[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6128-H6132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  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

[[Page 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 non-Federal 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

[[Page H6130]]

     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.

[[Page H6131]]

                              {time}  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 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. In the last 4\1/2\ 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.

                              {time}  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.


[[Page H6132]]


  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.

                          ____________________