Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2010. Amount: $12 million Account: Department of Homeland Security--Science and Technology Directorate Account: Research, Development, and Operations--Laboratory Facilities. Entity receiving funds: The U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) located at P.O. Box 999, Richland, WA 22352. Description: Existing PNNL facilities located in the 300 Area of the Hanford federal nuclear site in Washington state are scheduled for demolition and cleanup by 2010. PNNL capabilities housed in the 300 Area--nearly half of the PNNL's total lab space--support critical national security initiatives. PNNL's lab space supports the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the intelligence community and other customers, including critical non- proliferation and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection work for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and DHS. In Fiscal Year 2005, a joint team of DOE Office of Science, NNSA, and DHS officials formed to plan new lab space for PNNL--known as the CRL. These funds would fulfill DHS's commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding it signed and keep the project on schedule for completion.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last evening, I was patiently waiting here on the House floor to offer an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill. The Democratic leadership suddenly moved to shut down debate and to cut off our ability to represent our constituents and to offer ideas to improve this legislation. At 8 p.m. last night, the rules of the House allowed me to offer my amendment, but this morning, under the rewriting of the rules, I am blocked from doing so. I deeply regret this unfairness and this hostility in letting Representatives--Members of Congress--come to the House floor for just 5 minutes and offer amendments to a bill that spends $64 billion. The amendment that I am blocked from offering, frankly, is very simple. It would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund that has received strong bipartisan support for years and is an existing program but which this bill has explicitly eliminated. The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is a successful grants-to-States program used to help recover and to conserve endangered, threatened, at-risk, and important tribal salmon runs on the Pacific coast. In April, President Obama proposed in his budget to eliminate this fund and to transfer the funds to another fund. From the Northwest, the reaction was bipartisan and very swift. The success of this long- standing program was so compelling that the Obama administration reversed its course, to their credit, and sent a letter to Congress, seeking to restore the funds to this recovery plan. My amendment, which I am now blocked from offering on this floor, would simply adopt the Obama administration's position. So, Mr. Speaker, I regret this unprecedented rule restricting House debate, and this successful endangered salmon recovery program will suffer for it. The House action to eliminate this plan, frankly, will make it much more difficult for the Senate to deal with in the other body. This amendment is very simple. It would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund that is eliminated in the bill and Committee report. The Recovery Fund is a long-standing, successful grants-to-states program used to help recover and conserve endangered, threatened, at- risk and important tribal salmon runs on the Pacific Coast, or for the conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat. The Fund delivers grants directly to states to be administered. For years, it has received strong bipartisan support. However, in April, President Obama submitted in his budget request to Congress, a proposal that eliminated the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and transferred a reduced amount of funding to a much broader nationwide species recovery grant program. From the Pacific Northwest, the reaction and opposition to this proposed elimination was swift, bipartisan, loud and clear. The success of this decade-long grant program was so compelling, and the efforts of the Northwest congressional delegation were so persuasive, that the Obama Administration actually reversed course. On May 21st, President Obama sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi amending his April submission to specifically request that ``$50 million shall be transferred to `Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery'.'' Credit is due to the Obama Administration for abandoning their elimination proposal and clearly expressing their support for this program. I thank them and the people of the Pacific Northwest thank them. Yet, the annual appropriations bill currently before the House proposes to actually follow through with eliminating the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. As this bill and Committee report are written, the Fund is specifically and explicitly eliminated and money is moved to a vague, broad, nationwide recovery program. Monies in this vague, new program will go to ``salmon projects''. Gone is the Fund, its direct grants to states, its requirement of matching funds, its emphasis on endangered salmon and runs important to Northwest tribes. In its place, this bill provides less money, dilutes it to any project of any sort for salmon anywhere in the country, and lets NOAA rather than states decide how it is spent. My amendment would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund as it has long existed and direct funds to the traditionally funded states. The text of my amendment copies the language of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill that passed in March of this year. Just three months ago, this House and this Congress approved this same text. My amendment would keep funding at the same level singled out for ``salmon projects'' in the bill, $50 million, but it makes certain the funds are administered through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which is the official position and request of the Obama Administration. To object to this amendment would be to insist on the first Obama budget's vague, diluted salmon funding proposal that has been so loudly, soundly, and rightly rejected. Amendment to H.R. 2847, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington Page 14, line 3, after the colon insert the following: ``Provided further, For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of Pacific salmon populations, $50,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided further, That of the funds provided herein the Secretary of Commerce may issue grants to the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Alaska and Federally-recognized tribes of the Columbia River and Pacific Coast for projects necessary for restoration of salmon and steelhead populations that are listed as threatened or endangered, or identified by a State as at-risk to be so-listed, for maintaining populations necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat, based on guidelines to be developed by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided further, That funds disbursed to States shall be subject to a matching requirement of funds or documented in-kind contributions of at least 33 percent of the Federal funds:''.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 2487, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Amount: $500,000. Account: U.S. Department of Justice--Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Entity receiving funds: City of Yakima located at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901. Description: These funds will be used to continue development of a system that allows all the public safety agencies in Yakima County to integrate their data communications and records systems. This system will provide comprehensive data to all local law enforcement officials, as well as federal and state agencies. Amount: $400,000. Account: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Entity receiving funds: Yakima County located at 128 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901. Description: Funds will be used to develop and implement a county- wide comprehensive response to the serious and worsening youth gang problem in the region, including prevention, intervention, and suppression programs.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution, and it is responsive to what happened yesterday at a place where something like this should never happen. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My understanding is my friend from West Virginia has more requests for time than I do, and I'd be more than happy to yield him 9 of those 10 minutes to dispense with as he sees fit, with the understanding, if I do get some Members, I can reclaim some of that time. And I ask unanimous consent that he control that 9 minutes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Republican Caucus Chair, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join with Chairman Rahall to support this resolution to condemn the tragic shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum yesterday. Our prayers go out to the family of Security Officer Steven Tyrone Johns, an innocent victim of this outrage. Mr. Speaker, that this violent act and needless death occurred at a memorial erected to peace and tolerance by reminding the world of the deaths and horrors of the Holocaust is, to me, simply unspeakable. So, Mr. Speaker, I simply urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my friend from Texas for her thoughtful remarks and for working on this issue. Agri-business is big in our area, and cherry season is a very tight time frame. It is important that nothing slows down the process of getting these cherries to market. So with that, I want to thank my friend from Guam for also endorsing this amendment, and with that, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Rogers of Alabama, for cosponsoring this very important amendment. Mr. Chairman, highly trained K-9 teams have been successfully employed in the United States to screen airports and cargo since 1973. Dogs are extremely reliable and their mobility makes them invaluable in screening all types of cargo quickly and effectively. As we approach the August 2010 deadline to screen 100 percent of cargo transported on passenger airplanes, it is critical that the TSA is able to deal with all types of cargo without necessarily slowing down exports. Within my district, cherry growers transport half of the cherries they export on passenger aircraft, and K-9s are by far the most workable screening method for these highly perishable products. My amendment would increase the number of K-9 teams specifically dedicated to air cargo by a minimum of 100 dogs. The need for additional K-9s to screen air cargo is clear. For example, the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport began screening all of its cargo earlier this year. In order to meet the needs of all exporters, TSA will bring K-9 teams to the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country during the cherry harvest to ensure that all cherries are screened in a timely manner. Once a 100 percent screening requirement goes into effect next year, the burden on all existing K-9 teams will only increase. At a time when our economy is struggling, we should not be adding new roadblocks for American farmers and businesses. I strongly urge my colleagues to support keeping our skies secure without interrupting commerce and vote ``yes'' on the Hastings/Jackson-Lee/Rogers amendment.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 31, and I do so because I believe this bill sets a bad precedent. It extends Federal recognition to what I understand would become the third largest tribe in the country. Though the size of the Lumbee Tribe does not disqualify it from consideration for recognition, it does demand, nonetheless, that Congress exercise great caution. And I will point that out later on in my remarks. Madam Speaker, a fundamental principle of Indian law is that a recognized tribe should be a tribe that can trace continuous existence from the earliest days of our Republic to the present. In fact, this is enshrined in one of the seven mandatory criteria that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, uses to evaluate petitions from groups seeking recognition. The BIA process might have its problems, but at least it has a clear set of standards that a petitioner must meet. We in Congress do not seem to have a clear standard for determining that the Lumbee Tribe warrants recognition. Legislative proposals to recognize the Lumbee has surfaced numerous times over the last century, yet none were enacted. No new information has come to light to justify passing that legislation today. Moreover, the committee applied no visible standard for determining why the Lumbees warrant recognition while other groups do not. Unless the House develops a clear, rational, fixed policy on recognition, then our act of recognizing a tribe would deem to be arbitrary. This could undermine the standing of recognized tribes everywhere. The lack of transparent standards in H.R. 31 leads to a major issue: the tribe size and the cost of providing services to it. Two years ago when we considered the same legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that recognizing the Lumbees would cost taxpayers $480 million over 5 years based on an enrollment of about 40,000 members. Today, CBO advises that the bill is going to cost $786 million over 5 years based on a tribal enrollment of 54,000. $786 million, Madam Speaker, is an enormous sum and it could force the BIA and the Indian Health Service to alter formulas for the provisions of service to all other tribes, possibly reducing their allocation. A recent news article in the North Carolina paper indicates the tribal rolls are closed because of the concerns over the size of the tribe. The implication is that the tribal rolls will be reopened again after Congress passes this bill. As I said earlier, the size of the tribe is not an issue here. What is at issue is the kind of enrollment standards the tribe applies because taxpayers and other tribes want to know what the cost implications will be down the road. Let me restate a few points that I made when the Committee on Natural Resources marked up this measure, because the objections and the concerns that I raised then have not been resolved today. First, the Obama administration testified in support of H.R. 31, reversing the stance of the previous administration. In the committee hearing on the bill, the Department's witness did not explain how the administration came to the conclusion that the Lumbees warrant Federal recognition. When I asked the witness who was at the Department who made the decision, his reply was, The political leadership. The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is the top political leader there. I would note since the day he took office, Secretary Salazar has repeatedly stressed that his decisions will be based on the law and sound science. For example, an Interior news release quotes him as saying: ``My first priority at Interior is to lead the Department with openness in decision making, high ethical standards, and respect to scientific integrity.'' Again, this is from a news release that was sent out by the Department. We are debating a bill about tribal recognition and the Department of the Interior is supposed to base its recognition decisions based on the research of the professional historians, anthropologists, and genealogists employed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So in this new leadership at Interior, how did this new leadership at Interior and the administration arrive at support of H.R. 31? Was it because of the professional opinion of those career social scientists? Was there openness in this decisionmaking? I think the answer is no. The Department has not provided the committee with any data supporting its conclusion that the Lumbee met the same basic criteria as other tribes the Secretary has recognized. While there are a number of other concerns with H.R. 31, let me highlight one more which is extremely important. While the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority to recognize a tribe, the Congress must respect some reasonable limits on the exercise of this authority. To do otherwise undermines the whole notion of tribal recognition and thereby dishonors all validly recognized tribes. With this in mind, the House today should, at a minimum, ensure that a tribe being formally recognized descends from a known historic tribe. H.R. 31 fails this test. The legislation limits the Secretary to ``confirming compliance with the membership criteria set out in the Tribe's constitution.'' The tribe has testified that its members are descendants of coastal North Carolina tribes. At a minimum, the Secretary should verify that every member of the tribe descends from such historic tribes. Such verification has not been done, and it is not required under H.R. 31. It could have been done if the amendment filed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) were made in order by the Rules Committee, but the Rules Committee chose not to make his amendment in order. His amendment would have required the Secretary to evaluate the Lumbee recognition petition using the Bureau of Indian Affairs' seven mandatory criteria. One of the criteria requires a petitioner to show that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historic Indian tribe. H.R. 31, again, Madam Speaker, does not impose a reasonable standard that justifies the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe. So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am, in its current form, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I advised my friend, I have no further speakers. But I just want to take a moment here to close beforehand. So with that I yield myself the balance of the time. I think what has been demonstrated on the floor here is the passion surrounding this issue. And I can certainly understand that passion, especially with the history, particularly here in the eastern part of the United States. And I don't expect that my opposition or my arguments are going to change the outcome of the votes, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, because of the Carcieri decision, I think it is important for us to set at least some guidelines as to what process we in Congress, who have the constitutional right, by the way, to recognize tribes, at least to have a set of criteria that we should look at. And one of them ought to be at least some verification at the minimal. I know that at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and admittedly this is regulatory, there are seven or eight steps that certainly make sense. A lot of tribes have gone through that process. So I understand the passion. I respect the passion and the work that has been done on this. But for the reasons I outlined, more of a process reason than anything else, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. And with that, I yield back my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Moran) made an observation about the paper genocide issue, and I have to say that every member at the committee hearing that attended that hearing and heard the testimony on H.R. 1385 were, frankly, shocked and saddened and dismayed that, in fact, this sort of action went on in Virginia, how they treated the Indian people in the 20th century. I think that goes without saying. But I do want to point out, Mr. Chairman, for the record that there was a career employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs who heads up the Office of Federal Acknowledgement that had a different view, and I just at least want to put that on the record as we debate this issue. He said, ``Records in Virginia do exist, and they were not destroyed. The vital records of birth, marriage, divorce, death and probate, they are in the record. Not only are they in the hands of the individuals to whom they pertain, but they are available at the local registrar level and State registrar level.'' He went on, continuing to quote, ``In preparation for this hearing, I wanted to reach into what evidence was submitted on behalf of the Virginia groups, and in 2001 this was the material that we received. And one of the group's materials were copies of vital records that were not destroyed.'' So this BIA witness went on to describe how these documents identified the persons and Indians. So it appears that there are records in Virginia, notwithstanding the fact that the State of Virginia went through this process in the last century. So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point that out that in the committee hearing we did hear testimony that at least in part disputed the issue of paper genocide. I wanted to make that observation in the debate today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1385, but not for the reason for which this legislation is intended to point out or to create but, rather, for reasons that I will outline in my remarks here this morning. In the last Congress, a nearly identical bill passed the House by voice vote. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, and I believe that the results will probably be the same as the last vote we had in the last Congress, but I must highlight serious shortcomings with this bill that should cause Members to reconsider their positions. First, the House has not acquired sufficient evidence to justify extending Federal recognition to the six Virginia tribes identified in this bill. In the committee hearing on H.R. 1385, we heard a lot of testimony from witnesses for the six tribes, from the Governor of Virginia, from a historian, and from the Department of the Interior. All provided interesting and often passionate statements. Although the Department provided no position on the bill, the Department's witnesses did remark that all six groups have petitioned for recognition with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but none of the six tribes have completed the process within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the Department lacks completely documented petitions, then how can we be sure that we in Congress have enough information about these six tribes? None of the witnesses explained why the six Virginia tribes should be recognized before all of the other tribes whose recognition petitions are within and are lingering within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. About nine of these groups have completed their petitions. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, they are more prepared for a final determination than the Virginia tribes with which this bill deals. H.R. 1385 contains ample lists of congressional findings about the history of these six groups, but there is no requirement to verify that members of these tribes can trace descendants to historic Virginia tribes. This is a basic standard that the House must observe if it wants to ensure the integrity of tribal recognition. If the House is not prepared to take additional time to study this, then we should ask the Secretary to study it and to provide us with the answers. The committee held no field hearings in Virginia to learn more about the tribes on their home turf. It has relatively little information from county officials and from private individuals who might be interested in tribal recognition and what it means to them. This is a State without a history of recognized tribes, unless you reach back to the colonial era, and Virginia presently has no Indian trust lands. We simply do not know if there are any counties or private individuals in affected areas who fully understand that placing land in trust removes property from the tax rolls and from State and municipal jurisdictions. On this note, the Rules Committee made in order an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to remove some counties from the bill. This suggests to me the majority is beginning to understand that counties in Virginia are just now becoming more informed on what this bill means. So, Mr. Chairman, prudence dictates that we put this bill on hold until these issues are vetted. If the House recognizes new tribes and acquires lands in trust for them without thoroughly examining the views of the jurisdiction where the lands are located, we potentially risk creating local problems. This is going to hamper our efforts to resolve land-in-trust controversies occurring elsewhere in the United States. Such controversies, Mr. Chairman, do occur. We have a huge one to deal with right now. In February, the Supreme Court, in Carcieri v. Salazar, held the Department of the Interior has no authority to acquire lands in trust for any tribe recognized after 1934 unless there is a specific act of Congress authorizing it. This is a major decision that has, frankly, Mr. Chairman, shaken Indian Country, and it is a case that has caught the attention of Governors, attorneys general, and county leaders around the country. The committee has held one hearing on the subject, and I am hopeful that there will be more. Virginia's tribes are directly affected by this decision because they were not recognized in 1934. Thus, anything done with H.R. 1385 could set a precedent for resolving the Carcieri issue. Under H.R. 1385, lands placed in trust for the Virginia tribes will be secure. Meanwhile, lands held in trust or proposed for trust status for others may not be secure. This kind of inconsistency in Federal Indian policy helped fuel the controversy that led to the Supreme Court's Carcieri in the first place. If the solution to Carcieri is to deal with each and every post-1934 tribe's trust land application separately in Congress, then H.R. 1385 might be appropriate. If the solution is to provide the Secretary of the Interior with the appropriate authority to acquire lands in trust, then H.R. 1385 is not appropriate. So, while the committee has held a hearing on Carcieri, there seems to be no consensus on how to resolve it. We have received no testimony from the Department, and none of the tribes, States or other concerned interests have had an opportunity to testify in the committee as of the time the report for H.R. 1385 was filed. It would be wise then, Mr. Chairman, to postpone floor action on any recognition bills until the committee acquires a better understanding of the impacts of Carcieri and what to do about it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.