[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.

                          ____________________