Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For years, the Walla Walla District of the Army Corps of Engineers has managed several miles of the public shoreline along the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the Tri-Cities area of my congressional district. Five years ago, in 2006, the Corps sought to update its McNary Shoreline Management Plan, which had last been revised in the early 1980s. The existing management plan includes a permit program for private property owners that seek to build or use docks along the river shoreline. The 2006 revision was so controversial that the Corps was forced back to the drawing board. It proposed a variety of restrictive measures, including a moratorium on the building of docks by private property owners along the shoreline and requiring existing dock owners to tear out their docks at great personal expense in order to keep their permits. The Corps got an earful at a public meeting on the proposal and this year came back with a similarly controversial proposal, which included new questionable mandates from the National Marine Fisheries Service-- including specific requirements for the length, width, color, and transparency of each dock, all of which NMFS claims would help save salmon. Mr. Chairman, with all existing local docks as is right now, salmon runs are at near record levels along the Columbia River, and the Corps itself acknowledges that juvenile salmon in the McNary area average 20 to 30 million. Mr. Chairman, docks aren't killing salmon. Regrettably, the Corps did little to justify their plan's sketchy science at another recent public meeting at which over 200 people attended to voice their opposition. This amendment will ensure that the Army Corps will not charge ahead with a shoreline management plan until it answers questions about the questionable NMFS mandate and addresses concerns raised by a substantial number of citizens. Without this amendment, the Corps' unwise shoreline plan would be implemented and force questionable regulations on local residents and recreational activities. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the Corps should not be allowed to implement a revised shoreline plan, but it should not do so based on shaky science and without ensuring that the local public's concerns are adequately addressed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, last Friday, the Department of Energy made a surprise announcement that not only was the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management--or EM--leaving but that they were restructuring the entire $6 billion program under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security, who also serves as the head of the NNSA. EM is responsible for cleaning up the nuclear waste created during our Nation's defense program that helped end World War II and the Cold War. The Federal Government has signed legal agreements with the States to clean up this waste. The major restructuring was simply declared by DOE with absolutely zero consultation with Congress, the States, the communities or the stakeholders. I haven't been given sufficient answer to the simple question: How does EM benefit from this change? We have no idea how this decision was reached or why restructuring was considered. Given what little has been made public, I believe there are some real risks, including the potential for cleanup to become less of a priority under as structure that has always been focused--and rightfully so--on nuclear security. In the late 1980s, DOE moved the cleanup program out of the weapons program in order to provide more definition, transparency and to focus on cleanup. Now DOE wants to put them back together. I ask again: What is the benefit to EM? In DOE's own words from this past Friday: ``The Office of Environmental Management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our Nation's Cold War nuclear legacy at sites across the country.'' Yet, out of nowhere, they decide to throw the program into a state of flux. Without sufficient answers, I can't stand idly by while the department makes a seemingly snap decision that will impact something as important and as complex as nuclear waste cleanup. So my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to move the Office of Environmental Management under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the chairman's concurrence on this. If that is the same on both sides, I will be more than happy to yield back. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, the Office of River Protection was created to put a focus on the 53 million gallons of wastes in the 177 underground tanks at Hanford in my district in Washington. These wastes are being retrieved from the tanks and are being prepared for the waste treatment plant where they will be vitrified and ultimately sent to Yucca Mountain. For years, DOE was clear that a steady, stable annual funding level of $690 million would allow for the successful completion and hot start of WTP. The department has, however, changed its mind and would prefer to front load funding. I have been clear that, even without increasing the total project cost, spending in excess of $690 million a year at the waste treatment plant now will have impacts on the funds available for other projects, including the work at the tank farms. The waste treatment plant is dependent on two critical elements aside from its own budget: first, a robust program at the tank farms to get the waste ready to feed WTP on time and, second, Yucca Mountain. I appreciate the provisions in this bill to help halt the administration's illegal shutdown of Yucca Mountain, and I ask that you work with me to ensure the correct balance of funding is provided when it comes to the waste treatment plant and the tank farms within the Office of River Protection.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his visiting Hanford. I appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for visiting Hanford; and of course, I appreciate the ranking member of the full committee, who had had a great deal of interest on this issue prior to my even coming to Congress. I appreciate the work that the committee has done in the past, because this is a project that has legal requirements. In these difficult times, I am very pleased with the work that you have done. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The law is clear. It only says ``navigable.'' Now, that is where the danger comes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This is Transportation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Transportation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The issue for me is not the Clean Water Act. The issue was the attempt to amend the Clean Water Act to take out ``navigable,'' and that is what is being done potentially by the guidance with this drafting.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I too rise to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, an amendment offered, in my mind, to protect this administration's overreach on regulating all bodies of water in this country. As my friend from Montana alluded to, this really is a job-killing amendment. Section 109 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill puts a check on this administration's proposed ``guidance'' on Clean Water Act regulations. Mr. Chairman, at a time when unemployment exceeds 9 percent, this so-called guidance document, from my point of view, being from the West, will undermine economic growth, increase permitting requirements, and undoubtedly lead to more litigation. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, this guidance document ``would take an overly broad view of waters of the United States and would serve as a road map to designate nearly all bodies of water, and even some dry land, as subject to Federal regulation that dictates land use decisions.'' Mr. Chairman, water is a precious commodity, especially to those of us in the West. It is a necessary resource for many activities, including agriculture, energy, transportation, and recreation. Our economy and way of life cannot afford to have the Federal Government claim control of all waterways in this country. This administration's attempt to enact such Draconian regulations through regulatory fiat is a deliberate attempt to circumvent Congress. As many of my colleagues know, the prior Congress could not pass an overly restrictive renewal of the Clean Water Act, so it's clear that this part of the regulatory agenda is aimed at picking up the pieces that the Congress could not enact last time. So it's for this reason that I joined 169 of my colleagues in April of 2010 to urge both the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to withdraw these proposed guidance regulations. That was in April of 2010. Unfortunately, this administration refuses to do so. So that is why section 109 is so important, to protect rural America from overzealous bureaucracies. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend from Washington yielding. This amendment is about a bureaucratic guidance on an issue, on an issue that this Congress attempted to take up last time that simply, among other things, said that the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act would not be navigable waters. Now, that causes a whole lot of us in the West a lot of problems. And coming from an irrigation area, it bothers me because that means the Federal Government would now be in charge of everything not navigable, which could be irrigation streams.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit the following correspondence between Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, myself, and Chairman Dave Camp regarding the inclusion of language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill permitting tax-exempt bonds to be used to finance the purchase of fixed-wing aircraft for air ambulance services. House of Representatives, March 14, 2011. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Camp: We write to request your support for the inclusion of language in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that would permit tax- exempt bonds to be used to finance the purchase of fixed-wing aircraft to provide air ambulance services. Current tax law prevents states from using tax-exempt bonds to finance new fixed-wing air ambulances while tax-exempt bonds can be used for the acquisition of medical helicopters. Aircraft and helicopters are both important for emergency medical care. While helicopters can be used to provide air ambulance services, airplanes are commonly a superior mode of emergency air transportation for critically ill patients in rural areas. In many instances, the use of helicopters for air ambulance services in rural areas is impractical because of the long distances that patients must be transported. Also, airplanes present the safest and fastest mode of transportation during inclement weather. Allowing states to use tax-exempt bonds to finance fixed wing aircraft used exclusively for emergency medical services in the same way they can for helicopters will allow for better emergency medical service in our rural communities and save more lives. Thank you for considering bringing equality to the tax code for fixed-wing aircraft that provide air ambulance services. Sincerely, Doc Hastings. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my family, I missed a series of roll votes. Had I been present: I would have voted ``yea'' on (rollcall No. 330) H.R. 1627, Honoring America's Veterans Act; I would have voted ``yea'' on (rollcall No. 331) H.R. 1383, Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011; and I would have voted ``yea'' on (rollcall No. 332) H.R. 1657, a bill to revise the enforcement penalties for those misrepresenting a business concern as being veteran owned and controlled.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I also want to mention that two members of the House, Congressman Gerlach and Congressman Culberson had wanted to cosponsor this bill but because we had to file the reports on the bills on Monday, they were unable to. I appreciate their support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I advise my friend I am the concluding speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.