Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in light of the recent flooding in the gentleman's home State of Colorado, I can appreciate his concern about this issue. However, this amendment contains no restrictions on the scope and breadth of this study, and it seems to be endless. In fact, the study is not focused on the tragic flooding in Colorado, and it is so expansive it can include all flooding anywhere, and the term ``oil and gas'' facilities is undefined. That is what the amendment says. ``Oil and gas'' facilities could be interpreted to mean many things, much of which is outside of the jurisdiction of this committee. This could include corner gasoline stations or private gas meters. And ``leaking and spills from tanks, wells, and pipelines'' does not have to be associated with natural gas. It can be anything, such as a septic or water or sewer tanks and pipelines. Further, this amendment does not specify that the study be conducted in conjunction with production on Federal land, which of course is what this legislation specifically deals with. The result is a nationwide study that can touch a variety of sources, right down to private homes, the results of which will have nothing to do with the energy production process that this legislation seeks to streamline. This study, undoubtedly at the expense of taxpayer dollars, will have no impact on energy production; and, frankly, it has no clear goal. Finally, the proper place to examine the effects of flooding in Colorado is in Colorado. In testing done by the Colorado State Department of Public Health and the Environment, they found pollutants from oil and gas in the aftermath of the spills at 29 specific sites, but no pollutants in Colorado's waterways. However, the incidence of E. coli and raw sewage was measurable and did have an impact on public health, which is not limited to one industry and is not even covered by this study. Mr. Chairman, for a variety of reasons, and I think I have tried to touch on the major ones that I just enunciated, I urge rejection of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the author of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I mentioned in my initial remarks, this amendment really is very broadly written. And when we had other amendments talking about potential lawsuits, boy, adopting this amendment here would really be a litigant's dream if it were to be part of the legislation. I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear that I do oppose this amendment. This amendment is costly and wasteful. The amendment would redirect $10 billion away from Federal permitting streamlining, which we know would help lower costs and produce more energy, and instead funnel the money to another fruitless study of the unfounded position of somehow market speculation is impacting energy prices. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, researchers Christopher Knittel and Robert S. Pindyck from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, MIT, found that speculation wasn't driving up energy prices. I will quote them, Mr. Chairman. Back to those pesky speculators for a moment: surely, their bets on oil have had at least some effect on prices? According to our latest research, the answer is: not really. In our recent paper, we explore the link between speculation and inventory changes. We calculate a series of speculation-free prices by creating a stable inventory of oil, providing us with a picture of what the market might look like in the absence of speculation. We focus on inventory for a simple reason: if oil prices are changing because of speculators, then there would have to be commensurate changes to inventories--a buildup when prices are increasing and a drawdown when prices are falling. But when the economy was strong and oil prices were increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would have actually been higher if you take away any effects of speculation. And let me repeat that final part: But when the economy was strong and oil prices were increasing, we didn't see large increases in inventories. In fact, they fell somewhat. This means that peak prices would have actually been higher if you take away any effects of speculation. Time and time again, we have heard from those opposed to oil and gas drilling that it is the shady Wall Street speculator, the man behind the curtain who is driving up energy prices. The truth is that the best way to fight speculators, or foreign cartels, is simply to outproduce them, and that should be our solution here today. We should be working to figure out how to use more than just 2 percent of our Federal lands for energy development. We should find a way to have Federal lands keep pace with private lands in the revolution of energy production as currently taking place in the United States. Yet the Congressional Research Service tells us: All of the increase from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2012 took place on non-Federal lands, and the Federal share of total U.S. crude oil production fell by about 7 percentage points. Yet, instead of reversing this trend, streamlining permitting, the author of this amendment wants to siphon off money for studies. The legislation before us today is designed to streamline and produce more onshore energy production. This will create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign imports. It demands an all-of-the-above energy agenda, and I would like to think that the folks on the other side could at least embrace that part of it. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I know there is no truism specifically in economic theory, but one thing we do know about crude oil is that it is subject to international pricing. We do know that a big part of the international pricing and production is conducted by a cartel, namely, OPEC. The last figure I saw was about 45 percent of the international market. Well, when you have 45 percent controlled by one entity, you are going to have some price pressures that are coming. Indeed, you probably have some speculation. Mr. Chairman, this is the important part of what this underlying bill and the bill that we will have on the floor tomorrow does. The only way that you are going to beat cartels is to outproduce them. I don't care if you are talking about crude oils or if you are talking about apples or you are talking about potatoes or you are talking about timber. The whole idea, if you have somebody that controls a big part of the marketplace, the way you beat them is to outproduce them. This bill allows America to outproduce our foreign competitors. This amendment adds nothing to that. I urge rejection of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I 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, we all heard President Obama say, If you like your health care plan, you can keep, period. A constituent of mine from Yakima, Gary Bailey, writes: My wife and I are self-employed. Our provider just sent us a letter telling us that, due to the Affordable Care Act, our policy will no longer be available and we will have to choose a new policy. He went on to say: The least expensive policy is double the cost of my original policy, and the deductible went up to $10,000. Mr. Speaker, Gary is not alone. Millions of hardworking Americans have lost the insurance they like and can afford. The Keep Your Health Plan Act that we will vote on tomorrow fulfills President Obama's promise, even if he won't. Yakima, Washington. Representative Hastings, I have to write to tell you what has just happened to me regarding my health insurance with Regence Blue Shield. My wife and I are self-employed and do not get insurance from our employer. We cannot afford a luxury policy in fact our policy was major catastrophic with a $3500 deductible. Our provider just sent us a letter telling us that, due to the ``Affordable Care Act,'' our policy will no longer be available and that we will have to choose a new policy. The least expensive policy is double the cost of my original policy and the deductible went up to $10,000. President Obama said that our health care would go down $2,500. Our cost for one of us went up $1,632. I am sorry Congressman Hastings, but the President and all the democrat party has not been truthful and you need to defund Obamacare. Most of America doesn't want it and I can't afford it! Please listen to your constituents! Thank you for your time. Gary Bailey.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support my amendment to retain Congress's traditional role in authorizing project purposes at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams and reservoirs. Corps dams and reservoirs throughout the Nation provide multiple benefits. Water supplies, hydropower, recreation and flood control are just some of the benefits that were approved by Congress and paid for by beneficiaries such as ratepayers. Some Corps dams also provide year- round cold-water flows for fisheries as part of their operations. In the Pacific Northwest, multi-purpose dams provide the economic backbone for our region. They power communities, small businesses and residential homes and provide water necessary for irrigation, recreation and navigation. These duties have been approved by Congress in some fashion after careful deliberation over the costs, needs and justification for these uses. I'm proud to have worked with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the American Public Power Association, which collectively represent almost 90 million electric ratepayers in 49 states, on this amendment. These ratepayers receive emissions-free and renewable hydropower from federal reservoirs throughout our country. These organizations, whose ratepayers pay--with interest--for hydropower and other functions at the Corps of Engineers dams--have been concerned with proposals that would give undue discretion to the agency to change the projects without ratepayer or Congressional oversight and authorization. I will quote an October 8, 2013 letter from the organizations to illustrate their predicament: ``The ability to change project operations at Corps projects that provide hydropower presents a risk that hydropower generation from these projects could be diminished at the agency's discretion. For many members of NRECA and APPA who rely on the power generated at Corps projects to keep electric rates as low as possible, the loss of hydropower generated at these projects would require our members to seek more expensive replacement power.'' Policies and authorizations that govern the uses of Corps facilities, as authorized by Congress, should not be re-written by un-elected bureaucrats. There are some proposals to allow the Corps to administratively change project purposes and manuals that govern the Corps dams and reservoirs that could undermine congressional intent, erode government accountability, limit public input and create a litigious atmosphere. And, any such changes would have a cascading effect on dams owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and non-federal entities like public utility districts. Instead of giving courts and bureaucrats more power, Congress needs to reinforce the congressionally-authorized policies that govern these projects. And, if changes need to be made at these facilities, they should be made by Congress in the open, not by the un-elected. This amendment simply continues our historical role in determining how multiple-use Corps projects are operated. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this resolution to fund the Bureau of Indian Affairs. While House Republicans continue to offer solutions to end this government shutdown, we will continue also to take steps to provide funding for important areas of our government. This measure fulfills the Congress' unique responsibility to fund programs vital to Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. There are 56 million acres of Indian trust lands in the United States. Unlike other privately owned lands, in most cases, Indian trust lands may not be leased for development purposes without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. These lands are critical for Indian tribes to create jobs and to generate revenue for their reservation economies. For example, in my central Washington district, two tribes are major producers of timber that employ hundreds of people and produce income for tribal governments and thousands of individual members. In other parts of the country, tribes utilize their trust lands for oil, natural gas, coal development, and for a variety of business leasing and housing. It is critical to ensure continued funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to perform functions necessary for tribes and individual landowners to lease and develop their lands. The joint resolution additionally provides funding for the Indian Health Service programs. While direct care for acute and chronic health conditions is being provided as an essential government service to Native Americans during this shutdown, other services, such as preventative care, have been scaled back. It is critical that these be restored to normal operations. The President repeatedly stresses the importance of the United States' unique relationship with Indian tribes. He now has an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to match his rhetoric with action by supporting the passage of this resolution and signing it into law.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed and sent to the Senate a bipartisan bill to keep our national parks open. Twenty-three Democrats joined the House Republicans to end the closure of these national treasures. They joined us to unlock the gates and to open the doors of these treasures, from Acadia to Zion. They joined with us to tear down the barriers that were erected to block access to our open D.C. memorials that my colleague from South Carolina just alluded to a moment ago. These memorials are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So the Senate should act today to pass this bill and to send it to the President for his signature. But it is disappointing to see statements from Senate Democrat leaders dismissing and even ridiculing these commonsense steps as ``piecemeal.'' It is even more disappointing that the President has threatened a veto of this bill to keep the parks open. Mr. Speaker, let's not forget that one week ago today the Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, and the entire Senate, unanimously approved a bill to keep the Federal Helium Reserve open and operating, and last night the President finally signed this bill to prevent a helium shutdown into law. Now, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Senate unanimously passed it, and I am glad the President signed the law. It is important for our economy. But the reason I bring this up is that the helium program is part of the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Interior that is responsible for our national parks. So one has to ask, why will the Senate pass and the President sign into law a bill to specifically prevent the closure of our Federal helium program, but then refuse to act on a bill that would end the closure of over 400 national parks that are visited by millions of Americans every year? The contradictions in their words and actions are glaring. Such political posturing is not only illogical and hypocritical, but the result of that posturing punishes the American people. Mr. Speaker, this does not need to happen, and it should not happen. So I urge the Senate Democrats and the President to stop going out of their way to make the government shutdown as painful as possible, and I urge the Senate Democrats and the President to come to the table and negotiate an end to this shutdown and to act today to take the reasonable and responsible step of passing a bill to open our parks and memorials to America's veterans, families, and all U.S. citizens.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise, again today in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, while it's understandable that, during this shutdown, some services would be limited in some parks and visitor centers, I believe this administration is going out of its way to take unreasonable and unnecessary steps to block public access to parks and monuments. There is absolutely no reason why open-air parks and monuments here in Washington, D.C., should be barricaded off. These are places without doors, gates or fences where people are allowed 24/7, 365-day access to these memorials. Why are they closed now? Furthermore, memorials that weren't closed during the last government shutdown in 1996 have been barricaded today. This administration is choosing to do this. It wants the effect of this government shutdown to be as painful as possible. And the worst example of this is how the Obama administration erected steel barricades to keep our World War II veterans out of the memorial. These men are national heroes who flew here from across the country. The Park Service knew that they were coming. The veterans didn't deserve to be greeted by armed National Park Police at the entrance. Now, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't cost the Federal Government a single penny to let these veterans walk around this outdoor, open-air structure. But ironically, the Federal Government is spending money to proactively keep them out. It may very well be costing more money to keep these visitors out than it would to simply let them in. To add further insult to injury, the Obama administration isn't even applying this policy consistently. While highly visible monuments are barricaded off, others remain open. The Obama administration is selectively choosing which memorials to keep open and which to close, further proof, in my mind, that they're just playing politics. So this bill today would end these type of political games.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to say that, as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that has jurisdiction on our national parks, we have started investigations into why this administration did these precise actions.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation to fund our national parks. Nobody here wanted our government to shut down, but one of the consequences is that millions of Americans have been literally barricaded from entering our parks, memorials, and monuments. While it's understandable that some services would be limited in some parks, it's unfortunate that this administration has taken the unnecessary steps of closing off additional monuments in public places. Mr. Speaker, it appears to me the Obama administration is choosing to make this shutdown as painful as possible by unnecessarily preventing public access to open-air spaces and monuments. These are spaces that are normally open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. These are places without doors or without gates. Yet the Obama administration is going out of their way to erect barricades and have people manning them in order to keep people out of these monuments. Mr. Speaker, that's flat-out wrong, and it is terribly wasteful. Just today, World War II veterans, who bravely fought to defend and protect our country, encountered armed National Park Police and metal barricades when they tried to visit their memorial, the World War II memorial. Yet these veterans were undeterred. The shortsighted decisions by the Interior Department officials couldn't stop them from completing a visit to their memorial. I congratulate them for going in, as a matter of fact. This targeted bill before us today would allow our national parks and landmarks to reopen to the public, welcoming back tourists and families to these public lands that are critically important to so many local economies. Mr. Speaker, the House has acted multiple times, as has been said, to fund the government, but now it is time for the Senate to act. I support this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 687.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. As our Nation continues to suffer from high unemployment, a rising national debt, and annual deficits, Congress's top priority should be advancing solutions that put Americans back to work and help to strengthen and grow the economy. The bill before us does just that. Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, sponsored by our colleague and Natural Resources Committee member, Mr. Gosar from Arizona, is a bipartisan measure that will create thousands of new American jobs and boost our economy through increased U.S. mineral production. The bill authorizes an equal-value land exchange between Resolution Copper and the Federal Government that will open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. The bill requires that the cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer-- Copper Resolution, in this case--ensuring that there will be fair treatment for taxpayers. This project will provide substantial benefits to the United States and the State of Arizona in the form of job creation, economic growth, and for increased national security for the United States. The mining project is estimated to support 3,700 new jobs. These are good-paying, family-wage American jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in annual wages. At a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project will provide a much-needed boost through private investment. This mining activity will have over a $60 billion economic impact and will generate an estimated $20 billion in total Federal, State, county, and local tax revenue through the life of the project. This bill is a perfect example of how safely and responsibly harnessing our resources will generate revenue and get our economy back on track. The importance of increased U.S. copper production cannot be overstated. Our Nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign countries for our mineral resources--placing our economic competitiveness and national security at risk. The U.S. currently imports 30 percent of the copper we need, and we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources here at home. The copper produced from this single project is estimated to meet 25 percent of the United States' entire copper demand. This copper could be used for a variety of items, ranging from medical devices, plumbing, computers, and even, Mr. Chairman, hybrid cars. It's also essential for our national defense equipment and technology, including satellites, space and aviation, and weapons guidance and communications systems. The benefits and reasons to pass this bill are plentiful. However, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those who are opposed to mining in the United States. I would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning. First, this bill follows the standard Federal land appraisal process procedures issued by the Department of Justice, which has been in use for decades. The appraisal requires full market value to be paid for both the land and the minerals located within the land. If, by chance, there is copper production beyond the appraised value, the mine developer will be required to pay the United States the difference. This, Mr. Chairman, would be assessed annually. This is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return for these copper resources. Second, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 American jobs. It's not about helping foreign mining interests at home, as some have charged. Opposing this mine and not producing copper in the U.S. is what truly benefits foreign nations, by sending American jobs overseas and making us increasingly reliant on foreign sources of critical minerals. Finally, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. This bill provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive, riparian, and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. This bill does not, Mr. Chairman, waive any existing laws or protections for sacred sites under Federal law. It upholds the Native American Graves Preservation and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. It will not allow the desecration of any sacred area. It does, Mr. Chairman, specifically and permanently protect a site called Apache Leap that is well known and special to Arizonans and the area tribes. H.R. 687 is about creating new American jobs, strengthening our economy, and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. The bill has broad support from over 50 local and national organizations and government entities, including Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturing, and the National Mining Association. Furthermore, the Arizona Republic Editorial Board has endorsed this bill. They highlighted the bipartisan support from the Arizona congressional delegation and noted that ``it has the potential to be an economic bonanza for our State and a national security boon to our country.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill to put Americans back to work and end our dependency on foreign minerals. With that, 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 Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the subcommittee chairman on the Natural Resources Committee that deals with this issue.

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