Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 503 authorizes the National Desert Storm Memorial Association to establish a commemorative work on Federal land outside of the closed National Mall reserve in the District of Columbia to commemorate and honor members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield. Over 600,000 American servicemen deployed for Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield and successfully led a coalition of over 30 countries to evict an invading army to secure the independence of Kuwait. This memorial will recognize their success, but it will also serve as a commemoration of those nearly 300 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. The work would be planned and constructed using non-Federal funds, and unlike recent monuments' proposals, it does not exempt it from the Commemorative Works Act, which was established to place standards and a process for the placement of memorials in the Washington, D.C., area. This is a good piece of legislation, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I commend Dr. Roe and others for introducing it and bringing it to the floor. I urge its passage. With that, 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 (S. 611) to make a technical amendment to the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area Act, 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, S. 611 authorizes a transfer of land between the U.S. Forest Service and the Pueblo of Sandia in the State of New Mexico. The bill would complete a series of pending land exchanges that were originally authorized under a 2003 law. The exchanges were intended to resolve the Pueblo's ownership claims to Sandia Mountain and to retain certain lands and interests in public ownership as part of the Cibola National Forest. Some of the land exchanges were not executed because of a disagreement over land valuation. In 2009, Congress attempted to resolve this matter through a technical amendment but, in the view of the Forest Service, the bill did not resolve the land valuation dispute. So, Mr. Speaker, it is hoped that round two of the technical amendments to the 2003 act will conclude the matter. The Committee on Natural Resources has reported the House companion measure to this bill, H.R. 3605, and we have no objection to passing S. 611 in lieu of H.R. 3605. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will advise my friend from New Mexico that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, our nuclear weapons production programs played a pivotal role in our Nation's defense for decades. It helped end World War II, and it helped end the cold war. But these programs created a large amount of radioactive nuclear waste, and the Federal Government has a legal responsibility to clean up this waste. This amendment restores a portion of the proposed reduction for the Department of Energy's environmental management program, which is tasked with cleaning up the nuclear defense waste at sites across our country. Hanford's Richland Operations Office in my district is one of the defense nuclear waste sites, and it is facing a cut of over $100 million, putting cleanup progress and legally enforceable cleanup commitments at risk. Even at a time of tight budget constraints, the Federal Government must meet existing legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear waste. Existing legal obligations of the Federal Government, like cleanup of its nuclear waste sites, must be met before funding optional activities, regardless of how valuable those other activities may be. By adding back $20 million for the defense environmental management program--a small portion of the overall cut--this amendment helps to ensure that cleanup can move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner. It would help ensure that the Richland Operations Office can complete the successful and nearly complete River Corridor Closure Project and meet cleanup commitments. I might add that the river I am talking about that this River Corridor Closure Project abuts is the Columbia River, which is a main waterway through central Washington, so I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I simply want to say, Madam Chair, that the environmental management program is a program that is the result of our war efforts going back to the Second World War. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we won the Second World War because of this activity and won the cold war largely because of this activity, but developing nuclear weapons creates a tremendous amount of waste, and that is the responsibility of the Federal Government. I mentioned Hanford, and I mentioned one of the projects at Hanford, and I want to remind my colleagues of how much nuclear waste is stored underground at Hanford. Fifty-six million gallons of radioactive/hazardous waste is stored underground on the upper plateau at Hanford. If you were to quantify how much 56 million gallons would be, it would fill up over 20 House chambers. This amendment does not address particularly that program, but I just want to remind my colleagues that cleaning up this waste is a massive, massive taking, and it must be done, simply because what the programs did initially by ending the war, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment, which directs the Department of the Interior to provide the American public with reasonable motorized, non-motorized, and pedestrian access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain, located in the Hanford Reach National Monument. This 195,000-acre monument, designated by President Clinton in 2000, is near the Hanford Nuclear Site and is the only one in the continental United States managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the site itself remains under the ownership of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management. At 3,600 feet, Rattlesnake Mountain is the highest point in the region, and it provides unparalleled views for miles around the monument, including the Hanford Site, the Snake River, the Columbia River, and the Yakima River. Unfortunately, it took the Fish and Wildlife Service eight years to write a management plan that effectively closed Rattlesnake Mountain to public access, despite the vast majority of public comments favoring just the opposite. After I first introduced this bill in 2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service offered two public tours for selected individuals and then suddenly reneged on the offer just days before the tours were to occur. During a 2011 committee hearing on the bill, the Interior Department's testimony suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service supports tours of Rattlesnake, but very carefully didn't go the extra step of ensuring the Service would allow public access to the summit. Finally, last summer, the Fish and Wildlife Service granted a few dozen people the opportunity to access the Rattlesnake Mountain summit over two tours. These were the first two public tours offered since the monument was designated. The seats for the 2013 tours were snapped up online in just 21 seconds of being made available. This year, the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing tours on six days, and used a lottery system to distribute the tickets. While I appreciate the Interior Department's tentative steps in recent years toward allowing the public access to this area, it's clearly not enough, and even the limited opportunities being offered now can be reversed at any time. My amendment is necessary to ensure reasonable and regular public access can be guaranteed by law to the citizens of that area. This language is supported by many stakeholders in the local area including the Benton County Commissioners, the Tri-Cities Development Council (TRIDEC), the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, and the Back Country Horsemen of Washington. I would also note that this amendment has passed this chamber previously as stand-alone legislation. Last year, and in the previous Congress, this body approved this language on strong bipartisan votes with no votes in opposition. I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee and their staff for allowing this amendment to be adopted en bloc today. Hopefully, this will move us closer to ensuring the American people have access to special places on their public lands, like Rattlesnake Mountain.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. The provisions included in this conference report will enhance our water infrastructure and will help communities throughout our Nation. When the House considered its version of this bill last year, it adopted my amendment to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers could not carry out a new purpose under this bill without the consent of Congress. This amendment was offered in response to the Senate version's provision that allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to change dam operations irrespective of congressionally authorized purposes. The conference report's Section 1046 before us today contains my provision to ensure that the Army Corps of Engineers cannot change dam operations without congressional consent. The provision simply authorizes a study to update and revise the 1992 report on Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs. Revisions to this report will correct erroneous entries, but it is important to acknowledge that a revision of a report does not amount to a de facto endorsement by Congress of a change to project operations. This is a fundamental requirement that must be honored for the entire federal power project and not just limited to the Army Corps of Engineers. I would also note that Section 1046 requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the revision to the 1992 report to ensure consistency with existing law and regulations. This provision applies to the applicable regulations that are notice and comment type of regulations that require due process under the Administrative Procedures Act and enacted pursuant to a Congressional mandate. Internal policy pronouncements that are termed ``engineers regulations'' can be changed by the Army Corps of Engineers without notice to stakeholders. While engineers regulations are fundamentally important to the Army Corps of Engineers operations, they are predominantly policy statements that do not have the same authority as regulations adopted at the direction of Congress. The Government Accountability Review should bear this distinction in mind. In conclusion, a review of an Army Corps of Engineers dam does not amount to a new authorization. Congress retains the authority and responsibility to adjust project purposes. A recommendation for a change, even if suggested by a report will still require action by the Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 404) to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 404 would preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness area of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in my home State of Washington. The Green Mountain Lookout was constructed in 1933 on the summit of Green Mountain for the purpose of fire detection. It was also used to look for enemy aircraft during World War II. While the lookout is no longer used for fire detection, it has, however, become a favorite destination for hikers. Several years ago, after the lookout was damaged in a snowstorm, the Forest Service disassembled and removed the lookout by helicopter with the intent of replacing the foundation and reassembling the lookout. In 2009, the lookout was reassembled, again using helicopter. But in 2010, Mr. Speaker, an environmental group from out of State, from the State of Montana, filed and won a lawsuit claiming that the repairs violated both the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As a result, a Federal judge in Seattle ordered the Forest Service to remove the historic lookout. Elimination of this popular hiking destination by this order would have begun this summer. This bill puts a stop to that nonsense and it protects the lookout. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Too often, lawsuits from extreme groups seek to close off public access to public lands, and too often bureaucracies are happy to comply with eliminating existing recreation from public lands. At times they even take the lead in pushing such restrictions. Credit, however, is due to the Forest Service for using common sense in this case. In other cases, such as the subsistence cabin of the Alaska Native veteran addressed also in this bill, or the halting of stocking fish in the North Cascades, which is the subject of another bill, common sense hasn't always prevailed, so it falls to Congress to fix the problem. The House has already acted once on this piece of legislation regarding the Green Mountain Lookout, in February, by protecting this lookout. By voting on this Senate bill today, the House will send the measure to the President to be signed and to become law. The Senate approved the measure by unanimous consent last week at the request of our Senator from Washington, Senator Patty Murray. This action was prompted by a visit from Senator Murray to the Washington State communities affected by the tragic mudslide that claimed the lives of over two-dozen citizens. The Senator called me a week ago last Saturday morning. When she asked what she and her congressional colleagues could do to help, the mayor of Darrington, one of the communities that is affected, asked for enactment of this bill to save the lookout. It is a small action that cannot undo the tragedy, but it will help protect a recreation and economic asset in this corner of Washington State. It goes without saying to all affected by the mudslide that our hearts go out to those of you who lost loved ones, and our sincere thanks is owed to all who have assisted in the rescue, search, recovery, and rebuilding of that area. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my optimism that this is just the first of other bills affecting public lands that will become law this year. There has been bipartisan communication between the House and the Senate on finding agreement on a number of bills of local importance to communities across the country--bills to solve problems, foster economic development, and to protect historic and special places. Had not the special circumstances prompted action on this bill today, I am confident it would have become law soon enough. Senator Murray and I, along with Senator Cantwell, also from Washington State, have been discussing a number of bills of interest to our particular State. I hope and believe these will be among those that can be accomplished later on this year. It takes one step at a time, so I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who is the author of the House version of the Alaska provisions in this Senate bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Arizona I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a good piece of legislation. I want to congratulate my colleagues from the western part of the State for introducing it and persevering on it. It is just one of those issues, as I mentioned in my opening statement, where we many times in the West get influenced by somebody out of State. This is just one of those classic examples. There is no reason why the lookout should not be there for the people that surround the community of Darrington, and for the people that hike in that area. But so many times I have come to the floor, and colleagues on my side, arguing about lawsuits, especially from the environmental emphasis. This is just one more example that we are correcting. In fact, I hope we can have more of those in the future. This is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 H.R. 1459.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, President Obama has not been shy about his willingness or his desire to circumvent Congress and take unilateral action on a variety of issues. This lack of shyness includes the designation of new national monuments. In fact, during the President's first term in office, an internal memo was leaked that showed plans to potentially lock up more than 13 million acres of Western land with the simple stroke of the President's pen. Major land use decisions such as this should not be made behind closed doors and should fully involve the local citizens whose livelihoods would be directly affected by such action. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act, sponsored by our colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). This legislation would require public participation before a President can designate a national monument under the Antiquities Act. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat this last sentence that I gave because this is the heart of the legislation. This legislation would require public participation before a President can designate a national monument under the Antiquities Act. Over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act was passed to allow a President to unilaterally designate national monuments without any input or involvement from the people, communities, or elected officials of the areas that would be directly impacted. However, this authority was intended to be used under narrow circumstances and in emergencies to prevent destruction of a precious place; but unfortunately, we have seen this power abused by Presidents of both parties. It has been used as a tool to score political points, rather than to protect areas facing imminent threat or harm. National monuments are one of the most restrictive of all land use designations. They can significantly block public access and limit public recreation and other job-creating economic activities. The American people and their elected leaders deserve to have a say in which of their lands deserve special protections as national monuments and which should, instead, be allowed to contribute to the full range of recreational, conservation, economic, and resource benefits that carefully managed multiple-use lands provide. H.R. 1459 would guarantee public involvement and ensure that the designation process is transparent by requiring all national monument designations made under the Antiquities Act to comply with the NEPA process. Most, if not all, major land use decisions are statutorily required to go through the NEPA process. Designations made by the President should be treated no differently than those other processes. I will openly state, however, that I--and many of my Republican colleagues--believe that NEPA is a law that should be streamlined and updated. However, this bill is about transparency and ensuring that the public has a voice. So let me ask the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman: If my Democrat colleagues believe that the NEPA is a worthwhile law that works and that NEPA is important, why should they oppose making sure that Presidential designations should not go through the same process? This bill continues to uphold the original intention of the Antiquities Act, which is to allow the President to act in emergency situations. It protects the President's ability to act if there is an eminent threat to an American antiquity by allowing for a temporary emergency designation of 5,000 acres or less for a 3-year period. After that time, in order to ensure public participation in the process, the designation would be made permanent if the NEPA process is completed or if it is approved by Congress. The bill would also limit national monument declarations to no more than one per State during any 4-year Presidential term and prevent the inclusion of private property in monument designations without the prior written consent of the property owners. National monument designations deserve public input from the people and communities who are directly impacted. This bill is necessary to stop unilateral actions by the President and ensure participation by the American public. I commend subcommittee Chairman Bishop for his work on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).