Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about this, they are making arguments that are pre-1977. Now, why do I say that? Because they are talking about their perception of mountaintop mining or surface mining probably in general. Well, it is precisely that argument that led to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 under the Carter administration--with a Democrat Congress, I might add. So that bill passed to allow for surface mining. Now, there is always necessary rulemaking that comes after that, and the latest rulemaking prior to the turn of this century was in 1983 under the Reagan administration. So the Bush administration looked because of some court test that maybe we ought to rewrite this rule; and, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what my friends on the other side of the aisle said that that was a late-breaking rule, it took 5 years to put that together--5 years to put that together. So, as a result, because of this court decision that ended up vacating because of the technicality of the 2008 rule, the issue before us is this: Do we put the 2008 rule in place, which is what the focus of this legislation is, and then look forward to further rulemaking, or do we vacate the 2008 rule and go back to 1983? That is what the choice is. What I find that is so interesting about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that everybody acknowledges that the 2008 rule is more restrictive--more restrictive--but they want to go back to the 1983 rule. I find that hard to understand, but at least that is what appears to be their argument. So, Mr. Chairman, we think the responsible way to do this is to take into consideration what the Bush administration did for 5 years, looking at proper rulemaking that, by the way, looked into the Endangered Species Act. That is something the '83 rule did not look at at all. So we think that is a better way to put that in place right now. It is a more restrictive rule that industry understands, the States understand, and it is probably better for energy certainty in this country. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I find it hard sometimes to listen to this debate, especially when I hear my good friends on the other side of the aisle defending anything that the Reagan administration did. But they are doing it, so I will acknowledge that there is some substance there, but let me just go back to what I mentioned in my closing arguments. SMCRA was passed in 1977. The Reagan rulemaking was 6 years after that. So there has not been an update on that rule--right now--for 30 years, but it was more likely probably 20 years when the Bush administration thought it should be updated. Now I want to get right to the heart of the matter and the reason that the environmental community does not like the 2008 rule and instead opts for the 1983 Reagan rule. They don't like it because the 2008 rule will provide clarity and certainty in the SMCRA process, which of course will free up job creation, meaning that there is going to be some certainty in coal production; rather, the environmental community would like to use loopholes that they found in the 1983 rulemaking to take people to court. That is exactly why, from my perspective, that this amendment is offered, to go back to the Reagan times so there can be probably more litigation and less certainty in rulemaking of surface mining. The gentleman mentioned, for example the 100-foot buffer zone. The Bush rule has a 100-foot buffer zone just like the Reagan rule. Nothing changed there. The only changes in the long run in rulemaking is certainty, and those who like to go to court don't like certainty. That is why I believe we have this improbable defense of anything that Reagan did, because they see that over a period of time there are ways that you can manipulate that to their advantage. I think the Bush rule--which I said several times and is even acknowledged by the coal mining industry that it is more restrictive but has more certainty in it--is a better model, and it is precisely what this legislation does. It takes us to the 2008 rule. This amendment takes us back to the 1983 rule, and I don't think that is a proper way to go. I urge rejection of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Very briefly, and maybe we are caught here in semantics, but the issue--I have said several times and it has been acknowledged that the 2008 rule is more restrictive. My friend on the other side of the aisle and the author of the amendment said, ``Let me be clear, the 2008 rule is not as protective.'' I think when we are talking about protecting the environment, that ``restrictive'' and ``protective'' are probably synonymous in nature. So when we hear statements made by the industry that the 2008 rule is more restrictive, I take them at their word. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to make this point and this point is very important because we need to have a certainty supply of energy in this country if we are going to have a growing economy. I am in favor of all of the above, and that certainly includes coal. Unless you have certainty in the regulations, you will not have an energy source. As I have said right from the start--and as a matter of fact, many have acknowledged within the administration that this administration has a war on coal--this provides certainty. It is contrary to where the administration obviously wants to go because it does provide certainty with our energy production. So I would urge rejection of this amendment, which would take us back to a rule that would be more potentially litigious in nature to something that has certainty. With that, I urge rejection of the amendment. 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, before I speak directly as to why we should not adopt this amendment, let me respond to the rhetorical question that my friend from Pennsylvania asked when he said: How can you say that this administration rule, which hasn't been promulgated yet, will cost jobs? Well, I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that there were leaked documents of the first initial rewrite of the 2008 amendment, leaked documents that said that the contractor that was hired by the administration to rewrite the rule came back with the conclusion that 7,000 jobs would be lost in 22 States. So what was the response of the Obama administration? They fired the contractor; it was the wrong message. Now they are still in the rulemaking process. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, I doubt that the philosophy has changed from that very way because they are trying to manipulate which rules to follow to minimize what we found out in the initial go-round. So let me just talk about this amendment. This amendment is not only unnecessary, it is actually harmful to protecting states' rights. Under SMCRA of 1977, State regulations have to meet or exceed the new regulation issued by the Office of Surface Mining. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate the ability of States to meet these rules by mandating that States can only exceed the OSM rules. This ignores both the history of Federal-State regulations with regard to rulemaking but also the need for flexibility in the States to meet the OSM rules while protecting their own geology, hydrology, and community interests. Again, States already have the ability to change regulations to meet or exceed Federal rules with regards to all aspects of the regulatory regime under SMCRA. We should not limit the ability to have flexibility in meeting the new rules. This amendment would mandate that you could only change that by increasing it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the wrong way to go. I think the amendment is ill-advised. I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18, 2014.

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. 3189.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. President Obama has made no secret of the fact that he is willing to act unilaterally to impose new laws and regulations on the American people, declaring that he has ``a pen and a phone.'' Over the last 5 years, there have been numerous examples of what has become an Imperial Presidency. Under the administration, the reach of the Federal Government has extended into nearly every sector of our economy and ensnarled it in new red tape and regulations. An egregious example of this is the Federal Government's concerted effort to take water away from individuals and businesses. Water is the lifeblood of communities and essential for a strong economy. Cities, ranchers, farmers, businesses, along with the jobs they support, all depend on a stable supply of water to survive. For over a century, there have been established laws upholding a State's right to manage its water and its water laws, but now, this administration is threatening to undermine those laws and seeks to take away private property rights--or private water rights governed under State laws. Madam Chairman, that is why we are here today, to consider H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act. This bipartisan bill would protect private property rights from Federal overreach that threatens to take water supplies away from water users, such as ski areas, ranchers, cities, towns, and local conservation efforts. This bill is responding to a very real threat as the Obama administration has sought to extort water from individuals and businesses through the permitting process. Now, how is this done, Madam Chairman? Federal agencies are threatening to withhold permits needed to operate on Federal lands, unless private water rights are turned over to the Federal Government. Put more simply, the Federal Government is holding necessary permits hostage unless water rights are relinquished; and they are demanding that water rights be signed over without payment, which of course is a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of just compensation. Unfortunately, these businesses that are affected need both the permits and the water in order to operate, so what the Federal Government is doing is forcing them into an impossible situation where either choice puts them in danger of losing their livelihood or their businesses. During today's debate, we will hear specific examples of businesses and families, including ski resorts and ranchers, who have experienced this heavy-handed tactic of the Federal Government's. It is important to be clear about the risk posed by the Federal Government's action. This is not simply a threat to ski resorts and to ski areas located on Federal land as, I am sure, some will argue on the floor here today. The known problem is much greater. We have heard testimony in our committee to that fact, and the threat is not limited to one part of the country. If a Federal agency can demand that a ski resort in Vail or that a rancher in Utah has to hand over his water to get a Federal permit, then a Federal agency can certainly do the same thing in other States-- Ohio, Florida, West Virginia. Water may be more plentiful in these regions of the country than in the arid West, but the Federal Government's appetite has no geographical limits when it comes to expanding its regulatory control and its disrespect for private property and the livelihoods of American citizens. This is a threat being felt first by the West, but the risk is real, and it exists for the entire country. Madam Chairman, regardless of where the Federal Government seeks to take water and from whom it is trying to take it, it is simply wrong, and it must be stopped. That is why H.R. 3189 is necessary, and it is why the bill is endorsed by numerous national and regional groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Ski Areas Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Association, the Natural Water Resources Association, and others. Now, in the course of the debate, there will be claims and assertions made today that this bill is overly broad and that it will have a whole range of unintended consequences. Madam Chairman, I certainly don't blame those who support the Federal takings of private water rights from wanting to change the subject, but this bill is very focused. It has only one consequence, and that consequence is absolutely intended. It stops the Federal Government from taking the water of American citizens without paying for it. It does nothing else. In fact, this bill carefully states that this prohibition will not affect irrigation water contracts, FERC licensing, endangered species recovery, national parks, or any other legal authorities. Important environmental restoration, wildlife protection and conservation work that has been occurring for years in a positive, cooperative manner-- and that is whether it is in Puget Sound, which is in my State, in the Chesapeake Bay, nearby here, or in the Florida Everglades--will all continue, and all are protected. Such efforts will not be changed by this legislation. Madam Chairman, I want to thank and recognize the sponsor of this legislation, our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), for all of his hard work in advancing this important, commonsense, bipartisan legislation. It is time for the legislative branch to exert itself on behalf of the American people and rein in the imperial overreach of the executive branch and this administration. No law gives Federal agencies the authority to take private property rights as the administration is seeking to do. In fact, the Constitution prohibits such takings. It is time to put an end to such tactics, so I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send a strong signal to this administration--to leave private property rights alone. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from California (Mr. McClintock), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I have at least four others, besides myself, that want to address this very important issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), who I think was a member of the committee but is not anymore.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a former member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I will advise my friend from California that I am prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time.