[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 184-186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     CASTLE NUGENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2010

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3726) to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site 
at St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill 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.

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


                             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. 3726, sponsored by my good friend and 
colleague from the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen, establishes the 
Castle Nugent National Historic Site as a new unit of the National Park 
System on the island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands.
  The lands to be included in this new historic site represent the 
largest undeveloped natural area remaining on the island, and there is 
very strong local support for protecting it as parkland for future 
generations.
  The new park, Mr. Speaker, encompasses about 11,500 acres, three-
quarters of which are submerged lands containing one of the largest and 
healthiest coral reef systems in the region. The National Park Service 
has studied the site and testified that it meets their criteria for 
addition to the system.
  Congresswoman Christensen is to be commended for her commitment to 
preserving the unique history and the culture of the beautiful island 
of St. Croix. So we urge our colleagues to support passage of H.R. 
3726.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have concerns with H.R. 3726. As of today, the National Park 
Service has yet to complete the congressionally authorized study of 
this proposal. In fact, the agency has asked that we defer 
consideration until the study is completed.
  These studies are not without cost in both personnel and funds, and 
they take several years to complete and can drain as much as $500,000 
from the Park Service budget. What use are these feasibility studies if 
we simply choose to ignore them, or, in this case, rush to pass 
legislation before the study can be finalized? Typically, these studies 
contain information that could be useful in crafting better 
legislation.
  For example, it would be nice to know what process the National Park 
Service went through to consult with all private property owners who 
may be harmed or impacted by this designation. The National Park 
Service testified that the cost to acquire the private property to 
establish this park could be as much as $50 million, in addition to 
nearly $1 million a year to operate the park.

                              {time}  1415

  Most of us are aware of the estimated $9 billion in maintenance 
backlog created currently with the National Park Service. Consequently, 
it becomes very difficult to justify why additional land acquisition is 
advisable at this particular time. How do we explain to taxpayers that, 
while unemployment soars, their government is conspiring to buy beach-
front property in the Caribbean? Is adding these luxurious 2,900 acres 
to the Federal land inventory the priority of this particular Congress?
  Nearly every acre of the dry land that is to be acquired is privately 
owned. It's our understanding the majority of this land is owned by one 
family. According to testimony heard by the Committee on Natural 
Resources, this family is supportive of the proposal and even initiated 
this process.

[[Page 185]]

We heard that it is their desire that this land not be developed, but 
be preserved in its current condition. It seems to me that they are in 
a perfect position to accomplish that goal as landowners. May I suggest 
that they also possess the power to determine the future of the 
property without any interference of Congress.
  In addition, to complicate the issue further, sources within the Park 
Service have told us that there is discord within the family itself 
over whether this designation is indeed in the family's best interest. 
Apart from this family, we have heard nothing from the other property 
owners affected by this bill, both on land and in the water. Is it fair 
for us in Washington, D.C., to place them in a restrictive designation 
without their consent and also not knowing whether the consent exists 
or not?
  It is not only these 2,900 acres of dry land that's affected by this 
legislation. In addition, this bill includes the park-associated 
submerged lands out to the 3-mile territorial limit of the Virgin 
Islands. This could mean that fishing in the area would be prohibited, 
just as it is at the Virgin Islands National Park that surrounds two-
thirds of the island of St. John.
  I hope that this will not impact struggling fishermen, but it is a 
possibility that deserves attention and has yet to be addressed, but 
would have, had the feasibility study been completed.
  Again, these are questions that need to be answered, and I would hope 
that some of them will be answered in the final study when it is 
finally signed by Secretary Salazar. If this legislation does move 
forward today, I hope the current landowners and their descendents are 
aware that the National Park Service will now be their zoning board.
  I would also like to note that there is no ``willing seller'' 
provision in this legislation. While ``willing seller'' provisions are 
minimum at best protections, at least with this language Congress is on 
record that landowners should not be hounded or harassed into selling 
their land to the National Park Service.
  I cannot in good conscience support this legislation, yet that does 
not guarantee the right of private property owners. Our constituents 
deserve better than that. If the intent of this proposal is to preserve 
historic landscapes, certainly that can be done locally without Federal 
funds, interference, or bureaucratic red tape.
  So I urge my colleagues to demonstrate some fiscal responsibility and 
demand respect for property rights that are not yet in this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding.
  Today, I rise to speak on behalf of H.R. 3726, a bill that I 
introduced to establish the Castle Nugent National Historic Site on St. 
Croix, in my district in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The introduction of 
this bill continues an effort started in 2006 to build upon that great 
precedent set by our Forefathers when Yellowstone in Wyoming became the 
first national park. The establishment of Castle Nugent National 
Historic Site would provide an excellent opportunity to preserve a very 
special and unique landscape for the people of St. Croix and visitors 
to the islands for generations to come.
  H.R. 3726 calls for the preservation of 2,900 acres, which include a 
Caribbean dry forest, pristine coastal barrier coral reef system, and a 
pre-Columbian, as well as a post-European, settlement. The property has 
a long agricultural history dating back to the 1730s, when the Danish 
estate house, now listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 
was constructed. The farm is one of the last working cattle ranches on 
St. Croix and one of the ranches instrumental in the development and 
exportation of Senepol cattle throughout the Caribbean and the rest of 
the world.
  H.R. 3726 would ensure the continued rearing of Senepol cattle with a 
provision that guarantees a continued relationship with the University 
of the Virgin Islands to support ongoing scientific research. In 
addition to guaranteeing the protection of one of the most ecologically 
sensitive areas on the island, H.R. 3726 would also preserve a rich 
part of our historic and cultural past by preserving the archaeological 
remains of the indigenous inhabitants of St. Croix.
  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 yet they have continued to try to do what they 
feel, and I agree, is best for all concerned. There is no intent here 
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 as well as their fellow Americans to continue to enjoy the area 
and to preserve it for future generations.
  Even the person who purchased about 400 acres of this property a few 
years back is on record in support of preserving this area. Longtime 
neighbors of Castle Nugent support the bill. Both the Bush and Obama 
administrations have supported this designation every step of the way. 
The current administration has testified that the study is completed 
and that it fully supports the designation that we're seeking. The 
designation is supported by my constituents, including some of those 
who originally questioned the expansion of the park. As far as I'm 
aware, no one is challenging the conclusion of the study or the wisdom 
of preserving the area.
  There's no substantive reason to oppose the legislation. The bill 
contains no intergovernmental mandates, as defined in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act; would impose no cost on State, local, or tribal 
governments; and would impose no private sector mandates either, as 
defined in the UMRA. This is a beautiful and important cultural and 
natural resource that is in danger of being lost to the Nation's public 
forever. If we don't move forward, there's 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.
  At this time, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Chairman 
Rahall and Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva for their support in ushering 
this bill through the Resources Committee. I'd also like to thank the 
numerous community members who wrote in support of this bill, including 
our national park superintendent, Mr. Joel Tutein; Mr. Olasee Davis, 
who traveled from the Virgin Islands to testify in favor of the bill; 
the Gasperi family, and to thank them again for their patience in 
holding out for this day; and the Trust for Public Lands, who's given 
them their support.
  I just wanted to add a few other things. While it would be ideal to 
wait until spring when the study would be formally transmitted to 
Congress, there are certain examples where this committee and the 
Congress have moved forward with designations before studies were 
completed or, in some cases, without studies at all. I'd just like to 
mention two examples. The legislation designating President Reagan's 
boyhood home in Illinois and the Oklahoma City Memorial were enacted 
without studies at all. Both were sponsored by Members from the other 
side of the aisle. So precedent has been set for bills to be acted on 
prior to the study being completed or even without studies.
  In addition, on November 17, I want to just remind my colleagues that 
the National Park Service testified in the committee to the fact that 
Castle Nugent has met their criteria for suitability and national 
significance. We're confident in the National Park Service's testimony 
and that the final opinion will reflect what was testified to; but it 
is necessary for us to act expediently, as there is risk of losing the 
property if we don't move quickly.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In closing, whether this cattle ranch becomes 
part of our national inventory or not may indeed be a good idea. But 
one of the things I think we are saying right now

[[Page 186]]

is the scope these processes have to go through--and the process does 
become important. Poor process produces poor policy. What we are 
arguing in this particular case is if we should allow the process to go 
through to its completion. There are questions that still have to be 
asked that yet have a quantified answer to them. Neighbors may be in 
support, but we want those things quantified, which should be part of 
the process that is there.
  There should be private property rights in this particular document 
for the protection of private property owners, and that should be 
boilerplate language we add in all legislation--not just this, but the 
rest that comes through. The question that we should be asking, which 
is what the study should be asking as well, is not necessarily do we go 
forth in this particular one but should we look at this as the only way 
of preserving or moving forward on this cattle ranch in the future? Is 
this indeed the best way? Are there other concepts that could be used? 
And should this be the $50 million budget priority of this particular 
Congress? Those are the types of questions that should have been 
answered in the committee before this bill moved forward, and that's 
what we asked in committee and we're asking again on the floor.
  This may indeed be the proper use of turning this former cattle ranch 
into a national asset, but there are still questions that should have 
been asked in a proper process to make sure that this is the right 
policy at this particular time. And that's why we have objections to 
this particular bill, not necessarily the substance of it, but the 
manner and mechanism of what we are doing, because there are still too 
many unanswered questions.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I again urge the Members to support the 
bill, H.R. 3726, 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. 3726, 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________