Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on general debate and would ask my friend from Arizona if he is prepared to yield back his time on general debate, as I am prepared to close?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few comments here in response to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been saying regarding this legislation. Certainly, there is a great deal of hyperbole going on that, I think, simply doesn't meet the ``straight face'' test in many respects. First of all, it has been implied--and maybe said specifically--by one of my colleagues that this legislation waives environmental laws. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very specifically that this does not waive any environmental laws. Let me walk back to how this works, because my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about the NEPA review. NEPA is a pretty important environmental law--I certainly understand that--but let's put this in context. This legislation is a land exchange legislation--you exchange this piece of land for this piece of land. Now, that is a policy decision that we are debating and making here on the floor of the House. We are making a policy decision on exchanging this piece of land for another piece of land. If that exchange is done and if this becomes law, then, yes, there will be a copper mine on that land that's exchanged--we acknowledge that--but my friends on the other side of the aisle suggest that we should have a NEPA review before we make a law. How absurd is that? Are we going to have a NEPA review on every law? Mr. Chairman, don't we make the policy here in this country? Their criticism is that we are not allowing a NEPA review before we make a law. I did not know that the NEPA policy said that, before there is a land exchange or before Congress passes a statute, you have to have a NEPA review. Yet, that's what their argument is in this case. After the land exchange, the process starts of developing a mine, and then you go through all of those environmental hoops that you normally go through in this sort of activity. So I just wanted to clarify that. I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't suggesting by their argument of a NEPA review that we should have a NEPA review on Congress' action. A NEPA review on a statute? That doesn't make sense. Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. It has been worked on very hard, on a bipartisan basis, by Mr. Gosar and others from the Arizona delegation. Obviously, Arizonans broadly support this, at least by the evidence that we see in the media and so forth. I think it's a good bill. We have several amendments. We will debate those, and we will address those issues during that debate; but I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The fundamental purpose of H.R. 687 is to facilitate a land exchange; then after that land exchange was done, there would be a production and mining of copper, which of course would create thousands of American jobs. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the way this amendment is written, it would make it impossible by creating mandates that just simply couldn't be achieved. I have to give my friend from Arizona credit. He has made no bones about the fact that he does not like this bill. He said that very well. I don't agree with him, but he has said it very well. Generally, when you offer an amendment to a bill, however, you offer an amendment to improve the bill. Believe me, Mr. Chairman, this will not improve the bill. In all likelihood, if adopted, it would probably kill the bill because it dictates a precise town where the mine operations should be. I suspect that the company will have some offices in those areas. That stands to reason if you're going to invest some money. But the Federal Government should not be dictating specifically what town somebody should set up an enterprise. Mr. Chairman, if you want to go to the absurd, if the idea is to help a distressed area by dictating where you should locate some facility or manufacturing or some company, one could say, Gee, whiz, what city in the United States is really hurting? The first city that comes to mind, of course, is Detroit, Michigan. Are we going to suggest, for example, that the Federal Government dictate that Apple from Cupertino, California, should be relocated to Detroit? Of course that's absurd. Yet, when you start this precedent here that is suggested in this amendment, one could lead to that conclusion in the future. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, pass the underlying bill, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I inform my friend from New Mexico that I am prepared to close on this amendment if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is critical that the Congress listen to and show respect to Indian tribes and their elected leaders. And, Mr. Chairman, it's for that reason that when I had the privilege of becoming chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a new Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was established. That hadn't been the case prior to my assuming the chairmanship of that committee. And the purpose was to ensure a special forum for issues and concerns important to Indian tribes and to native people. It's important that Indian tribes have a role and are consulted on decisions that affect their land and their reservation lands. But I just want to make a couple of points: this bill does not waive any existing laws dealing with Native Americans, none whatsoever.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If I have time, I will be more than happy to yield. But probably more specific on this, this area that we're talking about in Arizona known as the Copper Triangle has been mined for--well, a long time. And this particular land exchange is right kind of in the middle of this Copper Triangle. And the closest Indian reservation is some 20 miles away. Now I understand that, as in my area in central Washington, I know that Native Americans moved around, and that's certainly the case in Arizona. I understand that. But the effect of this amendment, the effect of this amendment would undermine our responsibility in Congress by giving total authority, total authority to the Secretary of the Interior to make determinations on whether sacred sites or other things important to Native Americans are violated. I think that's contrary to what our role is here. And again, this law does not waive any--any--existing laws. None at all. In fact, we specifically, notwithstanding the fact that the nearest reservation is 20 miles away, we specifically say there should be consultation before this project goes forward. So I think this amendment is unnecessary. I would be happy to yield to my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, just to make the point that the gentleman's amendment, the intent is to address Native American issues. That's what we should be debating. And I am just simply saying, if you affect Native American issues by implication, you would be waiving them. We are not waiving anything. We are respecting the laws that are in place right now. I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment because this amendment in no way risks water supply or safety. In fact, it upholds existing laws that protect water quality and availability. And probably the best way to illustrate that is to simply look at the support for this bill, especially from those that reside in the State of Arizona and represent people in the State of Arizona. We all know that Arizona is a very diverse State. I have a very diverse State in Washington. And certainly California is diverse geographically. But there are certain areas in that State that are very dry. Water is very, very important. Now, I daresay that no Member from Arizona would support a bill that would jeopardize water in Arizona. Yet we have heard on the floor here the bipartisan support of those from Arizona, representing Arizonans that support this bill. So I think that that issue, frankly, is simply not valid at all. This amendment may sound like it's well intended. But what it really will do, there would be red tape involved with this because of the vagueness of the language in this amendment. And I think really what this amendment is, in deference to my good friend from California, it's an open invitation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, you might call it an ambulance siren for lawyers to start filing lawsuits in this issue. One more area. Goodness knows, there are going to be lawsuits anyway. This would be one more, in my view, if this amendment is passed. And finally, I would just say this: 100 percent of the water needs of this mine will be secured before production commences. So with that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 354) providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 527, with an amendment.

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 materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation being considered by the House this evening, H.R. 527, the Helium Stewardship Act, is a commonsense action plan to protect our economy from the impending helium shortage and to inject free market principles into our Federal helium program. The House must take action today on this legislation before time runs out. Under current law, the Reserve must cease operations on October 1--that's only 6 days from now, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Helium Reserve supplies one-third of the world's helium, and a disruption would cause real harm to our Nation's economy. Helium is essential to our 21st century economy. Without it, we wouldn't have lifesaving MRI machines, we wouldn't have computer chips, we wouldn't have fiber optic cables or other devices used for our defense needs. Unless Congress takes immediate action, tens of thousands of American jobs and critical technologies would be put at risk. The bill before us today is truly a bipartisan, bicameral plan that I'm pleased to have worked on with both my Senate and House colleagues. This bill would implement a new operating system for the Federal Helium Reserve on October 1 that would include semiannual auctions. This will ensure that we prevent a crippling helium shortage and that the reserve stays open until 2021, when then nearly all of the helium supply is sold. That will give us enough time for the market to supplant this helium that will go away. Mr. Speaker, it also ensures that this program, Federal program, is ended. A little history: on April 26, the House passed H.R. 527, the Helium Stewardship Act, by a vote of 394-1. Last week, the Senate passed H.R. 527 with an amendment by a vote of 97-2. This final text of House Resolution 354 makes several necessary, minimal adjustments to the Senate-passed version of H.R. 527 to ensure it abides by budget rules and laws so that it does not increase deficit spending. Prompt action of this final text will maintain a flow of helium for the reserve after October 1 and prevent economic disruptions to American jobs manufacturing critical technology and medical devices. Mr. Speaker, nearly 100 groups representing the end users of refined helium--and these groups are high-tech manufacturers of semiconductors, aerospace technologies, medical devices, chemicals, fiber optics, and science research--all have called for passage of this legislation. We have an opportunity today to preserve our economy, bring real reforms to a Federal program, get a better return for the taxpayer, and in the end truly shut down an outdated Federal program. These are all wins that we should pass this bill and celebrate these successes. I urge adoption of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who has been actively involved in this legislation since actually the issue came before us a little over a year ago.