[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H149-H151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CASTLE NUGENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2010
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site
at St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3726
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Castle Nugent National
Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the
Castle Nugent National Historic Site established in section
3.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. CASTLE NUGENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the
National Park System the Castle Nugent National Historic Site
on the Island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, in order to
preserve, protect, and interpret, for the benefit of present
and future generations, a Caribbean cultural landscape that
spans more than 300 years of agricultural use, significant
archeological resources, mangrove forests, endangered sea
turtle nesting beaches, an extensive barrier coral reef
system, and other outstanding natural features.
(b) Boundaries.--The historic site consists of the
approximately 2,900 acres of land extending from Lowrys Hill
and Laprey Valley to the Caribbean Sea and from Manchenil Bay
to Great Pond, along with associated submerged lands to the
three-mile territorial limit, as generally depicted on the
map titled ``Castle Nugent National Historic Site Proposed
Boundary Map'', numbered T22/100,447, and dated October 2009.
(c) Map Availability.--The map referred to in subsection
(b) shall be on file and available for public inspection in
the appropriate offices of the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
(d) Acquisition of Land.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary is authorized to acquire lands and interests in
lands within the boundaries of the historic site by donation,
purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
(2) U.S. virgin island lands.--The Secretary is authorized
to acquire lands and interests in lands owned by the U.S.
Virgin Islands or any political subdivision thereof only by
donation or exchange.
SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the
historic site in accordance with this Act and with laws
generally applicable to units of the National Park System,
including--
(1) the National Park Service Organic Act (39 Stat. 535; 16
U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
(2) the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461
et seq.).
(b) Shared Resources.--To the greatest extent practicable,
the Secretary shall use the resources of other sites
administered by the National Park Service on the Island of
St. Croix to administer the historic site.
(c) Continued Use.--In order to maintain an important
feature of the cultural landscape of the historic site, the
Secretary may lease to the University of the Virgin Islands
certain lands within the boundary of the historic site for
the purpose of continuing the university's operation breeding
Senepol cattle, a breed developed on St. Croix. A lease under
this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as
the Secretary considers appropriate, including those
necessary to protect the values of the historic site.
(d) Management Plan.--Not later than three years after
funds are made available for this subsection, the Secretary
shall prepare a general management plan for the historic
site.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
General Leave
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Guam?
There was no objection.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3726, sponsored by my good friend and
colleague from the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen, establishes the
Castle Nugent National Historic Site as a new unit of the National Park
System on the island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands.
The lands to be included in this new historic site represent the
largest undeveloped natural area remaining on the island, and there is
very strong local support for protecting it as parkland for future
generations.
The new park, Mr. Speaker, encompasses about 11,500 acres, three-
quarters of which are submerged lands containing one of the largest and
healthiest coral reef systems in the region. The National Park Service
has studied the site and testified that it meets their criteria for
addition to the system.
Congresswoman Christensen is to be commended for her commitment to
preserving the unique history and the culture of the beautiful island
of St. Croix. So we urge our colleagues to support passage of H.R.
3726.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have concerns with H.R. 3726. As of today, the National Park
Service has yet to complete the congressionally authorized study of
this proposal. In fact, the agency has asked that we defer
consideration until the study is completed.
These studies are not without cost in both personnel and funds, and
they take several years to complete and can drain as much as $500,000
from the Park Service budget. What use are these feasibility studies if
we simply choose to ignore them, or, in this case, rush to pass
legislation before the study can be finalized? Typically, these studies
contain information that could be useful in crafting better
legislation.
[[Page H150]]
For example, it would be nice to know what process the National Park
Service went through to consult with all private property owners who
may be harmed or impacted by this designation. The National Park
Service testified that the cost to acquire the private property to
establish this park could be as much as $50 million, in addition to
nearly $1 million a year to operate the park.
{time} 1415
Most of us are aware of the estimated $9 billion in maintenance
backlog created currently with the National Park Service. Consequently,
it becomes very difficult to justify why additional land acquisition is
advisable at this particular time. How do we explain to taxpayers that,
while unemployment soars, their government is conspiring to buy beach-
front property in the Caribbean? Is adding these luxurious 2,900 acres
to the Federal land inventory the priority of this particular Congress?
Nearly every acre of the dry land that is to be acquired is privately
owned. It's our understanding the majority of this land is owned by one
family. According to testimony heard by the Committee on Natural
Resources, this family is supportive of the proposal and even initiated
this process. We heard that it is their desire that this land not be
developed, but be preserved in its current condition. It seems to me
that they are in a perfect position to accomplish that goal as
landowners. May I suggest that they also possess the power to determine
the future of the property without any interference of Congress.
In addition, to complicate the issue further, sources within the Park
Service have told us that there is discord within the family itself
over whether this designation is indeed in the family's best interest.
Apart from this family, we have heard nothing from the other property
owners affected by this bill, both on land and in the water. Is it fair
for us in Washington, D.C., to place them in a restrictive designation
without their consent and also not knowing whether the consent exists
or not?
It is not only these 2,900 acres of dry land that's affected by this
legislation. In addition, this bill includes the park-associated
submerged lands out to the 3-mile territorial limit of the Virgin
Islands. This could mean that fishing in the area would be prohibited,
just as it is at the Virgin Islands National Park that surrounds two-
thirds of the island of St. John.
I hope that this will not impact struggling fishermen, but it is a
possibility that deserves attention and has yet to be addressed, but
would have, had the feasibility study been completed.
Again, these are questions that need to be answered, and I would hope
that some of them will be answered in the final study when it is
finally signed by Secretary Salazar. If this legislation does move
forward today, I hope the current landowners and their descendents are
aware that the National Park Service will now be their zoning board.
I would also like to note that there is no ``willing seller''
provision in this legislation. While ``willing seller'' provisions are
minimum at best protections, at least with this language Congress is on
record that landowners should not be hounded or harassed into selling
their land to the National Park Service.
I cannot in good conscience support this legislation, yet that does
not guarantee the right of private property owners. Our constituents
deserve better than that. If the intent of this proposal is to preserve
historic landscapes, certainly that can be done locally without Federal
funds, interference, or bureaucratic red tape.
So I urge my colleagues to demonstrate some fiscal responsibility and
demand respect for property rights that are not yet in this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding.
Today, I rise to speak on behalf of H.R. 3726, a bill that I
introduced to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site on St.
Croix, in my district in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The introduction of
this bill continues an effort started in 2006 to build upon that great
precedent set by our Forefathers when Yellowstone in Wyoming became the
first national park. The establishment of Castle Nugent National
Historic Site would provide an excellent opportunity to preserve a very
special and unique landscape for the people of St. Croix and visitors
to the islands for generations to come.
H.R. 3726 calls for the preservation of 2,900 acres, which include a
Caribbean dry forest, pristine coastal barrier coral reef system, and a
pre-Columbian, as well as a post-European, settlement. The property has
a long agricultural history dating back to the 1730s, when the Danish
estate house, now listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
was constructed. The farm is one of the last working cattle ranches on
St. Croix and one of the ranches instrumental in the development and
exportation of Senepol cattle throughout the Caribbean and the rest of
the world.
H.R. 3726 would ensure the continued rearing of Senepol cattle with a
provision that guarantees a continued relationship with the University
of the Virgin Islands to support ongoing scientific research. In
addition to guaranteeing the protection of one of the most ecologically
sensitive areas on the island, H.R. 3726 would also preserve a rich
part of our historic and cultural past by preserving the archaeological
remains of the indigenous inhabitants of St. Croix.
The family which owns the majority of this property has been
incredibly patient--the pressure to sell their land to developers has
been overwhelming--and yet they have continued to try to do what they
feel, and I agree, is best for all concerned. There is no intent here
to interfere with privately held property. The sole purpose of this
bill is to protect and preserve the historic, cultural, and
environmental assets and the opportunity for the people of the Virgin
Islands as well as their fellow Americans to continue to enjoy the area
and to preserve it for future generations.
Even the person who purchased about 400 acres of this property a few
years back is on record in support of preserving this area. Longtime
neighbors of Castle Nugent support the bill. Both the Bush and Obama
administrations have supported this designation every step of the way.
The current administration has testified that the study is completed
and that it fully supports the designation that we're seeking. The
designation is supported by my constituents, including some of those
who originally questioned the expansion of the park. As far as I'm
aware, no one is challenging the conclusion of the study or the wisdom
of preserving the area.
There's no substantive reason to oppose the legislation. The bill
contains no intergovernmental mandates, as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act; would impose no cost on State, local, or tribal
governments; and would impose no private sector mandates either, as
defined in the UMRA. This is a beautiful and important cultural and
natural resource that is in danger of being lost to the Nation's public
forever. If we don't move forward, there's a real risk that when the
study is formally transmitted to Congress, supporting the designation,
the land will already have been sold and condominium owners will be the
only people who ever get to visit the area.
At this time, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Chairman
Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva for their support in ushering
this bill through the Resources Committee. I'd also like to thank the
numerous community members who wrote in support of this bill, including
our national park superintendent, Mr. Joel Tutein; Mr. Olasee Davis,
who traveled from the Virgin Islands to testify in favor of the bill;
the Gasperi family, and to thank them again for their patience in
holding out for this day; and the Trust for Public Lands, who's given
them their support.
I just wanted to add a few other things. While it would be ideal to
wait until spring when the study would be formally transmitted to
Congress, there are certain examples where this committee and the
Congress have moved forward with designations before studies were
completed or, in some cases, without studies at all. I'd just like to
mention two examples. The legislation designating President Reagan's
boyhood home in Illinois and the
[[Page H151]]
Oklahoma City Memorial were enacted without studies at all. Both were
sponsored by Members from the other side of the aisle. So precedent has
been set for bills to be acted on prior to the study being completed or
even without studies.
In addition, on November 17, I want to just remind my colleagues that
the National Park Service testified in the committee to the fact that
Castle Nugent has met their criteria for suitability and national
significance. We're confident in the National Park Service's testimony
and that the final opinion will reflect what was testified to; but it
is necessary for us to act expediently, as there is risk of losing the
property if we don't move quickly.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In closing, whether this cattle ranch becomes
part of our national inventory or not may indeed be a good idea. But
one of the things I think we are saying right now is the scope these
processes have to go through--and the process does become important.
Poor process produces poor policy. What we are arguing in this
particular case is if we should allow the process to go through to its
completion. There are questions that still have to be asked that yet
have a quantified answer to them. Neighbors may be in support, but we
want those things quantified, which should be part of the process that
is there.
There should be private property rights in this particular document
for the protection of private property owners, and that should be
boilerplate language we add in all legislation--not just this, but the
rest that comes through. The question that we should be asking, which
is what the study should be asking as well, is not necessarily do we go
forth in this particular one but should we look at this as the only way
of preserving or moving forward on this cattle ranch in the future? Is
this indeed the best way? Are there other concepts that could be used?
And should this be the $50 million budget priority of this particular
Congress? Those are the types of questions that should have been
answered in the committee before this bill moved forward, and that's
what we asked in committee and we're asking again on the floor.
This may indeed be the proper use of turning this former cattle ranch
into a national asset, but there are still questions that should have
been asked in a proper process to make sure that this is the right
policy at this particular time. And that's why we have objections to
this particular bill, not necessarily the substance of it, but the
manner and mechanism of what we are doing, because there are still too
many unanswered questions.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I again urge the Members to support the
bill, H.R. 3726, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3726, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. 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 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________