[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.
____________________