[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H393-H400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3726, CASTLE NUGENT NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2010 AND H.R. 4474, IDAHO WILDERNESS
WATER FACILITIES ACT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1038
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in
[[Page H394]]
the House the bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent
National Historic Site at St. Croix, United States Virgin
Islands, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural
Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4474) to
authorize the continued use of certain water diversions
located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The gentleman from
Colorado is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. POLIS. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1038.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1038 is a single rule that provides for
separate consideration of two measures. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site
Establishment Act, and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities
Act.
{time} 1045
Each bill has 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the
Committee on Natural Resources. The rule also allows a motion to
recommit with or without instructions for each of the two bills.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site
Establishment Act of 2010, and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water
Facilities Act, are 2 pieces of legislation that represent years of
hard work by their sponsors and the local communities that are at the
heart of both bills. H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic
Site Establishment Act of 2010, introduced by Congresswoman Donna
Christensen, will add a new treasure to our Nation's National Park
System. From the early times of Yosemite and Yellowstone to the
national monuments right here in Washington, D.C., our country has had
the foresight to preserve the tangible places which house our Nation's
character, identity and history. Today, the Castle Nugent National
Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 does the same for the history
and identity of a unique place in our country, the U.S. Virgin Islands.
This area of St. Croix holds a great number of historical remnants,
not only from the colonial age, when the West Indies played a prominent
role in shaping world history, but also pre-Columbian archeological
sites, continuing a proud and long tradition of preserving the remnants
and artifacts of our first nations in this hemisphere begun by the Park
Service in my State of Colorado with Mesa Verde National Park. Largely
of Danish origin, the colonial history of St. Croix preserved at Castle
Nugent is among the oldest in the West Indies. This national historic
site preserves much more than history. It also preserves a great deal
of natural habitat. The site includes sensitive sea turtle nesting
areas and habitat, healthy and increasingly scarce coral reefs, and a
lagoon that provides habitat to a wealth of wildlife and plants.
For any proposed National Park System addition, the first step is to
have the Park Service complete a study of the proposed addition, and to
ensure that the proposed addition does, in fact, deserve to be included
among the treasures of our Nation that the Park System includes. The
National Park Service concurred, and found that Castle Nugent area does
in fact deserve to be included as a part of our Nation's national
parks. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4474, the
Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act, a bill that has undoubtedly been
the focus of a great deal of work by its key sponsors, Congressman
Minnick of Idaho and Congressman Simpson.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 provided our Nation with a tool to
preserve its last remaining wild places untrammeled by man. Like my
home State of Colorado, Idaho's sweeping beauty, rugged mountains,
wildlife, and waterways form the foundation of our country's cultural
identity and our civic pride. The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area was
created in 1946 as one of our country's first wilderness areas and has
preserved the wild nature of a truly breathtaking landscape. Adjoining
the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area is the Frank Church River of No
Return Wilderness area designated in 1980. Predating the existence of
these two wilderness areas, private land owners had received permits to
maintain and repair water diversions that existed on National Forest
Service lands. Many of these permits have since expired, leaving those
who own the water diversions unable to mechanically maintain their
water systems since they're within designated wilderness areas.
H.R. 4474 would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to
issue special use authorization to owners of these water storage
transport or diversion facilities to allow for their continued
maintenance of their water facilities, allowing local water rights and
ensuring that they continue to access their water.
Mr. Speaker, this rule and both these bills are straightforward and
provide a great deal of benefit, not only to our country, but also to
the communities and residents who are most directly involved and
impacted. I urge passage of the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule, yet another
closed rule before the Congress, and I object to the process by which
this bill was brought to the floor. Last week, both of the bills we're
discussing today under this rule failed to get the two-thirds vote in
this body. Instead of working together to resolve the differences with
the bills between the leadership, my friends on the other side of the
aisle, the majority, simply rescheduled them for floor action today
with no Republican input.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we're going to debate these bills, and once
again, the Democrat leadership's priorities in this Congress--let's be
honest about that--it's about spending money. Spending money, Mr.
Speaker, is what this Democrat leadership priority is all about.
However, tonight our body will welcome the President of the United
States. And the President will be here for the State of the Union, and
we will be able to hear from the President about his priorities and
about--I think we will hear about how he wants us to work together,
work together. Ideas from both sides.
Hey, I get it. The Republican Party is not in the majority. The
American people get that. We're in the middle of Democrat majorities
that have been in place for 3 years now. And I suspect we'll hear from
the President about how important it is to work together and use
bipartisan measures to reconcile our differences for the American
people so that they can have confidence in Congress, our ability to
work together on big issues and small issues, set priorities that the
American people can understand.
Yet, Democrat leadership just last week took down the Idaho
Wilderness bill and then placed it on the calendar for today with the
exact same language, but they removed my colleague, a Republican, Dr.
Mike Simpson, as sponsor of the bill and replaced him
[[Page H395]]
with a member of the majority party. Payback time, I guess, is once
again in order here on the floor of the House of Representatives, on
the exact same day that we're going to welcome the President, and we're
all going to put that big smiley face on tonight. We're all working
together. Boy, we don't know what's wrong with the problems of the
country, but we're going to work together, and then be admonished about
telling the truth, which is, Congress is the problem.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is here to do the people's work.
We're here to work together. We continue to have ideas that are shut
out in the room just above this floor, just above this body, up there
called the Rules Committee. We've been trying for years to do that. I
wonder if the President would consider that working together by the way
we're doing this. I hope he does not. I hope he admonishes us, and I
hope he takes us to task and says that foolish political gamesmanship
is wasting America's money and America's time, because time is
important to the American people, because there are a whole lot of
people who are without jobs. They're without jobs because of the lack
of bipartisanship and working together in this body, all for spending
money because that's what this Speaker wants to do. I think the
American people want Democrats to rein in their borrowing, taxing, and
spending ways. That's what I think. I don't know. Maybe you'd have to
ask the American people.
Oh, by the way, I think they've spoken in New Jersey and Virginia and
again last week in Massachusetts. I think they want Congress to stop
talking about what they will do to provide jobs and talk about all the
things that are happening and actually get to the work of getting it
done.
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say today, but at this time I'd like to
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) who, last night, very clearly in the Rules Committee, as
ranking member talked about what Republicans' hopes and dreams were
just on this bill and the process.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank both of my Rules Committee colleagues for being
here. And I will say that this is obviously a very important day. We're
anxiously looking forward to the message that the President of the
United States will be delivering right behind me here as he provides
his State of the Union address. And there is an early indication of
what it is that he might say. He is, according to reports, going to be
talking about the need for fiscal responsibility, the need for us to do
everything that we can to bring about a freeze in spending, and we all
think that that's a good first step. I will say that if you look at the
two omnibus appropriations bills, coupled with the stimulus bill, the
report that we just got of an additional $75 billion on top of the $787
billion for the stimulus bill, we have over the last 2 years seen an 86
percent increase in spending. An 86 percent increase. And I guess
freezing with an 86 percent increase that is proposed in spending for
the next 2 years is something that may not be all that painful for
people who want to maintain a high level of Federal spending.
So, as we look at that, and then recognize that this measure that is
before us, that allows for the up to $50 million, $50 million, not
billion, not trillion, which are the terms we use around here, but $50
million to be authorized for the purchase of beachfront property in St.
Croix, I just don't understand how, on the day that we're going to have
the President of the United States stand here talking about a spending
freeze, that we could possibly consider taking action such as this.
The American people get it. Last night I had a telephone town hall
meeting with my constituents in southern California in the Los Angeles
area, and they have been raising grave concerns about the size and
scope and reach of the Federal Government, and they have made it clear
that they want us to work, not just to have a freeze, but to bring
about major spending cuts. The message that the American people have
been sending to us that we got, as my friend from Dallas said, a week
ago yesterday, is that getting the economy back on track is a very,
very high priority. Job creation is a high priority. And we know that.
In my State of California, where we have a national 10 percent
unemployment rate in the area that I represent, suburban Los Angeles,
we have an unemployment rate in some areas that is in excess of 14
percent. People are losing their homes and their businesses, and they
want us to focus on creating good, long-term, private-sector, not
temporary government, jobs, not jobs that are going to be engaged in
collecting the numbers and information through the census and that sort
of thing, those sorts of temporary jobs. They want long-term job
creation. And we have an opportunity, in fact, the President has an
opportunity, to do just that, Mr. Speaker.
If he were to send us the three pending trade agreements, and I know
I've talked to my friend from Colorado about the issue of trade, and I
know that he joins me in being a supporter of free trade. I would hope
that if the President were to send the three pending trade agreements,
Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, here to the Congress, I am convinced
that at least the Panama and Colombia agreements, based on
conversations that I've had with Members on both sides of the aisle, we
could have a bipartisan win, and that in passing, if we passed these
three agreements, we could create more than a quarter of a million
good, private-sector jobs.
Why? Well, if you look on average, the tariff on manufactured goods
and other products going into the 40 million-consumer-strong Colombia
is 14 percent. That means union and nonunion members who are working
for Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois, manufacturers working for
Whirlpool in Ohio, would have an opportunity to sell their manufactured
products, their tractors, their washing machines and refrigerators into
this market.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what that would do is create again, good, long-term
private-sector jobs. If we were to be able to do the Korea deal it
would be the single largest trade agreement in the history of the
world. Korea has a $1 trillion economy, Mr. Speaker, a $1 trillion
economy. We have about $83 billion in trade with Korea right now. By
and large, Korean products, automobiles and other things get to the
U.S. consumer tariff free, virtually tariff free. I think that's a good
thing. I think imports benefit the consumer.
{time} 1100
What we need to do is we need to pry open their market, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an
additional 5 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I won't take the 5
minutes. I am going to wrap up here because I think what we need to do
is we need to not just talk, we need to engage in action.
So, Mr. Speaker, I was just mentioning Korea. The fact is we would
have the single largest agreement that has ever been put together.
They're our seventh largest trading partner right now, South Korea; and
it would mean that while we have their products coming here virtually
tariff free, there would be an opportunity for us to have access to the
millions of consumers in South Korea which we don't today.
And I also have to say that our inaction, the fact that we've had
these agreements signed by our executive branch, the executive branches
of those countries, they're awaiting passage here in the United States
Congress. Our inaction has really jeopardized our potential for
economic growth. Why? If you look at the fact that Colombia has already
embarked on a free trade agreement with Canada, if you look at the fact
that South Korea is working with the European Union right now, there
are other countries and blocs in the world that are taking advantage of
our inaction here. And remember again, Mr. Speaker, our action is going
to create probably in excess of a quarter of a million good private
sector jobs.
So as the President talks this evening about job creation and
economic growth and fiscal responsibility, I hope that he will follow
his words because he has told me that he believes in free trade and
wants to do this Colombia deal. We're awaiting it. We anxiously look
forward to his sending it up
[[Page H396]]
so that U.S. workers will have the opportunity to enjoy the kind of
success we've seen in the past and I am convinced we will see in the
future.
And I thank my friend for his yielding and for his leadership.
Mr. POLIS. I find little objectionable in what my colleague from
California said. Certainly there is great opportunity for trade with
South Korea and Panama and Colombia to create jobs, but none of those
agreements are the topic of the rule before us today.
And I want to give a little background on this and talk about how we
can move forward.
First of all, we could have moved forward in a more bipartisan way
had these passed on suspension. What does suspension mean? A suspension
requires a two-thirds vote of the House. The bills are nonamendable in
that form. Both bills passed with a majority instead of two-thirds.
H.R. 3726 passed 241-173 and H.R. 3538, which was the version identical
to H.R. 4474, passed by 225-191.
So since they both passed by majorities but not two-thirds, they came
before us in the Rules Committee. And we would have loved ideas. My
colleague, Mr. Sessions, talked about how can we work better together.
Well, there weren't any amendments that were submitted. This would have
been the time, whether the ideas came from Republicans or Democrats,
and our Rules Committee has an excellent record of allowing amendments
from Members in the minority party as well as the majority party. And I
know we take our role very conscientiously in terms of making sure that
both parties are represented. There simply weren't any better ideas
represented.
The fact is that both of these bills deal with important local
issues. They have important buy-in from the stakeholders.
I have personally more familiarity with the wilderness designation
aspects because we're working in Colorado in wilderness designation.
It's a very real issue when you're dealing with legacy water
installations, how can they be maintained if they're on wilderness, how
do you grandfather them. And this affects real people.
And it took both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Minnick working across the aisle
in Idaho coming together and coming before Congress and saying this is
our local solution and asking for us to approve it. It would have been
nice if we had been able to get that done on suspension. If there
weren't any other ideas to improve it, well, now is a good chance to
have a good bipartisan vote to pass the bill.
Same with the other bill, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site
Establishment Act. One key thing about this bill is it doesn't spend
any money, doesn't spend one dime. You've heard the figure tossed
around, oh, it might be worth $40 million, might be worth $25 million.
This is merely an authorization bill, as my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are fully aware.
The bill simply designates this area as a new unit. But the bill
contains no direct spending. And any land acquisition, if it occurs,
would be subject to appropriations or to fund-raising or donations.
Enactment of this legislation is just the beginning of a very
important process that we've been through with many other national
monuments to preserve a unique and stunning area for inclusion in our
national park system.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. I
know he was busy. I find times when I cannot attend a Rules Committee
meeting, and I know the gentleman was not there yesterday. But I need
to help him with what actually happened.
As a matter of fact, the Republicans did ask for an open rule. We
were not without ideas. You have to open the rule to get amendments in,
and we were denied. I also would point to, you know, the idea that
we're all sitting around here, Oh, golly gee, we're all bipartisan--
when, in fact, the gentleman voted against the bill just this last
week, I assume because he disagreed with the substance of the bill. But
he was joined by lots of Democratic colleagues that actually took down
the bill because once again, I assume substance--not because it was a
Republican's name on there. It will be interesting to see what happens
today when there is a Democrat Member's name on there to find out if
the same policy differences that existed last week, even though it's
the exact same bill, whether those same policy problems still exist
today or really whether it was just politics.
And we'll be able to know this afternoon. We'll be able to know
because it's the exact same bill and the argument the gentleman is
making, We're just all getting our job done around here.
Mr. Speaker, we disagree with the bill. And we spoke yesterday not
just about Dr. Simpson's bill; we also spoke about the bill with the
$50 million in St. Croix. And I am going to outline part of that here.
But it's based upon substance. And the substance that we believe is
important is directly related to the National Park Service giving us
their study which they spent $500,000 doing. And last night upstairs,
we just blew it off: don't worry about that recommendation; National
Park Service, they're going to say it's okay.
I'm sorry. In testimony: Do you know what the substance, what they're
going to say? No, but I have a good idea. You know, I sit on the
committee. I am a ranking member or I am the committee chairman.
Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong way to run this House. It's the wrong
way to run the Rules Committee. That's the wrong way to do things, to
ask somebody to do a study and spend half a million dollars and just go
ahead and move the legislation without even hearing from people about
the substance of the issue.
Forget about it being beachfront property, $50 million, $9 billion
backlog of taking care of national parks in this country, and yet it's
going to take another million dollars annually just to take care of
this beachfront property that the Democratic leadership wants to push.
Americans across the Nation are struggling, Mr. Speaker. They're
struggling to provide for their own families and their loved ones. Last
week, the Department of Labor released data showing that 12 million
Americans are collecting unemployment benefits and over 15 million are
currently unemployed. That is double, that is double in 1 year.
There is only so much blame that goes around. At some point the
Democratic leadership is going to have to say after 3 years of running
this economy into the ground, they're going to have to stand up and be
big about it. It's the policies of taxing and spending that the
Democratic leadership, the Democratic Members are letting them get away
with in this body.
I think somebody is going to have to explain the priorities at some
point: why they're putting these two bills back to back, why they're
trying to oppose it 1 week with the same policy, the next week
presumably will pass it. I will watch with great interest, Mr. Speaker,
to see exactly what happens today on the vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take some degree of offense
coming from Colorado if people were to call our wilderness area kind of
denigrated as mountain-front property. It so happens that our State is
a mountainous State so property happens to be mountainous.
Likewise, when you're talking about an island, you can call it
beachfront property, but it's an island. It's by the beach. That is
what an island is. We're a mountainous State; St. Croix is an island.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter.)
MR. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend, Mr. Polis, and Mr. Speaker, I
heard my friend from Texas talk about our Rules Committee meeting last
night, and what he forgot to mention to you and to this body was that
this bill that is before us concerning the Virgin Islands is an
authorization bill. Now, to the world, what does that mean? It means it
only gives the authority for the National Park System to decide whether
they want to accept a donation of the property, they want to pay for
the property, or make an exchange for the property. There is no
appropriation. There is no money spent.
And I appreciate my friend's comment about the need for the study.
Well, the study will be there before any money is spent by the United
States of America.
But according to the testimony, this is property that has cultural
value as
[[Page H397]]
well as scenic value, something that is important to the preservation
of these islands and that is important to the United States of America.
So this bill just authorizes it; doesn't pay anything for it.
Now, my friend from Texas talked about jobs. What he forgot to tell
you, tell all of us, was that when George Bush left office last year,
we lost 785,000 jobs in that month. Last month in December, we lost
85,000. Still not good enough, and we all know that. Still not good
enough. But 785,000 at the end of the Bush administration and in 1 year
we reduced that to 85,000 a month.
Now, we've got a lot of work to do, and we need to do it in a
bipartisan way. So my friend is right: we need to work together. And I
intend to work with him and with others to reverse this system and get
people back to work. We've got to roll up our sleeves. We've got a big
job ahead of us to get people back to work and to create jobs in this
country.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's all about priorities; and, you know,
I welcome the debate that we're having here today.
We asked that we not do this. We asked, at the Rules Committee, let's
not do this bill. Isn't it better that we don't go spend $50 million
right now?
It is an island. By the way, every piece of land on the island is not
beachfront property.
The bottom line is that we are choosing because it's a priority to do
this. It's a priority, and those priorities the Republican Party
disagrees with.
Additionally, the second bill that comes under this rule that failed
to get two-thirds vote last week is the one we're talking about, H.R.
3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act. And
what this bill really does, as we've heard, is it authorizes but does
not appropriate $50 million. If there is anybody in this body who
believes that we're going to have a significant debate about the $50
million when it comes in a huge package of appropriations, they're
wrong. This puts it in line to be a part of another massive spending
bill.
Meanwhile, as we go and buy new Federal land in the Virgin Islands,
unemployment rate at 10 percent, that's problematic to me. Even more,
Americans, lots of them, don't even have the opportunity to go visit
this new $50 million purchase because economic climates are so bad. And
you know, even if we weren't running a $1.4 trillion deficit and
raising the debt limit by another $1.9 trillion in the next few weeks,
there's still this backlog that we could prioritize and put the $50
million in to take care of the $9 billion maintenance backlog that we
have in this country.
And by the way, that's cultural. Lots of sites in this country are
cultural that are national parks. And the priorities should be of
existing decisions that we have made.
{time} 1115
I just think it's a bad way to go. But I think it represents exactly
the mindset of the Democratic leadership: another good way to spend
money, put a happy, smiley face on it, and talk about it's a really
good thing for taxpayers.
We're going to find out more when the National Park Service finally
releases their study. We are going to find out what they would say. But
the Republicans up in the room in the Rules Committee last night said
let's wait. Let's not spend the money. Let's wait to find out what we
do. And most of all, let's make this an open rule so every Member can
bring their ideas down here.
It's not going to happen. Party-line vote.
So what today's legislation should show the American people is about
this Congress' priorities: First, that the Democrats refuse--once
again, nothing new--to work with Republicans on anything from water
bills to national health care reform. Secondly, that jobs and the
economy come second to the $50 million worth of taxpayer funds for
beachfront property that most Americans will never, never, ever see.
Mr. Speaker, Americans want jobs. They want fiscal responsibility by
this body. They want us to work together on the issues and the problems
facing this country. And I think they are seeing, once again today,
after what was called the wake-up call last week, that we are not doing
any of those.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority continues to serve initiatives and
policies that will lead to more unemployment, more debt, and more
taxation. This administration and the Democrat Congress promised
Americans they would be serious about jobs, economic recovery, health
care, cleaner energy, and better education. The list goes on and on and
on. And what we see after 3 years, now entering the fourth, of
Democratic leadership majority in this body is that they are driving
our country to record deficits, record unemployment, record spending,
and record inability to take responsibility for what they have done on
their watch being the policy arm of this government.
This rule does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability,
either. And with this legislation, Congress only continues to increase
Federal debt, slows down our economic recovery, increases the Federal
burden and the financial burden placed on our children and
grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised Americans if Congress
passed the stimulus bill that unemployment would not go beyond 8
percent. That was a long time ago. They promised that it would save
millions of jobs. Here we are 1 year later, record unemployment and
more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the package
that was called the ``jobs bill,'' a $1.2 trillion stimulus package,
and today in the papers we read about not only is it not working, it is
doing what Republicans said at the time. It is going to add to
unemployment and debt that will increase at an exponential rate.
In June of last year, my friends on the other side of the aisle
passed a cap-and-trade bill that would also raise prices on energy and
goods and services for hardworking Americans across this country. In my
home State of Texas, the average household would expect to pay more
than $1,100 extra a year. No wonder--no wonder there is an outcry. Once
again, part of a legislative package, an initiative, that would lose
1.38 million manufacturing jobs. They are in the middle of that right
now.
Somebody is going to have to stand up and take accountability for
this, because it is happening on the leadership of the Democratic
Party's watch. And today, despite these facts, we are spending more
money and going to place America in a deficit position again.
Mr. Speaker, in November this last year, the Democrat-controlled
House passed sweeping health care reform that effectively diminished
employer-based insurance and now is a part of a debate as we continue
to lose jobs. It's time that the Democratic Party began working with
Republicans if you want to bring jobs back.
Mr. Speaker, the majority party is out of touch. They are out of
touch with Americans. Their priorities on borrowing, taxing, and
spending are killing our economy and ruining progress for job growth. I
know, once again, today I, Republicans, are the minority party. All we
can do is stand on the floor and talk. But we believe that the
processes up in the Rules Committee are important. That's why we were
there even last night trying to say this is the wrong thing to do and
that $50 million more does matter. We cannot remedy the economic
circumstances that we're in by increasing spending, not on national
parks in the Virgin Islands and not on a $1.3 trillion health care bill
that will destroy 5\1/2\ million jobs.
Huge energy and health bills are going to raise taxes and kill jobs,
and certainly raise expenses for States. And people over the last year,
we've heard our constituents say that they want stability, they want us
to work together, and they want us to focus on the things that would
bring about a better tomorrow.
I disagree with what we are doing again today, and I respectfully
would say to the American people and my colleagues we should defeat
this bill. It's the wrong direction. It's a bad idea, and the timing of
this is very bad.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to welcome the President of the United
States tonight. I hope we listen to what he says.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to reiterate that this
bill does not cost $50 million, does not cost $40
[[Page H398]]
million, does not cost $30 million, and does not cost one penny. It's
simply an authorization. And as my colleague knows in the scene he has
gone through, it is just simply part of the process.
If there ever is an appropriation--and there are a number of avenues
under which there might not even be an appropriation. There could be a
donation of the property. There could be other involvement from other
sources. If there is an appropriation, that's when this would be
debated. That would be part of a bill, and somebody could offer an
amendment that would come before the Rules Committee. And I would
certainly support ruling that in order to make sure that that is a
topic that this body has the time to discuss. But now is not the debate
with regard to the expenditure of any Federal dollars with regard to
this matter.
The procedure that has been used, again, when bills come up on
suspension, as these bills did, there was no opportunity for the
minority party or the majority party to amend the bills or offer
alternatives. When the bill then did not get the requisite two-thirds,
it came before our Rules Committee. There were no other amendments that
were offered by members of the minority party or the majority party.
We are very open, along with my colleagues on the Rules Committee,
and I know the House, as a whole, to ideas from both sides of the aisle
regardless of where they come from. If somebody had an improvement to
the settlement of the water rights in Idaho or adjustments to the
borders of the proposed designation in St. Croix, I'm sure that they
would have been likely referred to the House for full consideration.
In fact, the minority party has, under both this rule, the
opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions with
regard to each of the bills. So there is ample opportunity, and we are
hearing a deafening silence from the other side with regard to how to
improve these bills. The door is more than open.
The first step, again, in finding that they were unable to reach a
two-thirds majority was that they would be open for input. There were
no amendments, not one, that was presented to the Rules Committee for
either of these bills. And I look forward to seeing what the motions to
recommit may entail. Again, if they are constructive and improve these
bills in any substantial way, I'm confident that my colleagues will
join me in supporting them.
I am the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve the balance of
my time until the gentleman from Texas has closed for his side and
yielded back the balance of his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis) for representing the Democratic Party today. I
think that it's important as we approach today that the hopes and
expectations of a Nation who tonight will listen to our President will
be in our hearts and our minds.
This country has had serious days in our past, and we are in serious
days today. I don't think there is any problem bigger than a solution
in this country. I do believe, however, and I have believed this, that
when it comes to the economy, building jobs and working to create a
better environment where America is competitive in the world, that it
will require not just a basic sense of understanding marketplaces, but
really, Mr. Speaker, of discipline, of seeing the problem for what it
is.
It is a problem that has been self-induced. It is self-induced by
this body, who in the midst of the greatest expansion--and I remember
just a few years ago with my friends who were Democrats, oh, all this
money that this country has, we are not spending it the right way. The
priorities are mixed. We should go spend more money and help people who
do not have the advantages because this booming economy has not gotten
to them yet.
Mr. Speaker, I do understand that. I do understand that a lot. I
spend a lot of time working with disabled people in this country. But
what happened in that process was we flipped so far over to where we
are now killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and that is the
free enterprise system. The free enterprise system, as a result of this
Speaker and the policies of the Democratic Party, are pushing an agenda
that would lose this country 10 million jobs. We are in the middle of
that.
The assault on employers is part of the political agenda. I get that.
I think the free enterprise system gets that. But the American people
have now caught on. And I think it's time, if we really want to talk
about having jobs, jobs that can be competitive with the world, jobs
that are not nickel-and-dime jobs or here today and gone tomorrow, that
it will require a discipline and a philosophy of understanding how jobs
are created and the free enterprise system and the decisionmaking.
The decisionmaking is that this Congress needs to do at least three
things:
Number one, they need to make sure that we cut capital gains taxes so
that people will invest in this country. They will invest in this
country, and the creation of jobs will occur.
Secondly, we need to make sure that we do away with, or greatly
diminish, depreciation. Depreciation is government competing against
the free enterprise system for money.
And perhaps most importantly, or lastly, the death tax. The death tax
because literally, after three generations, anybody who owns a family-
owned business has to lose it. It's gone. It's gone from taxation from
a Federal Government that is controlled by those who want to tax and
spend and diminish that for the spending of the government rather than
people who have jobs.
So, look, I think we ought to take the responsibility today. I think,
just like somebody going to a meeting and admitting that they made a
mistake and they were wrong and they have a problem, being honest about
the problem, the creation of jobs won't come through some trickery. It
will only come from doing the things that business itself will tell you
it needs: reducing capital gains on a permanent basis, reducing the
problem that we have with depreciation, and lastly, the death tax. We
don't have to take it to $1 billion or half a billion dollars. We could
move it probably to $50 million or $60 million and stop the burden, the
bleeding, that is happening where people are losing their land, their
property, and their businesses. But it takes someone who understands
that.
I spent 16 years in the free enterprise system, 16 years where I
never missed a day of work. I loved what I did. But I saw Washington as
the problem. That's why I came to Congress. I still see government as
being the problem. And here today, we give a lot of lip service to
jobs, and people act like, well, I just really don't know what to do.
The fact of the matter is the political agenda of losing 10 million
American jobs, which we are in the middle of, health care, cap-and-
trade, and card check are strangling this country. If we want to be
honest about this, just like an alcoholic showing up at an AA meeting
and admitting there is a 12-step process to coming back, we need to
understand that we are taxing too much, we are spending too much, we
are borrowing too much, and the debt is strangling this country.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?
I yield back my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned health care, cap-and-
trade, and card check are strangling the country. Fortunately, none of
those are included in this rule.
I hope my colleague will join me in support of this rule which simply
brings to the floor two very important issues: the Castle Nugent
designation as well as the settlement of access to wilderness area with
regard to water rights in the State of Idaho.
Mr. Speaker, my district in Colorado is very lucky to have in it
protected places, places that are important not only for the economic
well-being of our State, but important for the very foundation of our
civic pride and our identity. In many cases, these protections are also
part of the fundamental basis of the economy in many of our tourist
areas. We know the benefits to local communities from the National Park
System. Recreation and tourism provide a long-term and sustainable
economic base. Gateway communities thrive from recreationists basing
their adventures and their experiences from these nearby communities.
{time} 1130
Both the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of
2010 and the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act share the story that
land preservation done right is a winning local
[[Page H399]]
policy, and yes, a job creator and winning economic policy.
For the Castle Nugent area, this bill represents the preservation of
historic habitat that will lead to future tourism and future small
businesses and local sustainable jobs. The park proposal would preserve
nearly 2,900 acres of former ranch lands as well as 8,600 acres just
off the coast which is owned by the Virgin Islands, respecting the
wishes of the local and current landowners that their land go towards
preservation instead of development, landowners who have fought for
years to fend off aggressive development.
For the communities that surround the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank
Church River of No Return Wilderness areas, this means that the land
that is protected will continue to draw backpackers, fishermen,
hunters, climbers, and adventurers from all around to Idaho, and would
ensure that the preservation of these valuable local assets would not
mean the loss of others.
This bill includes a well-thought-out approach to this challenging
set of circumstances, and ensures a number of safeguards that protect
the wilderness and the wilderness act while protecting individual
rights as well. The permits that this bill creates would only be issued
if the owner could prove that the facility existed prior to the
designated wilderness area designation, the facility had been used to
deliver water to the owner's land since the designation, and the owner
had a valid water right, and it would not be practical to move the
facility outside the wilderness area.
Again, I would encourage any colleagues on the other side of the
aisle who have constructive ideas to improve this bill, it would have
been nice if they had offered amendments before, and I hope to hear any
additional ideas in the motion to recommit.
It is estimated that several dozen different individuals or
businesses have water diversions in the aforementioned wilderness
areas. And this bill is a commonsense solution that balances the
protection of wilderness areas with the important ability to maintain
and access water rights for those who have historically used that
water.
Mr. Speaker, passage of both these bills today will be a quick step
forward that will benefit local economies at the same time as providing
recreational users and tourists seeking exploration and discovery a
great experience with history and nature.
I do share with my colleague from Texas, I agree that there is the
opportunity to reduce capital gains tax to promote growth. I have two
bills in that regard, H.R. 1783 and H.R. 1784, and I encourage my
colleague to join me in cosponsoring these efforts. However, much to my
chagrin, neither are scheduled for floor consideration in this rule
either.
Again, this rule simply schedules for floor consideration the
designation of the Castle Nugent Wilderness National Historic Site Act
of 2009 and the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act. Both have the
opportunity to have a strong bipartisanship majority to settle the
access to water rights in Idaho.
And again, with regard to St. Croix, there is zero taxpayer money
being spent at this juncture. It is a very legitimate discussion when
and if that time needs to arise do we want to spend money on this. That
is a totally separate question, and I look forward to a debate
regarding that matter. But the authorization is the first step. And I
am hopeful that we can preserve the historic legacy and attract good
jobs to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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, this 15-
minute vote on the adoption of House Resolution 1038 will be followed
by a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on House
Resolution 1024.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 174, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 20]
YEAS--234
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--174
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Abercrombie
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (GA)
Castor (FL)
Crenshaw
[[Page H400]]
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
Edwards (TX)
Frank (MA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kilroy
Lucas
Markey (MA)
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Ortiz
Radanovich
Speier
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
{time} 1200
Messrs. TURNER, UPTON, TERRY, and YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2010, I voted ``yea''
on rollcall 20 for H. Res. 1024. Please let the Record show that my
intention was to vote ``nay'' on agreeing to this resolution.
____________________