H6128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

such time as she may consume to the 

gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 

MALONEY). 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

in support of H.R. 2827 and commend 

my good friends and colleagues, Ms. 

MOORE and Mr. DOLD and Ranking 

Member FRANK, and everyone else who 

worked very hard on this bill and for 

their willingness to work in a bipartisan way. 

It is helpful to recall that the original Dodd-Frank regulations relating to 

municipal bond advisers only came 

about because of a number of manmade 

financial disasters involving municipalities and their advisers who were 

unregulated. It was just about a year 

ago that Jefferson County, Alabama, 

filed the biggest municipal bankruptcy 

in U.S. history. They joined the ranks 

of 11 other entities to file a chapter 9 

bankruptcy that year, including Boise 

County, Idaho; Central Falls, Rhode Island; and Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania. 

They all had unique problems, but one 

of the things that they had in common 

was that they got some pretty costly 

advice, and it will haunt taxpayers for 

years. 

This was an area that was completely 

unregulated before the financial crisis; 

and the Dodd-Frank reforms, including 

the municipal adviser registration requirement, were enacted to respond to 

those crises. The Dodd-Frank reforms 

require individuals who advise municipalities to register with the SEC and be 

subject to regulation by the Municipal 

Securities Rulemaking Board. This is a 

very good thing, but most of us agree 

that the SEC’s proposed original rule 

went just a little bit too far and made 

the definition of a municipal adviser a 

little bit too broad. It was defined in a 

way that could have potentially captured those who were not actually providing investment advice. 

For example, I know many institutions were concerned that under the 

SEC’s proposed rule merely providing a 

bank account to a municipality could 

mean that an institution would have to 

register as an adviser and be subject to 

MSRB regulation all because they just 

provided basic banking services. As 

someone who was there during the consideration of Dodd-Frank, I can tell 

you that that was not what Congress 

intended; however, I was concerned 

that the original version of this bill 

went too far in the other direction, and 

that could have opened up such a gaping hole you could have driven a truck 

full of other people’s money through it. 

I was concerned that the draft bill 

eliminated the critical fiduciary duty 

standard that we included in DoddFrank. The fiduciary duty is a vital 

element that ensures that the advisers 

provide advise that is in the best interest of the municipality. 

I think that with this revised bill we 

have struck a good balance. Fiduciary 

duty is back in, and unintended capture is out. The revised language clearly and reasonably defines the activities 

that municipal advisers engage in and 

describes the kinds of advice that they 

provide. This bill now gives clear legislative guidance to ensure that the goal 

of heightened supervision of municipal 

advisers is realized. It keeps taxpayers 

a little bit safer, credit markets more 

stable, and regulations a bit fair. 

All in all, I would say that it is a job 

well done, done in a bipartisan spirit 

with a great deal of time and commitment. I commend the two major sponsors who are speaking with us today; 

and I thank my good friend, GWEN

MOORE, for her work on this bill. 

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. 

I just want to say again that I think 

we need to credit Mr. DOLD, who is a 

fairly new Member. We actually listened to Members who were senior 

Members and didn’t base it on our partisan differences as so often occurs. We 

really respected people’s experience, 

and listened to their advice very earnestly. 

Again, I would urge my colleagues to 

support this legislation, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I don’t have 

any other speakers, but I do want to 

wrap up with a couple of thank-yous. 

I certainly want to thank Chairman 

BACHUS for allowing this markup to 

move forward, and I certainly appreciated his help and support. I want to 

again highlight how this was able to 

move forward in a bipartisan fashion, 

and I certainly want to thank my good 

friend, Ms. MOORE from Wisconsin, for 

all of her work and efforts to work 

with me on what I hope is going to be 

a bill that everyone here in this Chamber will support. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask every 

one of my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle to support H.R. 2827, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DOLD) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 2827, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 118, 

DISAPPROVING RULE RELATING 

TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE 

AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO 

THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE 

FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM; 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 3409, STOP THE WAR ON 

COAL ACT OF 2012; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 2012, THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 2012 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (during consideration of H.R. 2827), from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 112–680) on the 

resolution (H. Res. 788) providing for 

consideration of the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule 

submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of 

Health and Human Services relating to 

waiver and expenditure authority 

under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families program; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3409) to 

limit the authority of the Secretary of 

the Interior to issue regulations before 

December 31, 2013, under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977; and providing for proceedings during the period from September 22, 2012, 

through November 12, 2012, which was 

referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 

f 

b 1950 

MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL 

HISTORICAL PARK ACT 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 5987) to establish 

the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, 

Washington, and for other purposes, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5987 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manhattan 

Project National Historical Park Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) the Manhattan Project was an unprecedented top-secret program implemented during World War II to produce an atomic bomb 

before Nazi Germany; 

(2) a panel of experts convened by the 

President’s Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation in 2001— 

(A) stated that ‘‘the development and use 

of the atomic bomb during World War II has 

been called ‘the single most significant event 

of the 20th century’’’; and 

(B) recommended that nationally significant sites associated with the Manhattan 

Project be formally established as a collective unit and be administered for preservation, commemoration, and public interpretation in cooperation with the National Park 

Service; 

(3) the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act (Public Law 108–340; 118 

Stat. 1362) directed the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Energy, to conduct a special resource study 

of the historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project to assess 

the national significance, suitability, and 

feasibility of designating one or more sites 

as a unit of the National Park System; 

(4) after significant public input, the National Park Service study found that ‘‘including Manhattan Project-related sites in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6129 

the national park system will expand and enhance the protection and preservation of 

such resources and provide for comprehensive interpretation and public understanding 

of this nationally significant story in the 

20th century American history’’; 

(5) the Department of the Interior, with 

the concurrence of the Department of Energy, recommended the establishment of a 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park 

comprised of resources at— 

(A) Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 

(B) Los Alamos, New Mexico; and 

(C) Hanford, in the Tri-Cities area, Washington; and 

(6) designation of a Manhattan Project National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System would improve the preservation of, interpretation of, and access to 

the nationally significant historic resources 

associated with the Manhattan Project for 

present and future generations to gain a better understanding of the Manhattan Project, 

including the significant, far-reaching, and 

complex legacy of the Manhattan Project. 

SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this Act are— 

(1) to preserve and protect for the benefit 

of present and future generations the nationally significant historic resources associated 

with the Manhattan Project; 

(2) to improve public understanding of the 

Manhattan Project and the legacy of the 

Manhattan Project through interpretation of 

the historic resources associated with the 

Manhattan Project; 

(3) to enhance public access to the Historical Park consistent with protection of public safety, national security, and other aspects of the mission of the Department of 

Energy; and 

(4) to assist the Department of Energy, 

Historical Park communities, historical societies, and other interested organizations 

and individuals in efforts to preserve and 

protect the historically significant resources 

associated with the Manhattan Project. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) HISTORICAL PARK.—The term ‘‘Historical Park’’ means the Manhattan Project National Historical Park established under section 5. 

(2) MANHATTAN PROJECT.—The term ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ means the Federal program 

to develop an atomic bomb ending on December 31, 1946. 

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ 

means the Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF MANHATTAN 

PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

PARK. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— 

(1) DATE.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, there shall be 

established as a unit of the National Park 

System the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

(2) AREAS INCLUDED.—The Historical Park 

shall consist of facilities and areas listed 

under subsection (b) as determined by the 

Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy. The Secretary shall include the area referred to in subsection 

(b)(3)(A), the B Reactor National Historic 

Landmark, in the Historical Park. 

(b) ELIGIBLE AREAS.—The Historical Park 

may only be comprised of one or more of the 

following areas, or portions of the areas, as 

generally depicted in the map titled ‘‘Manhattan Project National Historical Park 

Sites’’, numbered 540/108,834-C, and dated 

September 2012: 

(1) OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE.—Facilities, 

land, or interests in land that are— 

(A) at Buildings 9204–3 and 9731 at the Y–12 

National Security Complex; 

(B) at the X–10 Graphite Reactor at the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 

(C) at the K–25 Building site at the East 

Tennessee Technology Park; and 

(D) at the former Guest House located at 

210 East Madison Road. 

(2) LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO.—Facilities, 

land, or interests in land that are— 

(A) in the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory National Historic Landmark District, 

or any addition to the Landmark District 

proposed in the National Historic Landmark 

Nomination—Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) NHL District (Working Draft of 

NHL Revision), Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA–UR 12–00387 (January 

26, 2012); 

(B) at the former East Cafeteria located at 

1670 Nectar Street; and 

(C) at the former dormitory located at 1725 

17th Street. 

(3) HANFORD, WASHINGTON.—Facilities, 

land, or interests in land that are— 

(A) the B Reactor National Historic Landmark; 

(B) the Hanford High School in the town of 

Hanford and Hanford Construction Camp 

Historic District; 

(C) the White Bluffs Bank building in the 

White Bluffs Historic District; 

(D) the warehouse at the Bruggemann’s 

Agricultural Complex; 

(E) the Hanford Irrigation District Pump 

House; and 

(F) the T Plant (221–T Process Building). 

(c) WRITTEN CONSENT OF OWNER.—No nonFederal property may be included in the Historical Park without the written consent of 

the owner. 

SEC. 6. AGREEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary and the Secretary of Energy (acting through the Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and 

Richland site offices) shall enter into an 

agreement governing the respective roles of 

the Secretary and the Secretary of Energy in 

administering the facilities, land, or interests in land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Energy that is 

to be included in the Historical Park under 

section 5(b), including provisions for enhanced public access, management, interpretation, and historic preservation. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY.— 

Any agreement under subsection (a) shall 

provide that the Secretary shall— 

(1) have decisionmaking authority for the 

content of historic interpretation of the 

Manhattan Project for purposes of administering the Historical Park; and 

(2) ensure that the agreement provides an 

appropriate advisory role for the National 

Park Service in preserving the historic resources covered by the agreement. 

(c) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF

ENERGY.—Any agreement under subsection 

(a) shall provide that the Secretary of Energy— 

(1) shall ensure that the agreement appropriately protects public safety, national security, and other aspects of the ongoing mission of the Department of Energy at the Oak 

Ridge Reservation, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, and Hanford Site; 

(2) may consult with and provide historical 

information to the Secretary concerning the 

Manhattan Project; 

(3) shall retain responsibility, in accordance with applicable law, for any environmental remediation that may be necessary 

in or around the facilities, land, or interests 

in land governed by the agreement; and 

(4) shall retain authority and legal obligations for historic preservation and general 

maintenance, including to ensure safe access, in connection with the Department’s 

Manhattan Project resources. 

(d) AMENDMENTS.—The agreement under 

subsection (a) may be amended, including to 

add to the Historical Park facilities, land, or 

interests in land within the eligible areas described in section 5(b) that are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy. 

SEC. 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consult with interested State, county, and local 

officials, organizations, and interested members of the public— 

(1) before executing any agreement under 

section 6; and 

(2) in the development of the general management plan under section 8(b). 

(b) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.—Not later 

than 30 days after the date on which an 

agreement under section 6 is entered into, 

the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 

Register notice of the establishment of the 

Historical Park, including an official boundary map. 

(c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The official 

boundary map published under subsection (b) 

shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. The map shall be updated to reflect any additions to the Historical Park from eligible areas described in 

section 5(b). 

(d) ADDITIONS.—Any land, interest in land, 

or facility within the eligible areas described 

in section 5(b) that is acquired by the Secretary or included in an amendment to the 

agreement under section 6(d) shall be added 

to the Historical Park. 

SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall administer the Historical Park in accordance 

with— 

(1) this Act; and 

(2) the laws generally applicable to units of 

the National Park System, including— 

(A) the National Park System Organic Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); and 

(B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 

et seq.). 

(b) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.—Not 

later than 3 years after the date on which 

funds are made available to carry out this 

section, the Secretary, with the concurrence 

of the Secretary of Energy, and in consultation and collaboration with the Oak Ridge, 

Los Alamos and Richland Department of Energy site offices, shall complete a general 

management plan for the Historical Park in 

accordance with section 12(b) of Public Law 

91–383 (commonly known as the ‘‘National 

Park Service General Authorities Act’’) (16 

U.S.C. 1a–7(b)). 

(c) INTERPRETIVE TOURS.—The Secretary 

may, subject to applicable law, provide interpretive tours of historically significant 

Manhattan Project sites and resources in the 

States of Tennessee, New Mexico, and Washington that are located outside the boundary 

of the Historical Park. 

(d) LAND ACQUISITION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may acquire land and interests in land within the 

eligible areas described in section 5(b) by— 

(A) transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

from the Department of Energy by agreement between the Secretary and the Secretary of Energy; 

(B) donation; or 

(C) exchange. 

(2) NO USE OF CONDEMNATION.—The Secretary may not acquire by condemnation 

any land or interest in land under this Act or 

for the purposes of this Act. 

(e) DONATIONS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) FEDERAL FACILITIES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter 

into one or more agreements with the head 

of a Federal agency to provide public access 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

to, and management, interpretation, and historic preservation of, historically significant 

Manhattan Project resources under the jurisdiction or control of the Federal agency. 

(B) DONATIONS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may accept donations from, and enter into cooperative agreements with, State governments, units of 

local government, tribal governments, organizations, or individuals to further the purpose of an interagency agreement entered 

into under subparagraph (A) or to provide 

visitor services and administrative facilities 

within reasonable proximity to the Historical Park. 

(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary 

may provide technical assistance to State, 

local, or tribal governments, organizations, 

or individuals for the management, interpretation, and historic preservation of historically significant Manhattan Project resources not included within the Historical 

Park. 

(3) DONATIONS TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.— 

For the purposes of this Act, or for the purpose of preserving and providing access to 

historically significant Manhattan Project 

resources, the Secretary of Energy may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts, bequests, and devises (including labor and services). 

SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION. 

(a) NO BUFFER ZONE CREATED.—Nothing in 

this Act, the establishment of the Historical 

Park, or the management plan for the Historical Park shall be construed to create 

buffer zones outside of the Historical Park. 

That an activity can be seen and heard from 

within the Historical Park shall not preclude 

the conduct of that activity or use outside 

the Historical Park. 

(b) NO CAUSE OF ACTION.—Nothing in this 

Act shall constitute a cause of action with 

respect to activities outside or adjacent to 

the established boundary of the Historical 

Park. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) and the 

gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Washington. 

GENERAL LEAVE

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. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5987 is a bipartisan 

bill authored by me that will establish 

the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Mr. Speaker, there is a 

like bill, a bipartisan bill, also pending 

in the Senate. 

The park will encompass three locations that were integral to the tremendous engineering and human achievements of the Manhattan Project. The 

three locations are the Hanford site in 

my home State of Washington, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Oak Ridge in 

Tennessee. 

The vast majority of the facilities 

that are eligible to be included in this 

park are already owned by the Federal 

Government, and they are located on 

lands owned and controlled by the Department of Energy. 

Our Nation already possesses these 

pieces of history, and the real purpose 

of this bill is to officially declare the 

importance of preserving the history, 

providing access to the public, and include the unique abilities of the Park 

Service to help tell this story. 

Currently, some of these facilities 

slated for inclusion in this park are 

scheduled to be destroyed at considerable taxpayer expense. A great many 

local community leaders in all three 

States and interested citizens have 

worked to coordinate a commitment to 

preserving this piece of our history. 

Additionally, the government will save 

millions of dollars from foregone destruction, as opposed to the minimal 

cost of providing public access and 

park administration. 

In recognition of the important contributions to the Manhattan Project by 

the men and women at sites across the 

country, the bill contains a provision 

allowing communities like Dayton, 

Ohio, for example, outside the historical park, to receive technical assistance and support from the Department 

of the Interior as they seek to preserve 

and manage their own Manhattan 

Project park resources. 

This is a good piece of legislation, 

and it is part of our history, Mr. 

Speaker. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

To my friend, Mr. HASTINGS, the 

technology which created the bomb 

cannot be separated from the horror 

which the bomb created. The celebration of the technology of the bomb bespeaks a moral blindness to its effects, 

which include not only the devastation 

of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the $10 trillion Cold War between the U.S. and Russia and the tens 

of thousands of nuclear weapons which 

today hang over the world like so 

many swords of Damocles. 

At a time when we should be organizing the world towards abolishing nuclear weapons before they abolish us, 

we are instead indulging in admiration 

at our cleverness as a species. The 

bomb is about graveyards; it’s not 

about national parks. 

The philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead once wrote: 

The major advances in civilization are 

processes that all but wreck the societies in 

which they occur. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I advise my friend from Ohio 

I have no more requests for time, and I 

am prepared to yield back if he is prepared to yield back. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I shall continue then. 

When you walk into the Bradbury 

Science Museum at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, 

you’re greeted on your immediate left 

by replicas of Fat Man and Little Boy, 

the two bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The space surrounding them does not include a picture of the leveled Japanese cities, pictures of children with massive birth defects, or stories of families and hundreds of years of history obliterated in 

the blink of an eye. It does not include 

a discussion of the health effects of 

worldwide distribution of radiation 

from the bombs or from the larger proliferation of nuclear technology that 

emanated from Los Alamos. 

I am speaking about the Bradbury 

Science Museum. The bombs reside in a 

section of the museum called Defense, 

which presents information on the nuclear arsenal, the nuclear stockpile, 

plutonium, and explosives. Other sections discuss how nuclear energy works 

and how the bomb was triggered, how 

the bomb was triggered. 

A substantive discussion of the myriad negative impacts of the technology 

that came out of the Manhattan 

Project is relegated to obscurity. A 

public forum tucked away in a corner 

provides space for public input. 

When the U.S. dropped atomic bombs 

on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 

of 1945, more than 200,000 people were 

killed instantly. In the years that followed, over 100,000 additional people 

died of radiation poisoning. The Japanese people today continue to experience the devastating and long-term effects of the bomb. 

It is now widely acknowledged by 

many top U.S. Government officials at 

the time of the war that dropping the 

bomb on Japan was completely unnecessary. I want to get into that section 

at this moment so that those who say, 

well, we need to create a memorial to 

the bomb because it ended the war, 

well, that’s not true. I’m going to give 

you some quotes, Mr. Speaker. 

This is from Dwight David Eisenhower, who was general of the armies 

and also, later on, President of the 

United States. He said: 

In July 1945, Secretary of War Stimson, 

visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I 

was one of those who felt that there were a 

number of cogent reasons to question the 

wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon 

giving me the news of the successful bomb 

test in New Mexico and of the plan for using 

it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. 

During his recitation of the relevant facts, 

I had been conscious of a feeling of depression, and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that 

Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, 

and secondly because I thought that our 

country should avoid shocking world opinion 

by the use of a weapon whose employment 

was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a 

measure to save American lives. It was my 

belief that Japan was, at that very moment, 

seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘‘face.’’ The Secretary was 

deeply perturbed by my attitude. 

That’s Dwight Eisenhower in a book 

called ‘‘Mandate for Change,’’ page 360. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6131 

b 2000 

From General Douglas MacArthur. 

Norman Cousins was a consultant to 

General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins 

writes of his conversations with MacArthur: 

MacArthur’s views about the decision to 

drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the 

general public supposed. 

Cousins continues: 

When I asked General MacArthur about 

the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have 

been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The 

war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, 

if the United States had agreed, as it later 

did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the Emperor. 

That’s from a book called ‘‘The Pathology of Power,’’ Norman Cousins. 

Leo Szilard was the first scientist to 

conceive of how an atomic bomb might 

be made. That was in 1933. He speaks of 

a meeting with J. Robert Oppenheimer, 

the head scientist of the Manhattan 

Project: 

Szilard: I told Oppenheimer that I thought 

it would be a very serious mistake to use the 

bomb against the cities of Japan. 

Oppenheimer didn’t share my views. Well, 

said Oppenheimer, don’t you think that if we 

tell the Russians what we intend to do and 

then use the bomb in Japan, the Russians 

will understand it? They’ll understand it 

only too well, Szilard replied. 

Brigadier General Carter Clarke, who 

was the military intelligence officer in 

charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables: 

We didn’t need to do it, and we knew we 

didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we 

didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. 

This is quoted in Gar Alperovitz, 

‘‘The Decision to Use the Atomic 

Bomb.’’ Alperovitz, by the way, who 

did 30 years of research on the subject, 

said: 

I think it can be proven that the bomb not 

only was unnecessary, but known in advance 

not to be necessary. 

Another quote. Henry H. Arnold, 

Commanding General of the U.S. Army 

Air Forces: 

The Japanese position was hopeless even 

before the first atomic bomb fell because the 

Japanese had lost control of their own air. 

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, 

Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific 

Fleet: 

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for 

peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive 

part from a purely military point of view in 

the defeat of Japan. 

The use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki was of no material assistance in 

our war against Japan. The Japanese were 

already defeated and ready to surrender. 

This is Admiral William D. Leahy, 

chief of staff to President Truman: 

Certainly, prior to 31 December 1945, and in 

all probability, prior to 1 November 1945, 

Japan would have surrendered even if atomic 

bombs had not been dropped. 

That’s from the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. 

This is from Major General Curtis 

LeMay: 

The war would have been over in 2 weeks 

without the Russians entering and without 

the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had 

nothing to do with the end of the war at all. 

Now it’s just not disputable that this 

technology was not necessary. So let’s 

go back to the creation of a national 

park and the naming of the park after 

the Manhattan Project. 

May I ask how much time I have? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 10 minutes remaining. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. 

We have to now ask ourselves, since 

it can be widely disputed—and by top 

military officials—that the dropping of 

the bomb was not necessary, then why 

are we honoring this technology with a 

national park? It’s really a legitimate 

question. 

When the U.S. dropped atomic bombs 

on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 

of 1945, again, 200,000 people were 

killed. And to have this discussion in 

the context of honoring a technology 

that created a bomb, I think, really 

raises questions about where we are 

with this country and where we are 

with the bomb. The splitting of the 

atom and the use of the split atom to 

create an atomic bomb actually bespeaks a split consciousness in this 

country. It was, in a sense, an intensification of dichotomized thinking, of 

us versus them, whoever they are. We 

then decided that all of our problems in 

humanity could be solved by technology, that the bomb then was put in 

place of reason, that the bomb was put 

in place of diplomacy, that the bomb 

was put in place of talking with each 

other and settling our differences. No, 

the bomb then became the metaphor 

for how technology rules over humanity. We’re captives of our own machines. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I remember as a 

young person going to elementary 

school and that children would have to 

do drills called duck-and-cover because 

we believed that the United States was 

going to be targeted by nuclear weapons launched by the Soviet Union. The 

fear drove an entire generation’s 

dreams. The fear caused the United 

States to spend trillions of dollars on a 

Cold War that took away from the 

needs of the people. The fear resides in 

the world today when there are some 

who urge an attack on Iran. Why? Because they are said to be developing a 

nuclear weapon. 

Where does this stop? We cannot 

honor this technology. We cannot celebrate ingenuity that was used to put 

all of humanity at risk. We have to 

begin to reassess who we are as human 

beings and ask ourselves whether or 

not we have essentially reached the 

limits of our ability to develop technology which we can control. 

And it’s not only about nuclear weapons. When you learn that the globe 

itself is experiencing tremendous upset 

because of the human activity, when 

you learn that science can now create 

genetically modified organisms that 

can change the nature of food. As a 

matter of fact, life itself can be 

changed through cloning. We act as 

these mini gods who can endlessly tinker with our planet and life itself and 

then name parks after it. No. 

In the scheme of things, someone will 

say, Dennis, this is just a park. What 

are you getting so excited about? This 

is about naming a new national park 

after the Manhattan Project. And we 

have to just stop and reflect on where 

this takes us. There should be a discussion about the full legacy of the Manhattan Project, including its devastating effects upon the Japanese people and upon the rest of the world. 

If there was going to be a new park, 

it should serve as a solemn monument 

to Japanese American friendship that 

rose from the ashes and the worldwide 

work for nuclear disarmament that 

continues to this day, rather than a 

celebration of a technology that has 

brought such destruction to the world. 

Failure to recognize this dimension, 

even in its first iteration, really is a 

significant injustice. 

I looked at the CRS report on this, 

and there’s no mention of how this is 

going to be framed or phrased. The museum at Los Alamos is a celebration of 

the triumph of technology over humanity. It’s a powerful illustration that 

we’re developing technology at a rate 

that far exceeds our ability to manage 

it. Now we are faced with the choice to 

memorialize this point of view into a 

national park. 

I would ask how much time I have 

left. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 41⁄2 minutes. 

Mr. KUCINICH. In the last 41⁄2 minutes I want to read a poem by Henry 

Reed. He juxtaposes in this poem Japan 

before the dropping of the bomb and 

the technical aspects of the bomb 

itself. 

b 2010 

It’s called ‘‘The Naming of Parts’’: 

Today we have the naming of parts. Yesterday, we had daily cleaning. And tomorrow 

morning, we shall have what to do after firing. But today, today we have the naming of 

parts. Japonica glistens like coral in all of 

the neighboring gardens, and today we have 

naming of parts. 

This is the lower sling swivel. And this is 

the upper sling swivel, whose use you will 

see when you are given your slings. And this 

is the piling swivel, which in your case you 

have not got. The branches hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures, which in 

our case we have not got. 

This is the safety-catch, which is always 

released with an easy flick of the thumb. 

And please do not let me see anyone using 

his finger. You can do it quite easily if you 

have any strength in your thumb. The blossoms are fragile and motionless, never letting anyone see any of them using their finger. 

And this, you can see, is the bolt. The purpose of this is to open the breech, as you see. 

We can slide it rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this easing the spring. And 

rapidly backwards and forwards. The early 

bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers: 

They call it easing the spring. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

We’re naming a park today. Yesterday we had the naming of parts, and 

not just Japan but our humanity was 

obliterated. Do we get a chance to reclaim it? 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am 

prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, if the 

gentleman will yield back his time. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really not as 

complicated as my good friend from 

Ohio tries to make it appear to be. 

Now, I recognize, and we’ve had conversations on this when the bill was introduced, and I respect his opinion, but 

I respectfully disagree with his opinion 

and his arguments. There is nothing 

wrong with that. After all, we’re Americans, and we can do that in America. 

But I want to, and with the gentleman, what I heard him saying was 

dealing in what if and what would be 

an ideal world. Well, we’d all like to 

have an ideal world. But let’s talk 

about reality at that time. 

We were forced into the Second 

World War. Germany, of course, had 

started, some can say, started that war 

with their blitzkrieg on September 1, 

1939, into Poland. You could say it may 

have started when Japan started expanding where they were going in the 

Pacific, and certainly when they attacked us on December 7, 1941. 

Whether we liked it or not, we were 

in a war for survival. There is no question about that. That is simply the 

facts. 

In the process of carrying out that 

war, and by the way, Mr. Speaker, let 

me say that war is absolutely unpredictable, but because if you’re logically 

thinking about war, if it were predictable, it wouldn’t have happened in the 

first place. But the very nature of war 

is unpredictable. 

So we didn’t know where we were, 

but we had heard that Nazi Germany 

was developing an atomic weapon. 

Now, they had been building a military 

machine long before because we were 

caught a bit off guard in the Second 

World War. We were not a warring Nation. So we had to use whatever technology we had in order to defend our 

freedoms. One way that was decided 

was to build an atomic weapon if we 

had to use that atomic weapon. 

What this bill purports to do is nothing more than to talk about the ingenuity of the American people to develop this weapon when the nuclear industry was relatively in its infancy, 

and did it in such a short time frame. 

That is something that we ought to put 

into our history books because we do 

put past battles in our history books. 

Just earlier this week was the 150th 

anniversary of Antietam, right up the 

road here in Sharpsburg, Maryland— 

the largest single-day casualty in 

American history at that time. Yet we 

memorialize the battlefield because it 

helped preserve our Union and get our 

Union back together. 

So I think it’s right that we look at 

these from that perspective. 

Now, I can only imagine how difficult 

a decision it was for President Truman 

shortly after President Roosevelt had 

died to make this decision; but he 

made it because in his judgment, given 

the information he had, it would probably save more lives than it would cost 

by dropping a bomb. That was the judgment he made. 

Let me speak just a little bit about, 

again, the ingenuity and the technology of what happened, and I can 

only speak about my area, Hanford, 

and about, specifically, about the B Reactor. 

This is the first nuclear reactor that 

was built in this country; and from 

start to finish, it was built in less than 

a year. The technology at that point 

wasn’t even proven. Yet when they 

started the B Reactor and went ‘‘hot,’’ 

as they said, it obviously did what it 

was supposed to do. It was a tremendous scientific achievement. 

To open this up to the public and 

open this up to school children to see 

what we can do and what we did in this 

country to protect the freedoms and 

liberty we have, I think is worth preserving. 

Again, all this does is take those 

three main sites that largely are already owned by the government, transfer them to the National Park Service, 

and show them to the public so we can 

learn and remember what happened 

during that time. 

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that 

I’ve been down on this floor many 

times criticizing the Obama administration. But the Obama administration, through Secretary Salazar and 

the Department of the Interior, is in 

favor of legislation establishing precisely what this bill and the Senate bill 

hope to do. 

So while I have differences with 

them, I certainly congratulate them 

for recognizing how important this legislation is. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 

HASTINGS) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5987, as 

amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on that 

I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

b 2020 

GLOBAL INVESTMENT IN 

AMERICAN JOBS ACT OF 2012 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 5910) to direct the Secretary 

of Commerce, in coordination with the 

heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, to produce a report on enhancing the competitiveness 

of the United States in attracting foreign direct investment, and for other 

purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5910 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Global Investment in American Jobs Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) It remains an urgent national priority 

to improve economic growth and create new 

jobs. 

(2) National security requires economic 

strength and global engagement. 

(3) Businesses today have a wide array of 

choices when considering where to invest, 

expand, or establish new operations. 

(4) Administrations of both parties have 

consistently reaffirmed the need to maintain 

an open investment climate as a key to domestic economic prosperity and security. 

(5) The United States has historically been 

the largest worldwide recipient of global investment but has seen its share of inbound 

global investment decline relative to its 

gross domestic product in recent years. 

(6) Governors and mayors throughout the 

United States face increasing competition 

from other countries as they work to recruit 

investment from global companies. 

(7) Foreign direct investment can benefit 

the economy and workforce of every State 

and Commonwealth in the United States. 

(8) According to the latest Federal statistics, the United States subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad contribute to 

the United States economy in a variety of 

important ways, including by— 

(A) providing jobs for nearly 5,300,000 

Americans with average compensation that 

is approximately 33 percent higher than the 

national private-sector average, as these jobs 

are often in high-skilled, high-paying industries; 

(B) strengthening the United States industrial base and employing nearly 15 percent of 

the United States manufacturing sector 

workforce; 

(C) establishing operations in the United 

States from which to sell goods and services 

around the world, thereby producing nearly 

18 percent of United States exports; 

(D) promoting innovation with more than 

$41,000,000,000 in annual United States research and development activities; 

(E) paying nearly 17 percent of United 

States corporate income taxes; and 

(F) purchasing more than $1,800,000,000,000 

in domestic goods and services annually 

from local suppliers and small businesses, 

amounting to 80 cents for every dollar spent 

on input purchases. 

(9) These companies account for 5.8 percent 

of United States private sector Gross Domestic Product. 

(10) The Secretary of Commerce and the 

Secretary of State have declared increasing 

inbound global investment to be among their 

top priorities. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE