Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I, too, rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I do appreciate the gentlelady's concerns, particularly about science funding. However, Mr. Chairman, increasing funding for optional programs, as valuable as they may be, cannot come at the expense of the Federal Government's meeting its existing legal obligations to clean up the waste created by our Nation's nuclear defense programs. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that these were programs that won World War II and that largely won the Cold War. At Hanford, in my district, the Federal Government has 56 million gallons of radioactive nuclear waste stored in 177 underground tanks. Today, it appears likely that some of these tanks are leaking, and higher levels of contamination have now been detected in the areas surrounding one of the most recent leakers. In addition, there is also a large quantity of radioactive waste at Hanford that was never put into tanks. That, too, must be dealt with as well as the nuclear waste at other sites across the country, like at the Savannah River, Oak Ridge, and Idaho. Again, it is nuclear waste that was created by programs of the Federal Government for defense purposes. Cutting $1.7 billion from the EM program would essentially halt most nuclear waste cleanup work, and it would put the safety of our cleanup sites at risk and end any chance of the Federal Government's meeting its existing legal cleanup commitments to the States. Mr. Chairman, let me be more specific about Hanford. I mentioned 56 million gallons of nuclear hazardous waste stored in 177 underground tanks. Those tanks range in size from a half a million gallons to a million gallons. Now, when you go out to the site, of course you can't see the tanks because they're underground. All you see are gauges on top that monitor what activity is going on in those tanks. If you want to quantify how much 56 million gallons is, picture this: if one were to put 56 million gallons here, it would take over 21 House Chambers to fill 56 million gallons of waste. That's how much radioactive waste is at Hanford, which needs to be cleaned up. It's the result of the defense weapons program. Now, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and I and others have mentioned the legal obligation. In Washington State, that legal obligation is called a tri-party agreement. It has set deadlines for cleaning up Hanford, including the waste that I just mentioned. It's a legal agreement between the Federal EPA, between the Federal Department of Energy, and between the State Department of Ecology. It's a legal agreement with time lines, and if you don't meet the agreements, of course you're going to be sued. Every time there has been a threat to be sued or there has been a disagreement on the time lines, the State has always won. So why would we want to defund this program and put all of that at risk, which, of course, would cost a whole lot more money in the future? While I recognize the gentlelady and her passion for science funding--and I, too, understand that as I have a national lab in my district, for example--56 million gallons, or over 21 House Chambers, of nuclear hazardous waste needs to be cleaned up, and it's the responsibility of the Federal Government. So I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. Mr. Chairman, 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 the bill, H.R. 2231.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My good friend from Oregon talked about Groundhog Day as to the nature of this bill. I can say, ``Well, here we go again.'' Instead of debating ways to create jobs, to enhance revenues, and to secure our Nation from a national security standpoint, we are back to debating a moratorium on offshore drilling that will lock away America's energy resources. Specifically, this amendment would close a wide area of Federal waters from drilling off the State of Alaska. But this amendment doesn't just lock away America's resources, it also eliminates State revenue-sharing provisions in the bill. President Obama has already closed the North Aleutian Basin through Presidential moratorium, closing off jobs and economic diversity to the people of Alaska through 2017. The underlying legislation does not in any way modify this unscientific Presidential closure or modify the existing Presidential authority. It does, however--and this is important, Mr. Chairman--provide that if this region contains some of our Nation's greatest potential for energy, that we should open that area for the future. I know that logic is sometimes lost in this town, but in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, we should be drilling offshore in those areas where we know the most resources are located or potentially located. The Natural Resources Committee has heard testimony time and time again about young people leaving Alaska to chase jobs elsewhere. We have also heard from the Aleutians, such as the Aleutians East Borough mayor Stanley Mack, who spoke of how the opportunity for drilling in the southern portion of the North Aleutian Basin could be a real economic benefit for their communities. This economic diversification is even more important when you consider the petitions of extreme environmental groups proposing massive fishery closures across Bristol Bay and the region, or the potential for the declaration of a no-fishing national monument in those areas, or the grave threat posed to fishing in Alaska in the north Pacific by President Obama's executive order on ocean zoning, where bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., will decide what happens and what doesn't happen in ocean areas off Alaska and other States. Finally, this amendment also eliminates revenue sharing for all coastal States, preventing Alaska, Virginia, South Carolina, California, and others from receiving a share of any energy development off their shores. This important provision is about bringing fairness to the Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing instead of limiting it to only four States. Right now, only the Gulf States have that privilege. When gas prices climbed to $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people strongly supported lifting the Nation's offshore drilling bans, and that support ran across the political spectrum, from Independents, to Republicans, to Democrats. And that broad support for expanding offshore drilling, frankly, continues to this day in this country. This amendment would start us down the road of imposing new moratoriums on America's offshore, which is the opposite of what Americans want. And let me make this point, Mr. Chairman, and I said this several times in the committee. If there is a poster child of a State that was promised something when they got statehood and the reverse is being done, it's got to be Alaska. I know there's controversy surrounding the potential in the Bristol Bay, but it's not unanimous on either side. But those in Alaska certainly should be the ones that are integrally involved in that decisionmaking process. But, no, here we have today an amendment from a Member of Congress, who has every right to do it, but from the Lower 48, dictating what's going to go on in Alaska. Again, that to me solidifies the poster child of a State really not getting what it should be getting from its resources after statehood. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment. And as I understand the gentleman from Oregon has yielded back his time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just simply want to say that I think the amendment adds to this legislation, and I support the legislation.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we go again with unnecessary amendments designed to delay the work of Congress in enacting important legislation that would expand U.S. offshore energy production in order to create, once again, millions of new American jobs, to lower energy prices, to grow our economy, and strengthen our national security. H.R. 2231 is similar to legislation passed last Congress and fully upholds existing states' rights within their boundaries and offshore areas. Nothing in this bill changes the fundamental 60-year-old relationship between States and the Federal Government enshrined in the Submerged Lands Act or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This bill is focused on activity in Federal waters and respects States' abilities to control and govern their waters. States' authority is in no way limited or affected by this bill. Existing Federal law protects states' rights over their waters, and boundaries are not changed or amended in this bill. I've now repeated that three times. The gentleman's amendment is asserted as a simple restatement of these states' rights, though its sponsor admits the principle is not a restatement of existing law, but of the principle--big difference in that, Mr. Chairman, which is where the amendment then raises several serious questions that leads me to oppose its adoption in the form that it is written. As drafted, the amendment purportedly reflects current law with regards to management of natural resources, but it could effectively usurp the individual private property rights of individuals in favor of State control. The amendment reads that it is the right and power of each State to prohibit management, leasing, developing the natural resources within such lands within its boundaries. States have the right to regulate natural resources, but not outright prohibit development of private property. That's the point here, Mr. Chairman. In the United States, unlike much of the remainder of the world, natural resources are owned both by the government and private individuals. The right to private property is one of the foundations of our Constitution. Natural resources property rights include the right to own minerals, timber rights, water rights, and those are just a few examples. Congress should not be endorsing a policy that gives the States sole power to prohibit the development of these rights, and that's what this amendment could do. Such an action, like that embodied in this amendment, could be construed as a massive taking, in violation of the Constitution. The government can't take property without compensation. The courts have held, including this week, in the gentleman's State of Florida, a Florida case at the Supreme Court that the State taking property or impinging on its fair use requires fair compensation. Even if a State may not be inclined to fully exercise such authority granted by this amendment, should it become law, simple passage could open the door to lawsuits challenging private property rights. It's for these reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on the Grayson amendment. And Mr. Chairman, at a time when our Nation's economy continues to struggle, we should avoid erecting new barriers to economic activity and private freedoms. Again, this amendment is unnecessary, as H.R. 2231 fully upholds and it does not change or diminish or impinge existing states' rights. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I'd like to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to make this point in the 15 seconds I have left. The gentleman from Florida referenced 1334(a)2(f). That is not amended or referenced in this bill. So the gentleman's argument that that could somehow play a part in that is simply not true because it's not referenced; it is not amended. I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this point. The fundamental reason for H.R. 2231 is to expand energy production in American waters. This amendment would put another moratorium; it goes the opposite direction. Furthermore, this amendment would eliminate revenue sharing, which has worked so well in the gulf coast. But here's the point I want to make specifically about California that was not made by my two colleagues on the other side of the aisle from California. This legislation directs that any offshore drilling should come from existing rigs onshore. That is possible to do, Mr. Chairman, because of the new technologies--horizontal drilling--that the oil industry has done for several years. It works. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the Governor of the State of California, Jerry Brown, has proposed precisely that for State waters. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from California didn't mention that--I don't know why they didn't mention it, because their Governor is in favor of that process. What this bill does is simply mirror that by saying we'll do that in Federal waters. I think my colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) put it in a very good way: California, like the United States, needs a jump-start in the economy. The best way to do that is through energy production, providing a certainty of energy for a growing economy in the future. With that, 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 in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2231, the clerk is authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up the bill (H.R. 1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 1613.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act. This bill was introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico along our Nation's maritime boundary with Mexico. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa signed this long-awaited agreement February 2012. Since that time, the House Committee on Natural Resources has repeatedly requested draft-implementing legislation from the Obama administration. But it was not until March 19, 2013, when the committee finally received just that--several short sentences to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promote development of energy resources that lie along the boundary with Mexico. Despite the Obama administration sitting on this agreement for over a year, that should not in any way downplay the importance of getting this agreement approved. This agreement is good for our economy, and it's good for our American workers. Opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates jobs, it creates more American-made energy, and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State Department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. These areas are estimated to contain as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas. These areas are ready to be explored and developed, and this bill will give the U.S. job creators the certainty they need to move forward. Activity can begin once this agreement is enacted. This bill executes the implementation of the U.S.-Mexico agreement, but it also looks to the future--providing a clear and transparent path for how future administrations should go about submitting future agreements with other countries with which we share international boundaries. Given the fact that this implementing legislation was bogged down within several agencies for over a year, I believe that Mr. Duncan's solution is a necessary step to ensure a smoother and more expedient process in the future. H.R. 1613 also includes language to protect American workers by removing uncertainty surrounding the application of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act disclosure requirements. The agreement signed by the Obama administration and Mexico specifically provides what royalty payments Mexico would receive from energy developers. However, under current U.S. law, companies that commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to disclose payments made to a foreign government. This could create a potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that prohibit disclosure of payments. This would then block American workers from being able to develop these resources. Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect American jobs and American-made energy in this instance. Without it, foreign-controlled energy companies could develop this American energy resource. The royalty payments to Mexico would still be undisclosed and kept private, but the net result would be that Americans would lose out on this energy potential. The Natural Resources Committee and Mr. Duncan have worked hard to advance this bill and get it signed into law. It's important to American energy, to American jobs, to American energy security, and it is important in order to support a positive relationship with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who worked very hard on this agreement.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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