Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I think that his amendment makes eminently good sense. It's exactly these sort of rulings that tie up our natural resources, and we should be utilizing them. I think the gentleman has a good amendment, and I support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to point out that the areas that this amendment affects have already been set aside for mineral development. I want to repeat that, Mr. Chairman: these have already been set aside for mineral development. That policy has not changed at all. All it ensures is that we are going to have access to it. I just want to address the irony that the gentleman pointed out. This is for rare Earth. This particular one in his State is where we have rare Earth, and now they say they don't want it. There is some irony here, and I can't quite get my arms around it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. This is, as he said in his opening remark: simply a commonsense approach that those that are in the process now should avail themselves of potential changes in law. It is an excellent amendment, and I support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. May I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an anti-mining, anti-jobs amendment, and it is not a pro-sportsman amendment. I believe strongly in multiple uses of our Federal lands. It is something that as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I take very, very seriously, and multiple means economic activity and recreational activity. Earlier this year, this House worked to promote legislation advocating hunting and fishing on Federal lands. It was primarily aimed at promoting and protecting sportsmen's access to Federal lands. Sportsmen's access includes hunting and fishing. This bill had strong bipartisan support from most of America's sportsmen's organizations, and it received strong bipartisan support here in this body. However, Mr. Chairman, I must note that the sponsor of this amendment, my good friend from Arizona, opposed that bill that was for hunting and fishing for sportsmen. Federal Land Management allows one use to be disrupted to ensure that we make the best and highest use of our lands. That's common sense. If the best use is rare Earth mining to secure our Nation against foreign resource nationalism and so forth, we should use the land for that. While at the same time that mine is being developed, we allow for mitigation to balance out disturbance of other activities. If a company disturbs an acre here, they can mitigate that with an acre there. The amendment completely ignores that reality. So we should call this amendment for what it is. It's an attempt to stop mining on Federal lands, which, of course, will make us more dependent on foreign minerals. This amendment contradicts the express purpose of this legislation, which is to require the lead agency responsible for permitting strategic and critical mineral exploration and mining projects to reduce the permitting timelines through better coordination. This amendment would empower a Federal agency to unilaterally choose to red-tape another process that can take--which we've seen in the past--up to a decade long to complete a permitting process. As a matter of fact, I might say, Mr. Chairman, the only effect of this amendment and other amendments that we've heard is to protect bureaucratic red tape, which is what the underlying bill wants to streamline. It makes sense. But every amendment we've heard coming from the other side seems to want to protect that point. So this amendment falls under that same category. It does not deserve our support. I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to make a point here. The Natural Resources Committee I have the privilege to chair has been investigating the payment of attorneys' fees and court costs to revolving door plaintiffs in environmental lawsuits. For example, we have learned that based on information that's supplied by the Department of Justice, over $2 million in taxpayer dollars have been paid to a single organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, and they have done that for 50 lawsuits that have been filed under a single environmental statute. This organization, which would qualify, by the way, for payments if the gentleman from Florida's amendment is adopted, they have offices in 15 States and they pay their executive director in the six figures. The question arises: Why should taxpayers be paying for their attorneys? It seems like these lawsuit-happy environmental groups make a living from suing the Federal Government. When they sue the Federal Government, they divert resources from the Federal Government to carry out its statutory duties when it comes to environmental issues or permitting issues or whatever. I think that this amendment is ill advised by singling out some people that should not be covered. I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just simply say that this is an amendment, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, that simply is antimining at its best, because there is, in current law, a procedure for giving higher access to certain activities and then there is the mitigation process. But to suggest that this is something that would protect sportsmen defies logic. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the NRA has come out against the Grijalva amendment. So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is about American jobs and not only American mining jobs. Our manufacturing sector, as part of it, uses the minerals from these mining jobs. So it is much broader than that. I have to comment on the tone here that we've heard over and over from the other side on this issue. The bill streamlines the bureaucracy and red tape. Every amendment that was offered today and the tone of all of their debate on this was to side with the bureaucracy that imposes more red tape. What is even more ironic is that this is about mining in America. The arguments from the other side all day were ``don't mine in America.'' What's the motion to recommit? Don't sell what we're going to mine in America. They didn't want to mine in the first place, and now they're saying we can't sell it if we mine it. It doesn't make any sense. Mr. Speaker, this is a jobs bill for American workers. I urge rejection of the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid from at least my reading of the amendment that this displays a lack of understanding regarding existing Federal laws and the realities of the oil and natural gas markets because oil produced on Federal lands is already subject to the Export Administration Act. In order to export crude oil, a producer would have to apply for authorization from the President. That's the law right now. Currently, no crude oil produced in the United States is exported, with the exception of a small quantity that goes to a Canadian refinery. So I just think that what this is, more than anything else, is an effort to make production on Federal lands more challenging and, thus, less valuable. And as a matter of fact, that would hurt the economy and American jobs. But there is another aspect to it. And again, it's the way the amendment is reading. What about products that are made from oil? We know there is a vast array of products that are made from oil and natural gas, for that matter. I think of a product that's made in my State. One of the biggest manufacturers in my home State of Washington is Boeing. There was a big fanfare. And in fact, I think a couple of weeks ago, they had their latest product on display down at Reagan National. It's called the 787 Dreamliner, which, of course, is made of composites, composites made of natural resources, i.e., oil and natural gases and others. Now the way this amendment is written, because there are no restrictions, that means that Boeing probably could not export 787s. And frankly, their biggest market is the international market. But let's not just confine it to Boeing. What about other byproducts that we manufacture? One comes to mind because my wife and I were using it to do some home repairs this weekend, WD 40, a petroleum-based product. I understand that that company exports a lot of that product overseas. The way this amendment is written, one could assume that that too would be restricted. What would that, then, do to the job market and our economy if we restrict what is a result of oil and natural gas being exported overseas? I just want to repeat: There are restrictions for crude oil on Federal lands. That's existing law. This amendment adds nothing to it. But what I am concerned about, I guess, would be the unintended consequences. Let's not get ourselves into a situation where we have to pass a bill before we know what's in it. We've painfully gone through that in this country. So I don't think this amendment is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. I am prepared to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we are debating and considering today is a clear all-of-the-above plan to increase American energy production, to lower gasoline prices, and to reduce our dependence on unstable foreign energy. But more than anything else, Mr. Chairman, this is a bill about creating jobs. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act creates good-paying permanent jobs that will put people back to work and help grow our economy. The only thing that the Obama administration has been more hostile to than American job creation, Mr. Chairman, is American energy production. Frankly, that shouldn't surprise anyone because the two do go hand-in-hand. President Obama likes to talk about an all-of-the-above energy plan. But in reality, it's a nothing-from-America energy plan. This administration has consistently said ``no'' to new American energy production while happily forcing hardworking American taxpayers to spend over $1 million a minute on foreign energy. President Obama doesn't want to drill for oil in Utah; perhaps he'd rather get it from Venezuela. President Obama doesn't want to drill for natural gas in New Mexico; perhaps he'd rather get it from Yemen. President Obama doesn't want to develop our oil shale in Colorado; perhaps he'd rather get oil from OPEC. President Obama doesn't want to import oil from our friends in Canada by approving the Keystone pipeline; perhaps he'd rather import oil from countries that aren't our friends in the Middle East. Finally, President Obama doesn't want to drill off America's coasts, but he doesn't seem to mind Fidel Castro drilling 60 miles from America. And he doesn't seem to mind giving Brazil billions of dollars to help them drill off their coasts and then promise to be their ``best customer.'' The American people need to understand that this administration has taken this country in exactly the wrong direction when it comes to developing our vast energy resources. While President Obama has been digging the United States into massive fiscal deficits, he has also gotten America into an energy deficit on Federal lands from which it could take years to recover. Energy production on Federal lands is one of our best opportunities for job creation and energy security. But time and again, that production has been blocked or delayed by this administration. Under this administration, from 2010 2011, oil production on Federal lands fell by 14 percent. And natural gas production on these same lands fell by 11 percent. Mr. Chairman, this is in stark contrast to the oil and natural gas production on State and private lands because that production has boomed. American energy equals American jobs. It's a simple formula for job creation and economic growth, but clearly it's one that this administration doesn't seem to understand. Maybe that's because they just don't know how desperate Americans are for jobs. Just a few weeks ago, with unemployment above 8 percent and 23 million Americans looking for work, our President told the American people that the private sector is doing ``just fine.'' Well, if you don't know what the problem is, how can you possibly know how to fix it? Mr. Chairman, in summary, this is the same President that has issued the lowest number of onshore energy leases since 1984. This is the same President who talks about an all-of-the-above energy plan, but actively blocks ability to produce more oil and natural gas and coal, and specifically doing so on public lands. For President Obama, ``all of the above'' is just a politically convenient slogan. But for House Republicans, it's a real job-creating energy policy. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act to put Americans back to work and make us less dependent on foreign sources. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), author of one of the provisions in this.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), an author of one of the provisions of the bill.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), whose State has tremendous resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).