[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19405-19408]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
        WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2009

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1376) to authorize the Secretary

[[Page 19406]]

of the Interior to establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the 
State of Texas, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1376

       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 ``Waco Mammoth National 
     Monument Establishment Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The Waco Mammoth Site area is located near the 
     confluence of the Brazos and the Bosque rivers in Central 
     Texas, near the City of Waco.
       (2) Baylor University has been investigating the site since 
     1978 after the discovery of bones emerging from eroding creek 
     banks leading to the uncovering of portions of five mammoths.
       (3) Several additional mammoth remains have been uncovered 
     making this the largest known concentration of mammoths dying 
     from the same event.
       (4) The discoveries have received international attention.
       (5) The University and the City of Waco have been working 
     together to protect the site and to develop further research 
     and educational opportunities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act the following definitions apply:
       (1) National monument.--The term ``national monument'' 
     means the Waco Mammoth National Monument, established in 
     section 4.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3)  Map.--The term ``map'' means the map titled ``Proposed 
     Boundary Waco-Mammoth National Monument'', numbered T21/
     80,000, and dated April, 2009.

     SEC. 4. WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT, TEXAS.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Waco Mammoth 
     National Monument in the State of Texas, as a unit of the 
     National Park System, as generally depicted on the map.
       (b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     national monument in accordance with this Act, the 
     cooperative agreements described in this section, and laws 
     and regulations generally applicable to units of the National 
     Park System, including the National Park Service Organic Act 
     (39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C. 1).
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements for the management of the national 
     monument with Baylor University and City of Waco, pursuant to 
     the National Park Service General Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1a-2(1)).

     SEC. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Acquisition of Property.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to acquire from willing sellers lands, or interests in lands, 
     within the proposed boundary of the national monument 
     necessary for effective management.
       (b) Conditions.--Lands identified in subsection (a) may be 
     acquired--
       (1) by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 
     funds, transfer from another Federal agency, or by exchange; 
     and
       (2) in the case of lands owned by the State of Texas, or a 
     political subdivision thereof, or Baylor University only by 
     donation or exchange.

     SEC. 7. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES ON NONFEDERAL LANDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, subject to 
     the appropriation of necessary funds, to construct essential 
     administrative or visitor use facilities on non-Federal lands 
     within the national monument.
       (b) Other Funding.--In addition to the use of Federal funds 
     authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary may use donated 
     funds, property, and services to carry out this section.

     SEC. 8. GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than three years after the date 
     on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with Baylor University and City of 
     Waco, shall prepare a management plan for the national 
     monument.
       (b) Inclusions.--The management plan shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       (1) measures for the preservation of the resources of the 
     national monument;
       (2) requirements for the type and extent of development and 
     use of the national monument;
       (3) identification of visitor carrying capacities for 
     national monument; and
       (4) opportunities for involvement by Baylor University, the 
     City of Waco, the State of Texas, and other local and 
     national entities in the formulation of educational programs 
     for the national monument and for developing and supporting 
     the national monument.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.


                             General Leave

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Guam?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1376, introduced by our colleague 
Chet Edwards, will establish a new national monument to protect the 
burial site near Waco, Texas, of several herds of mammoths that appear 
to have died in one or more floods some 68,000 years ago. The 107th 
Congress authorized a study of the site, and H.R. 1376 implements the 
results of that study. Specifically, the bill provides that the 109-
acre site be managed under a cooperative agreement among the National 
Park Service, Baylor University and the City of Waco. Representative 
Edwards has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the preservation and 
interpretation of this invaluable historic site. He is to be commended 
for his tireless efforts. I ask my colleagues to support the passage of 
this measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1376 would designate a national monument in the 
middle of the city of Waco in Texas. I do not necessarily oppose the 
designation, but I do oppose the legislation as it is written because 
it lacks language protecting the property rights on lands adjacent to 
the monument. The National Park Service has a history of interfering 
with the use of lands it does not own. During the committee markup, 
Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah offered a commonsense amendment that 
limited the Park Service's control to the boundaries of the proposed 
monument and prohibited the Park Service from designating buffer zones 
on private lands. The chairman of the subcommittee opposed the 
amendment, stating that the concept of buffer zones did not exist and 
was nowhere to be found in law. However, a quick search of the Park 
Service's own Web site finds 78 references to buffer zones, including 
references in Federal law. The amendment that was offered by Mr. Bishop 
was narrowly defeated by a 22-20 vote, largely along party lines. So 
without language protecting private landowners adjacent to the 
monument, which includes homeowners, farmers and, for that matter, even 
Baylor University, passing this legislation would be, in my view, 
irresponsible. This is not just a vague hypothetical concern. In the 
Park Service's own study, recommending the designation of the Waco 
monument, the issue of controlling neighboring lands through local 
zoning is specifically mentioned; and the door is left open for the 
Park Service to push for restrictions on adjacent private property. 
That's the part that concerns me with this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1376 until language is 
added protecting property rights in the buffer zone.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman from Guam.
  Mr. Speaker, for over 60,000 years Mother Nature preserved a unique 
site in the world known as the Waco Mammoth Site. Now it is our 
responsibility to be good stewards of this historic site. Located in my 
hometown of Waco, Texas, the site represents the only recorded instance 
of a nursery herd of Pleistocene-era mammoths in the United States. It 
is the largest known concentration in North America and possibly the 
world of Pleistocene-era Columbian mammoths, dying from possibly the 
same event some 68,000 years ago.
  According to the Department of the Interior, the Waco Mammoth Site is 
a national treasure. That is why, after an extensive study, it 
recommended that the site be designated a national monument and made a 
part of the National Park System. My bill, H.R. 1376, would

[[Page 19407]]

put into effect the Department of Interior recommendations. 
Specifically, the Waco Mammoth National Monument Establishment Act of 
2009 will establish in Texas the Waco Mammoth National Monument as a 
unit within the National Park System. It would authorize the 
construction of administration and visitor use facilities on the site 
and instruct the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a management plan 
for the monument in consultation with Baylor University and the City of 
Waco. The National Park Service recommended that the most effective and 
efficient approach for ensuring the long-term protection of the site 
and maximizing opportunities for public enjoyment and education would 
be for the National Park Service to lead a partnership with the City of 
Waco and Baylor University. Under this arrangement, the National Park 
Service would take the lead responsibility for the protection, 
scientific study, and visitor enjoyment of the site while enlisting 
partners in this effort. The partners would take the responsibility for 
initiating additional recreational and educational opportunities at the 
site.
  First discovered in 1978, the Waco Mammoth Site is a unique find of 
national and international importance. To date, 24 Columbian mammoths, 
including articulated skeletons, a giant tortoise and a camel, have 
been discovered; and the potential for future mammoth discoveries is 
high with research activities ongoing at the 109-acre site. It has 
become an area of significant study within the archaeological community 
and, as living history, has the capacity to serve as an educational 
resource for people of all ages for generations to come.
  For nearly a decade, I have been proud to join with and support the 
efforts of the City of Waco, Baylor University and the Waco Mammoth 
Foundation to fulfill our dream of having the Waco Mammoth Site become 
a national monument, enjoying the ranks of American national monuments 
such as the Statue of Liberty. As with all positive accomplishments in 
life, this project has been a team effort. I especially want to salute 
the citizens of Waco for their vision, their dedication and generosity 
in supporting this project.
  I can still remember, Mr. Speaker, my friend Sam Jack McGlasson 
standing in my driveway in the 1990s, telling me about this site for 
the very first time. While he and Liz are no longer with us, their 
vision and donation of land started us down this path over a decade 
ago, a path envisioned by them and former Baylor professor Calvin 
Smith. I remember Buddy Bostick, an early contributor to this project, 
telling me that we had a moral obligation to preserve for future 
generations what Mother Nature had protected for thousands of years. 
That led to my passing legislation in 2002 to have a resource study 
done by the Department of Interior and to later passing $400,000 in 
seed money for the project. When this project was bogged down a few 
years ago, I remember Pastor John Wood, my father-in-law, holding a 
meeting at his home which resulted in a renewed focus to get things 
moving forward. With the incredible leadership of Gloria Young, Waco's 
citizens raised over $3 million of their own money to start building a 
permanent protective structure so that rains and floods would not ruin 
this site forever. Citizens such as Gloria and F.M. Young, Paul and 
Jane Meyer, Gayle Lacy, Tommye Lou Davis, Karla Leeper, Don Moes and 
others have given generously of their own time and their resources to 
protect this unique, historic site for the citizens of our country and 
the world. That is the kind of spirit of giving that makes me proud to 
call Waco my home.
  This bill would not be on the House floor today were it not for the 
tremendous bipartisan efforts of so many. With apologies to anyone 
whose name I do not mention, I must especially thank and congratulate 
Waco Mayor Virginia DuPuy, City Manager Larry Groth and his staff, and 
Ellie Caston at Baylor University and everyone at Baylor who worked 
with her. Their efforts have been tireless over many years and 
instrumental to the project's success. Hardworking Federal employees, 
who often do not get thanked, deserve our gratitude for the role they 
have played in doing the Federal resource study. So thanks go to those 
at the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior for 
whom protecting special national resources is not a job but a labor of 
love. Last, but certainly not least, I want to express my appreciation 
to Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall and his ranking 
member, Doc Hastings, notwithstanding the legitimate principled 
question that he raised a minute ago, which I will address in just a 
moment. I also want to thank Raul Grijalva and Rob Bishop, the chairman 
and ranking member of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 
Subcommittee. Without their support, this bill's passage would not be 
possible; and I thank them for protecting America's natural resources.
  Mr. Speaker, what excites me the most is knowing that generations of 
school children will learn firsthand at the Waco Mammoth Site about 
science and natural history. It will be an outdoor classroom where 
children can discover the richness of God's world in which we all live. 
At this unique site in the world, they can find that learning can be 
fun and a life-long adventure. When children and parents of all ages 
visit Waco and see the bull mammoth desperately trying to push its calf 
above the raging storm waters 68,000 years ago, we will all be touched 
by knowing that the power of parental instinct is a common bond of 
mankind and Mother Nature. For the benefit of future generations, I ask 
that my colleagues join with me in supporting H.R. 1376.
  Mr. Speaker, since I was not fully aware of Mr. Hastings' principled 
questions about this, I would just add a comment or two about that. I 
have been a long-standing supporter of private property rights. That's 
why I think that the question he has raised is a very principled one. 
What I can say to the gentleman is that this has been supported by 
Democrats and Republicans; and to my knowledge, over a period of 10 
years, along with the support of Baylor University and the City of Waco 
and our community leaders, there has not been a controversy about 
private property being encroached upon by this project. I would just 
say to the gentleman, if there is any way he could bring himself to 
support this bill, I would, in good faith before we move forward in the 
Senate, sit down with him and discuss how we could address this issue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. As I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, I have no problem with the 
designation. I thought you described it very, very well. You've heard 
those of us from the West talk about private property rights, like 
these things only happen in the western part of the United States. But 
examples like these where these buffer zones have infringed on priority 
property rights, as a matter of fact, have happened all over the United 
States, in Michigan, obviously in the West, and even in the Smoky 
Mountains here in the eastern part of the United States. I know the 
gentleman is sensitive to that. I was disappointed that the amendment 
failed by a very close margin. But the reason that was offered for why 
it didn't pass was because there is no precedence in law. In fact, 
there is precedence in law.
  I suspect your legislation is going to pass on its merits, 
notwithstanding my opposition to it. But I would certainly advise the 
gentleman as this process moves forward to look at this very closely 
because this is not an isolated example. And I know that that would be 
an unintended consequence of what you intended with this, especially as 
I understand this legislation sitting in Waco.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. To respond, if I could say to the gentleman, 
again, I have worked consistently. I may not be from the West. I am 
from the Southwest, though, and private property rights are a 
fundamental value in my district. Again, I can assure the gentleman, I 
have worked for 10 years on

[[Page 19408]]

this project, again, with leading community leaders, elected officials 
at the city and county level, Judge Lewis and County Commissioners' 
Court even contributed $100,000 of public money to this project along 
with the $3 million in private money we raised. It's been on the front 
wages of the Waco newspaper for years. This is the first time I have 
heard about any potential controversy regarding a buffer zone.
  I do respect and understand the gentleman's concern about national 
policy. Can I ask, have you heard from individuals from Waco in terms 
of specific concerns about this bill?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I would be glad to.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No. I have to say, I have not. Now having 
said that, there may be somebody on the staff that has. I can tell the 
gentleman that I have not heard specifically on this. But I just want 
to point out, there are examples of this in other parts of the country. 
Again, something that was not anticipated but, in fact, there was an 
infringement on those private property rights.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I will just say, Mr. Speaker, I respect the 
gentleman's questions. I certainly respect his concerns about 
protecting private property rights. I would just urge my colleagues--
with respect to the questions he has raised--I would urge them because 
of the decade-long support and in my community--and this site is in my 
district--the broad bipartisan support for this bill, the many reasons 
I have mentioned in my floor statement why this bill needs to become 
law, and the sooner the better. Mother Nature has protected this for 
over 60,000 years. There is risk of rains and--well, we're in the 
middle of a drought right now. Sometimes we have counties with drought 
and flood relief requests in at the same time. A massive flood in this 
area could put the entire project and all of its treasures at risk. I 
would plead with the gentleman, to either himself or his colleagues, to 
find a way to support this bill and let's find a way to work together, 
which I would be glad to do as this bill goes to the Senate.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to make the point that this 
bill was marked up in July and, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 
there was an amendment that was offered, so the issue has been known. 
But like I say, this Member has not heard directly from people in Waco, 
but maybe others have. But again, I was talking in a larger sense, 
because we've seen examples of this in other parts of the country.
  So I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I thank the gentleman again for his principled 
questions raised. I look forward to working with him. I would just ask 
my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic alike, since this bill is 
on the suspension calendar today and requires a super majority to pass, 
I'd ask my colleagues to respect the wishes of the citizens of my 
hometown of Waco who've worked on a completely bipartisan and 
nonpartisan basis for over a decade and been looking forward to this 
bill passing today.
  And my commitment to the gentleman will be to work in good faith as 
this bill goes to the Senate to try to address, if there are local 
concerns in our areas about buffer zones and protecting private 
property rights, I'd welcome partnering with the gentleman for that 
purpose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, again, I yield myself as 
much time as I may consume.
  I've talked about this and it is a legitimate concern.
  And so I would inquire of the gentlelady from Guam if she has anymore 
speakers.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, 
and I would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional 
speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If there are no more requests for time, 
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I again urge Members to support the bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1376, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________