Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I generally do not rise to vote or argue against a Hastings amendment, but in this case I feel I have to. It is the nature of who the author of the amendment is, perhaps, and I think the gentleman understands. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing energy production. The amendment, as the gentleman noted, would strike a section of the bill, but that bill, that section, requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be conducted prior to any leasing in any lease sale areas. The gentleman takes issue in the manner in which the Environmental Impact Statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to mention is that the administration is required to do yet another environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on each lease block as part of the leasing process. Then each expiration plan has additional environmental work. In effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the environment. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Fishing Enhancement Act, just to name a few. The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the environment; it goes the extra mile in requiring a multi-sale EIS on all of the lease areas, while still ensuring that leasing does occur because of the certainty in the process. Support for offshore energy does not mean that you cannot respect a wide range of different environmental needs based upon a lease area. We want to drill safely and responsibly. I think that is embodied in the underlying bill. For that reason, I urge rejection of the Hastings amendment, the Hastings of Florida amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate just simply on this amendment because I would point out to my colleagues that there has been a lot of reference on the floor today about the Senate's doing something or not doing something. I would just remind my colleagues that their Senators, both of whom are Democrats, support drilling off the Virginia coast. I've found out, too, that their candidate for Governor has switched his position now and that he, too, supports drilling off the coast of Virginia. So I can say here today, I think very honestly, that there is bipartisan support for drilling off the coast of Virginia. Finally, I want to address the point that my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) made about no safety. I will just refer him to title IV in this legislation. If his concern is on not having safety and updating rules because of oil spills, then he should support this legislation, because title IV does that through the reorganization process. So, Mr. Chairman, it hurts me to say vote ``no'' on a Hastings amendment, but I will in this case for the arguments that I made a moment ago. We simply don't need it because of all of the environmental reviews you have to go through on lease sales. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman's amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I support your amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding as I want to make this point. Existing law already exists as it relates to sanctions with the countries we're talking about, but I think it is very important, since we're talking about a national commodity, that we reemphasize--and that's really what the gentleman's amendment does, it reemphasizes what is already on the books. I think that needs to be done, especially right now with the volatility that we see in the Middle East. So I think the gentleman's amendment, as I stated, makes a great deal of sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. The gentleman knows that I have the same concerns he has on this executive order, and I think his amendment adds a great deal to this bill, and I support his amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to tell the gentleman that I support his amendment. I think it adds a great deal to this legislation, and I commend him for it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield to me for 15 seconds?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to point out, the gentleman, my good friend from California, is talking about revenue loss. I just want to make this point: the CBO says this legislation will create $1.5 billion to the Federal Government. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think his amendment again adds a great deal to this legislation. I support the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman's amendment makes a great deal of sense. We've had discussions in our committee on the accuracy of the data. The point is that this legislation says that one ought to drill where the resources are. And the gentleman's amendment, I think, goes a long way in that direction. I commend him for that and support it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation covered by the rule. Mr. Speaker, in our country today, millions of Americans continue to search for work, the national average price of gasoline is $3.50, and rising costs of everything from electricity to food to health care makes it tough for families and small businesses to make ends meet. But instead of providing relief for struggling Americans, President Obama yesterday announced a plan that will inflict further pain and cause further damage to our struggling economy. The President's latest attempt to unilaterally impose a national energy tax will cost American jobs and will increase energy prices. Now, in stark contrast to that, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are advancing solutions to expand access to affordable energy in order to create jobs and to lower energy costs. The bills the House is considering this week are necessary because of the Obama administration's persistent and destructive attacks on American energy production. The President's latest efforts to impose new energy taxes and government red tape follow 4.5 years of erecting American energy roadblocks. H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, will unlock our offshore energy resources that are being held captive by this administration. The differences are clear between the President's current no-new- drilling-and-no-new-jobs plan and the Republican pro-energy, pro-jobs offshore drilling plan. The President's 5-year current offshore leasing plan keeps 85 percent of offshore areas under lock and key--Mr. Speaker, keeps 85 percent under lock and key--effectively reinstating the moratoria that were lifted right before he took office. The Republican drill-smart plan would open new areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources, allowing for new energy production in parts of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. The President's plan refuses even to let Virginia develop its offshore resources until after 2017 and cancels a lease sale that would have allowed them to go offshore 2 years ago. The Republican plan supports the bipartisan wishes of the Virginia Governor, the congressional delegation, and the public by requiring an offshore lease sale to be held. The President's plan suppresses American job creation and economic growth. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, in contrast, would create 1.2 million jobs long term and would generate $1.5 billion in new revenue. This Republican approach is exactly what our country and our economy needs right now. We can do better than what the President outlined yesterday that stifles American energy production and raises energy costs. I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the central Washington growers whom I represent provide a variety of top-quality produce to people across the country and around the world, including the majority of apples, pears, and cherries grown in the United States. There is no question that both consumers and growers want to ensure that we have the safest food supply in the world. However, Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns with the one- size-fits-all regulations that the Food and Drug Administration has proposed to govern the way that all fruits and vegetables are grown and harvested. I think that we can all agree that lettuce and apples are grown in completely different ways. For one thing, lettuce is grown in the ground and apples in the trees. That's obvious. It only makes sense that these products should be evaluated based on how susceptible they may be to food safety risks and subjected to regulations that would reflect both the risk level and the way they are grown. I am concerned that the current regulations, which subject all growers of fresh produce to the same requirements and restrictions, are nearly impossible to meet for tree fruit growers in my district. There has never been a known food safety problem with fresh apples; and yet if implemented, these regulations risk putting our growers out of business and pushing apple production overseas. Would the chairman agree that the FDA should evaluate the risks of individual agricultural products based on the best available science and consider the growing methods and conditions of these products when developing regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act for the safe production, harvesting, handling, and packing of fresh fruits and vegetables? I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would like to thank the chairman for his words and his attention to this issue that is so important to the growers of my central Washington district. I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure that the new food safety regulations recognize the diverse way that farms across the Nation grow our food and keep them safe for the public.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, included in this en bloc amendment is amendment #163 to H.R. 1960, made in order by H. Res. 260. This amendment is bipartisan and submitted by myself, Mr. Fleischmann of Tennessee and Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. It will protect and provide public access to Manhattan Project facilities at three Department of Energy former defense sites through the establishment of an historical park. This is essentially the text of H.R. 1208, reported favorably by the Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent in May 2013. These three locations that the park will encompass were integral to the tremendous engineering and human achievements of the Manhattan Project launched during World War II. The three locations are the Hanford site in my home State of Washington, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Oak Ridge in Tennessee. The vast majority of the facilities that are eligible to be included in this park are already owned by the federal government, and they are located on former defense lands owned and controlled by the Department of Energy. As our nation already possesses these pieces of history, the real purpose of this amendment is to officially declare the importance of preserving the history, providing access to the public, and include the unique abilities of the National Park Service to help tell this story. Currently, some of these facilities slated for inclusion in this park are scheduled to be destroyed at considerable taxpayer expense. A great many local community leaders in all three states and interested citizens have worked to coordinate a commitment to preserving this piece of our history. Additionally, the government will save tens of millions of dollars from foregone destruction, as opposed to the minimal cost of providing public access and park administration. Under this amendment, not only will history be protected, but so will taxpayer dollars. Let me describe one example of the savings. The B Reactor at the Hanford site in Washington state is the first full-scale nuclear reactor ever constructed. Walking into its control room and viewing the reactor itself are like walking back in time. The federal government has a legal obligation to clean up the B Reactor that involves partial demolition, then cocooning the building in concrete for 75 years with continual monitoring, before final removal and demolition at a total cost in today's dollars of $90-100 million. With the amendment, this $100 million will not be spent and this piece of history will not be demolished. This matter has been carefully studied by both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy. Both Departments and the National Park Service support this action. On behalf of the Obama Administration, Interior Secretary Salazar has repeatedly expressed support for the park, as have Department of Energy officials of both the Obama and Bush Administrations. In recognition of the important contributions to the Manhattan Project by the men and women at sites across the country, the amendment contains a provision allowing communities like Dayton, Ohio, for example, outside the historical park, to receive technical assistance and support from the Department of the Interior as they seek to preserve and manage their own Manhattan Project park resources. Many, many individuals and organizations have dedicated countless hours towards this effort to preserve and tell this piece of history, and to ensure current and future generations not only will learn this story, but be able to visit and see it themselves. Among those endorsing this effort are the Atomic Heritage Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Energy Communities Alliance, the City of Richland Washington, the City of Oak Ridge Tennessee, the Tri-City Development Council, and many more in Los Alamos and other areas across the nation. Additionally, this effort has received strong endorsements from newspapers from one side of our nation to the other, including the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times. This is a good amendment that preserves and shares our nation's history. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 251) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal features of the electric distribution system to the South Utah Valley Electric Service District, and for other purposes.

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.