Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 841 clarifies the administrative process for the Grand Ronde Tribe in Oregon to apply for new trust lands as long as the lands are within the tribe's original 1857 reservation. The bill also deems property placed in trust for the tribe after 1988 to be part of the tribe's reservation and adjusts the tribe's Reservation Act to reflect several previous trust land acquisitions. Mr. Speaker, in 1954, Congress terminated the Grand Ronde Tribe and its 60,000-acre western Oregon reservation. While Congress restored the tribe in 1983, the process of rebuilding the land base for it has been done in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, beginning in 1988. H.R. 841 resolves a problem the Grand Ronde Tribe has experienced when it applies to the Department of the Interior for trust lands within its former reservation area. Applications for such land are considered under a set of ``off-reservation'' rules that are quite cumbersome. The bill requires the Department to treat land acquisition applications under less cumbersome ``on-reservation'' rules. It does not, however, reestablish the original 1857 reservation. The bill was reported favorably out of the Natural Resources Committee and has bipartisan support from the entire Oregon congressional delegation. I also want to point out that the suspension text contains an amendment to the reported bill. The new language prohibits the Grand Ronde Tribe from gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on all lands it acquires through the Department's ``on-reservation'' process unless the lands are within a 2-mile radius of its existing rural casino. Within the 2-mile radius, existing restrictions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act remain in effect. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, first, when we talk about taxes on energy, what we are talking about is raising taxes on the American people and the goods that they would buy because the cost of energy would rise because of that. That is the first point to the gentlewoman's argument. This motion to recommit is nothing more than raising taxes on energy in this country. Second point: I find it absolutely ironic that here we are with another, I would say, political amendment supposedly dealing with our Native American friends. In all the time that my friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge, they never brought up anything in energy policy that would secure the rights in Indian Country for them to take advantage of their own lands. We have a title in this bill. Title V allows American Indians to develop their lands as they see fit with American energy. This motion to recommit is wrong. Vote ``no.'' Vote for the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 H.R. 2728.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration is once again attempting to block new energy production, keeping energy prices high and hurting middle class families. The Department of the Interior is proposing new regulations on the practice of hydraulic fracturing on Federal and tribal lands. These regulations, once implemented next year, will in all likelihood add new layers of red tape and lower energy production even further on Federal land. For over 2 years, the Natural Resources Committee has conducted extensive oversight of the Obama administration's proposed regulations. We have held multiple hearings across the country and have heard from energy experts, tribal leaders, and State officials who have all had the same message: these are bad regulations that potentially destroy jobs and stifle American energy production. According to one study, these new Federal regulations would cost nearly $350 million annually. As a consequence, the 1.7 million jobs that are currently supported by shale oil and natural gas production--a number, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that is expected to increase to 2.5 million by 2015--these jobs would be put in jeopardy. Even worse, these proposed regulations duplicate efforts already being carried out by States across the country. Hydraulic fracturing has been safely and effectively regulated by States for decades. So the Obama administration's proposed regulations are unnecessary, they are redundant, and they simply waste precious time and money duplicating what is already being done successfully. That is why two of our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Flores and Mr. Cuellar, introduced the bipartisan H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, before us today. This bill prohibits the Interior Department from enforcing duplicative hydraulic fracturing regulations in any State that already has regulations or will adopt regulations in the future and recognizes States' authority to regulate this type of activity. The bill acknowledges that States are doing a good job and an effective job regulating this activity. And ironically, Mr. Chairman, officials from the Obama administration, itself, have admitted that there has not been one known case of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The reason I mention this, Mr. Chairman, is because groundwater contamination is the argument most frequently used against this process. The bill also recognizes that States are able to carefully craft regulations to meet the unique geological and hydrologic needs of their States. A one-size-fits-all regulatory structure, like this administration is trying to impose, will not work and is certainly not the answer. I want to be very clear: this bill does not prevent the Federal Government from implementing baseline standards in States where none exist. This bill simply prevents the Federal Government from wasting time, money, and resources by imposing duplicative red tape on a process that is widely regarded as being properly regulated by the States. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the author of this legislation, who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee if he could tell me who did that study. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for him to tell me who did that study.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for responding. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the sponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), another member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a State that is booming because of this activity.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds as I see he is on a roll.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another member from an energy-producing State.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me inquire of my friend from New Jersey if he is prepared to close. We had some further requests for time, but I don't see them, and sometimes they don't get their time when they don't come down here.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time the gentleman from New Jersey has left if he is going to yield back.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time because one of our speakers came, which we didn't think was going to happen. So I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time so that he has time to respond.