Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2197) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the York River and associated tributaries for study for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2197 authorizes the National Park Service to study 11.25 miles of the York River in the State of Maine for possible inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers program. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 was intended to put a development freeze on rivers to preserve their ``free-flowing'' characteristics. Although no immediately apparent risks to the river necessitating Federal designation have been identified, proponents of the study explained that they would benefit from the expertise of the National Park Service and its interaction with the surrounding community. Due to a number of very real concerns that have arisen through prior designations, this bill includes several commonsense provisions aimed at better informing local property owners and communities about the full effects and impacts of a wild and scenic designation. The National Park Service will be required to consider the effect of designation on commercial and recreational uses, such as hunting and fishing and boating. The study must also look at the impact on construction and maintenance of energy production and transmission. Furthermore, H.R. 2197 requires the Federal Government to identify all existing authorities that could be utilized to condemn private property. We want property owners to know how much power the government will be given so they can form an educated opinion as to whether they should participate in or support a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. Finally, the bill will require the Federal Government to identify those authorities that compel it to become involved in local zoning. While Federal designation of the York River clearly has an appeal to the local advocates supporting this legislation, it is important for the community to be aware that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires local zoning to conform to the dictates of the Federal act. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would note that this exact legislation passed the House last Congress, but because the Senate failed to act on it, it is being considered once again in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to just point out that I have the privilege of chairing the House Natural Resources Committee, and the nature of that committee is such that we deal with a lot of important pieces of legislation, but pieces of legislation that are kind of parochial in nature with regard to a particular State. We have right now some 50 bills, both Republican and Democrat bills that have passed this House, many of them on suspension, that are still awaiting action in the Senate. In fact, this legislation--similar legislation passed the Congress last time and didn't go anywhere in the other body, and so here we are back one more time. I only mention that because we can't be the only House that passes legislation. It has to be both Houses in order to get something to the President. I certainly hope that this legislation after two times will finally get through and the study can commence and we can proceed with looking at whether a designation would be in order. With that in mind, let me talk a bit, because I mentioned this earlier in my remarks. What I am saying here regarding Wild and Scenic is in many ways applicable to wilderness designations. We passed a bill earlier today by voice vote that designated a wilderness area in Michigan. In both of those cases, what is common with both of them is that we have seen since the Wild and Scenic designation law passed and since the wilderness law passed, we see this especially in the Western part of the United States, that when these areas are designated either Wild and Scenic or wilderness, what happens is areas around them become de facto wilderness or de facto Wild and Scenic which many, many times imposes on private property rights. Now we have experienced that more in the West than what my colleagues have in the East, and my colleague from Maine expressed, rightly so, this has very, very broad support. I am sure it does; they have worked very hard on it. The danger in the future is, if taken to the extreme, you could have, unless we had within the study--you could have some pressures on private property rights. We think that is sufficiently important to put that in the study so that those who will be affected know about it. I hope the outcome is such that everybody believes, fine, we can work with whatever restrictions come up. That is the precise reason, Mr. Speaker, why when we look, and I say ``we,'' being a Member from the Western part of the United States, when we look at these designations, it becomes pretty darn rigid even when you have acts of natural disaster. With that in mind, let me tell you about something that happened in my old district prior to redistricting. There is a wilderness area in the northern Cascades. A lot of people visit it; it is a wonderful place. But to access that from the Eastern part of the United States, you have to go up a lake; it's the only way to get there. Then you have to traverse some 10 or 20 miles to the wilderness area, and the only way to get there is by a road. Well, the road--nature washed out that road many times several years ago. It is called the Stehekin Road. The community up there has been trying to rebuild that road. Now, what does this have to do with wild and scenic and wilderness. Well, I mentioned that sometimes these things become so rigid that you can't affect something that needs to be done. Unfortunately, the road was right on the border of a wilderness area. So naturally, when you are going to rebuild it, you have to go through a wilderness area. ``No, no,'' say all the national groups. Not the local groups, not the people who are affected, but all the national groups. ``No, you can't build this road.'' So we are now in the third Congress. The last two Congresses, we passed bills to address this issue, but we have not been able to succeed because, as I mentioned earlier, we have to go through the Senate. I only use this as an example of how national groups with a wilderness designation, and it has happened with wild and scenic designations, have unintended consequences on the community. This legislation says within--within--that study, we need to find out what these potential impacts could be. That is why we put that in this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words, and I support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those whose vision and hard work have made the United States Armed Forces Legacy Site in Tonasket, Washington, a reality. This site is a touching tribute to the legacy of all of America's veterans--past, present, and future. In 2006, local veterans George Frank, Roger Castelda, and Ted Huber formed the U.S. Armed Forces Legacy Association in this rural community with the commendable mission of providing a place for veterans and members of the U.S. Armed Forces to be honored, offering a service office for veterans and their families, and presenting a military library for the use and enjoyment of all. Originally designed by local artist Brad Hughes, the United States Armed Forces Legacy Site was completed on May 18, 2013 in conjunction with the city of Tonasket and with the hard work of many in the community. This inspirational site includes a wall for over 1,000 veterans' plaques, five basalt columns to honor each service branch, a library consisting of the history and wars of the Armed Forces, and a touching mural acknowledging America's military history. I am pleased to see that the U.S. Armed Forces Legacy Association was named Non-profit Association of the year for 2012 by the Tonasket Chamber of Commerce and named as the best park/playground by the Omak Chronicle. Through the efforts of numerous volunteers and donors, the United States Armed Forces Legacy Site has been a tremendous success and truly honors those who protect and preserve the values that shaped the character of our nation. I applaud all of those who made the site what it is today and look forward to future generations being able to show their respect to our America heroes.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to support this measure, and particularly the portion that is sponsored by our colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) that will ensure transparency of Federal agencies' litigation settlement practices. In 2011, the Obama administration entered into a mega-settlement, which was a closed-door, sweeping Endangered Species Act settlement with two litigious groups that greatly increased the ESA listings and habitat designations that could impact tens of thousands of acres and thousands of river miles across the country. These settlements shut out affected States, local governments, private property owners, and other stakeholders who deserve to know that the most current and best scientific data is being used on these decisions. In my own district, the Fish and Wildlife Service just listed a plant subspecies, despite clear data showing that the plant was not a species likely to go extinct. In other words, settlement deadlines trumped the science. Let me give a couple of examples. These settlement listings could result in a listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken that would impact five Western States, and next year the listing of the Greater Sage Grouse could cover an area of 250 million acres in 13 Western States. Then there is the long-eared bat that could impact 39 Midwestern and Eastern States. That is not all, Madam Chairman. The settlements also mandate decisions for 374 aquatic species in the Gulf of Mexico. The point is, important ESA discussions should not be forced by arbitrary court decisions or deadlines, or negotiated behind closed doors by Federal lawyers supposedly on behalf of the public interest. This legislation aims to help correct this abuse by ensuring affected States and other parties can have a say in settlements before an unelected judge signs them, and it ensures that no settlement moves forward without the public knowing what is in it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2954.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, H.R. 2954, is a bipartisan package of 10 bills to protect and promote public access to lands; to improve opportunities by removing red tape that stands in the way of responsible, local economic development and jobs; and to encourage transparent community center land management. This small grouping of bills will advance important local projects that will have a direct impact on jobs and on economic growth in communities throughout the country. The package includes several commonsense land conveyance bills to remove unnecessary bureaucratic strings attached to how land is used and how it is managed. It recognizes that locally elected leaders, not Federal bureaucrats, know how to best manage certain lands. There are measures to prevent unreasonable Federal regulations or actions from destroying a historic lookout tower in my home State of Washington, blocking unreasonable public recreation access to the Cape Hatteras seashore in North Carolina, and preventing the use of hand- powered boats, such as kayaks, in several national parks in the West. This bill will help family businesses and ranchers by implementing commonsense reforms to the process of renewing livestock grazing permits. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is an important part of the American ranching tradition. This bill will help our Nation's ranchers operate more efficiently and with greater certainty. The package, Mr. Chairman, also includes legislation sponsored by the Public Lands Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah, requiring the BLM to establish an Internet database for all BLM lands that are available for sale to the public. In the year 2014, if I may be parochial, when a Seahawks fan can purchase a championship hat on the Internet just moments after the Superbowl ends, the Federal Government can certainly get its act together and post its lands that are available for sale online. This bill will expedite the planning and implementation of emergency salvage timber sales for Federal lands in California that were ravaged by the Rim Fire last summer. Without prompt emergency action, the impacts of this devastating wildfire could become even worse. Fire- damaged trees invite disease. They invite insect infestations. They increase the risk of future wildfires, and they are a threat to visitor safety. Emergency salvage and forest restoration efforts should not be delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles and lawsuits. Finally, the bill provides for transparency and accountability in how Federal funds are spent in protecting the Chesapeake Bay. This small package of bills is reasonable, responsible, and it reflects the will of local communities and their elected leaders. It deserves support, I believe, from my Democrat and Republican colleagues. Before concluding my remarks on this piece of legislation and listening to the statement of the gentleman from Arizona, I would like to briefly address the legislative work of this committee as a whole. The committee, of course, I speak of is the Natural Resources Committee. Just this week, the House will have considered three measures from the House Natural Resources Committee. Two of these packages were individual bills, which means a total of 18 different bills from this committee will have effectively been considered and debated and voted upon by the House this week. Prior to this week, over the first 13 months of this Congress, the Natural Resources Committee has advanced nearly 60 individual bills through the House. Nearly 50 of those bills have passed on a broad bipartisan basis under the expedited suspension process. Ten bills under the jurisdiction of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, have been signed by the President, which represents a noticeable percentage of the public laws that have been enacted by this Congress. These totals do not include individual bills included in other measures, such as bills that were included in the Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Chairman, this statement is not made as a pat on the back, but to make clear that the intent of this committee is to dutifully work and act on priorities for our Nation. They may be narrow bills to resolve a parochial problem or broad measures affecting the country as a whole. Of course, the nature of our committee is to deal with, in many cases, bills that deal on very parochial issues. That is one of the reasons why there are so many bills that come out of our committee. In matters of broad policy, some are of great urgency, such as the importance of restoring responsible, active forest management to both support economically struggling rural communities and to improve the health of Federal forests. We passed that bill earlier this year. Just yesterday, the House moved swiftly to provide a solution to the devastating drought in California. We have also acted on multiple bipartisan measures to streamline red tape and boost America's ability to safely harness our vast energy resources to create jobs--because we know that energy jobs are good- paying jobs--to lower prices, and to strengthen our national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy from hostile nations. On each of these measures, it is time for the Senate to act and to pass their own proposals so that we can then work to reach an agreement. Obviously, there will be differences between both Houses, but they need to pass their legislation so we can work on the differences so that these measures can become law. We have differences, but we have a responsibility to represent those we are elected to serve and put forward real solutions for the challenges facing the American people. There are dozens of bills solving local problems, implementing locally supported solutions, and establishing protections for historic and special places that can be acted on by both the House and the Senate. I believe that this is possible on matters under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, that we can find common ground with the Senate. Why do I say that? Because we have successfully done so repeatedly over this last year. That is why there are a noticeable number of public laws from our committees that have been acted on by the House and have gone to the President. But, as always, this will require a willingness to recognize and respect differences in philosophy and procedure in both the House and in the Senate. It must be a two-way street where each Chamber acts on the other's priorities, but, again, has successfully been done in the past, and I know it can be done in the future. The Republican majority in the House has demonstrated our willingness to do so while maintaining our fundamental views on Federal land management, the importance of multiple use of public lands, and the ability of local communities to make better decisions for themselves than Federal bureaucracies. So as we conclude this week's full slate of action on House Natural Resources Committee bills, I pledge to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to make progress in the days, weeks, and months ahead. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the author of one of the titles of the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), who is an author of one of the titles of the bill.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), an author of one of the titles 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), subcommittee chairman and also an author of one of the titles of the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend that, at this point, I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased when I heard my good friend from Arizona congratulate the work of the committee until I heard his explanation of what the committee did, and then I had to have a bit of a caution there. I just want to point out that when the gentleman complains about the ratio of majority and minority, we are following precisely the same example when roles were reversed. In other words, when the Democrats were in the majority, when we were in the minority, we had the same ratio. So we are following that pretty much to the same, and that has been the tradition in this House for a long period of time. The difference, however, I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the committee has been much more productive when we have been in control, meaning that there has been more legislation moving that the Democrats would like. I want to make this point also. There are Democrat and Republican suspension bills that are both sitting in the Senate that haven't been acted on, and I think that the Senate needs to act on those pieces of legislation. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. All of these titles have passed out of the committee and were amalgamated here, but they had all been acted on. They all had input in subcommittee in some way or the other within the committee. So I wanted to make that point. This is not legislation that was pulled out of the air. It was legislation that was deliberated upon within the committee. I also want to mention, even though the Statement of Administration Policy was negative in some parts of the bill, there is no veto threat by the administration on this piece of legislation. They expressed concerns, as is understandable, on certain parts of it. I understand that, but there is no veto threat at all whatsoever in what the administration has said. Finally, let me make this observation, and we hear this over and over and over, especially as it relates to the NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. Now, I am going to acknowledge that NEPA certainly has its place within our statutes and how we conduct policy, particularly on public land, but here is where we part company, Mr. Chairman. We part company because my friends on the other side of the aisle always advocate that, even before Congress acts, NEPA should be the judge of whatever that action is. Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think that is contrary to what our role is here. Congress created NEPA, meaning that Congress is the one who decides what the law of the land is. Within these bills, we are deciding what the law of the land is, and NEPA should not get in front of our actions. To hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, they are saying over and over and over again that NEPA should be between Congress acting on a law. Wait a minute. We are putting regulations before Congress should be doing their constitutional duty and enacting statutes? I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I part company with that philosophy, yet that is exactly what we hear over and over and over from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are the ones that are given authority by the Constitution to make statutes. We believe that that should be the law, and then regulations follow, not the other way around. But that is what we hear over and over and over again. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. As I mentioned, it addresses areas that are certain parochial and certain parts of the country, as my colleague from Utah said, all the way from Florida to Alaska. I think it is responsible legislation, and I think it deserves our support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I support this amendment. I think the brief part of this debate here points out the importance of having flexibility on the local level rather than having a one-size-fits-all; because there are conditions that can come up in grazing in various States, and those managers need that flexibility, which is, I think, a common thread that we talk about all the time when we talk about Federal land management. So I think this amendment adds very much to the Labrador title of the bill, and I intend to support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think that the gentleman's amendment to this piece of legislation is an important policy step. In fact, I think in many cases a ``loser pay'' ought to apply to a much larger area. I know that the gentleman's amendment only deals with grazing, but he cited an example in Wyoming where it cost somebody $125,000, and with the volatility of the market, that is a big expense on individuals. I think this will help curb that in the future. So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment, and I intend to support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?