Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the John Muir Historic Site was established in 1964 and currently consists of 345 acres in Martinez, California. H.R. 5699 allows the National Park Service to accept the donation of 44 acres of property adjacent to the John Muir National Historic Site. This donation will enhance the recreational value of the existing park by creating new opportunities for visitors. It is a good bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5699) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 44 acres of land in Martinez, California, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this very hard bill that went through arduous examination from all aspects, and I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) for his work on it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Let me address another issue. We heard a number of times from the speakers on the other side of the aisle that there has been no hearing on this bill; it came out of the blue, blah, blah, blah. We heard that over and over. Maybe it is because when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, they didn't follow regular order, so let me say this as slowly or plainly as I can. In the last Congress, Congressman Nunes introduced a long-term bill that we had a number of hearings on in the National Resources Committee. We marked up the bill in the Resources Committee, and we had it on the floor, where there were amendments that were offered to that bill; and, finally, in the last Congress, it passed with bipartisan support. That was in the last Congress, Mr. Nunes' bill. In this Congress, Mr. Valadao took that bill, dusted it off, and made two minor changes. We brought it to the floor, and once again, it passed with bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty good example of what regular order is, and all we said, by the way, is, ``Okay. This is our position. This is the House's position. If the Senate has a different position, pass a bill.'' There was nothing complex about that, and to the credit of Senator Feinstein, primarily, there was a bill that passed with unanimous consent. I might add, however, Mr. Speaker, that there were no hearings held on the Senate bill in the Senate. There were no hearings held on the Senate bill; however, because of the drought in California, many Western senators--primarily, Republican Western senators--when asked, presumably by Senator Feinstein, if this bill could go by unanimous consent, they said, ``Yes, but there are some conditions that we ought to look at before it finally becomes law.'' Their principal concern was in the area of the Endangered Species Act. Now, in the 20 years that I have been here, I have been a vocal critic of how the Endangered Species Act has been implemented, and I hope that we have made some movement in that with the passage of three bills that we did later on. My point is this, Mr. Speaker: the Senate then passed their bill. The normal process under regular order is when the House has a position and the Senate has a position, then you get together to negotiate the differences. Now, there are a lot of differences between those two bills, and for the last 6 months, there has been a good faith effort to try to negotiate the difference. A week ago, Senator Feinstein said: We just can't get it done at this point; and, at that point, my colleagues here in the House--Mr. Valadao, principally, but the other colleagues that spoke--said: I think what we ought to do is to put into bill form what we had principally agreed to in this conference--although it wasn't a formal conference, it was an informal conference--and put it in bill form. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what we have before us is legislation that has been largely agreed to in this informal conference that has been going on for some time with the California water issue. This isn't something that came out of the dark. As a matter of fact, in the 4 years that my colleagues controlled this House, there was no California water legislation whatsoever. So to come up here and talk and say there are other things and they should be involved, of course, they should be involved. They were involved with the Senate action on the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this is good legislation. It represents a broad consensus that could be done in the informal conference, so I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Hopefully, the Senate can take it up before we adjourn. If we don't, the consequences are that we are going to have to start all over again in the next Congress. There has been so much work that has been done in the informal conference that to let that go and not have some positive action on it, I think, would be wrong for us to do. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points here before I yield back my time. This has been a very interesting debate. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I attended two hearings in Fresno, California, particularly on this issue, and saw firsthand the impact of what the natural drought and the manmade drought has done to the San Joaquin Valley. My friends on the other side of the aisle stated a number of newspapers that editorialized against this. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a Fresno Bee editorial of December 6 saying that the Valadao bill, which is H.R. 5781, should be passed. [From The Fresno Bee, Dec. 6, 2014] Facts Support Passage of Drought Relief Legislation One of the oldest rules in politics is, when the facts are on your side, you cite the facts; when the facts aren't on your side, you pound the table. Over the last few days, opponents of The California Emergency Drought Relief Act, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, have been yelling about water grabs, protesting the timing of the bill's introduction and doing all they can to divert attention from the facts-- both pertaining to this legislation and to the cruel realities of our state's prolonged drought. So, let's start with the facts. This drought is the worst that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years. So says a study published by the American Geophysical Union and cited by a Washington Post blog Thursday. Not only have we received little rain, but the lack of precipitation has been intensified by record-breaking high temperatures. Moreover, the fertile agricultural fields of the San Joaquin Valley are suffering through an ``exceptional drought,'' the most severe classification. Yes, it has rained lately in California. Thank goodness it has. But much more rain is needed to restore our aquifers, fill our reservoirs reverse the economic hardship inflicted on our state and, in particular, the Valley, by the drought. The bill (H.R. 5781) introduced by Rep. David Valadao, R- Hanford and supported by GOP leadership provides the flexibility and resources to give farmers in the Valley and elsewhere a fighting chance to grow their crops and put people back to work in 2015. In a nutshell, the bill would allow the Bureau of Reclamation the freedom to hold more winter rain and snow and then distribute it to areas in need. Not only would this flexibility help farmers and rural communities, but it would benefit the environment as well. This legislation is the product of months of talks and negotiations earlier this year involving Republican and Democrats in both the House and the U.S. Senate and is the result of thoughtful compromise. The bill doesn't amend the Endangered Species Act or existing biological opinions. It leaves decision-making about habitat, protected species and water quality to federal environmental agencies. But it would reduce the flow of water through the Sacramento-Joaquin River Delta to the Pacific Ocean and pump more water to the south-- as long as that pumping doesn't harm protected fish such as delta smelt, salmon and steelhead. Moreover, these changes would be temporary, as they would end in September of 2016 or upon the governor ending California's drought declaration. Opponents are trying to paint this bill as detrimental to the environment and the result of secret negotiations. Again, let's examine the facts. In a phone interview with The Editorial Board on Friday, Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, pointed out that this proposal is similar to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bill that was passed under unanimous consent by the Senate in February. Passage of Feinstein's Emergency Drought Relief Act then set the stage for negotiations--and compromise--with Valadao, who earlier had received partisan House approval of a bill that was extreme and over the top. Early on, Northern California Democrats, many of which are supported by environmentalist, were involved in the negotiations. But they drew firm lines in the sand and quit the talk. Valadao's bill is reasonable and much needed. It deserves the support of Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer and the California delegation in the House of Representatives.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 770, I call up the bill (H.R. 5781) to provide short-term water supplies to drought-stricken California, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), author of the original, long-term bill that passed in the last Congress.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the author of the previous bill that I had mentioned in my opening remarks.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5781, the California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, as introduced by our colleague from California (Mr. Valadao). Today the House meets once again to provide a solution to the ongoing water crisis in California. The House has been on record twice to provide solutions, and here we are, and we must act again. Although this bill is different from the two prior attempts and reflects significant bipartisan progress towards enacting a solution, we must provide relief, even if it is short-term relief before this Congress adjourns. It is unacceptable for us to give up when Californians are starving and their communities are literally drying up. Like California, my central Washington district is heavily dependent on irrigated water to support our local economy and our agriculture industry. I understand the importance of having a stable, reliable water source, and I also understand the economic devastation that is caused when the water supply is shut off, particularly when the shutoff is avoidable. California is in an emergency situation. For years San Joaquin Valley farmers have been fighting against Federal regulations and environmental lawsuits that have diverted water supplies in order to help a 3-inch fish. In 2009 there was a deliberate diversion of over 300 billion--Mr. Speaker, that is billion with a B--gallons of water away from farmers. Mr. Speaker, let me equate that: 300 billion gallons of water is nearly 1 million acre-feet of water. What is an acre-foot? An acre-foot of water--for 1 year, that is 12 inches of water for a year that was diverted from these farmers. As a result, thousands of farmworkers lost their jobs, unemployment reached 40 percent in some communities, and thousands of acres of fertile farmland dried up. The same thing is happening today. As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I have traveled to Fresno, California, twice and have seen the effects of natural and manmade drought firsthand. We have held multiple hearings and heard the pleas of communities that simply want the water turned back on and their livelihoods restored. We have seen farmers who normally help feed the Nation being sent to wait in line at food banks and, in some cases, Mr. Speaker, being served carrots imported from China. I want to stress that this crisis does not just impact California, but it has a rippling effect across the entire Nation. California's San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl for the world and provides a significant share of fruits and vegetables for our country. Food grows where water flows. When there is no water, our food supply suffers, resulting in higher food prices across the country, higher unemployment, and increased reliance on foreign food sources. Unlike the last time this body acted on this issue, the Senate did pass its version of the bill in June of this year. I commend Senator Feinstein for her efforts to pass that short-term bill. However, since the bills were so different in their scope, those interested in productive conversations to bridge differences have negotiated in good faith over the last 6 months. We got very close to a resolution but more time was necessary on agreeing to a long-term bill. In the interim, the measure before us today reflects much of what the Senate passed earlier this year and agreed to in our negotiations to bring some short-term water supply relief to many of those communities in need. This bill simply allows us to capture some water from storms in this and the next water year and improves data quality when it comes to the existing biological opinions on smelt and salmon. It also protects those communities in the north that are in relatively abundant water areas. The entire bill, Mr. Speaker, sunsets in September of 2016 to allow more time to negotiate a longer-term solution that not only could help California but other States in the West as well. This bill is not perfect, but it is a short-term bridge based on productive negotiations between those who want sensible solutions to the California water crisis. This bill, while very limited in scope, helps protect the jobs and economic livelihoods of farm families and workers and communities that are in dire need of water. The people of the San Joaquin Valley cannot wait any longer for Congress to act. As the title of this bill suggests, it is truly an emergency for many, and time is running out. Those communities facing massive unemployment deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues in the last two Congresses for working together to get us this solution. This is the latest iteration of that, and I want to commend them. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 5781.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979, pursuant to House Resolution 770, the Clerk be instructed to make the correction I have placed at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, title 30 of the NDAA represents a bipartisan agreement on provisions under the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This agreement represents a balanced approach to public lands management. It will create thousands of new jobs, support energy and mineral production, transfer land out of Federal ownership, and protect treasured lands through the establishment of several locally-supported parks and wilderness areas. A few highlights of this agreement include: opening the world's third largest undeveloped copper resource in Arizona, boosting American energy production on Federal lands by reducing bureaucratic permit processing delays, reducing grazing permit backlogs on Federal lands, and increasing private funding of national parks. The agreement designates less than 250,000 acres of wilderness. The designations, however, protect private property and are balanced with economic development opportunities on other public lands. For example, the agreement provides for over 110,000 acres of land to be conveyed out of Federal ownership to be utilized for economic and community development. It also releases approximately 26,000 acres of current wilderness study areas. Additionally, it provides for an unprecedented study of two Montana wilderness areas, or WSAs, for oil and gas potential. Tremendous credit goes to Mr. Daines of Montana for securing the thousands of acres of WSA release and this new energy study. He has broken important new ground. It includes a number of items important to my district in the State of Washington. Lastly, I want to emphasize that all of the bills included in this agreement have undergone public review in the House or the Senate. It includes nearly three dozen House-passed suspension bill that have languished in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I want to take my final time here to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and their respective staffs for their work on this. Without that collaboration with my staff, we wouldn't have gotten this done; and I, too, want to add my congratulations to Chairman McKeon for his service, well-served to this House and to the country.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and, 8 years later, significantly expanded the number of acres contained within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The fundamental goal of this law was to discourage development along fragile and shifting coastal barriers by prohibiting participation within the National Flood Insurance Program and to deny certain Federal development subsidies. To qualify for inclusion within the system, coastal land had to be undeveloped or conserved as part of a national wildlife refuge, Federal or State park, a national seashore, a military installation, or conservation land owned by private organizations. Inclusion in the system is through maps which historically were hand- drawn by individuals who used Magic Markers to distinguish property lines--really, Magic Markers. As you might expect, mistakes were made, and Congress has corrected those errors by providing legislative relief to homeowners whose property was mistakenly incorporated within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. What we have before us today is a bill that corrects mistakes in certain coastal barrier units in Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. This affects both Republican and Democrat districts. In total, the legislation affects maps in 10 of the 857 units of the system. Upon enactment, 156 acres of the 3.1 million acres would be removed from the system; however, because digital technology is now being used, 4,737 new qualifying acres will be added to the system for a net gain of 4,580 acres. Each of these changes have been exhaustively reviewed. There is no dispute that these lands were mistakenly included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, there are no objections to correcting these mistakes, and the Congressional Budget Office has in each case stipulated that ``enacting the bill would not affect revenues.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bipartisan noncontroversial collection of changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and I compliment the sponsors for their work on the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3572) to revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units in North Carolina, as amended.