Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize, this is the core point. The gentleman just said he doesn't have it, and yet we are being asked here, Members of the U.S. House, representing everybody in this country, taxpayers who may not be involved with this, to pass judgment and support this settlement agreement when we don't know if the cost is beneficial or not. That's the issue. I would hope, as I said in my closing remarks on the first bill, when we have future settlements coming forward we can have this information, full transparency, Mr. Speaker, in committee so we don't have to go through this drill on the floor and go back and forth and then unfortunately have somebody say we don't have this documentation. Mr. Speaker, that's the issue here. We are not arguing about the benefits of the claims. I am sure that they are very good. There have been long negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the issue that we are debating here is not the settlement claims per se. I think we all in this House agree that if you can get agreement with parties involved in litigation and come to agreement amongst them, that is good policy. That has very well been explained by my friends on the other side of the aisle. But what is at issue here is the third part, and that is: Is this claim going to be beneficial to the taxpayers by not costing the taxpayers more than if they went through litigation? That is what the issue is. It is very clear. Now, the gentleman from New Mexico just a moment ago said something to the effect that this would save the taxpayers money by not going through litigation. I would like to ask the gentleman, and I will yield to the gentleman if he can provide me documents as to that fact. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman if he can provide that to me.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if I understand, the gentleman will be the last speaker. I know my friend Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So I will close and I will yield myself the balance of the time by simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that the issue here is not the benefits of these settlements. We think those settlements are good. The one element that we have a question on is what is the cost to the taxpayer? I think that is a very, very legitimate issue for us in the U.S. House to consider. So with that reason, as I mentioned earlier, I have to reluctantly oppose all three of these bills. And I would hope in the future at the committee level we can have this full transparency on future settlements that we will inevitably have in this Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The arguments that I made on the previous bill are exactly applicable to this bill. So let me simply summarize. To summarize, I believe, and we believe on this side, that settlement agreements are in the best interests for all parties involved. But there is an element that needs to be highlighted because settlement agreements generally at the end cost money, and the missing part of these agreements on these three bills that we are considering today is, What is the cost to the taxpayer? We need to have transparency when we make that decision, and that decision, unfortunately, was not afforded to us in committee, and at the last minute, it was afforded to us in a very ambiguous way. So it's for that reason, while I support the claims settlements as a general principle, not having all the information, I must oppose this bill, as I did the last bill. And with the next bill coming up, I will say essentially the same thing. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again this is the third of three settlement bills. The arguments that I had made on the first two bills are applicable to this one. I will just add one other point. And that is that these three bills have a cost to the taxpayer of a half a billion dollars, $500 million. And there certainly is an unrest in this country as to what this Congress has done in a fiscal manner. This is small. We are talking about millions, when other programs we are talking about in this Congress unfortunately total trillions. But if we need to get our house in order, this is simply something that we need to have more information on before we pass judgment on it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will just simply repeat what I said at the outset. I must reluctantly rise to oppose all three of these settlement bills based on the simple fact that we don't have all the information we need. While we applaud people on the local level settling tough disputes, especially water issues, and I am especially sensitive to that, Mr. Speaker, because I am from the western part of the United States, it is in the best interests of all of the people in this country to know what the cost to them would be because they're all taxpayers. I think that's self-evident. So this debate, at least from our side of the aisle, didn't question the merits of those settlement agreements mainly because, at least from this Member's perspective, I know how difficult that is when you have these types of disputes. Our issue is simply the transparency of what the cost will be to the taxpayers of this country. We deserve to have that before these settlement issues come to the floor of the House. We deserve to have this information so we can do due diligence in committee and then make a judgment if the settlement is in fact in the best interests of the taxpayers. That is really all this debate has been about on these three bills. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that we don't have transparency on this potential half-a-billion-dollar assessment that's going to go to the taxpayer. We should have that and we don't. So it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in opposition to this bill and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend, the distinguished chairman, if he has any more speakers on this bill?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose this and the two other claimed settlement bills that are being considered on the House floor today. As a Member from the western part of the United States, I am well aware of how important these settlements can be to tribal and non- tribal communities. In general, Indian water rights settlements are instruments to reduce litigation and bring water supply certainty to communities in the western part of the United States. When done right, they provide not only certainty to all parties, but they also benefit the American taxpayer, who could end up paying much more if the litigation went forward. It is indeed Congress' statutory role to consider and approve these settlements when these settlements are complete. The Congress should have all the information it needs to conduct a proper review and pass judgment on the merits of approving these settlements. Yet we do not have all such information on these three bills today. The most critical missing element is a clear, direct answer from the Department of Justice, through the Attorney General, on whether these settlements represent a fair resolution to the taxpayer. As I mentioned during committee consideration of these bills, it is appropriate that these agreements are largely worked out by the people at the local level, but taxpayers from across the country have to pay for such agreements. So, Mr. Speaker, in that context, while I applaud the idea that local groups are working it out in their best interests, which I think is a positive statement, these do have to be paid for by the American taxpayers. So we must be able to answer this question: Is this the best deal that can be reached and is it in the interest of the parties to the settlement, as well as to the taxpayers of this country? The three bills that the House will consider today total over $500 million in potential Federal expenditure. Before Congress spends over one-half billion dollars, we certainly should know whether the taxpayers are getting fair treatment. The American people are highly concerned about the spending that's gone on in this Congress. Whether it's the stimulus spending that has failed to create the promised jobs or the government takeover of health care with a price tag of well over a trillion dollars, the spending in this Congress is out of control. Congress needs to get serious about the record debt being run up during President Obama's first year in office. This means not only stopping the megaspending bills, but also taking a hard look at the smaller bills, such as the $500 million bills that are represented under these three bills. We need the Attorney General to provide us with a clear, direct answer. The ranking Republican of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. McClintock of California, has been working to elicit such answers. Months ago, in September and October of last year, he wrote to the Attorney General asking direct questions. No response was received until 2 days ago, just as these bills were headed to the floor of this House for a vote. Regrettably, this bill does not provide the direct answer to the questions asked. They finally replied at the 11th hour with ambiguity and generalities, but not with a clear answer that this Congress and the American taxpayers deserve. So, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again, while I support the concept of the settlement bills because, by definition, these are people, local people on the ground making decisions in their best interest, and the possibility that these three bills merit passage by the House, without a clear answer, as I talked about earlier, from the Department of Justice on whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal, I cannot support this legislation. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose all three of these bills. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If that's the case then, Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. McClintock is not going to offer his amendment. So with that, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, hopefully we've made it very clear in this debate that the agreement and the settlement of the claims is preferable to litigation when fair resolutions are met. I think most people would agree with that. We certainly do on this side of the aisle. That it is better for those to be worked out at the local level, rather than resorting to expensive lawyer fees and years of fighting. And these bills have had a long time of years of fighting, we know that. Yet we, as Representatives, owe it to our constituents to make certain that settlements are not being made that overly compensate or benefit one community or locality while ultimately being paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Settlements must be fair to claimants, the effected community and to taxpayers. Despite several months of efforts to get a clear, direct answer from the Attorney General on the question of whether these settlements are in the interest of taxpayers, they responded, unfortunately, at the very last minute with a short and vague letter that leaves the question largely unanswered. These three bills, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, spend over $500 million. Taxpayers deserve a transparent and straightforward reply. Because that has not been forthcoming, as I mentioned, I must oppose all three bills. But, Mr. Speaker, in the future, I would hope that the Democrat majority would be put on notice that we expect to hear directly from the Justice Department on the merits of the proposed settlements while this is being considered in the Natural Resources Committee. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, these settlements need to be fully vetted and explained in a fully transparent manner with clear answers from the Justice Department. Until that happens, these types of bills should not be advanced to the House floor, as these three bills were advanced to the House floor. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquired a moment ago how much time. How much time again? And if I could inquire of my friend from Arizona again if there's any speakers. I noted that the gentleman from Oregon came down, and that's why I reserved. And I just wonder if the gentleman has any more speakers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I made reference several times in my remarks of the unintended consequences, or alluded to unintended consequences, that happen with legislation like this. And let me give you a real-life example, and again, I alluded to it in my remarks. I'm talking specifically about the Stehekin town at the end of Lake Chelan in my district. This is a town that has no roads going into it. The only way you can get there is by boat, up the Lake Chelan, or by an airplane that can land on the lake. This is a gateway to a wilderness area, and this wilderness designation was made some 20 years ago. There's a road that goes back about 20 miles to hit the wilderness area. This is an economic driver for the town of Stehekin. Well, unfortunately, the road is in a wilderness area, and this is the unintended consequence, because you get a lot of snowfall in the Cascades, and this road gets washed out occasionally. It got completely washed out several years ago, and the obvious solution to that is to repair the road so that you can still have access to the wilderness area. But you have the one problem in this particular case, and that is, the road is in a wilderness area, which means there's no wiggle room. And so, it is literally taking an act of Congress, Mr. Speaker, to rebuild a dirt road to give access to a wilderness area. Now, I'm sure that that wasn't intended when this bill was passed by the Congress before I got here in the late 1980s. I'm sure that that was not the case, and yet, we passed the bill out of the House, I'm very pleased, in a bipartisan note. But just think about this principle. This is a road that gives you access to a wilderness area, but it happens to be on wilderness land. An act of nature washes out that land, and it takes an act of Congress, for goodness sakes, to make it whole again so you have economic activity. Several Members, several of my colleagues from Oregon have talked about the great economic activity that this designation is going to have. I hope they're right. But they should take into account a real life example in a small part of a State just north of them, namely, what's happened to the community of Stehekin at the top end of Lake Chelan in my district, because these are the real-life happenings and the unintended consequences that happen when you give total authority to the Federal Government. I hope it doesn't happen on the Molalla River, I truly don't. But I suspect, as I said earlier in my remarks, that that very well may be the case. And so I think that story is worth retelling, Mr. Speaker, because it's not told enough. The town of Stehekin is a very small town, and the issue isn't done yet. That bill is in the Senate. I certainly hope it passes. But I might mention one other irony. Those that are opposed, that were opposed to rebuilding that road, they don't live in Washington State. They live in other areas of the country. Why? Because you cannot damage wilderness. Even though this happens to be an economic lifeline, I'm sure it was the unintended consequences that they're talking about. So, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise, as I said in my opening remarks, to oppose this designation, not because the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of the bill, is doing what he thinks his constituents want. I respect that. I really do. I just have experienced firsthand enough in my time in Congress to see that this leads to unintended consequences, and there are better ways to management and probably to provide economic activity surrounding the Molalla River than going this far. The second point is, we could have accommodated the gentleman from Oregon's concern about taking this timber matrix out with a simple land exchange. We're only talking about 400 acres. Yet, it was denied twice: once in committee and once by the Rules Committee. So those 400 acres, albeit small, are locked up forever. But, as I said, 400 acres today, maybe it will be 6,000 acres in the future. There's certainly been thousands of acres in the past. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose this bill. I yield back my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wish the gentleman would have yielded to me because he did not acknowledge his change of view of his testimony where these matrix lands are potential revenue if in fact they are harvested. He just simply said there will be no harvesting. But by passing this bill, you will forever, you will forever, Mr. Speaker, take those 400 acres out of ever being harvested. So that begs the question, if there is no logging now, what about in the future if the market turns around and there is a higher demand, how do we go back and get these 400 acres or potentially 6,000 acres in the future? That is the question, and that is always the fundamental question on these issues. Keep in mind, our national forest lands and our Federal lands were designed to be for multiple purpose, and that means commercial purposes. On timberland, that obviously means logging activity which benefits local communities. And in this bill, I acknowledged in my opening statement, it is a small sector of land. Nevertheless, it is the principle. And the gentleman, unfortunately, did not respond to that particular issue. He just simply said the government when he said the bureau, but he didn't talk about the impact it would potentially have on local communities because of the lack of potential harvesting in the future. I think a land transfer and trade would have been very easy to do, and that could have been accomplished if we had adopted the amendments that we offered in committee, and the amendment that was denied to be even debated on this floor, which seems to be a pattern, but that is another story. So these potential 400 acres will now be gone forever if this bill were ever to become law. The drip, drip, drip of acreage being taken away leads to other issues. So while I respect the gentleman, and he talked very clearly about the potential benefits, I suspect that there will be a time in the future, if this bill were to become law, that there will be an ensuing lawsuit that will probably tie up some of the activity that he hopes to preserve for future tourism. Why do I say that? Because that has been a pattern, unfortunately, in many parts of the West. I have always felt that Federal lands ought to be multiple use, and when you put restrictions on them, you put restrictions not only on commercial activity but on recreational activity. That is where this goes. But this issue here is very simple. The communities that depend on the revenue coming from commercial activities on these lands are, under this bill, denied forever in the future from getting any revenue from those lands. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. In response to my friend from Arizona, the subcommittee chairman, he said that logging, or commercial activity, could happen on these lands, specifically logging. But there is a proviso in there, as long as there is, and I will paraphrase, nondegradation of the existing area. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been around this business long enough to know that when there is a term like that and someone is opposed to some action or commercial activity, boom, you go to court right away, which means the costs go up, and, therefore, there are no contracts. And so you have de facto locked up these lands from any commercial activity. I think that is wrong. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank very much the gentleman yielding. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am very sensitive to Members of Congress who have projects or issues within their districts to be able to do them. I just, as I mentioned in the committee and as I mentioned on the floor, I just have a general problem with the wild and scenic designation. It is on that principle that I rise to oppose this. But I do want a clarification because I spent extensive time in my opening statement talking about your testimony in front of the subcommittee on this issue where you said very specifically that you recognized this as timber matrix land, and you wanted to work with the chairman and the ranking member, myself and Mr. Rahall, so there would be no net loss, meaning you would be open to transfer of lands or whatever the case may be. We attempted to accommodate you with an amendment that we had that unfortunately was ruled nongermane, and so we didn't get a chance to address that. The second chance we had at that was in the Rules Committee where they can waive the rules, and they decided not to. I would like to ask the question, it appears to me that now you have reversed your position because you have said that there is no potential timber harvest, and I would like you to clarify what you mean by that.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would hang around, I will be more than happy to interact with him. He made a point I would like to elaborate on, and I will yield to him to follow up. He said two things in his remarks. He said, I believe, that this is an area that should never be logged. Listen, I respect the fact that he has that position. He's very straightforward. I mean, I have no problem with that position. I may disagree with it, but I certainly have no problem with that position. But if that is the case and that is the argument and the fact is that this land is never going to be lost, then for goodness sakes why didn't we take into consideration the fact that there are 400-plus acres that could have easily been transferred in a land transfer to someplace else to keep at least the economic viability in hand? That was not done. The gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this bill, asked for that. I was certainly willing to accommodate that, and we did that in our amendment. Now, if the idea is that you're going to lock up these lands forever, at least that's being straightforward. But that certainly isn't how this has been talked about and debated here on the floor today. Secondly, the gentleman from Oregon, again, the one from downtown Portland, made this observation: he said that Washington has more lands that are designated like this than Oregon, the implication meaning that maybe they want to catch up. Let me offer maybe a little different twist on that because I stated, based on my experience in my State that when you have designations like this, you restrict the access to those areas. Now, hopefully that doesn't happen. Hope springs eternal. Every time we have this sort of activity in Washington State, this issue is brought up and don't worry, and then you look in the future and it happens. It happened with a particular part of my district, for example, that was designated a wilderness area 20-some years ago, and we're having a dickens of a time just trying to get the road to that area opened. Why? Because of the restrictions. So I will just tell my friends from Oregon that if they want to catch up with Washington, then you'd better watch out what you're trying to catch up to, because what you're catching up to is more restrictive activity. Now, it's 10 minutes to 10 back in the Pacific time zone. I am sure there are a lot of interested folks that are affected by this. I hope that they would take that part into consideration, and I hope they would take that part into consideration that, yes, these lands could be potentially logged as long as there was no degradation. Look at that word ``degradation'' and connect the dots as to how that would end up in court if, in fact, there were a contract. All of these things are real, Mr. Speaker, and so I just bring them up.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much 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 reluctantly rise to oppose this legislation, and I do so with a degree of conflicting views. Let me explain. On the one hand, I have fundamental concern with the impacts that wild and scenic river designations can have on surrounding property owners, river users, either upstream or downstream, and the restrictions that such designations can have on private citizens. Most importantly, such designations preclude the ability to make future decisions without--I say, Mr. Speaker--without an act of Congress. There are many ways to protect and manage our rivers without imposing such absolute, permanent, and inflexible mandates that do not allow us to adapt to new circumstances, evolving environmental science, and changing public needs and views. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic when a Member of the House proposes legislation that directly affects the district that he represents. I believe that we must be respectful of the views of those who are elected to represent a district, and this, Mr. Speaker, is a two-way street. It means affording a level of deference when a Member has a proposal that affects just his district, and it means an even stronger degree of respect and deference when a Member opposes an action that is proposed in the district he was elected to represent. It is very troubling to me, Mr. Speaker, to see bills introduced and referred to the Natural Resources Committee, as an example, that would have extensive and often drastic negative impacts on the economic livelihoods of local communities, workers, and their families in the Western part of the United States, but that are authored and sponsored by Members from the east coast and the Nation's biggest cities. Mr. Speaker, this lack of respect on these issues is very troubling to me. Therefore, while I generally do not support such inflexible and restrictive river designations, I do have respect for the fact that Mr. Schrader of Oregon is a sponsor of this bill, and it directly affects his district. At the same time, I must agree with the position clearly stated by Mr. Schrader during his testimony at the subcommittee hearing on this bill. At that hearing, Mr. Schrader said that he was sensitive to the fact that this river designation would impact over 400 acres of timber matrix lands. When timber is responsibly and sustainably harvested on these matrix lands, funds that come from these harvestings are provided directly to the local schools and communities in that area. This is a way of partially compensating areas of the West that are home to high percentages of Federal land for Federal policies that limit economic development. These timber matrix lands are a commitment that's been made, and they're critical to the ability of hundreds of schools to properly educate their children and for the communities in these areas to provide essential services. Mr. Schrader, to his credit, said he was sensitive to this harm that his bill would have on these lands and the schools and communities that depend on these lands. In his October 1 testimony, Mr. Schrader specifically stated, ``I would ask the chairman and ranking member to work with me and my staff to ensure there will be no net loss of the acres available for timber management as a result of this legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, no such provision or protection or offset has been included in this bill despite the honest recognition and explicit request from Mr. Schrader that action needed to be taken to protect the lands important to the schools and communities in his district. Several efforts to amend the bill to simply provide that the lands be identified elsewhere to replace the 400-plus acres locked up under this river designation bill have been blocked. The first blockage was in the Natural Resources Committee markup. On Tuesday, it was blocked by a Democrat majority on the Rules Committee. So it's been blocked two times. The need to address the loss of these timber matrix lands and the schools that depend on such lands was clearly identified and then ignored. Now, Mr. Speaker, we learned on Tuesday, the day before yesterday, that 7 days earlier, on November 10, Mr. Schrader had sent a letter to the Natural Resources Committee chairman that appears to shift away from his subcommittee testimony that clearly asked for help in ensuring that the loss of timber lands be addressed in this legislation. This letter states, ``I am satisfied that this designation will not remove trees from the timber stock: there are no timber contracts in that area, and no timber sales are planned.'' Mr. Schrader's letter further states that on the question of offsetting logging acreage, which he alluded to in his statement before the subcommittee, he says, ``I see no need to add such language to H.R. 2781 at this time.'' This letter of November 10 appears to directly contradict the gentleman from Oregon's public testimony on October 1. Was the statement made in his testimony a mistake made in understanding the bill that he authored? Or is the position taken in his letter a reversal of his request for help on fixing the timber matrix land issue? When he states that language is not needed at this time, does he mean that his view on the need for offsetting the acreage may change in the future? Mr. Schrader later implies that there is no reason to offset these lands because no current timber contract exists, nor are there logging plans at the current time. So this begs the question, Mr. Speaker: is the concern for school funding only today and not what will happen tomorrow or in the future? Of course there are no logging jobs at this moment. It is well-known throughout the Northwest that timber harvest is at a standstill due to the struggling economy and the sharp drop in housing starts. In fact, just yesterday the Natural Resources Committee approved a bill to allow for existing Federal logging contracts to be extended due to the poor economic conditions. I think that's a good idea. So yesterday, just to put this into perspective, the bad timber market is used to push legislation to ensure existing contracts can be carried forward, but today the bad market is used as an excuse for legislation that will lock up hundreds of acres, not just until the market turns around but forever. Mr. Speaker, these are not insignificant questions, and I think that there needs to be some clarification of that. So I hope very much that we have an opportunity to resolve this apparent discrepancy as this debate continues. Again and again, this Congress acts to remove more and more land from the West from active, sustainable timber management. It is our schoolchildren that are paying the highest price, as school budgets are squeezed even tighter due to the actions of the Federal budget. You can't advocate for these schools and for wiser timber and forest management to ensure jobs in towns across the Northwest while at the same time advancing legislation that makes the problem permanently worse, and that's exactly what this bill does. Some may say, well, it's only 400 acres. Yet if that was such a small amount, then why the resistance to offsetting these lands? The offset ought to be easy if this issue is just a small acreage. The fact of the matter is is that this 400 acres comes on top of thousands and thousands of acres that have been locked up in recent years. Excusing these 400 acres today feeds the notion that tomorrow or next week perhaps we can excuse taking another 6,000 acres away from helping schools and rural communities. I believe that Congress must take responsibility for its actions and the impact that it's having. It's time to demand that schoolchildren in small towns don't pay the price for the unwillingness of those in Congress to provide offsets for their actions. So it's for these reasons, Mr. Speaker--again, with deference to the gentleman who sponsored this bill, affecting only his district--that I must oppose this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman from Oregon yield?