use Federal funds authorized 
     under this Act to acquire any interest in real property.

     SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act affects the authority 
     of a Federal agency to provide technical or financial 
     assistance under any other law.
       (b) Consultation and Coordination.--The head of any Federal 
     agency planning to conduct activities that may have an impact 
     on a National Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and 
     coordinate the activities with the Secretary and the local 
     coordinating entity to the maximum extent practicable.
       (c) Other Federal Agencies.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) modifies, alters, or amends any law or regulation 
     authorizing a Federal agency to manage Federal land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal agency;
       (2) limits the discretion of a Federal land manager to 
     implement an approved land use plan within the boundaries of 
     a National Heritage Area;
       (3) modifies, alters, or amends any authorized use of 
     Federal land under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency; or
       (4) modifies, alters, or amends any border enforcement 
     authority.

     SEC. 9. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether 
     public or private), including the right to refrain from 
     participating in any plan, project, program, or activity 
     conducted within the National Heritage Area;
       (2) requires any property owner to permit public access 
     (including access by Federal, State, Tribal, or local 
     agencies) to the property of the property owner, or to modify 
     public access or use of property of the property owner under 
     any other Federal, State, Tribal, or local law;
       (3) alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved 
     land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any Federal, 
     State, Tribal, or local agency, or conveys any land use or 
     other regulatory authority to any local coordinating entity, 
     including but not necessarily limited to development and 
     management of energy, water, or water-related infrastructure;
       (4) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation 
     of water or water rights;
       (5) diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish 
     and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting 
     within the National Heritage Area; or
       (6) creates any liability, or affects any liability under 
     any other law, of any private property owner with respect to 
     any person injured on the private property.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this Act not more than $1,000,000 for any fiscal year. Funds 
     so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
       (b) Limitation on Total Amounts Appropriated.--Not more 
     than $15,000,000 may be appropriated to carry out this Act.
       (c) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the 
     total cost of any activity under this Act shall be not more 
     than 50 percent; the non-Federal contribution may be in the 
     form of in-kind contributions of goods or services fairly 
     valued.

     SEC. 11. USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES.

       Nothing in this Act shall preclude the local coordinating 
     entity from using Federal funds available under other laws 
     for the purposes for which those funds were authorized.

     SEC. 12. SUNSET FOR GRANTS AND OTHER ASSISTANCE.

       The authority of the Secretary to provide financial 
     assistance under this Act terminates on the date that is 15 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 324.
  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.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 324, legislation I was proud 
to introduce earlier this year along with my friend and colleague 
Representative Giffords.
  My own history began in the Santa Cruz Valley at the Canoa Ranch 
where my father worked. My earliest memories are of life in an 
extraordinary, scenic valley; and they comprise a very important part 
of who I am today.
  H.R. 324 designates the Santa Cruz Valley region of Arizona as a 
national heritage area. This would allow the National Park Service to 
support existing and future State and local conservation efforts 
through Federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance.
  The Santa Cruz Valley is one of America's longest inhabited regions, 
with traces of human occupation extending back 12,000 years. The region 
was not only the center of centuries of Native American culture and 
history but also served as a corridor of Spanish exploration, 
colonization, and missionary activity; and a frontier of Mexican and 
early American mining, ranching, and agriculture. Today the valley is a 
leading center of desert ecology, climate research, astronomy, optics, 
and archeology.
  The historic Spanish missions, presidio fortresses, and ranches are 
found throughout the valley. Streets lined with Sonoran-style adobe 
houses recall the period when the region was part of Mexico. Ghost 
towns, old mines, territorial-style ranch houses, remnants of the 
mining and cattle industries date to the 1850s when this area became 
part of the United States.
  The valley sweeps across the Santa Cruz and eastern Pima County, 
encompassing cactus-covered slopes, open grasslands, rugged canyons, 
forested mountain ranges rising to more than 9,000 feet, and lush oases 
created by rare desert streams. That varied landscape provides many 
different habitats that are home to a diversity of plant and animal 
life, including tropical species, unique desert species, and 
mountaintop survivors from the Ice Age.
  The heritage area designated by H.R. 324 includes two national parks, 
four State parks, six large county parks, four major lakes, two 
designated scenic highways, and several hundred miles of backcountry 
trails and urban bikeways.
  The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, designated by 
Congress in 1990, runs along the Santa Cruz River for the length of the 
heritage area. The Butterfield Overland Dispatch Trail also crosses the 
valley. Also included are 32 museums, as well as 28 districts and 102 
individual buildings listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places, and dozens of prehistoric and historic archeological sites.
  A July 2005 study by the Center for Desert Archaeology, on which the 
bill is based, examined the many resources of the region and found that 
the area meets the 10 criteria set forth by the National Park Service 
for proposed heritage areas.
  H.R. 324 designates the area; sets out the duties of the management 
organization and the requirements for a management plan; requires the 
Secretary of the Interior to approve or disapprove of the plan within 
180 days; provides criteria for judging that plan; allows the Secretary 
to provide technical assistance and grants; and authorizes $15 million 
over 15 years, with no more than $1 million to be appropriated in any 
fiscal year. All Federal funds must be matched by contributions from 
non-Federal sources. The bill includes extensive protections for 
private property owners and prohibits the use of Federal lands received 
under the act for land acquisition.
  H.R. 324 is strongly supported throughout the Santa Cruz Valley. All 
incorporated local governments have supported it and have given this 
proposal their formal support. Other supporters include two Native 
American tribes, chambers of commerce and other civic organizations, 
the Arizona Office of Tourism and other tourism councils, the Southern 
Arizona Home Builders Association, conservation groups and developers, 
and many other businesses and individuals.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to say a few words about the 
heritage areas in general. This is a well-established, well-tested 
program that has been operating for 25 years. There are 49 heritage 
areas running in 29 States. Well over 50 million people live, work, and 
recreate inside the national heritage area.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Park Service and the Alliance of National 
Heritage Areas commissioned Michigan

[[Page H9847]]

State University to study the economic impacts of the national heritage 
area. The study found that just one national heritage area resulted in 
$780,000 in wages and salaries; $1.2 million in value added, mostly 
from dining and lodging; and created 51 jobs. If you extend this to all 
the heritage areas, we are talking about hundreds of millions of 
dollars in economic benefit to local communities and roughly 2,500 
jobs.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me once again urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 324, my bill to help preserve a fascinating area full of 
history and culture and the wonders of nature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this legislation raises 
serious concerns about border security and the private property rights 
of private landowners by establishing an over 3,300-square-mile--let me 
repeat that, Mr. Speaker--3,300-square-mile national heritage area that 
includes land along the Arizona and Mexico border.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support the wise and responsible 
stewardship of Federal lands. We also strongly believe the protection 
and conservation of natural areas is important. Yet it need not be done 
at the expense of our homeland security or the private property rights 
of U.S. citizens.
  On the issue of homeland security, some of the most heavily 
trafficked drug smuggling and human trafficking routes in the United 
States would be designated as a national heritage area under this bill. 
To make matters worse, the bill lacks sufficient protections to ensure 
that border security enforcement, drug interdiction and illegal 
immigration control is not restricted, is not hindered, and is not 
impeded by this legislation.
  At a time when our borderlands are far from secure, now is simply not 
the time to place yet another layer of Federal interference in these 
areas. It is critical that policies meant to conserve natural areas or 
to preserve or promote unique areas in our Nation do not become 
corridors for illegal activities that threaten the safety and security 
of United States citizens.
  This Congress must ensure that the responsibilities of the Border 
Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security are not undercut by the 
actions of another agency or Department. This is especially true with 
the Department of the Interior, which, Mr. Speaker, controls 40 percent 
of the lands along the southern border.
  In response to concerns raised about the lack of border security 
protections in this bill, the Democrat majority has used their power on 
the Rules Committee to automatically add meager text to this bill that 
falls far short of meaningful protection of our border security. This 
meager text simply states that no border enforcement authority is being 
modified, altered, or amended.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this leaves the barn door open to the reality that 
this heritage area designation could restrict, could hinder or impede 
border enforcement or security authority, including drug interdiction 
and illegal immigration control.
  It also completely fails to address the effects that other existing 
laws are having over the ability of the Border Patrol and the 
Department of Homeland Security to achieve operational control of the 
border.
  Instead of addressing the hurdles to border security that exist on 
public land, this bill, frankly, Mr. Speaker, exacerbates them.
  On the issue of property rights, this legislation does include 
language that expresses support for property protection. I will 
acknowledge that. However, the bill omits stronger protections that 
have been included in many of the other recently established heritage 
areas.
  What should be included in this bill is an assurance that the written 
consent of property owners be acquired before their property is 
included into the planning activities of the heritage area's management 
entities. Property owners should also be permitted the choice to opt 
out of the heritage area's boundaries if they choose.
  Now, as I noted, the bill does include language related to private 
property, and it does say that property owners are allowed to ``refrain 
from participation.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, nothing changes the fact that 
this bill places property owners within a new Federal designation.

                              {time}  1430

  It would allow a basis for ambitious Federal land managers to claim 
that now they have a mandate and millions of Federal dollars to 
interfere with local decisions affecting the private property of 
others.
  The reality is that there are likely a great number of property 
owners who have no idea that they are being included in this heritage 
area designation. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about over 
3,300 square miles. This House should insist that the weak and 
ineffectual provisions of the bill are strengthened with real and 
meaningful protections that protect all landowners with the choice to 
opt out of this designation.
  With deep concern, Mr. Speaker, across the country over the growing 
intrusion of the Federal Government into our daily lives, as evidenced 
by the debate on health care in this country and private choices of 
American citizens, great caution and care should be taken to protect 
the property rights of the thousands and thousands of property owners 
located within the over 3,300 square-mile heritage area that is being 
proposed by this legislation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, without sufficient protections for private property 
rights and the security of our southern border from drug smuggling and 
illegal immigration, I must oppose this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, 
Chairman Grijalva, for bringing this bill forward.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 324, the Santa Cruz Valley National 
Heritage Act. This bill would designate the area around the Santa Cruz 
River in southern Arizona as a national heritage area, from Marana in 
the north down to Patagonia in the south.
  By designating this area a national heritage area, the beautiful 
Santa Cruz Valley region will receive modest Federal support for 
promoting the area's history, cultural resources, and the indigenous 
wildlife habitat. This designation will be a valuable tool to promote 
economic development and tourism in a rural area, in an area that has 
been hard hit by the downturn in the economy.
  Just as important, we will be ensuring that visitors to the Santa 
Cruz Valley area can learn about this unique watershed that exists 
there and the diverse societies it has supported throughout hundreds of 
thousands of years, Native American tribes, descendants of Spanish 
ancestors, American pioneers, and now, members of a very diverse 
southern Arizona community.
  Unfortunately, this bill has been the subject of much misinformation. 
Contrary to what some have said, the Santa Cruz Valley does not 
jeopardize private property rights. In fact, the bill language 
explicitly protects property rights. The bill also protects public use 
of federally managed lands. Having participated in and led dozens of 
meetings in that area, hearing from constituencies from the business 
community to the environmental community, folks across a broad 
spectrum, there is very strong support for this legislation. This is 
why the bill will move forward in a way that is very positive for the 
people of southern Arizona. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 324 to 
support preserving Arizona's natural heritage.
  Again, I commend the chairman for bringing the bill forward.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington State and the ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, H.R. 324, because it weakens 
our border security and, therefore, endangers American lives.
  Arizona's border with Mexico has become the focal point of much of 
the illegal immigration, drug smuggling,

[[Page H9848]]

and related violence in America. This legislation will adversely impact 
the ability of DHS to secure part of the border. Designation as a 
national heritage area can prevent the Border Patrol's access to the 
land. It could prevent agents from using motorized vehicles or flying 
helicopters at low altitudes.
  Such policies encourage illegal immigration and drug smuggling. The 
smugglers and illegal immigrants know they have a better chance of 
eluding capture in these areas than in better enforced border areas.
  In addition, the bill will have the exact opposite effect of its 
stated purpose ``to conserve the region's heritage'' since smugglers 
and illegal immigrants often cause environmental damage. They abandon 
huge volumes of trash and debris. Preventing Border Patrol agents from 
accessing these areas will only allow this environmental destruction to 
continue.
  I understand that language has been added in an effort to address the 
concerns that have been raised, but the language is ambiguous and will 
invite lawsuits. It does not ensure that law enforcement officials will 
have access to the land and be able to secure the border.
  Mr. Speaker, for that reason, we should oppose this legislation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the full Resources Committee, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure that 
is sponsored by our good friend from Arizona, the chairman of the 
National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, Representative 
Grijalva. I also rise, as I have said, and as I have done time and time 
and time again, to point out that the claim that national heritage 
areas harm the rights of private property owners is utterly false. F-A-
L-S-E. Utterly false.
  As Chairman Grijalva has already pointed out, H.R. 324 contains the 
extensive property rights protections included in every heritage area 
which has passed the House in recent years under both Democratic and 
Republican majorities, and signed into law by both Republican and 
Democratic Presidents.
  So I would urge my colleagues to simply read the bill. On page 16, 
starting on line 4, it states, and I quote, ``Nothing,'' N-O-T-H-I-N-G, 
``in this Act (1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether 
public or private), including the right to refrain from participating 
in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the 
National Heritage Area.''
  Furthermore, the bill makes clear that private property owners may 
not be forced to provide access to the public or any government agency, 
and the bill does not alter or expand any existing land use or other 
regulatory authority. These provisions cover every possible contingency 
however farfetched that the minority may dream up.
  Let's look at the facts one more time. National heritage areas have 
been around for 25 years. Ronald Reagan signed the first one into law. 
Today we have 49 heritage areas in 29 States. Well over 50 million 
people live, work and recreate in a heritage area, 50 million people, 
and not one of them has been adversely affected. That's because 
heritage areas have no regulatory powers, no zoning authority, no power 
of eminent domain. Forty-nine heritage areas; 50 million people. That's 
almost my entire congressional district in a national heritage area.
  As a matter of fact, the entire State of Tennessee is a national 
heritage area. It is the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area. 
That is the entire State of Tennessee. Think about it.
  Last I heard, Dollywood was still booming. The Grand Ole Opry was 
still swinging. People were still engaging in commerce, holding homes, 
and contributing to the economy in Tennessee. I believe it is still on 
the map. And not one of them has had their private property rights 
diminished. And in all of these areas over all of these years, there 
has never been a single instance where an individual's right to private 
property was abridged.
  The Government Accountability Office interviewed property rights 
advocacy groups, and even they were unable to provide a single example. 
Not a single one. So this is the biggest red herring that I have ever 
come across.
  Nevertheless, we have included these property rights protections in 
H.R. 324 to make clear once again that national heritage areas do not 
threaten private property. At some point in order to retain even a 
shred of credibility, those who make these claims will either have to 
produce some evidence or admit their mistake.
  Seriously, folks, these allegations are beginning to wear thin. You 
have no evidence whatsoever.
  As to the pending measure, the Santa Cruz Valley is a treasure trove 
of natural and cultural resources and it would be shameful, simply 
shameful indeed, if we lost the opportunity to protect and preserve 
these resources based on irresponsible accusations that were proven 
false long, long, long ago. So I urge support for H.R. 324.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to another member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 324, the Santa Cruz Valley National 
Heritage Area.
  This 3,300 miles shares already overlapping jurisdictions between the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, 
the Department of Defense, and then there are some residents of the 
tribes, the Pascua and the Tohono people, as well.
  This area is a very high traffic volume for contraband, that being 
illegal drugs and illegal people, coming up through this corridor. I 
have traveled that corridor and visited as recently as last July, a 
little over a month and a half ago. We know that in some cases there 
have been national park lands marked off limits to the people of the 
United States because the illegal drug traffic and the litter has 
gotten so bad. It is too dangerous. They wouldn't take me there.
  We need to enforce the laws on our border and not complicate the 
overlapping jurisdictions that are there. We know that the Border 
Patrol has enough trouble trying to get to an operational control of 
the border without having to deal with an additional area that would be 
a national heritage area added on top of it.
  I am not sure about the State of Tennessee, but I would wonder if the 
TVA didn't come in there about the time Tennessee was declared a 
national heritage area, and it seems to me that the private sector was 
nudged out with that move, if my recollection of history is accurate.
  But the bill still lacks sufficient protections that would allow the 
free flow of our U.S. border security personnel for drug interdiction 
and illegal immigration enforcement.
  I would add also on the Coronado National Forest, that is in the 
center of this location and that is a direct conduit of illegal traffic 
coming through. So we need the jurisdiction to be such that it is free-
flowing, and we need to enforce our immigration laws. We need to 
provide operational control of the border.
  I would also point out that some of the difficulties we have in 
enforcing our immigration laws are also rooted in our inability to 
enforce even under current circumstances. And in this designation, I 
will be able to roll out my map and point to you, Mr. Speaker, the spot 
or locations, mountaintop after mountaintop, that are surveillance 
locations for the U.S. law enforcement that is trying to enforce 
illegal immigration and illegal drugs and the interdiction of same 
coming up through this corridor.
  This serves no real purpose to accomplish anything other than to draw 
down Federal moneys. And as I look through this bill, and I didn't get 
them all marked, but I see the word ``fund'' or ``funds'' or 
``resources'' being used over and over again.
  The attention I would draw to page 5 of the bill, line 12, specify 
existing and potential sources of funding or economic development 
strategies to interpret, fund, manage.
  And the same page of the bill, line 25, recommend fund, manage. And 
it goes on and on. As I go through the bill, it looks to me like it is 
a method to figure out how to drawn down Federal funds.
  Page 9 of the bill, line 5, enhance, interpret, fund, manage.

[[Page H9849]]

  Federal funds implementation, on page 10.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 
minute.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I would continue. On page 10, it references 
implementation. The local coordinating entity. It references use of 
Federal funds.

                              {time}  1445

  On page 13, the amounts leveraged with Federal funds is referenced 
again.
  On page 14, lines 19, 20 and 21, ``heritage planning; obtain funds 
from any source, including Federal programs,'' Mr. Speaker.
  Page 15, line 4, ``The local coordinating entity may not use Federal 
funds authorized under this act.'' So there is a prohibition there in 
reference to funds.
  Then with regard to the property rights component of this, we have 
seen this language before. ``Nothing abridges the rights of any 
property owner.'' That is kind of like the bill that came to the floor 
that said there are no earmarks in this bill, but there were thousands 
of them. To define it away doesn't mean it goes away.
  I rise in opposition to this, and I would urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 
324.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I would just extend congratulations to my 
colleague that just finished speaking. He caught us. This is a grant-
funded program. Heritage areas have been grant-funded programs for 25 
years, and I am glad that he was able to find that and point that out.
  Those of us that represent the border understand how painful, how 
divisive, and in some areas how devastating what is going on on the 
border is. Not only with unauthorized entries, but with the drug 
cartels coming one way, the gun runners going the other way sending 
guns to Mexico, we understand it is very painful, and the inactivity of 
this Congress to deal with that immigration issue has made that pain 
even more severe. But I think it is wrong to try to deal with an 
immigration issue that people are either afraid to deal with or exploit 
for political purposes and try to layer that on to a heritage area in 
the Santa Cruz Valley.
  I say that for far too long when we talk about the border region, it 
is always in a negative context. Always. And for too long, the people 
that live there, the people that raise their families there, the people 
that work there, the culture, the natural heritage that that area has 
is ignored, underfunded, and never really dealt with.
  This is an opportunity to do something along a border region that is 
not going to promote illegal crossings, that is not going to impede any 
law enforcement, including Border Patrol, from carrying out their duty 
and the application of the law; to do something for an area, a part of 
the United States of America, to do something for that area and say 
this is special, this is unique, we want to work with this area and 
show that uniqueness to the rest of the country.
  I think it is an opportunity to do more than just scapegoat and fear 
monger about border issues and do something positive, something 
necessary, and something that will tell the people that live there, 
like many of us do, you are worthy, you are in this country, you are 
United States citizens, and we acknowledge that because of the special 
unique heritage that you bring to this country.
  I think this is part of this discussion today, and we shouldn't let 
fear-
mongering and we shouldn't let scapegoating dominate the decision that 
needs to be made on this legislation, which is to approve it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, 
spoke at length about private property rights, and, as is not unusual, 
there are differing opinions of that.
  I have before me, Mr. Speaker, an article from the North Dakota Farm 
Bureau written by an individual, Mr. Harold Maxwell, who belongs to the 
Arizona Farm Bureau. He lives in Yuma. He was involved in a heritage 
designation in that area and he worked very hard to get private 
property rights protection included in that area of Arizona. But he has 
an article that I think spells out a lot of what we were talking about 
on our side of the need to further protect private property rights.

                Get Involved To Protect Property Rights

                          (By Harold Maxwell)

       Arizona, February 27, 2008--Recently, there has been 
     extensive discussion in Arizona about the proposed Little 
     Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area. As one of the 
     individuals that worked to resolve some of the issues that 
     arose from the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, I have a 
     unique view on the potential pitfalls and benefits of having 
     a National Heritage Area (NHA).
       First, let me state that the Yuma Crossing National 
     Heritage Area in its final form has been a benefit to our 
     community. That being said, two main issues exist that must 
     be addressed to ensure that a National Heritage Area truly is 
     a benefit to the local community, rather than a threat.
       First let's tackle the issue of individual property rights. 
     Proponents of another proposed NHA, the Little Colorado River 
     Valley National Heritage Area (LCRVNHA), cite two main 
     reasons why the local populous should not be concerned about 
     their property rights. The authors of the proposed Heritage 
     Area bill like to point to specific language in the bill that 
     they included in an attempt to afford property owners some 
     protection.
       They also like to cite a 2004 study by the GAO that found 
     no issues affecting property values or use. Let me address 
     both of those issues.
       Most legislation that designates a NHA and its subsequent 
     management plan includes language that prohibits the National 
     Park Service and/or the Heritage Board from using eminent 
     domain to acquire property. These management plans also 
     prohibit the use of the Federal funds obtained under the bill 
     from being used to acquire land. Unfortunately, these 
     ``protections'' are limited.
       The proposed LCRVNHA bill does not prohibit local 
     governments from changing zoning ordinances to conform to the 
     land use plans suggested by the Heritage Area Board. Local 
     governments find themselves in a difficult situation: either 
     adopt the new land use plans and put local property owners at 
     risk, or reject the land use plans and put their federal 
     funding at risk.
       This is not just idle conjecture. The Wheeling National 
     Heritage Area, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 
     Corridor, Essex National Heritage Area, Erie Canalway 
     National Heritage Corridor, and the Journey Through Hallowed 
     Ground NHAs are just a few examples of where local zoning was 
     changed to accommodate the management plan and those changes 
     did negatively impact local land owners' property rights.
       The other statement, that no federal funds obtained under 
     the bill can be used to acquire land, is also misleading. 
     This statement only applies to funds authorized by Congress 
     for a Heritage Area. Any matching funds that are raised are 
     free to be spent however the Heritage Area Board sees fit.
       This is not an insignificant problem. Heritage Areas on 
     average receive $8 in matching funds for every $1 that is 
     provided under the Heritage Area Act. Far and away the 
     majority of the funds generated by a Heritage Area are 
     eligible to purchase private property, or issue conservation 
     or historical easements. This is of particular significance 
     in Arizona, as only 13% of our land is privately owned. Any 
     acquisition that removes land from the tax rolls has the 
     potential for a huge negative impact on the amount of 
     property tax collected for our local communities.
       Even a more serious issue is the potential of a Heritage 
     Area to acquire land and then donate the land to the National 
     Park Service (NPS). This is what happened with the Shenandoah 
     Valley Battlefield Foundation. The Cedar Creek and Belle 
     Grove National Historical Park as it is now known was created 
     in 2003 by using a combination of donated lands and 
     conservation easements. Though National Heritage Areas do not 
     impose direct restrictions on property this is not the case 
     for the NPS. Federal law grants the National Parks the right 
     to impose specific land use restrictions on properties 
     adjacent to their boundaries.
       A March 2004 Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) study on 
     heritage areas is the Holy Grail for the National Heritage 
     Areas' claim that Heritage Areas do not impact property 
     rights. The GAO study claims to have found no issues 
     affecting property values or use. This has always been 
     perplexing to me as I know of three separate incidences 
     involving property rights and the Yuma Crossing National 
     Heritage Area.
       Having read the GAO report, I now believe that I can shed 
     some light on the subject. In regard to the Yuma events, the 
     GAO report was published in March 2004. The meeting held in 
     Yuma concerning property rights, with an attendance of more 
     than 600 Yuma County residents, was held the end of February 
     2004. One of the reasons that the GAO did not find any 
     incidents in Yuma was that the publication had gone to press 
     by the time of the Yuma meeting.
       It was also noted in the GAO's report that the survey was 
     limited to ``national groups'' and apparently did not include 
     a survey of individual property owners in the more than 
     three-dozen NHAs already in existence. It is also evident 
     that the GAO was only concerned about the immediate impact of 
     the bill and not the consequences from the land

[[Page H9850]]

     use planning that was encouraged by the National Heritage 
     Areas. When one reviews the literature looking for cases 
     where NHAs have influenced local zoning ordinances, it 
     becomes apparent even to the casual observer that NHAs can 
     and do have the ability to affect property rights.


                             Local control

       The second major concern involving National Heritage Areas 
     is local control. No clearer example of the benefit of local 
     control can be found than the Yuma experience. After the Yuma 
     Crossing Heritage Area Bill passed Congress designating 22-
     square miles of Yuma as a National Heritage Area, the local 
     agencies responsible for zoning started to interpret what it 
     meant to own property in and around the boundaries of the new 
     Heritage Area. It was these decisions made by bureaucrats 
     that caused the local population to become concerned about 
     their property rights. Local pressure was brought to bear on 
     the County Board of Supervisors and the City of Yuma to pass 
     resolutions instructing staff not to use the boundaries of 
     the New Heritage Area in determining zoning issues. This 
     solved the immediate issue, but the community realized that 
     the Yuma Crossing Heritage Act was a federal law that would 
     become more difficult to change as federal monies were 
     invested.
       We also understood that the local resolutions could be 
     lifted at some time in the future after the Heritage area was 
     well established. The local community decided, for their own 
     protection, to reduce the scope of the project back to what 
     was originally proposed: 4 square miles or 2,560 acres of 
     downtown Yuma and the Colorado River inside the levee system. 
     Even with strong local support it took Yuma over 3 years to 
     change the original legislation. The Yuma community now 
     believes that this new boundary is focused enough that even 
     if the local ordinances are changed the community will be 
     protected from their impact. One of the benefits of such a 
     focused area is that we have enough money to effect change. 
     If one assumes that their Heritage Area will get all of the 
     potential $10 million from the federal government, and no 
     project has, then the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area 
     has the potential of receiving a little more than $3,900 per 
     acre for our project, as compared to the $710 per acre it 
     could have received under the original scope.
       The proposed Little Colorado River Valley National Heritage 
     Area is too large. At over 23,000 square miles or 14,720,000 
     acres, it falls into the trap that some of the other Heritage 
     Areas have fallen into: On a per acre basis the Little 
     Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area will at a 
     maximum receive only 68 cents per acre under the bill. When a 
     Heritage area is too large the funds are insufficient to get 
     the project up and running on a self-sustaining basis. One of 
     the goals for all Heritage areas is to be self-sustaining at 
     the sunset of their authorization bill in 15 years.
       Yuma learned that local control is critical. When issues 
     arose it was relatively easy to convince our County Board of 
     Supervisors and the Yuma City Council to pass resolutions 
     protecting our citizens. The proposed Little Colorado River 
     Valley National Heritage Area covers parts of four states, 
     seven Native American Nations, and 27 counties. How do you 
     have local control in such a large entity? The only effective 
     control is on a county, sovereign nation, or city basis. When 
     a project covers so many different governing agencies the 
     only way for the project to work is for the local governments 
     to cede local control to the Heritage Area. After having 
     looked at some of the major pitfalls with the Little 
     Colorado River Valley Heritage Area, these are the changes 
     I would recommend in the plan if your community chooses to 
     go forward.
       First, maintain local control. One 23,000 square mile 
     heritage area managed out of Tucson with some local people 
     appointed to the board is not local control. The Little 
     Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area includes parts 
     of 4 states, 7 Native American nations, and 27 counties. At 
     the very least there should be 34 separate Heritage Areas 
     divided along county and Native American nation lines. This 
     would give control down to the county or nation level. A side 
     benefit would be that each heritage area would be eligible 
     for $10 million in government funds on their own. That is a 
     potential of $340 million dollars in federal funds vs. the 
     current proposal of $10 million. Learn from the Yuma 
     experience. If Yuma reduced the size of its Heritage Area 
     from 22 square miles to 4 square miles due to concerns over 
     property rights, one can only imagine the potential issues 
     with the 23,000 square mile Heritage Area that is being 
     proposed.
       Secondly, be very focused. One of the ways that you can 
     protect yourselves against property rights abuse is to make 
     certain that the areas that are included are well defined and 
     include cultural, historical and environmental areas that can 
     be developed into self sustaining economic zones. Vast 
     expanses of the current proposal would not fit these 
     criteria. Heritage Areas are intended to be self-sustaining 
     after the first 15 years of existence.
       Finally, the legislation authorizing the Heritage Area 
     should prohibit the Heritage Area from using any of the funds 
     raised to buy private property or to purchase any form of 
     easement (conservation, historical etc.). This would ensure 
     that private property stays on the tax rolls and is not 
     retired. It also would ensure that land is not ``donated'' by 
     the Heritage Area to create a new or expanded National Park.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished 
ranking member on the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Public Lands, and I ask unanimous consent that he control 
the time after he uses his time for his debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think a couple of the speakers have given what is one of the crux 
problems, not of this, the Santa Cruz Heritage Area, but of the overall 
issue itself. The gentleman from Arizona, who does a good job in 
representing his constituents, did say there are 49 heritage areas that 
have been heritage areas for the last 25 years, and therein is the 
problem.
  When Mo Udall was chairman of that committee and Bruce Vento was the 
subcommittee chairman, that is the first time this concept of a 
heritage area was introduced. The concept was going to be that this was 
start-up money, and then the heritage areas would be on their own. 
Bruce Vento did say, 10 years and we are out of there. This was never 
supposed to be a 25-year program for any of these areas.
  The problem is that when the 10 years are up, we keep extending the 
time limit on these areas and we keep extending the life and giving 
more and more money to these areas. In fact, it has become such a part 
that there is a cottage industry that has developed going out to areas 
to train them on how they can become and stay a heritage area to get 
more and more funding. It violates the very concept of why heritage 
areas were there in the first place.
  This year alone we have added nine new heritage areas. This bill 
itself has $15 million, which is a 50 percent increase on what the 
majority of heritage areas do receive.
  The problem is very simple: This heritage area is to try to expand 
its tourism and other elements, and other areas pay for it. So if you 
are in tourist area A, you are now being taxed and your money will go 
to promote tourism in area B. And if that was simply a start-up fund, 
simply to get them started, none of us really have objections to that. 
But it isn't. It is becoming perpetual as we extend and extend and 
spend and spend more and more on these elements.
  This particular heritage area in front of us covers 3,300 square 
miles, private and public land. When Republicans were in charge of this 
committee, as a standard we always included language in heritage area 
legislation that gave property owners the ability to opt out of 
boundaries. It was a compromise. It was weak, but at least it was 
there.
  What we are trying to say in that is that people should have a voice 
in what is done to them. People should be given choices and options. 
And we should not refrain from doing that. We should not have the 
government setting what the standard is, what the boundary is, what the 
requirement is. And there are instances when outside groups have tried 
to pressure local zoning entities because of these boundaries.
  It is not right that people should be locked inside a boundary, 
oftentimes with little prior knowledge of what is actually happening, 
because boundaries do have consequences. Otherwise, why have these 
boundaries?
  If these heritage areas are so innocuous, there is no reason to lock 
an owner in. Give them the opportunity for full information so they can 
make decisions and, again, give them the choices of what they wish to 
do. That is how we should be treating individuals and property owners.
  This area is one that is heavily traveled with narcotic trafficking, 
human trafficking, and now I appreciate the fact that the gentleman 
from Arizona and the Rules Committee in a self-executing rule did give 
some modicum of protection on these areas.
  As late as last July we attempted in committee to try and put 
language similar to this to give some protection

[[Page H9851]]

in these areas. Rejected--not on a partisan vote, because several of 
the opposition side actually did vote with us, but nonetheless rejected 
in committee. I am proud of Representative Grijalva for now including 
this language in this bill, but it could be better, and that is the 
issue before us.
  Less than a week ago, the GAO revealed that secure border initiatives 
are behind schedule, are years behind schedule, because of 
environmental delays. That simply means there are people out there 
within the National Park Service that blame the Border Patrol for 
environmental damage.
  The Park Service's own admission is that it takes 6 months to 
complete documents necessary to place critical border protection 
technologies, like observation towers. There was one tower stopped on 
the border areas until they could prove in some kind of scientific 
study that the Sonoran pronghorn deer would leave that area of their 
own volition and would not be scared by these towers. I am sorry, that 
is ridiculous, but that is the reality of why we are here and the 
reality of what is happening.
  So there are some concerns with this area. The majority did put 
language in there to try and protect border security and the border 
areas, and I am thankful for that and I applaud you for doing that, but 
you could have taken a big step further.
  In this bill you did put some language in there to try and protect 
personal property, but you could have gone further just simply to say 
people should have the choice and the option of what they are doing. 
And once again we have a problem of heritage areas, supposed to be 
temporary, supposed to be start-up, staying year after year after year, 
getting fund after fund after fund of public money from point A to fund 
the exact thing that is happening in point B in competition with point 
A.
  We have to rethink this thing, which is indeed what the Park Service 
asked us to do several years ago, to not produce anymore of these 
heritage areas until we come up with a comprehensive plan of how we are 
going to function with these heritage areas.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republic will not falter if 
this bill passes, but it could have been much, much better, and it 
could have done much more to protect not only our border security but 
also the rights of individuals than what we are doing here. There are 
some good steps forward, I admit, but we have a long, long way to go. 
Once again, we still have the problem of what to do with heritage areas 
that are supposed to be temporary and simply will not go away.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Arizona if he has any 
more speakers?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. No.
  Mr. BISHOP. In that situation, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in summary, I think H.R. 324 is a good 
piece of legislation. When the heritage areas were formed 25 years ago, 
I don't believe Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, knew 
how successful they were going to be, how popular they were going to 
be, how much private money that these initiatives would leverage in 
communities, and, because of that, it continues to be popular with 
Members of both sides of the aisle.
  The other issue is, as we go through this legislation and debate what 
is in there or not, I don't believe that there is a level of 
appeasement that we can put into this legislation that would garner the 
support from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  It is a good piece of legislation. I consider this not only good for 
the region that I represent, but beginning the process of on-the-border 
lands dealing with issues comprehensively. One of those issues is to 
recognize the richness, the diversity and the history of the region.
  The other area that I want to talk about briefly is the issue of 
border enforcement. The problems along the border with enforcement are 
not due to the creation of heritage areas. They are not the reason that 
we have unauthorized crossings. They are not the reason that we have 
drug cartels. They are not the reason that we have organized gun 
runners from the United States. Those are not the reasons. Heritage 
areas are not to blame for that horrible situation. And the inability 
of Homeland Security over the last 5 years to effectively put their 
technology to work, to effectively do the kind of border security 
initiatives that they needed, environmental issues are not the cause of 
that.

                              {time}  1500

  I would say ineptitude, inefficiencies and waste of money were the 
reasons that that didn't get done. This bill solves a problem. It 
solves a problem of a region badly needing a shot in the arm, an 
acknowledgement that it is and continues to be a valued part of this 
great Nation of ours.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and ask that the legislation be 
supported.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 760, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Bishop of Utah moves to recommit the bill H.R. 324 to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       In section 5(c)(1) of the bill, insert ``, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after 
     ``Secretary''.
       In section 8(c) of the bill, amend paragraph (4) to read as 
     follows:
       (4) modifies, restricts, impedes, hinders, or supplants any 
     border enforcement or security authority, including drug 
     interdiction and illegal immigration control.
       In section 9 of the bill, insert ``(a) Clarification.--'' 
     before ``Nothing''.
       At the end of section 9 of the bill, add the following:
       (b) Private Property Owner Protection.--
       (1) No privately owned property shall be preserved, 
     conserved, or promoted by the management plan for the 
     National Heritage Area until the owner of that private 
     property has been notified in writing by the management 
     entity and has given written consent for such preservation, 
     conservation, or promotion to the management entity.
       (2) Any owner of private property included within the 
     boundary of the National Heritage Area shall have their 
     property immediately removed from within the boundary by 
     submitting a written request to the management entity.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 13. BORDER SECURITY.

       Nothing in this Act may impede, prohibit, or restrict 
     activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security to achieve 
     operational control (as defined under Public Law 109-367) 
     within the National Heritage Area.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
  As I said, this bill could definitely be improved, and we are 
presenting some amendments in here that take the bill and make it a 
much better, stronger, significant bill.
  I said in the original remarks that of course we have problems with 
heritage areas that simply will not go away. Even though they were 
supposed to be around for only 10 years, they keep living and living 
and consuming more and more funds. Having said that, I could still be 
supportive of this amendment if there were some specific guarantees 
placed in there for those specific issues that we have addressed in the 
past that actually could be a way we can move forward with other bills 
of a similar ilk.

[[Page H9852]]

  Specifically in there, it deals with the idea of property rights. The 
gentleman from Arizona did sponsor legislation that dealt with the Yuma 
Crossing National Heritage Area. This was an area created in the year 
2000 and, according to the Arizona Farm Bureau, was much larger than 
local farmers were expecting. Further exacerbating the problem, local 
zoning bureaucrats began to use the heritage area boundaries in 
planning. The problem is, once established, those entities had no 
recourse as private property owners to exempt themselves unless you 
came to Congress and had Congress adjust the boundaries. The gentleman 
from Arizona did that. We passed a law that shrunk the size of those 
areas down. That is a cumbersome and silly process to go through when 
all we need to do is give people the opportunity of being informed and 
make decisions for themselves so they can remove themselves when they 
wish to. That is what this amendment does. It asks the properties 
owners, before being included, to give their consent to be included in 
this new entity.
  Now some will say, well, that's burdensome and difficult. It's hard 
to find all the property owners in an area. Yet when tax time comes, 
the government entities have an easy time finding all the property 
owners in an area. We could do the same thing, because the matter is 
not how efficient it is or how easy it is. The matter should be that 
private property rights are not a burden to government, and they should 
be respected in every way that is possible, especially in these areas 
where the National Park Service, who will be administering this, does 
not have a celebrated history of respecting private property rights and 
finding unique ways of having willing sellers.
  This language that we are proposing should become the standard 
template for all legislation that deals with heritage areas and how we 
handle private property rights within those. This bill draws boundaries 
on a map. It covers and surrounds private property owners and then 
gives them no real recourse to remove themselves from those boundaries. 
Even if it says they don't have to participate, that is not the same 
thing, and it does have consequences. When it comes to border security, 
this bill is a perfect effort for us to move forward in some specific 
way.
  Now, as I said, I commend the gentleman for actually adding some 
language that we have been trying to add to these types of bills in 
committee. But the language here is not necessarily enough. The sad 
situation that we find--not because of this bill, nor will it be solved 
because of this bill unless we add this particular language--is that 
the Border Patrol finds itself in a position of subservience to the 
National Park Service. I don't think Americans really know that when a 
Border Patrol agent crosses into a national park, he has to get out of 
his car, park it and walk. I don't think they realize that the Border 
Patrol has to consult with the National Park Service before they can 
put up an antenna on that border. Their amendment gets some language in 
there to try to not impede or prohibit. But what we also put in this 
amendment is language that says that nothing will happen that will 
hinder or restrict our homeland security on border areas. This is a 
perfect opportunity to do so. It is there.
  This amendment, for the first time, says that when those land use 
plans--and the bulk of the border in which the drug traffic and human 
traffic is coming are on public lands--it says that Homeland Security 
must be consulted in coming up with the land use plans. So they are an 
equal partner because this is significant. Right now they are not. This 
amendment is going to move us forward so that Homeland Security will 
not be impeded in their element. They will not have to wait to put up 
surveillance to see if a particular sheep will, on its own volition, 
move or not move. That is ridiculous, but that is what we are trying to 
do with this amendment.

  Once again, this amendment takes the bill and improves it, which is 
why I'm proud of this amendment. This amendment clearly states what 
property rights are and which property owners may be in a heritage area 
which, as we have noted, does not go away in 10 years but tends to last 
on and on and on.
  This amendment clearly gives Homeland Security, for the first time, a 
right to be an equal player in the decision of how to handle these 
lands, and this also gives us the right to make sure that nothing 
hinders or restricts what we do on the border.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I have come to accept the fact that redundancy is part of the process 
here that we go through. So in accepting that reality, let me just 
state one more time, nowhere in this legislation is there an 
infringement, a taking of private property rights. Nowhere.
  The motion asks that close to a quarter of a million property owners, 
if not more, be notified and asked to either be part of or not be part 
of this heritage area. That process would create a Swiss cheese 
designation for that area; and in the previous 49, there is not one 
incident where a private property owner has been forced, coerced into 
being part of or permitting their private property to be used as a 
designation. That is already in the legislation.
  With regard to the issue of border enforcement, again, I asked the 
Rules Committee to insert that so there would be clarification that the 
activities of Homeland Security, plus all other local enforcement--the 
sheriffs, local police, tribal police, et cetera--that their ability to 
carry out their mission and enforce the law was part and parcel and 
that the heritage area in no way would impinge, infringe or restrict 
that ability. That is already in the legislation.
  So why the motion to recommit? I think it's just part of a very 
cynical exploitation of a very, very divisive issue in this country, 
the issue of immigration and the issue of unauthorized people in this 
country. The heritage area is not responsible for that situation. It 
has been the inability of this Congress to come to grips with the 
situation that has aggravated and made it worse. And as a person who 
represents the border and has to deal with constituents that are 
affected by this decision every day, the lack of attention, serious, 
rational, mature attention to this issue, rather than exploitation of 
this issue, is what they're asking this Congress to do. The heritage 
area has nothing to do with how we're going to resolve this issue. The 
heritage area, for once, is an acknowledgement of a part of this 
country that for too long and, most recently, in a very cynical way has 
been exploited both as a region and the people who live there. We are 
saying, this heritage area is your acknowledgement that you're part and 
parcel of this country.
  I ask that the motion to recommit be defeated.
  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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 324, if ordered, and suspension of 
the rules with regard to H. Res. 696, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259, 
nays 167, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 727]

                               YEAS--259

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp

[[Page H9853]]


     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Himes
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--167

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Barrett (SC)
     Capuano
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Granger
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1550

  Messrs. ACKERMAN, SCHRADER, LEVIN, SCOTT of Georgia, ELLISON, 
SARBANES, COHEN, LANGEVIN, TONKO and Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ROE of Tennessee, KISSELL, Mrs. MYRICK, Messrs. KING of New 
York, ROSKAM, BILIRAKIS, KAGEN, HODES, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Messrs. 
SESTAK, BOSWELL, BOREN, LYNCH, CHILDERS, KLEIN of Florida, MAFFEI, 
HOLDEN, MASSA, COSTELLO, DeFAZIO, MATHESON, Ms. TITUS, Ms. RICHARDSON, 
Mr. KANJORSKI, Mrs. HALVORSON, Messrs. PATRICK J. MURPHY of 
Pennsylvania, DRIEHAUS, CHANDLER, MEEK of Florida, LIPINSKI, CUELLAR, 
DAVIS of Tennessee, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Messrs. GORDON of Tennessee, 
TANNER, BISHOP of Georgia, PETERSON, BOYD, ROSS, KIND, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK 
of Arizona, Messrs. ETHERIDGE, EDWARDS of Texas, BOUCHER, Ms. SCHWARTZ, 
Ms. KOSMAS, Ms. BERKLEY, Messrs. ISRAEL, BISHOP of New York, COSTA, 
SKELTON, CARDOZA, BAIRD, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Ms. HARMAN 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House 
in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 324, back to the 
House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Grijalva:
       In section 5(c)(1) of the bill, insert ``, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after 
     ``Secretary''.
       In section 8(c) of the bill, amend paragraph (4) to read as 
     follows:
       (4) modifies, restricts, impedes, hinders, or supplants any 
     border enforcement or security authority, including drug 
     interdiction and illegal immigration control.
       In section 9 of the bill, insert ``(a) Clarification.--'' 
     before ``Nothing''.
       At the end of section 9 of the bill, add the following:
       (b) Private Property Owner Protection.--
       (1) No privately owned property shall be preserved, 
     conserved, or promoted by the management plan for the 
     National Heritage Area until the owner of that private 
     property has been notified in writing by the management 
     entity and has given written consent for such preservation, 
     conservation, or promotion to the management entity.
       (2) Any owner of private property included within the 
     boundary of the National Heritage Area shall have their 
     property immediately removed from within the boundary by 
     submitting a written request to the management entity.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 13. BORDER SECURITY.

       Nothing in this Act may impede, prohibit, or restrict 
     activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security to achieve 
     operational control (as defined under Public Law 109-367) 
     within the National Heritage Area.

  Mr. GRIJALVA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 142, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 728]

                               AYES--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper

[[Page H9854]]


     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     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.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--142

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett (SC)
     Capuano
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doyle
     Granger
     Schock
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1559

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

                          ____________________