Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is celebrating a half-century of innovation and achievement in American research and development. For 50 years, the men and women at PNNL have worked diligently to make the Lab a leader among the scientific foundations of the United States, evolving from a laboratory supporting a nuclear materials development mission to a multi program national laboratory with significant portfolios in science, energy, and nonproliferation. When America went to the moon in 1969, NASA chose the lab (then called the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, or PNL) as the only Northwest organization to analyze the lunar material from the Apollo program, and their work became critical to understanding the origin and history of the moon. Additionally, their research had many applications outside of the laboratory. In 1974, they developed a data storage technique called optical digital recording, and became the pioneer of a technology still popular with consumers today--CDs and DVDs. Their commitment to the environment has consistently been a driving force in work they do. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, PNL was ready. Because of their expertise in environmental sampling and monitoring, researchers were able to collect samples of the ash and assess potential threats to health and the environment. After the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, they were assigned the lead role in collecting air samples of the fallout using special research aircraft. They also helped to monitor the radiation levels in the plume after it arrived in America. And, in the early 1990s, PNL helped create the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). This model is now widely used around the world, and demonstrates the true impact of the laboratory's work on an international scale. In 1995, they changed their name to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory--a suitable switch, since they had always been a national lab making national impacts. Two years later, they opened the Environmental Molecular Science Laboratory (EMSL), a national scientific user facility, which narrows the gap between theoretical molecular modelling and practical physical experimentation. Since its opening, EMSL has welcomed scientific users from every state, and nearly 30 countries. In the early 2000s, PNNL began to focus on updating the infrastructure of the United States' century-old electric grid, and incorporating it into the information age. They continue to be a leader in testing and developing new technology to manage and protect the grid, especially from new cybersecurity threats. Some of their most recent scientific missions include increasing U.S. energy capacity, and reducing dependence on imported oil; preventing and countering terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and creating sustainable systems, reducing the environmental effects of human activities. Closer to home, PNNL created a suite of modern facilities to support its national and international customers using Battelle, federal, State and third party funds . . . a complex unique in the DOE laboratory system. The Consolidated Laboratory complex allowed PNNL to vacate older facilities that were on the Hanford site. PNNL developed and supported efforts to create a WSU Branch Campus in the Tri Cities, including joint appointments and federal/state partnership for a research laboratory on the WSU campus. PNNL has been a strong supporter of STEM education programs throughout Washington State, including early funding to build the Delta Prep school in the Tri-Cities. I want to thank the generations of hardworking men and women who helped bring PNNL this far. I am proud of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, its work, and the boundless spirit of American innovation that has made it possible for the last 50 years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. McKeon pointed out, this has been a long process for a vexing problem in Santa Clarita, and Mr. Sherman pointed out very well that Mr. McKeon is to be commended for this, and this would be kind of the capstone on the career that he has. All that is left if this House adopts this measure is very simply for the other body to take it up, and with the interests that Senator Boxer has shown on this issue, I hope that she can move this legislation through the Senate. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the author of this legislation, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to address the Soledad Canyon Settlement Act, H.R. 5742, as introduced by our colleague from California (Mr. McKeon). This bipartisan bill will solve a longstanding controversy surrounding a pair of sand and gravel leases located near the community of Santa Clarita, California. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, issued two leases for sand and gravel mines to CEMEX. At the time, this area was much more remote than it is today. As CEMEX was preparing a plan of operation, it became clear to all parties involved that local community development had made the project incompatible with the local community. Local community leaders, the region's congressional delegation, and the company have all worked for more than a decade to find a legislative solution to make the company and Federal Government whole while returning the lease to the Federal Government. As a result, we are here today to move forward with a plan to cancel these leases while at the same time making both the contract holder and the Federal Government whole. This legislation has the strong support of State and local communities, the contract holder, and the regional congressional delegation. Now while this bill has just recently been introduced, it is the product of years of hard work and careful communication and review by the committee. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has been a tireless advocate on behalf of his local communities. He has demonstrated patience and diligence in pursuing a workable solution that the Congress can successfully act upon. I am confident that the community of Santa Clarita already knows just how fortunate they have been to have had Mr. McKeon as their Congressman for 11 terms. Now, it is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman from California, Senator Boxer, shares Mr. McKeon's commitment to this legislation, and I hope that she will be able to follow his lead before the end of this Congress by shepherding this bill through the Senate. This bill deserves the support of both the House and the Senate. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5742) to provide to the Secretary of the Interior a mechanism to cancel contracts for the sale of materials CA- 20139 and CA-22901, and for other purposes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all committees may have until 5 p.m. on December 30, 2014, to file reports to accompany measures.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we kind of alluded to California water in just a prior exchange. Yes, it is complicated, but I want to be very, very specific. The bill under consideration today is a short-term fix to something that needs a long-term fix. And the gentleman made a number of arguments, but I think the gentleman failed to read the bill because there are two specific sections in there that are contrary to what he is asserting would happen. Those are section 203 and section 301. Let me try to be as concise as I can on what this legislation does and why it is important to pass it out of this Congress. This legislation, to cut to the chase, simply says that during rainy periods--California is getting rain right now. They will probably get rain for another couple of months, hopefully. During rainy periods, this legislation simply gives Federal agencies and State agencies the flexibility to direct water to where it is needed--nothing more. It is nothing more complicated than that because it doesn't preempt the Endangered Species Act. It doesn't preempt other environmental laws. It simply says that when it rains, and we are in rainy season right now, that we should have the ability to direct that water where it is needed. That is why this legislation has an expiration date in September of 2016, to give time for a more comprehensive solution to this. So, from my point of view, this motion to recommit is simply a procedural motion to hopefully stop this process of trying to give short-term relief to the drought in California. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and to vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will just simply say it has been a pleasure for me to have worked with you in your position as ranking member, and I wish you the best as you move over to be the ranking member of T&I in the next Congress. This is a good piece of legislation. As the gentleman from Oregon mentioned several times, tribal issues, particularly in Oregon, are somewhat contentious. I am somewhat familiar with that because I do go to the Oregon coast at least every other year. I congratulate my colleagues from Oregon for this legislation, urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commended two of my colleagues from Oregon for their work on this, Mr. Walden and Mr. DeFazio. I failed to mention Mr. Schrader, who was the author of H.R. 931, which is title IV of this bill. I want to correct that oversight that I made. I want to thank my two colleagues for their very kind words. This will, I think, be the last time that I have the opportunity to manage a bill on the floor. I will just say that both gentlemen made the observation that while we don't always agree on things, at least we can understand when somebody comes from a particular position, you can deal with that. I want to take this time then to correct an assertion that my friend from Oregon made when I had my portrait unveiled. I say that because I think most of my colleagues know my position on wilderness areas is probably contrary to what their vision is. I want to correct the record because Mr. DeFazio asserted that my position on wilderness areas was because, as a child, I was lost in the wilderness when we were camping. I thought that was very clever, but it is not the truth, and so while what he said is not on the record, I get the last word here and will say on the record that I was not lost in the wilderness and that is not how I derived my position on wilderness areas. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back if the gentleman from Oregon is prepared to yield back, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge the gentlemen from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Walden, for their hard work on this piece of legislation, which will benefit several Indian tribes in the State of Oregon. H.R. 5701 is a compilation of several stand-alone bills, most of which have been reported out of the Natural Resources Committee and passed by the full House. Title I of H.R. 5701 would ease the process for the Grand Ronde Tribe to apply for trust land within the original boundaries of its 1857 reservation, which encompassed 60,000-plus-acre acres in Polk and Yamhill Counties in Oregon. Further, the bill deems property placed in trust for the tribe after 1988 to be part of the tribe's reservation. Finally, specific tracts of land totaling 288 acres would be placed in trust for the tribe in its former reservation. Mr. Speaker, title I is identical to H.R. 841, which previously passed the House. Title II and title III are similar to provisions found in H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which passed the House in September of 2014. Title IV would make it easier for the Siletz Indian Tribe to apply for trust land within the original boundaries of the 1855 Siletz Coast Reservation, which encompassed a large part of the coast of Oregon. Gaming on this land to be held in trust would be prohibited. This is identical to the Natural Resources Committee-reported version of H.R. 931. Finally, title V would correct a situation with respect to the management of the Coquille Tribal Forest in Oregon. This forest has been regulated as part of the Northwest Forest Plan, which is inconsistent with the management of other tribally-managed forests in the United States. Under this title, the Coquille Tribe would be able to manage its forest under the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act. This will provide the tribe with the ability to better manage their timber resources. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, as I mentioned, encompassing three other pieces of legislation that the House and/or the committee has already acted on. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5701) to require that certain Federal lands be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of federally recognized tribes in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5086, authored by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail. The proposed trail would extend approximately 550 miles between Nebraska and Oklahoma, following the route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people during the Federal Indian removal. The trail would also commemorate the chief's return to Nebraska and subsequent trial in 1879 when he became the first Native American to be recognized as a person in a Federal court decision. It is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5086) to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman). He is the gentleman who sponsored the House version of this legislation.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend Congressman Wittman, the author of the House companion bill, H.R. 739, which has already passed the House earlier in this Congress. I would like to thank him for his work for this government efficiency bill for the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Wittman is a true champion for the Chesapeake Bay, and this bill is another example of his effective leadership for the bay and his Virginia constituents. Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this bill, and I will let Mr. Wittman explain that, but I would like to comment also that while section 3(d) of the bill does not require that a copy of the financial report be submitted to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, it is our intent that the director should also transmit a copy to that committee. Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his assistance in scheduling this bill for floor consideration. I include in the Record the exchange of letters on S. 1000 between our two committees. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 5, 2014. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning S. 1000, the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2014. S. 1000 contains provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring S. 1000 before the House in an expeditious manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a referral of the bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee with respect to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding, and would request that you insert our exchange of letters on this matter into the committee report on S. 1000 and the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Bill Shuster, Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1000) to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other purposes.