Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of my classmates.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Wyoming, I want to address what the previous speaker mentioned. She was talking about the Tubman bill. Had this bill that we are debating here today been in effect, we wouldn't have had the problem with the Tubman issue right now. The Tubman issue was designated as a national monument, but it didn't go through the local process, and as a result--as a result of that--there are flaws in that designation. Thus, the bill that the gentlelady from Maryland is introducing is to correct the flaws that were put in place because of the monument designation. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask my friend from Arizona how many more speakers he has.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 Utah (Mr. Bishop), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. It is pretty hard to follow-up on what the author of the legislation did, talking about the history of this legislation and why there needs to be some changes. I thought he did that in a very, very good way. My friends on the other side of the aisle, at least the previous speaker, but also others, have mentioned about different pieces of legislation that we have passed out. I understand that they are probably in opposition to having more exploration, making us less energy dependent with offshore legislation, with onshore legislation, and so forth. But, Mr. Chairman, what wasn't said in that argument was that in every case, in every case the legislation that the gentleman lamented that we passed, we had a hearing in the committee. We had a hearing and went through the normal legislative process. When you look at what the intent of this legislation is all about, it is simply to have a hearing with consultation and transparency with those that are affected, nothing more. You may not like it, but at least you have that transparency. Several Members said we haven't passed national park legislation in several years, and that is true. There is some pending, and obviously we hope to have that done by the end. But this point needs to be made, too. The National Park Service, by their own admission, has over a $10 billion backlog in maintenance. Shouldn't we, as the keeper of the taxpayers' purse, look at that and say before we rush on some of this, let's make sure that we can afford to maintain whatever is going to be ensuing next. Finally, let me make an observation about my colleague from California, from Mendocino County, Mr. Huffman. He was saying that his community was very in favor of that monument designation that is going to happen, I guess, later on this year. I don't think the gentleman, however, mentioned that that precise piece of legislation, which was H.R. 1411, passed this House on a voice vote. In other words, there is no need to make a monument designation for that because this House had determined that it was the right thing to do. The problem is the Senate hasn't moved on that piece of legislation; so, on the one hand, they say we haven't passed legislation, and when we do, the President steps in and, I think, overstates his authority on the Antiquities Act. I am sorry. Before I close, I did have another speaker. I apologize to my friend. If the gentleman wants to take more time, I will give him more time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to, again, make the point there of my colleague from California (Mr. Huffman). He had a bill that passed the House and is pending in the Senate. There is no need for the President to go through this. All you have to do is pass the legislation which, by the way, had a hearing and was marked up properly in our committee. This piece of legislation, I think, is a good piece of legislation. I think it corrects abuses that have happened by the way of Presidents in both parties over the years. I ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think his amendment adds to this legislation, and I support his amendment.

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. 2824.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is well-known the Obama administration has waged a long-running war on coal, which last year a White House adviser admitted ``is exactly what's needed,'' but this is not only a war on coal. It is a war on jobs, our economy, affordable energy, small businesses, and the household budgets of American families. Already faced with higher home heating costs, middle class families will be further squeezed if the Obama administration is successful in its attempts to shut down coal production. One of the ways the administration has carried out this war on coal is through the reckless rewrite of a coal production regulation, the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule. Shortly after taking office, the Obama administration discarded the 2008 rule that went through 5 years of extensive public comment and environmental review. Since then, the administration has spent over 10 million taxpayer dollars in working to rewrite this rule, including hiring new contractors, then only to dismiss those same contractors once it was publicly revealed that the administration's proposed rewrite would cost 7,000 jobs and cause economic harm in 22 States. A report released by our House Natural Resources Committee staff in September of 2012, following years of oversight and investigations, exposed the gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, potential political interference, and widespread economic harm the proposed regulation would cause. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, or IG, released a report with similar findings. However, what is more troubling is that the IG has identified significant ongoing problems with the rulemaking process. To make matters worse, they are refusing to disclose those problems to us here in Congress. For example, there is an entire section of the report that we have received, entitled ``Issues with the New Contract,'' that have been almost completely blacked out. Despite our repeated requests, Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall has refused to give Congress an unredacted copy of this report. In a letter, she states that the Department of the Interior decided that it should be withheld from the committee. The IG is charged with being an independent watchdog for Congress. It is completely unacceptable and inappropriate for the IG to be taking orders from the Interior Department, especially about what information to withhold from us here in Congress. Mr. Chairman, I don't take what I am going to say lightly. That is why, today, I have issued a subpoena to the Department's Inspector General Kendall for this information that she has withheld from us. If the IG discovered ongoing issues with the way the Department is currently conducting this rulemaking process, they have a responsibility and a duty to share that information with Congress now. The committee is not asking the IG for materials produced by the Department, but we are asking for materials and interviews produced by the IG's staff. The Obama administration's rulemaking process has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster. Despite having spent millions of taxpayer dollars, they have absolutely nothing to show for it and, to date, haven't even produced a draft. Meanwhile, States, industry, and America's coal miners are left in limbo, unsure of what the operating rules are on the ground. Without the 2008 rule, we are left with a rule that was put in place in 1983. That is why we are here today--to consider H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act. This legislation will put an end to the years of ongoing waste and dysfunction. It will put in place a responsible process to ensure there is no rush to recklessly regulate. First, Mr. Chairman, it stops the administration's unnecessary rewrite and implements the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule that I mentioned took 5 years to put in place. It then directs the Department to responsibly study the impact of the rule for a prescribed period of time prior to initiating another new rule. This will provide certainty to the economy, to the individual States, and allow a clear examination of what may be needed and changed in the future. This bill will make certain that a new rule is written properly. Now, some will attempt to criticize this bill for the fact that it puts in place the 2008 rule that was vacated on a very narrow technical ground by a Federal judge last month. There is really nothing new here, however, because this is the exact outcome that the administration has been seeking for over 5 years--to get rid of the 2008 rule. But let's be clear what the court ruling and, subsequently, the Department's actions really mean. The court ruling strikes down the more protective 2008 rule and sets us back 30 years to a less restrictive 1983 rule. The 2008 rule is more modern and more protective in limiting the impacts of coal mining than the 1983 rule, but one Federal judge ruled that the 2008 rule must be set aside due to a narrow procedural technicality. This judge ruled, because the 2008 rule didn't have formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on possible impacts to endangered species, the entire rule should be set aside and, thus, revert back to the 1983 rule. Mr. Chairman, for the record, there were multiple meetings and discussions and consultations with Fish and Wildlife in proposing the 2008 rule regarding species when the 2008 rule was written, and it was done in a published and transparent fashion over a multiple-year period. Comments were taken and recommendations were made, but the bureaucratic process wasn't done precisely so, and as a result, this judge struck it down. Compare this conscientious effort, which was done to protect species in the 2008 rule, with the fact that there was absolutely zero consultation of protecting species in the 1983 rule. What could be the responsible thing to do? Clearly, it would be to implement the more modern and protective 2008 rule. What does the Obama administration say? It says let's go back to 1983. Why should we go back? It simply makes no sense to discard a modern rule, where we know the ESA consultation took place, for a 30-year-old rule that we know had no ESA consultations. Perhaps we should look to the people whom the Obama administration hired to write a rule of its own. In case notes that the committee obtained from the IG's office during their investigation, it quotes one of the current contractors, admitting, ``The 1983 rule was less restrictive than the 2008 rule.'' In the same case notes, it also states about the current contractor that, although she is a Democrat, the Stream Protection Rule appears to be an ``effort to kill coal mining.'' There you have it--straight from the mouth of the person who is working on the current rewrite--an admission that the new rule is an effort to ``kill coal mining.'' That is why we must take action today to stop this administration. Not only are they attempting to impose a new coal regulation that will destroy thousands of American mining jobs, but they have also wasted 5 years and over 10 million taxpayer dollars on a process that has been completely dysfunctional and misguided. Enough is enough. Republicans want to create an America that works, and that requires access to affordable energy. If we do not stop the administration from implementing its new coal regulation, thousands of Americans will be out of work, and home heating costs for working middle class families will rise. Let's pass this legislation to protect American taxpayer dollars, to protect American jobs, and to end this administration's reckless, wasteful rewrite by putting in place a responsible process that will allow a proper new rule to be written. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a new Member, not necessarily a brand-new Member, but a newer Member.

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 Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes, again, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend from New Jersey I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.