[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H405-H410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CASTLE NUGENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2010

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent National 
Historic Site at St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1038, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted 
and the bill, as amended, is considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3726

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Castle Nugent National 
     Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Castle Nugent National Historic Site established in section 
     3.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. CASTLE NUGENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the 
     National Park System the Castle Nugent National Historic Site 
     on the Island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, in order to 
     preserve, protect, and interpret, for the benefit of present 
     and future generations, a Caribbean cultural landscape that 
     spans more than 300 years of agricultural use, significant 
     archeological resources, mangrove forests, endangered sea 
     turtle nesting beaches, an extensive barrier coral reef 
     system, and other outstanding natural features.
       (b) Boundaries.--The historic site consists of the 
     approximately 2,900 acres of land extending from Lowrys Hill 
     and Laprey Valley to the Caribbean Sea and from Manchenil Bay 
     to Great Pond, along with associated submerged lands to the 
     three-mile territorial limit, as generally depicted on the 
     map titled ``Castle Nugent National Historic Site Proposed 
     Boundary Map'', numbered T22/100,447, and dated October 2009.
       (c) Map Availability.--The map referred to in subsection 
     (b) shall be on file and available for public inspection in 
     the appropriate offices of the National Park Service, 
     Department of the Interior.
       (d) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary is authorized to acquire lands and interests in 
     lands within the boundaries of the historic site by donation, 
     purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
       (2) U.S. virgin island lands.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to acquire lands and interests in lands owned by the U.S. 
     Virgin Islands or any political subdivision thereof only by 
     donation or exchange.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historic site in accordance with this Act and with laws 
     generally applicable to units of the National Park System, 
     including--
       (1) the National Park Service Organic Act (39 Stat. 535; 16 
     U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and
       (2) the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 
     et seq.).
       (b) Shared Resources.--To the greatest extent practicable, 
     the Secretary shall use the resources of other sites 
     administered by the National Park Service on the Island of 
     St. Croix to administer the historic site.
       (c) Continued Use.--In order to maintain an important 
     feature of the cultural landscape of the historic site, the 
     Secretary may lease to the University of the Virgin Islands 
     certain lands within the boundary of the historic site for 
     the purpose of continuing the university's operation breeding 
     Senepol cattle, a breed developed on St. Croix. A lease under 
     this subsection shall contain such terms and conditions as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate, including those 
     necessary to protect the values of the historic site.
       (d) Management Plan.--Not later than three years after 
     funds are made available for this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall prepare a general management plan for the historic 
     site.


[[Page H406]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3726.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of the pending measure introduced by 
my very good friend and a valued member of our Committee on Natural 
Resources, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna 
Christensen.
  The pending legislation establishes the Castle Nugent National 
Historic Site on the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
The Castle Nugent area possesses a wide range of historic resources, 
including the remnants of small Danish cotton, sugar, indigo, and 
cattle plantations. Pre-Columbian archaeological sites also exist on 
the property. The cattle ranch there is one of the oldest in the West 
Indies.
  The diverse and undisturbed natural resources of the site include the 
most substantial black mangrove stand left in the Virgin Islands, sea 
turtle nesting areas, large and healthy coral reefs, and a lagoon that 
is home to many different species of birds and wildlife.
  Congress authorized a special resource study for this area in 2006. 
The National Park Service has completed all of the work for that study 
and found that the area meets all of the applicable criteria for 
significance, suitability, and feasibility for designation as a 
National Park Service unit.
  The proposed park would include 2,900 acres of privately owned ranch 
lands as well as 8,600 acres of submerged lands owned by the Government 
of the Virgin Islands. The family which owns the majority of the site 
has fought off aggressive developers for years, seeking instead to have 
their land preserved for future generations to enjoy.
  This legislation includes no direct spending, and any land 
acquisition would be subject to appropriations. This is an excellent 
piece of legislation, and I commend once again Dr. Christensen for her 
tireless efforts to preserve the unique and stunning resources that are 
located in her beautiful district.
  Thanks to the recent Public Broadcasting System series by Ken Burns 
chronicling the amazing history of our National Park System, many 
Americans are asking themselves and asking this Congress what can we do 
to build upon the incredible legacy left to us by those who invented 
the idea of national parks. The answer to that question is simple: work 
to identify and study significant, unique areas of natural and historic 
significance and then make certain they are protected.
  The answer is to support the pending legislation, H.R. 3726.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot support this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it for two reasons.
  First, this Congress in prior times enacted a law that authorized and 
directed the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study on 
whether this site should be preserved and, if so, in what manner. Madam 
Speaker, we don't have that report. Hundreds of thousands of dollars 
have been spent on this study, and yet this House is charging ahead, 
making a decision without having that study in our hands. I think that 
is wasteful, and I think it's irresponsible.
  It has been said that the report is done, but Congress hasn't gotten 
a copy of that report. We are told its recommendations will support the 
approach taken in this bill, yet we don't know that because we have not 
received the report.
  Even if the final report were to recommend establishing a historic 
site, we would benefit from the information they have gathered to 
better craft such legislation. This bill is clearly putting the cart 
before the horse.
  The Park Service itself has testified on this Castle Nugent bill 
before us today, and they stated: ``We would ask that the committee 
defer action on this legislation until the special resource study is 
completed, which is consistent with the Department's general policy on 
legislation establishing a new unit of the National Park System when a 
study is pending.''
  Madam Speaker, if the $500,000 study that Congress passed to initiate 
is nearly completed, then we should wait to consider this bill until we 
have that information. That seems to be a rather logical conclusion of 
the events. There hasn't been a single compelling reason given as to 
the need to act right now before this study is in hand.
  Now, Madam Speaker, the second reason for opposition to this bill is 
its cost. With 10 percent unemployment nationwide and with millions of 
Americans without jobs and the fact that we are running record budget 
deficits and the public debt is skyrocketing, now is not the time to 
potentially spend up to $50 million of the taxpayers' money to buy 
nearly 3,000 acres of beachfront property on a Caribbean island. And on 
top of that, it will probably cost an estimate of $1 million a year to 
maintain.
  Madam Speaker, we can't afford the price tag for a new park in St. 
Croix, just as many Americans will never be able to afford a visit 
there. I had my staff, Madam Speaker, actually look up the cost of 
getting to St. Croix over the Presidents' Day weekend next month. From 
my home town in Pasco, Washington, it would take two plane changes, 
over 12 hours of time and around a thousand dollars to visit the island 
which would be the home of this new park.
  For a resident in the wild and wonderful State of West Virginia, just 
to pick a State, flying out of the Charleston airport, the time to get 
there is a little less, but the price is still around a thousand 
dollars.
  On top of the cost of buying this beachfront Caribbean property and 
the yearly cost of maintaining it, we need to be honest about the 
backlog that we have in caring for land already owned by the Federal 
Government.
  Madam Speaker, there is $9 billion, that is billion with a ``b,'' 
worth of needed repairs and maintenance on existing park lands. If we 
aren't caring for what we already have, then Congress shouldn't be 
making the problem worse by authorizing new park lands.
  Our existing treasures should be our focus to ensure families that 
load up the minivan or SUV to take a summer vacation to a national park 
have a safe, enjoyable, and accessible visit, like my colleague from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) expressed a moment ago about the Rocky Mountain 
National Park. I guarantee you that no family from any State will ever 
load up their minivan and drive to this park in the Caribbean ocean.
  This Congress must get serious about controlling spending. The 
American people are concerned. They're worried and they're angered by 
the spending that has gone on in Washington, D.C. In the first year of 
the Obama administration, the largest spending deficit in our Nation's 
history has been set.
  Whether it's the $787 billion stimulus bill that has failed to create 
the jobs that were promised or the government takeover--potential 
government takeover of the health care costs that will cost, if it is 
put in place--the health care bill that is being debated, over a 
trillion dollars--I think is very, very clear: spending in America's 
mind is out of control.
  For Congress to buckle down, it needs to not only put the brakes on 
mega-spending bills but it also must start taking a hard look at 
smaller bills like this one.
  Just take a look, Madam Speaker, at some of the bills that have been 
advanced out of the Natural Resources Committee this year. We passed a 
bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses; they've 
approved another bill to increase spending for neotropical birds by 
millions of dollars; and, today, there is a committee hearing on a bill 
to spend millions of more dollars overseas to assist apes.
  There is a lot of talk that the President may propose a spending 
freeze in his State of the Union speech tonight. The news media and 
blogs have been

[[Page H407]]

talking about it for several days; yet this House is positioned to vote 
on creating a new $50 million park in the middle of the Caribbean ocean 
just hours before the State of the Union speech tonight. Madam Speaker, 
those that control this House will send quite a message on spending and 
their real priorities if it approves this bill before the President 
even makes it here to give his speech tonight.
  So, Madam Speaker, for those two reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill.
  And with that, I reserve my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I am very happy at this point to yield to 
the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands who has worked so long, so hard, 
so diligently, and so patiently to bring this bill before us today, Dr. 
Donna Christensen, such time as she may consume.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Chairman Rahall, for yielding.
  Today I rise once again to speak on behalf of H.R. 3726, a bill that 
I introduced to establish the Castle Nugent Historic Site on St. Croix, 
Virgin Islands, for the first time in the 110th Congress.
  The introduction of this bill, or the reintroduction, stands as 
testimony to our country's legacy of preserving our Nation's special 
places. H.R. 3726 deepens the commitment of our conservation trail 
blazers such as Henry Thoreau, George Perkins Marsh, and John Muir who 
worked tirelessly to protect our collective natural history in such a 
way that it would live on for generations.

                              {time}  1300

  As noted by Ken Burns when discussing the need to document the 
National Park System, the chronicle of America's parks isn't a mere 
celebration of our Nation's national treasures, but also a story of our 
people, of the forces that help shape our lands and the influences that 
will guide our children.
  The site to be designated as the Castle Nugent National Historic Site 
continues to be heralded as one of the last pristine areas in the 
region. Without hesitation, I can attest to the fact that the Castle 
Nugent Farm is worthy of preservation, worthy of inclusion in the 
National Park System and truly worthy of being shared as more than just 
a ``beachfront property in the Caribbean'' but, instead, as an 
invaluable chapter in our Nation's official record of the American 
story. The National Park Service testified as such in November at the 
subcommittee hearing.
  H.R. 3726 calls for the preservation of 2,900 acres, which include a 
Caribbean dry forest, sea turtle nesting areas, large and healthy 
fringe coral reefs, and Great Pond Bay, home to numerous species of 
bird and other wildlife. Today the landscape remains pretty much as it 
did historically with its rolling hills and open grassy shrub plains 
sloping into the Caribbean Sea.
  In addition to guaranteeing the protection of one of the most 
ecologically sensitive areas on the island, H.R. 3726 also preserves a 
rich part of our historical and cultural past by preserving the 
archeological remains of our indigenous Taino inhabitants as well as a 
Danish estate house now listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places.
  Estate Castle Nugent is one of the last working cattle ranches on St. 
Croix and one of the ranches instrumental in the development and 
exportation of the unique and sturdy Senepol cattle throughout the 
Caribbean and, really, throughout the world. H.R. 3726 would ensure the 
rearing of the Senepol cattle with a provision that guarantees a 
continued relationship with the University of the Virgin Islands 
Agricultural Experiment Station to support ongoing scientific research.
  The family which owns the majority of this property has been 
incredibly patient. The pressure to sell their land to developers has 
been overwhelming and has created some conflict among family members, 
but they have held out because their first choice has always been that 
the ranch and its assets be preserved, which I agree is the best for 
all concerned.
  There is no intent to interfere with privately held property. The 
sole purpose of this bill is to protect and preserve the historic, 
cultural, and environmental assets and the opportunity for the people 
of the Virgin Islands and our fellow Americans to continue to enjoy the 
area and to preserve it for future generations.
  And while it might cost almost $1,000 to get there on President's 
weekend, President's weekend is the most heavily traveled time of the 
year to any part of the Caribbean, and most times of the year the cost 
to get to St. Croix is far less.
  There is also no final assessment of how much the site would cost. 
This simply authorizes the Secretary to acquire it. We do not know that 
the entire 2,900 acres will remain in the park, and we expect to 
acquire some of what would be the National Historic Site through 
donations, easements, and possibly also exchanges.
  There is no substantive reason to oppose this legislation. This is a 
beautiful and important natural and cultural resource that is in danger 
of being lost to the Nation's public forever. If we do not move forward 
now without waiting for the final process to get the study here, after 
having heard from the National Park Service that it is indeed 
determined to have been appropriate for inclusion into the park, if we 
don't move forward today, there is a real risk that when the study is 
formally transmitted to Congress supporting the designation, the land 
will already have been sold and condominium owners will be the only 
people who ever get to visit the area.
  In places such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, there is always a danger 
of development getting out of control and the balance between 
development and conservation being lost in favor of development. With 
development brings the risk of restricting local residents' use of the 
area far more than park regulations would. There are examples, as well, 
of developers disregarding the relationship between the people of our 
community and the areas that they have purchased. Bringing this ranch 
into the Park Service is the best way to allow those who have purchased 
part of the property or adjacent property to develop, but to do so in a 
way that is sensitive to the importance of the land and least 
restrictive to all of my constituents.
  Both the Bush and Obama administrations have supported this 
designation every step of the way. The current administration has 
determined that the site meets the criteria set by the National Park 
Service to determine national significance, suitability, and 
feasibility. The designation is supported by my constituents, including 
those who originally questioned the expansion of the park, and, as far 
as I'm aware, no one is challenging the conclusions of the study.
  The people of St. Croix have long enjoyed the picturesque scenery and 
use of the area for various activities. For years, thousands of Virgin 
Islanders and visitors have frequented the property to learn about the 
natural, cultural, historical, archeological, and marine resources 
found in Estate Castle Nugent. Anyone who visits the property leaves 
with a deepened appreciation of our community's treasure and our place 
in American history. Failure to act now will guarantee the area to be 
developed privately, risking our historic and natural jewels and having 
them untold and lost to future generations.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Rahall and 
Subcommittee Chair Grijalva for their support in ushering this bill 
through the Resources Committee and back to the floor. I would like to 
thank the numerous community members and organizations who wrote in 
support of it.
  Madam Speaker and colleagues, on behalf of the people of the Virgin 
Islands, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3726. This is timely and 
responsible legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the National 
Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop of Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me some time.
  It is with mixed emotions that I speak on this particular bill. This 
is not the worst bill our committee has ever produced. We have produced 
some real stinkers that we have hidden in other pieces of legislation. 
However, it

[[Page H408]]

is symbolic of the problem that this administration and leaders of this 
Congress have.
  We have a Secretary of the Interior who, every time we wish to use 
Federal land to actually help improve the lives of Americans or 
creating jobs, will always yell that we have a process we have to do; 
we cannot commit a rush to judgment. And now when we have a piece of 
territory, land that will be taken off the tax rolls in a territory 
that is in deep financial problems today, this historic cattle ranch is 
now considered something that we must hustle through the system.
  We just voted on a bill to solve problems in the wilderness areas of 
Idaho, which, if we had taken the time to see what was in there instead 
of rushing to create the most restrictive environment we can on this 
land in Idaho, we would not have needed the legislation. That is why 
this administration and this Department of the Interior have said they 
want to wait until the study is completed and the process is done.
  If one of the arguments in favor of passing this bill is we don't 
really know how much land we will ultimately have and how much it will 
ultimately cost, that is a great argument to wait until the study is 
done and we figure out how much land we really want to have and how 
much it will ultimately cost.
  But it is also symbolic of a deeper problem. This Federal Government 
already owns 650 million acres of land. One-third of this Nation is 
owned by the Federal Government. Now think of that. One out of every 
three acres in this country is owned by the Federal Government. I have 
had three land transfer bills in the past few years here, and in each 
case, the land that was controlled by the Federal Government was land 
they did not need, they did not use, and in every case, they did not 
even know they had the land until a land title search pointed out that, 
indeed, it belonged to the Federal Government.
  At some time you have to say enough is enough. The States with the 
biggest problem in funding their education system are found in States 
that have a predominance of public lands. It is a one-to-one 
relationship between States that have that problem. In my State of 
Utah, only 18 percent of the State is in private property. The Governor 
of Utah controls 18 percent. The rest of the State is under the heavy 
hand of the Secretary of the Interior, and both my adjective and noun 
are appropriate.
  One of the issues that we simply have here is we will be hearing that 
we should have a spending freeze on nondefense and nonentitlement 
programs, and we will hear that tonight. Does it seem logical that we 
should spend up and then decide to freeze? Does that indeed solve our 
problem?
  As I said before, this particular bill, which will probably cost $50 
million, give or take $50 million, this particular bill is not 
necessarily bad in and of itself, but it is symbolic of the problem 
that we have, that we do not have a large-scale picture of what this 
Nation should control, should own, should do, and we are moving in a 
pell-mell process to try and add more and more acreage to the heavy 
hand of the Federal Government. And at some time, we should stand up 
and say enough is enough.
  One-third of this country owned by the Federal Government is enough. 
For that reason, we should at least wait until the Department of the 
Interior has finished their study and the process and they sign off and 
we actually know how much land and how much cost we are talking.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as 
much time as he may consume to a new member of the House Resources 
Committee, Mr. Chaffetz from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. With all due respect to the great people of the Virgin 
Islands and to my colleague, I stand in opposition to this bill. No 
doubt, the Virgin Islands is one of the most spectacular, beautiful 
places on the face of the planet. But this bill is about priorities of 
the United States of America.
  We are $12 trillion in debt. We are spending $600 million a day just 
in interest on that debt. This Congress momentarily is going to have to 
raise the debt ceiling another $1.8 trillion. We don't have the money 
to do this.
  Currently, the National Park Service has an estimated $9 billion in 
backlog, $9 billion that they need to help with the national parks to 
preserve and to upgrade what we already have in our current holdings.
  We don't have the money. We don't have the resources. If you look at 
what the President is probably going to say here in less than 8 hours, 
he might come in and try to create this air of, oh, we have to be a 
little fiscally responsible. We should probably freeze a few things.
  For the second time in just over a week here, we are going to 
actually come and look at this bill to acquire at the cost of $40 
million to $50 million property with funds that we don't have.
  No longer can this government continue to use the government credit 
card to rack up debt. Those that decide to vote in favor of this bill, 
although it's just an authorization--I know it's not an appropriation--
are saying, sure, yeah, let's go buy some beachfront property.
  We don't have the money. Think of all the other things that we could 
do and should do in prioritizing this country. We have 1,500 people a 
day that die from cancer, and we're not adequately funding those types 
of things. We deal with homelessness, and we have Homeland Security 
issues. But this government continues to acquire private property and 
put it into the Federal Treasury. I think it's fundamentally wrong.
  As was pointed out earlier, there is no report. The National Park 
Service does not recommend we make this transaction because they 
haven't even finished the study. Why does this government spend 
hundreds of thousands of dollars on a study if it doesn't matter? Maybe 
what we should have also done is add an amendment to stop the study and 
recover as much money in funds as we can. There is absolutely no 
reason, if the Democrats are going to move forward and push this thing 
through, to actually do the study. I don't care if it's $2,000. Let's 
save it. And until this body has that type of attitude, we will 
continue to have the systemic problems that we have in this government.
  Just yesterday, the Governor of the territory stood up before the 
people and said this: ``However, the global economic crisis has had a 
great impact on our economy. It has devastated our government funds, 
where we are running a monthly deficit of $25 million and our tax 
revenues fell by over 30 percent. This means that we had 234 million 
fewer dollars to spend than we had just the year before. To put this in 
perspective, $234 million is almost half of the cost of salaries and 
benefits of our government workers for a full year.''
  Now some will say, well, we should move forward with this. Well, 
guess what? It's going to take property off of the tax rolls and put 
the burden on the Federal taxpayer. Why should the people of Iowa or 
Rhode Island or Utah or California have to continue to pay and 
supplement the people there on St. Croix for this property? I don't 
think it's fair. I don't think it's right. The Federal taxpayers will 
be the ones responsible for reimbursing on the lost property tax, plus 
the million dollars a year that it's going to take in order to just 
maintain the facility.
  Again, as we said, there are existing parks that need our help, $9 
billion in backlog. If this was really such a great thing for the 
island and they really wanted to do it, my suggestion is to do it 
locally. Locally they can go and acquire this. It does not require the 
Federal taxpayers to take on this burden.
  I think one of the arguments back to that would say, well, we can't 
afford it. Well, neither can the Federal taxpayers. Neither can the 
United States of America. It's time we stand up and say ``no'' to a 
bill like this.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of hearing the 
esteemed economist, Art Laffer, who is credited with bringing the 
United States out of a worse recession than we are in right now by 
overcoming double

[[Page H409]]

digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest 
rates, and he did it by cutting taxes. Of course, we know taxes are 
going to jump up like crazy a year from now. But what he said is if you 
want to get this government out of the tremendous trouble we are in, 
quit buying things, quit buying land and things, and start selling off 
some of the assets.
  That is what a regular family would do when they find themselves in 
debt. That is what I am doing right now to pay off student loans. We 
are selling our house and going to downsize. Why can't the government 
do that? Let's quit spending like crazy. Let's sell off some of our 
assets, pay down our debt, and let America find jobs again.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time pending 
any further speakers on the minority side.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand the gentleman from West 
Virginia is the final speaker on that side. With that, I yield myself 
the balance of the time.
  Madam Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. And 
if you were listening to the debate here of the several speakers that 
we had on our side of the aisle, if you noticed, we were not 
criticizing the merits of this purchase. We are simply saying that 
there is a procedure that this Congress set up. That procedure was a 
study. Taxpayer dollars funded that study in order to see if this 
project actually merits congressional support.
  Well, that study, Madam Speaker, is not made public. We have not seen 
the study. We don't know if it is good or bad. It may be good, as the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) said. In fact, he alluded that he has 
seen worse pieces of legislation rather than this one. But for goodness 
sakes, if we are spending taxpayer dollars on a study, then shouldn't 
we at least find out what the study says? That might lead us in the 
right direction of spending, as this bill would authorize, up to $50 
million without really knowing the ramifications.
  So our argument on this side, and I think an argument on this side 
probably resonates better with the American people due to the fiscal 
health of our country, I think this resonates very, very well today, 
especially, as I alluded to in my earlier remarks, since the President 
is going to come and speak to a joint session of Congress tonight on 
fiscal responsibility, this is our opportunity on that very day to show 
some fiscal responsibility by saying ``no'' to this bill and waiting 
for the study to come back.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would close this debate by making the following observations on the 
allegations that we have heard on the other side. With respect to the 
technicality that a new area study has not been sent to the Congress, 
let me state that at a hearing before the Parks Subcommittee held last 
November, the National Park Service testified on the record that the 
draft study is completed and finds that the site meets the NPS criteria 
for addition to the National Park System.
  The official agency testimony goes on for four pages describing the 
amazing natural, cultural, and historical resources found on the site. 
For example, that testimony states that, and I quote, ``Enactment of 
H.R. 3726 would provide the opportunity to preserve and protect this 
outstanding Caribbean cultural landscape and interpret the cotton era 
and related agricultural themes that have been instrumental in the 
development of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. It would also help 
protect five pre-Columbian archeological sites, two of which are among 
the oldest sites on St. Croix.''
  I was not able to attend this hearing, but my staff does inform me 
that at no time did any member of the committee, even for a moment, 
question the conclusions or opinions that were expressed by the 
National Park Service. The formal findings contained in the study will 
be enormously valuable as the NPS moves forward creating a management 
plan for this area, and in future years as the Congress contemplates 
appropriating funds for the site.
  For now, I am satisfied that the NPS has provided us more than ample 
information to move forward with the initial designation. The fact that 
the formal study has not been transmitted to the Congress is a 
technicality, one that is either significant or not to the other side, 
the minority, depending upon what day it is. House Republicans have 
supported designations with incomplete studies. House Republicans have 
supported designations with no study at all. House Republicans have 
opposed designations when the study was complete and fully supported 
designation. So this concern for NPS studies by those on the other side 
of the aisle is newly discovered. Their record on this is inconsistent 
and simply not credible.
  Like the Republican concern for following the recommendations of NPS 
studies, this concern for the NPS maintenance backlog is newfound as 
well. The NPS maintenance backlog is real, no doubt about it, and needs 
to be addressed. Democrats are serious about addressing it. We continue 
to work closely with the agency to document the work that needs to be 
done to prioritize it and provide the funding and the people needed to 
get the most pressing work done.
  But I completely disagree with the Republican claim that the National 
Park Service, quote, ``can't take care of what it already owns.'' That 
kind of park bashing may score some points, but it is nothing more than 
a low blow. Millions of American families visit our national parks 
every year and come away feeling inspired, energized, and downright 
patriotic. The National Park Service could use more money, but they are 
the very best in the world at what they do, and claims to the contrary 
are false. Our National Park Service takes care of what they already 
own, to the enormous satisfaction of most Americans, and they can take 
care of this beautiful area of St. Croix as well.
  I would ask the American people to keep an eye on the issue. You 
watch. When the President submits his budget request for the next 
fiscal year, it will contain critical funding for the NPS. And 
Democrats will support that request and pass it. And many of the same 
Republicans on this floor today expressing deep concern over the NPS 
maintenance backlog will come to this floor and vote against the 
funding needed to address it.
  In fact, it was Republicans who insisted on drastically underfunding 
and understaffing this agency that caused the maintenance backlog to 
increase on their watch. The future health and growth of our NPS system 
should not be stunted because Republicans mismanaged it when they were 
in charge of government. Democrats will correct the mistakes of the 
past, not be held hostage by them. And just like other arguments 
offered today, the Republican record on this issue is so inconsistent 
it simply cannot be taken seriously.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, H.R. 3726 does not spend one dime, and every 
Member on this floor knows it. The legislation designates this area as 
a new unit, but the bill contains no direct spending. Any land 
acquisition will be subject, of course, to appropriations. Enactment of 
this legislation is the beginning of the process, not the end. This is 
a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve a unique and stunning 
area, and I fully support having this land at least be eligible for 
land acquisition funding over the next few cycles.
  Yes, the former Republican majority went on an irresponsible spending 
spree that damaged this country and resulted in the largest increase in 
the deficit since World War II. And yes, fixing the damage caused by 
those Republican mistakes will be an enormous challenge for all of us 
going forward. But I believe Democrats can do it. I believe we can get 
our fiscal house in order, and when we do it, Castle Nugent should be a 
unit of the National Park System so we can allocate funding to protect 
it and preserve it for generations to come.
  As for unemployment, the unemployment rate on St. Croix was 8.9 
percent last November. If this private land is successfully transformed 
into a popular tourist destination, it will create jobs

[[Page H410]]

and help ease unemployment on the island. It will increase tourism, 
benefiting airlines, car rentals, travel agents, restaurants, hotels, 
and might even lead to hiring a few new park rangers. Democrats support 
creating jobs by building things up--investing in the long-term growth 
and health of this nation. H.R. 3726 does just that.
  I would conclude by pointing out the obvious: We as a Nation have a 
responsibility to our territorial possessions. And if we shirk from 
that duty, we would be nothing more than the European empires which 
once ruled over vast swaths of Africa and the Americas. The U.S. Virgin 
Islands are a unique and fascinating place. Native people lived on 
these islands as far back as the Stone Age. And some of the evidence of 
that can be found on the site protected in this bill.
  Christopher Columbus gave the islands early versions of the names we 
use today, Santa Cruz, San Tomas, and San Juan. And last, as we move 
forward in this legislation, recognize that these islands were then 
occupied by foreign nations, England, Holland, France and Denmark, a 
period that saw the native people enslaved and then driven almost to 
extinction. Remains of these times can be found on the land protected 
in this bill as well.
  It is not only the history and the culture found in the continental 
United States that matters, but St. Croix is a part of these United 
States. And we owe it to those who live there now and those who were 
there long before this Nation came into being to value this history and 
to respect its culture. This legislation does that. This legislation 
deserves our support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1038, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________