Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will do my best to capsulize. Mr. Chairman, it was the President, when he was a candidate, that said that his policies, if enacted, would cost coal jobs. For nearly 4 years we have seen evidence of that, and the latest example of that was when Alpha Coal Company laid off 1,200 people, citing the regulations that the President said he would promulgate. This is a good bill. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of title I of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'd advise my friend from Massachusetts that we're prepared to close if he is prepared to close on his side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the author of title I, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. 5987) to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, 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 to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5987 is a bipartisan bill authored by me that will establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Mr. Speaker, there is a like bill, a bipartisan bill, also pending in the Senate. The park will encompass three locations that were integral to the tremendous engineering and human achievements of the Manhattan Project. The three locations are the Hanford site in my home State of Washington, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Oak Ridge in Tennessee. The vast majority of the facilities that are eligible to be included in this park are already owned by the Federal Government, and they are located on lands owned and controlled by the Department of Energy. Our Nation already possesses these pieces of history, and the real purpose of this bill is to officially declare the importance of preserving the history, providing access to the public, and include the unique abilities of the Park Service to help tell this story. Currently, some of these facilities slated for inclusion in this park are scheduled to be destroyed at considerable taxpayer expense. A great many local community leaders in all three States and interested citizens have worked to coordinate a commitment to preserving this piece of our history. Additionally, the government will save millions of dollars from foregone destruction, as opposed to the minimal cost of providing public access and park administration. In recognition of the important contributions to the Manhattan Project by the men and women at sites across the country, the bill contains a provision allowing communities like Dayton, Ohio, for example, outside the historical park, to receive technical assistance and support from the Department of the Interior as they seek to preserve and manage their own Manhattan Project park resources. This is a good piece of legislation, and it is part of our history, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I advise my friend from Ohio I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to yield back if he is prepared to yield back.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield back his time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is really not as complicated as my good friend from Ohio tries to make it appear to be. Now, I recognize, and we've had conversations on this when the bill was introduced, and I respect his opinion, but I respectfully disagree with his opinion and his arguments. There is nothing wrong with that. After all, we're Americans, and we can do that in America. But I want to, and with the gentleman, what I heard him saying was dealing in what if and what would be an ideal world. Well, we'd all like to have an ideal world. But let's talk about reality at that time. We were forced into the Second World War. Germany, of course, had started, some can say, started that war with their blitzkrieg on September 1, 1939, into Poland. You could say it may have started when Japan started expanding where they were going in the Pacific, and certainly when they attacked us on December 7, 1941. Whether we liked it or not, we were in a war for survival. There is no question about that. That is simply the facts. In the process of carrying out that war, and by the way, Mr. Speaker, let me say that war is absolutely unpredictable, but because if you're logically thinking about war, if it were predictable, it wouldn't have happened in the first place. But the very nature of war is unpredictable. So we didn't know where we were, but we had heard that Nazi Germany was developing an atomic weapon. Now, they had been building a military machine long before because we were caught a bit off guard in the Second World War. We were not a warring Nation. So we had to use whatever technology we had in order to defend our freedoms. One way that was decided was to build an atomic weapon if we had to use that atomic weapon. What this bill purports to do is nothing more than to talk about the ingenuity of the American people to develop this weapon when the nuclear industry was relatively in its infancy, and did it in such a short time frame. That is something that we ought to put into our history books because we do put past battles in our history books. Just earlier this week was the 150th anniversary of Antietam, right up the road here in Sharpsburg, Maryland--the largest single-day casualty in American history at that time. Yet we memorialize the battlefield because it helped preserve our Union and get our Union back together. So I think it's right that we look at these from that perspective. Now, I can only imagine how difficult a decision it was for President Truman shortly after President Roosevelt had died to make this decision; but he made it because in his judgment, given the information he had, it would probably save more lives than it would cost by dropping a bomb. That was the judgment he made. Let me speak just a little bit about, again, the ingenuity and the technology of what happened, and I can only speak about my area, Hanford, and about, specifically, about the B Reactor. This is the first nuclear reactor that was built in this country; and from start to finish, it was built in less than a year. The technology at that point wasn't even proven. Yet when they started the B Reactor and went ``hot,'' as they said, it obviously did what it was supposed to do. It was a tremendous scientific achievement. To open this up to the public and open this up to school children to see what we can do and what we did in this country to protect the freedoms and liberty we have, I think is worth preserving. Again, all this does is take those three main sites that largely are already owned by the government, transfer them to the National Park Service, and show them to the public so we can learn and remember what happened during that time. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I've been down on this floor many times criticizing the Obama administration. But the Obama administration, through Secretary Salazar and the Department of the Interior, is in favor of legislation establishing precisely what this bill and the Senate bill hope to do. So while I have differences with them, I certainly congratulate them for recognizing how important this legislation is. With that, 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. Chairman, I'd advise my friend that I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'll just advise my friend that I am prepared to close if he will yield back.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5544.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This bill will rectify a decades-old injustice that was imposed by Congress during the Carter administration to ensure that funding for schools and education in Minnesota is carried on. When Minnesota became a State, it received certain parcels of land from the Federal Government set aside to help fund education. These lands, known as school trust lands, were specifically established to provide funding for Minnesota public schools. Responsible timber management, mineral development, and other economic uses of these lands would generate the revenue that would benefit every child in the State. However, in 1978, Congress designated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and a portion of these trust lands became trapped inside the wilderness area and inaccessible, therefore, for economic development. This caused a decline in funding, then, for local schools. H.R. 5544 would implement a bipartisan plan that was passed by the Minnesota State Legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Dayton to authorize a no-cost land exchange. It would allow Minnesota school trust lands, locked away within the Federal wilderness area, to be exchanged for Federal land from the multiple-use Superior National Forest. State forest lands would be fairly exchanged for Federal forest lands. But typical of the attitude held by many Democrats that spending more of taxpayers' money will solve the problem, the critics of this bill have suggested that the Federal Government should simply buy these inaccessible trust lands at a potential cost of tens of millions of dollars. This is at the same time when the Federal Government has had more than a $1 trillion budget deficit for the last 4 years under this President. However, the much-needed solution in this bill would consolidate State-held lands within the wilderness area and allow the State of Minnesota to access and develop new trust lands from the Superior National Forest. This will benefit State schools at no cost to the Federal taxpayers, with the additional benefit of job creation and economic development. Let me elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman. It has been shown time and again that States are far more effective managing lands for sustainable use and revenue generation than the Federal Government. For example, in my home State of Washington, they have been able to produce more than a thousand times the revenue for education on 2.2 million acres of State trust land, as opposed to the U.S. Forest Service, which is able to generate only four times that amount, 9 million acres. In other words, regenerate a thousand-percent revenue on one-fourth of the land because it's administered by the State. I think the same principle can apply to Minnesota. Putting these State lands back to productive use for education will increase funding for schools across the State, while at the same time creating new opportunities for job creation and economic growth. This bill is more than a land exchange. It's about keeping a promise when Minnesota became a State. It's about correcting the 34-year consequences of Federal action that restricted access to this vital asset. It's about ensuring that children and schools have the funding that they deserve and were promised. So I urge support of this bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 8 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, somebody who has worked extremely hard on behalf of his constituents to correct the injustice that was imposed in 1978, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I am sitting here absolutely amazed by the debate on this issue. This is really very, very simple. In 1978, there was no Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, so there were trust lands in that part of Minnesota that were generating revenue for public schools in Minnesota. So in 1978, Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and they took that land out of trust. So that means there is a deficiency in trust lands for Minnesota schools. This legislation simply seeks to correct that, nothing more than that. Nothing more than that. So, in fact, here's another way to put it, Mr. Chairman. If the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness had not been passed, we wouldn't be here today because you would have those trust lands generating revenue. But because it included that area, we are here today. Now, I heard my good friend from St. Paul talking about the transparency and everybody should be involved in decisionmaking. What happened in 1978 when this 86,000 acres was taken out of trust? Where was the transparency? Where was the goodwill that was coming from the Federal Government to the citizens of Minnesota at that time? It apparently wasn't there. Now, I know the Forest Service can make those adjustments. They don't need an act of Congress to do it; but, Mr. Chairman, it's been 34 years. Don't you think, after 34 years, if the ability were there that it would be done if there was a will on both sides to do so? Apparently, there might have been a will on both sides, but there are others that were involved that said, no, let's slow the process down. So the Minnesota Legislature said, let's get this thing going, and they passed the legislation, and this simply carries out the act of the legislature that was signed by the Governor. And it's really nothing more than that. I'm absolutely amazed by the detail that goes on because what comes out of all of this debate, from my point of view which, ironically, comes from Members that represent Minnesota, is they don't trust Minnesotans to make the right decisions as to what part of that national forest would be used for trust lands. I find that mind- boggling. I think the gentleman from northern Minnesota is doing right by his constituents with this legislation to correct what has happened 34 years ago. So this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman. I urge it's adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlelady's concern for Native Americans. As a matter of fact, I will simply say that's one of the reasons when I became chairman of Natural Resources Committee that we had a subcommittee dealing with their issues because I think they were being neglected in the past, and so I share that concern. But this amendment, honestly, is really not necessary. And I have to say this, Mr. Chairman. At this very last minute here, as we're debating this on the floor, it raises an issue that has not previously been raised. Let me just go back to the history of this legislation. This issue was not raised at any point during the subcommittee hearing or the full committee markup of this legislation, nor was this issue mentioned in the dissenting views that were filed by the minority in their bill report, nor was this issue raised by the gentlelady from Minnesota's detailed letter opposing this bill that was dated on July 24. So I don't know why it's coming up now when it was not previously raised in the legislative process. But, Mr. Chairman, I can state very clearly that the Federal Government has a duty to uphold treaty obligations and trust responsibilities to Indian tribes. These will be upheld, and they are not changed by this bill. There are inherent obligations that the Federal Government has to Indian tribes, and they need to be respected. This amendment is not necessary and, as written, may potentially raise complex questions about whether the amendment itself would alter the treaty obligations of the Chippewa. The original treaty with the Chippewa of 1854 referred specifically to fishing and hunting rights. This amendment would add the phrase ``gathering'' to those rights, without any definition of scope of what that means. Lastly, I will credit the Members, the gentlelady who's sponsoring this legislation, she said last night in the Rules Committee and here just a moment ago that, notwithstanding whether this amendment would pass or not, she would be opposing the bill. I take her at her word on that. But this is a last-minute issue that had not been raised. It's not necessary for us to respect and uphold the rights of tribes, and I think it's being offered by somebody, as was stated, who is just simply opposed to the bill. So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I understand the gentlelady has yielded back. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill by allowing a Cabinet Secretary or even a low-level Federal bureaucrat the authority to override an act of Congress and delay this land exchange. Let's be specific. This bill directs a land exchange of State lands for Federal forest lands. The simple result of the exchange will be that the boundaries would be State rather than Federal. The management of the lands exchanged in Minnesota will continue to be responsibly managed under State law. Now, Mr. Chairman, under the U.S. Constitution, it is the legislative branch of government that writes our Nation's laws. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to execute the laws written by Congress. This amendment would result in giving the executive branch the ability to undermine or ignore written law. This land exchange would be subjected to years of costly red tape and bureaucratic foot- dragging. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that has been going on for 34 years. That's why we are here today. The priority of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill is the schoolchildren of Minnesota, but it seems the priority of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is more Federal red tape to protect Federal bureaucracy and more lawsuits. So I urge the defeat of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.