Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4002) to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4002, which is sponsored by our colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), is a one-line bill to grant a request submitted by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to revoke its charter of incorporation, which was issued in 1940 under a 1936 act of Congress. The charter of incorporation is a New Deal era legal instrument through which a tribe may administer its business activities. However, the tribe has never used its corporate charter because it imposes undesirable restrictions on its activities. It instead manages its business activities pursuant to the authority of the tribal constitution. Only Congress may revoke a charter of incorporation duly issued to and ratified by a tribe. In accordance with the express wishes of the tribe's leadership, our colleague who represents the tribe in the House sponsored H.R. 4002. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held a hearing on this bill on March 27, 2014. The Department of the Interior testified that it had no objection to the bill, and we see no reason for any Member to object to it either. I commend my colleague from Oklahoma for performing this important constituent service, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 412) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the mainstem of the Nashua River and its tributaries in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 412 authorizes the National Park Service to study 32.5 miles of river in Massachusetts and New Hampshire for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The legislation requires that, in the course of the study, the National Park Service consider the effect of designation on recreational uses, such as hunting and fishing, but also consider impacts to energy production and transmission. I would like to note that this legislation exempts a 4.8-mile segment that is currently the subject of a FERC licensing proceeding to avoid the inherent conflict between hydroelectric facilities and the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. H.R. 412 requires the study take steps to inform the public of the consequences a future designation may bring. The study will identify all authorities that could be utilized to take property through eminent domain and those authorities that compel the Park Service to involve itself in local zoning. Property owners must not be left in the dark as to the result of this Federal designation on their properties. For the study process to be authentically derived from the community, the facts and limitations on property rights must be revealed in the process. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for her kind words on this. I know that she has been working on this legislation for the past at least two Congresses, and she knows that some of us on our side of the aisle have some concerns with that; but in working with her, we have legislation that we can support, and I urge the adoption of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the past 15 years, a large part of the success of the salmon recovery in the Northwest and in other States has been through locally driven solutions funded through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and I continue to support this program. This amendment will ensure, however, that these funds continue to benefit salmon through on-the-ground projects, but without questionable buffer guidelines imposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, as a condition of their use. Agriculture is the background of my central Washington district, and it is estimated that these and other similarly imposed land set-aside guidelines by NOAA could restrict the use of vital crop protection tools on as much as 50 acres of farmland per mile. I am not alone in my concern about NOAA's use of unverifiable salmon buffer requirements in other instances. Last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found similar NOAA salmon buffer requirements in a biological opinion that were based on scientific standards that ``did not always appear to be logical, obvious, or even rational.'' In my home State of Washington, over two dozen agricultural associations strongly oppose NOAA's recommendation of large buffers on agricultural lands, and one local recovery board group that has successfully used these funds to improve salmon survival in the upper Columbia River opposes mandatory buffers tied to these important salmon grant funds. Let me be very clear. This amendment won't cut Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds, nor will it prohibit riparian buffers where they are appropriate, but it will ensure that NOAA does not make them a prerequisite for these funds to be awarded for on-the-ground projects, respecting unique geographical priorities of agricultural areas and locally driven solutions to salmon recovery. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be approved, so that the Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds, which have been proven effective over the years for farmers and local projects, will not be used as a backdoor way for NOAA to implement other controversial guidelines for these buffers. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I respect that, but let me clarify what is going on here because the gentleman, with due respect, represents an urban area, and I represent a rural area. That is self-evident. That is not criticism. I am just pointing out the obvious.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for that clarification. I just want to make this point. These are suggested guidelines, and we have gone through this before. In fact, the EPA is working on this precisely. I oppose what the EPA is doing, as a matter of fact, and most people on the ground. I am just simply saying that through the funding mechanism, NOAA should not be able to impose these guidelines that have a great deal of controversy in the Pacific Northwest. I know this is the start of this process. I know NOAA had some problems with the initial language. We changed that language now. They can't say they oppose this because this only affects particularly these guidelines that are being proposed. So I think the amendment is something that needs to be passed, frankly, to send a message. By the time we go through this process, if they want to have some other adjustments, when they make their adjustments, I would be more than willing to talk. But I think this amendment should be passed so we can send a message to NOAA.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate that. I simply want to say that these are issues that I know are unique to mainly the Western part of the United States. But in many respects, the gentleman made a statement that really supports my amendment. Because he said the American taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on salmon recovery. That is true. So are the ratepayers in the Bonneville power system. They are paying billions of dollars for salmon recovery. The good news is the fish runs in the last 5 years have come back in record numbers. To be very honest with you, these guidelines haven't been imposed, and the salmon are coming back. So why would you want to impose these buffer zones when it probably wouldn't add anything, and when a Federal court has said it is questionable science anyway.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate, again, the ranking member working with me. But I think this is sufficiently important that we should adopt this amendment. Again, I will point out the American taxpayers, as have the ratepayers, spent billions of dollars recovering salmon. The good news in the Pacific Northwest, as I mentioned, some of the salmon runs are coming back in record numbers in the last 4 or 5 years. So if there is something that is before the final part of this bill becomes a law, and there needs to be some adjustment, I would be more than happy to talk about it. But I think it is sufficiently important to send a message right now to NOAA to not impose these guidelines when the evidence is contrary to what they are trying to do. So I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3366) to provide for the release of the property interests retained by the United States in certain land conveyed in 1954 by the United States, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, to the State of Oregon for the establishment of the Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center of Oregon State University in Hermiston, Oregon, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3366 would release the Bureau of Land Management's reversionary interest in 290 acres that were conveyed to the State of Oregon in 1954 for the establishment of the Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Oregon State University in Hermiston, Oregon. It would also reunite that land with a 6-acre orphan parcel that the Bureau of Land Management has no use for. In 1954, the Federal Government conveyed the 290 acres affected by this legislation to the State of Oregon. However, the Federal Government retained a reversionary interest in the property which now denies OSU and the city of Hermiston the control and flexibility needed to efficiently manage the property to advance new agricultural research programs. As Hermiston continues to grow up around this area, lifting the reversionary interest will advance the goals of Oregon State University, benefit the local economy, and create job opportunities to meet the demands of the expanding region. Adjacent to the 290 acres is a 6-acre parcel of land that previously reverted back to the BLM and that currently stands idle. This parcel is the subject of an amendment being considered with this bill. If it is not dealt with, it will become an orphan land parcel that is of no use to the Bureau of Land Management, and it will be a challenge to manage. The 6 acres would be better managed when they are rejoined with the adjacent 290 acres that this bill addresses. Congressman Walden, who is from that district, should be commended for his work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Oregon mentioned the Columbia Basin. My district happens to be just north of that. That part of the Columbia Basin that I represent also is a very plentiful agriculture area, and I am glad my friend from Oregon, just to the south of me, recognizes that. With that, this is a good piece of legislation, and I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 503) to authorize the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial as a commemorative work in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.