Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2314 and the substitute text that will be offered by my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate, it is important for all Members to understand that the substitute text that they will ultimately be voting on today is fundamentally changed from the original underlying bill that the House voted on in 2007. This rewritten text, the Abercrombie substitute, was drafted behind closed doors away from public view. It was unveiled less than 48 hours before we in the House were to be debating and voting on that substitute. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this lack of transparency has become the standard operating procedure for this Democratic-controlled House. Mr. Speaker, I am certain we will hear appeals from the bill's advocates that the vote on this bill should not be a partisan matter. I would agree. This is not a partisan matter; rather, it is a question of what is right and constitutional. But appeals to nonpartisanship ring hollow when the bill was rewritten in secret by just one party and then rushed to the floor with little time for scrutiny by the minority, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, little time for scrutiny by the American people or the citizens of Hawaii. There is nothing more troubling about the House voting on a fundamentally rewritten bill than the position made public by the Governor of Hawaii. Something is very wrong when that Governor, a longtime vocal advocate of Native Hawaiian recognition, feels compelled to issue a statement last night that she can't support this rewritten bill. Now, the Governor and I disagree on the fundamental question of recognition, I want to make that clear, just as I fundamentally disagree with my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) but I also strongly disagree with the House acting to impose a changed bill on one of the 50 States over their Governor's objections, especially when this Governor has long supported, as I mentioned, the concept of Native Hawaiian recognition and the original text of the bill. Let me explain the difference between the underlying bill, which is basically what the House passed in the 110th Congress, and the Abercrombie amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is very important, Mr. Speaker. The original bill extended recognition to the Native Hawaiian entity but withheld any tribal powers and privileges, such as immunity from lawsuit and State jurisdiction, until after negotiations with--and the consent of--the State of Hawaii and this Congress. Though this does not resolve my fundamental objection to the bill, it was an arrangement that drew the strong support of Governor Lingle of Hawaii. In contrast, the substitute alters this fundamental nature of the bill. Let me quote the words that the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Linda Lingle, used to describe this rewrite: ``The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.'' Again, the original bill starts with negotiations, followed by a grant of powers and authorities that are subject to the consent of the State. But the substitute starts with the grant of powers and authorities without the consent of the State, followed by negotiations for yet more benefits and powers. Let me be specific, Mr. Speaker, in two instances. First, section 9 of the substitute clearly spells out the powers granted to the Native American governing entity before negotiations without the consent of the State; it is immunity from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with only minor exceptions. Second, it is that ``governmental'' activities pursued by the entity or its officers and employees shall not be subject to State regulatory or taxation authority. The wording of this section suggests that the State criminal authority will not even apply to officers and employees of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as long as they are acting within the scope of their duties. To once again quote from the Governor of Hawaii's statement from last night, ``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for Hawaii.'' Quoting further, ``In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawaii.'' And I am quoting from Governor Lingle. Without question, this rewritten bill strikes at the heart of the State of Hawaii's authority to enforce health and environmental regulations, taxes, and criminal law enforcement equally among its citizens. Congress should not be party to imposing this upon this State, or for that matter any State. Yet, despite the State of Hawaii's concerns with the rewritten bill, here we are tonight debating it on the floor of the House of Representatives. This legislation violates also, in my view, the United States Constitution because it establishes a separate, race-based government of Native Hawaiians. The authors and advocates of this bill have argued that Native Hawaiian recognition is no different than Congress recognizing an Indian tribe, and yet, Mr. Speaker, there are very important and real differences. Native Hawaiians are not and never have been members of an Indian tribe. Native Hawaiians do not share the same political and legal history as Federally recognized Indian tribes. The historical record on this point is very, very clear. For example, in the Hawaii Organic Act of 1900, section 4 states that all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii in 1898 were declared citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, if Congress then believed it was recognizing the existence of a separate Native Hawaiian community, the Organic Act would have expressly reflected this; instead, all Hawaiians were recognized as full citizens. Mr. Speaker, this is in stark contrast to our Nation's history of less than equal treatment of individual Indians and Indian tribes. But try as we might, Congress cannot revise historical and political facts. H.R. 2314 attempts to do just this, to rewrite legal history. Mr. Speaker, this observation is shared by constitutional and civil rights experts. For example, in its 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano commented on the proposition of Native Hawaiian recognition, saying that it, and I quote from that case, ``would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.'' Just yesterday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reiterated its standing opposition to any legislation, and I quote from the commission, ``that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according to varying degrees of privilege.'' Mr. Speaker, in 1959 a vote was taken in Hawaii on the question of becoming a State. Over 94 percent voted in favor of statehood. In other words, citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly to join our Union as one unified State. Today, under this bill, Congress will vote on dividing the State of Hawaii through the creation of a separate governing entity based solely on race. If Congress is going to impose this division on Hawaii over the objections of its Governor, then I believe the citizens of Hawaii themselves deserve to have a vote on this matter. In a Zogby poll from December 2009, a couple of months ago, only 34 percent of Hawaiians supported the concept of the Federal Government's imposing a new racially based subpopulation of citizens on the islands. Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for Statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago. The same poll found that 58 percent want a Statewide vote on this issue. So, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that will be offered which would require just such a Statewide vote, and I hope all Members will join me in adopting that amendment. As I noted at the outset of my remarks, the House last voted on Native Hawaiian recognition in 2007. I want to reiterate today, Mr. Speaker, that we will be voting on a different bill today. The 2007 legislation was rewritten. I believe the changes today are so fundamentally different that those Members who voted ``yes'' in 2007 should take the time to reconsider their votes. There is another compelling reason for reconsideration when the Governor of Hawaii, the State that is impacted, has gone from an enthusiastic supporter of the 2007 bill to not supporting the rewritten bill. I hope many of my colleagues will recognize this dramatic change from just 3 years ago. The Governor remains a committed supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition. Her position has not changed. It is the bill that has been fundamentally changed and rewritten. Like the Governor, who supported the 2007 bill, they, too, have good reason to oppose this rewritten version today. Now, Mr. Speaker, before concluding my opening statement, I want to take a moment to publicly state that I have a great deal of respect and affection for my colleague from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie. He is departing the House at the end of this week, and I do regret that I am leading the opposition to his bill in his final days here in the House. To be very honest, Mr. Speaker, I would much rather be on the floor supporting his bipartisan legislation to write into law a 5-year plan to develop America's offshore oil and gas reserves. Regrettably, such reasonable legislation stands no chance of making it to the floor in this Congress, and I do regret that. So I hope that my good friend knows that my opposition to this recognition bill is based on my view of the matter and is not a reflection of the high regard for which I hold him as my friend. I want to wish him well in his future endeavors--well, maybe not real, real well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentleman has checked with the Ethics Committee; but having been a long-time member, I gladly accept that from my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, reclaiming my time, maybe we could work together on that right now if that would be the case. Mr. Speaker, I am simply pointing this out because this is evolving into a process, and who is being left out of this process happens to be the elected Governor of the State of Hawaii. And to me that is regretful. With that, I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Reference was made to how this would affect the laws of Hawaii. Let me read from the Abercrombie substitute, page 51, line 1H: The Native American governing entity shall be immune from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with some exceptions as I had noted earlier. On the same page, page 51 of the Abercrombie substitute, line 18: Governmental nonbusiness, noncommercial activities undertaken by the Native Hawaiian government entity shall not be subject to the regulatory or taxation authority of the State of Hawaii. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out this is what the substitute says, and these are the concerns that the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii and the Governor of Hawaii have, because we all know when we are writing laws here that the word ``shall'' as opposed to ``may'' has very, very strong meaning, and in both cases it says ``shall.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last week Americans were encouraged when President Obama mentioned offshore drilling in his State of the Union address; yet, it took only 5 short days for the President to reveal his true intentions on offshore drilling. The President's budget plan shows revenues for new offshore leases dramatically declining in the next 5 years. If more areas are opened to exploration, revenues would increase, not decrease. Less revenue means less exploration. This shows this administration has no intention of opening up new areas to offshore drilling. In 2008, the decades-long ban on offshore drilling was ended because the public demanded it. As a result, we now have over 500 million new acres available for energy production. But this administration is purposely choosing not to act. The President's words don't match his actions. This administration's policies are preventing the creation of millions of new American jobs. Mr. Speaker, it's time for America to move forward with an all-of-the-above energy plan that includes new offshore drilling.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I understand the gentleman from West Virginia is the final speaker on that side. With that, I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. And if you were listening to the debate here of the several speakers that we had on our side of the aisle, if you noticed, we were not criticizing the merits of this purchase. We are simply saying that there is a procedure that this Congress set up. That procedure was a study. Taxpayer dollars funded that study in order to see if this project actually merits congressional support. Well, that study, Madam Speaker, is not made public. We have not seen the study. We don't know if it is good or bad. It may be good, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) said. In fact, he alluded that he has seen worse pieces of legislation rather than this one. But for goodness sakes, if we are spending taxpayer dollars on a study, then shouldn't we at least find out what the study says? That might lead us in the right direction of spending, as this bill would authorize, up to $50 million without really knowing the ramifications. So our argument on this side, and I think an argument on this side probably resonates better with the American people due to the fiscal health of our country, I think this resonates very, very well today, especially, as I alluded to in my earlier remarks, since the President is going to come and speak to a joint session of Congress tonight on fiscal responsibility, this is our opportunity on that very day to show some fiscal responsibility by saying ``no'' to this bill and waiting for the study to come back. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I cannot support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it for two reasons. First, this Congress in prior times enacted a law that authorized and directed the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study on whether this site should be preserved and, if so, in what manner. Madam Speaker, we don't have that report. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on this study, and yet this House is charging ahead, making a decision without having that study in our hands. I think that is wasteful, and I think it's irresponsible. It has been said that the report is done, but Congress hasn't gotten a copy of that report. We are told its recommendations will support the approach taken in this bill, yet we don't know that because we have not received the report. Even if the final report were to recommend establishing a historic site, we would benefit from the information they have gathered to better craft such legislation. This bill is clearly putting the cart before the horse. The Park Service itself has testified on this Castle Nugent bill before us today, and they stated: ``We would ask that the committee defer action on this legislation until the special resource study is completed, which is consistent with the Department's general policy on legislation establishing a new unit of the National Park System when a study is pending.'' Madam Speaker, if the $500,000 study that Congress passed to initiate is nearly completed, then we should wait to consider this bill until we have that information. That seems to be a rather logical conclusion of the events. There hasn't been a single compelling reason given as to the need to act right now before this study is in hand. Now, Madam Speaker, the second reason for opposition to this bill is its cost. With 10 percent unemployment nationwide and with millions of Americans without jobs and the fact that we are running record budget deficits and the public debt is skyrocketing, now is not the time to potentially spend up to $50 million of the taxpayers' money to buy nearly 3,000 acres of beachfront property on a Caribbean island. And on top of that, it will probably cost an estimate of $1 million a year to maintain. Madam Speaker, we can't afford the price tag for a new park in St. Croix, just as many Americans will never be able to afford a visit there. I had my staff, Madam Speaker, actually look up the cost of getting to St. Croix over the Presidents' Day weekend next month. From my home town in Pasco, Washington, it would take two plane changes, over 12 hours of time and around a thousand dollars to visit the island which would be the home of this new park. For a resident in the wild and wonderful State of West Virginia, just to pick a State, flying out of the Charleston airport, the time to get there is a little less, but the price is still around a thousand dollars. On top of the cost of buying this beachfront Caribbean property and the yearly cost of maintaining it, we need to be honest about the backlog that we have in caring for land already owned by the Federal Government. Madam Speaker, there is $9 billion, that is billion with a ``b,'' worth of needed repairs and maintenance on existing park lands. If we aren't caring for what we already have, then Congress shouldn't be making the problem worse by authorizing new park lands. Our existing treasures should be our focus to ensure families that load up the minivan or SUV to take a summer vacation to a national park have a safe, enjoyable, and accessible visit, like my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) expressed a moment ago about the Rocky Mountain National Park. I guarantee you that no family from any State will ever load up their minivan and drive to this park in the Caribbean ocean. This Congress must get serious about controlling spending. The American people are concerned. They're worried and they're angered by the spending that has gone on in Washington, D.C. In the first year of the Obama administration, the largest spending deficit in our Nation's history has been set. Whether it's the $787 billion stimulus bill that has failed to create the jobs that were promised or the government takeover--potential government takeover of the health care costs that will cost, if it is put in place--the health care bill that is being debated, over a trillion dollars--I think is very, very clear: spending in America's mind is out of control. For Congress to buckle down, it needs to not only put the brakes on mega-spending bills but it also must start taking a hard look at smaller bills like this one. Just take a look, Madam Speaker, at some of the bills that have been advanced out of the Natural Resources Committee this year. We passed a bill to create a $700 million welfare program for wild horses; they've approved another bill to increase spending for neotropical birds by millions of dollars; and, today, there is a committee hearing on a bill to spend millions of more dollars overseas to assist apes. There is a lot of talk that the President may propose a spending freeze in his State of the Union speech tonight. The news media and blogs have been talking about it for several days; yet this House is positioned to vote on creating a new $50 million park in the middle of the Caribbean ocean just hours before the State of the Union speech tonight. Madam Speaker, those that control this House will send quite a message on spending and their real priorities if it approves this bill before the President even makes it here to give his speech tonight. So, Madam Speaker, for those two reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. And with that, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop of Utah.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to a new member of the House Resources Committee, Mr. Chaffetz from Utah.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I wanted to respond to my distinguished chairman. It is true that we do have a lot of bipartisanship on our committee, and I appreciate the gentleman for making that point, and I am certainly doing everything on my part to ensure that that continues on. However, I will make the point we did have a hearing on H.R. 3538, the measure sponsored by Mr. Simpson. We have not had a hearing, however, on H.R. 4474 which is before us today sponsored by Mr. Minnick. I just wanted to point that out because we try to be in regular order as much as we possibly can, and I think that is worth pointing out. So I would hope that this legislation does pass the House with strong bipartisan support. Maybe it will be able to send the signal that we can indeed work in a bipartisan way if only we change sponsorships of certain bills; but that remains to be seen, Madam Speaker, but I look forward to that time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will first speak to the merits of this legislation before focusing on the partisan reasons why the House is having to debate this bill and this legislation for a second week in a row. This bill was originally introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho to require the Forest Service to issue special use maintenance permits to owners of a small number of existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas. Although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners currently lack the authority to maintain and repair these facilities. Failure to maintain these facilities can harm not only those who depend on access to the water that these structures provide but also damage the environment and watersheds of the Forest Service land. H.R. 4474 will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do the necessary maintenance. The legislation is narrowly tailored to apply only to a small number of sites that meet specific criteria. To qualify, the water diversion facility must have been in existence on the date that the area was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It must have been in substantially continuous use since the date of that designation, and the owner of the facilities must hold a valid water right under Idaho law that predates the wilderness designation. Additionally, sites can only be covered by the bill if it is not practical or feasible to relocate the facilities to land outside the wilderness area and continue the beneficial use of water recognized under State law. This is a bill and policy that I believe merits strong support in this House. Congress needs to have a reasonable and commonsense approach to managing our Federal lands. Wilderness designations preclude such commonsense management. The restrictions on activity are so severe and inflexible, the designation is often applied to unsuitable lands, and problems and conflicts arise out of that designation. And so here we are today. Congress must go back once again and fix the problems created by previous wilderness designation law. Congress needs to execute far more caution and care and forethought before designating wilderness areas, as the effects are to lock up these areas for human activity. We ought to be wise enough to devise sound conservation practices on our land without creating the unintended threats to neighboring families that poorly thought out wilderness designation can bring to many. There is no reason why we cannot be both good stewards and good neighbors. So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a matter of good public policy, and I support the changes this legislation will make in the law. However, as a matter of how the Democrat leaders who control this House are choosing to operate this House, I object to the extreme partisan maneuvering surrounding this bill. Last week the House voted on this exact same bill, but there are only two differences between that bill and this bill. First, this is a new bill with a new number. And second, the lead sponsor is now a Democrat instead of a Republican. Last week this bill was H.R. 3538, sponsored by Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho. Today the bill is numbered H.R. 4474, and the lead sponsor is Democrat Walt Minnick of Idaho. So let me repeat. The bill is word for word the same that the House voted on last week, except the sponsorship has been switched so that a Democrat is now the prime sponsor. Now, I have to say, Madam Speaker, this is truly a remarkable display of partisanship. First, Democrat leaders directed their Members to vote against this legislation last week because a totally separate piece of legislation failed to pass on the suspension calendar. And now these Democrat leaders are playing a partisan switcheroo in sponsorship of this bill so a Democrat gets credit for this bill's passing. I assume it's going to pass now that the switcheroo has happened. I might add, by the way, that the area that we're talking about is in Mr. Simpson's district. So, Madam Speaker, with unemployment in double digits, millions of Americans without jobs, and with record deficits set last year by a Democrat President and this Congress, one would think that this House would have more important things to do than to engage in such overt and obvious partisan tactics. With that, Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time and ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands has her time also.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. House Resolution 1020 has been adequately explained by the majority, and we have no objection to this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the gentleman was about a statement that he made that it would be more costly to go through litigation than to settlement. I asked the gentleman very specifically if he has documentation to that effect. And so I hope that the gentleman would respond to me on that point because that is the difference in this debate on this bill and the last bill. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he has that documentation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to interrupt. Do you have documentation to that point? We asked the Department of Justice specifically on that point, and they have not responded. Do you have documentation on that point? Listen, if this saves the taxpayer money, I am totally in favor of it. All we are asking is for that documentation. If the gentleman has it, please provide it. Does the gentleman have it? I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.