Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm really disappointed to see this MTR. There is so much talk in this House about working together on both sides of the aisle. This bill is truly a bipartisan bill. And I suspect that there are probably Members on both sides of the aisle that were pretty suspicious when they saw a bill sponsored by Hastings, Markey, Flores, and Holt, yet that's precisely what we managed to get out of the House Natural Resources Committee. It's a bipartisan bill that deals with a very serious issue. This motion to recommit is something that we've seen before. Nothing in our bill violates the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Nothing in our bill violates that, and yet that's reflected in this MTR. Secondly, the countries that are mentioned in here are countries that are hostile to the United States. That's covered under an entirely different statute in the law. We do not need this to slow down the process of passing a bill that is needed, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the MTR and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 2013; and that the order of the House of January 3, 2013, regarding morning-hour debate not apply on that date.

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 10 a.m. tomorrow.

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. 527.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Today, I rise in support of H.R. 527. This bill is necessary to protect our economy from the impending helium shortage and to inject free-market principles into our Federal helium program. The Federal Helium Reserve was first created after World War I, when we imagined a world where blimps would be the future of air travel and vital to our national security efforts. Although this effort took a different course, that didn't stop the Federal Government from spending money on this program and stockpiling helium continuously through the 1980s. By the 1990s, it became clear that the Reserve had a declining usefulness and had racked up a $1.3 billion debt. In response, Congress in 1996 passed legislation to implement reforms to the program and require the sale and privatization of the Reserve by 2015, or when the debt was paid off, whichever came first. However, since this original decision to close the Reserve, both the demand and uses for helium have dramatically changed. This has created a situation where the Reserve's debt will be paid off sooner than expected--nearly 2 years earlier--in October of this year. But, while the debt will have been paid off, there will still be helium in the Reserve. By law then, the current Federal helium program will end and the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, will no longer have the authority to sell the remaining 11 billion cubic feet of helium. It's important to note, too, Mr. Chairman, that the Reserve contains half of our U.S. domestic supply and 30 percent of the world's helium supply. If Congress fails to act before October, we will artificially drop the helium supply and cause a global helium shortage that will cost jobs and severely disrupt our economy. Despite what many think, helium is not just used for party balloons. It is essential to our 21st century economy. Without helium we wouldn't have lifesaving MRI machines, computer chips, fiber optic cables, or other devices used for defense needs. The bill before us today is truly a bipartisan plan that I'm pleased to have worked on with the lead Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Markey from Massachusetts, as well as our other colleagues on the committee, Mr. Flores of Texas and Mr. Holt of New Jersey. First, this bill would implement a new operating system for the Federal Helium Reserve over the next decade that would include semiannual auctions. This will ensure that we prevent a helium shortage and that the Reserve stays open until nearly all of the helium supply is sold. Second, it will build on the reforms made in 1996 and inject more free market principles into the sales process to get a better and fairer return for American taxpayers. Over the last decade, the Federal Government has been selling helium from the Reserve significantly below market price. As you can see from this chart--and this is based on BLM data--the new demands for helium have caused the market price to rise much higher than the Federal Government's pricing formula and much faster than BLM's ability to track market prices. So, as a result, this has cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. This has been confirmed by reports and testimony from both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Department of the Interior Inspector General. The big gap is right here. This is what we are selling it for, and this is what the market price is. In addition, the current program restricts sales to only a few companies through an allotment system that is essentially an oligarchy for Federal helium. Nearly 100 percent of our helium supply is being put into the hands of four refiners that directly benefit from the low Federal pricing formula while other competitors are locked out. The current cheap price of helium gives an unfair market advantage to these handful of companies. Implementing semiannual helium auctions will inject much-needed competition into the program and help establish a fair market price for helium. According to the CBO, this bill will bring in over $340 million to the Treasury over the next 10 years. The bill also includes important reforms to increase transparency and to prevent supply disruptions. Now, Mr. Chairman, over 20 groups representing the end users of refined helium--and these are high-tech manufacturers of semiconductors, aerospace technologies, medical devices, chemicals, fiber optics, and scientific research--all have called for the passage of this legislation. Although this bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, I do want to take a moment to directly address some concerns that have been raised throughout this legislative process. First, doing nothing is not an option. While I recognize that many people don't believe that the Federal Government should be in the helium business--and I would agree--we must recognize the realities of our current situation. Helium is too essential to our economy to essentially cut off the valve at the Reserve. We need this bill to protect our economy from severe disruptions and to provide additional time for the new development of alternative domestic helium resources so that our country and economy are prepared for when the Reserve does close. However, this bill will make sure that we are building on the reforms of the 1996 act and that we are managing and selling the helium in a more responsible manner. Second, maintaining the status quo is not an option. Under conditions in the current law, the entire program comes to an end this October. Simply authorizing the continuation of the current program does nothing to address the current issues with the Federal pricing formula and the need to implement free market reforms. We cannot keep selling helium to a handful of companies. Instead, we need an open helium market that encourages more bidders, more competition, and more accurate pricing in order to get the best return for the taxpayers. What we need then, Mr. Chairman, is no more lucrative handouts, no more government picking winners. What we need is good ole American competition. Finally, this bill will do absolutely nothing to interfere with private business contracts, and it will not create instability within the helium market. With or without this legislation, the existing helium program and existing contracts all will end in October of this year. This bill violates no contracts because none will exist when certain conditions in current law expire, which we think will be this October. This is why Congress must act before October to establish a new helium program to finalize the sell-off of the helium from the Reserve. The bill will protect our economy from a harmful helium shortage and implement much-needed reforms to update the Federal Helium Program so that it better reflects the uses and demands for helium in the year 2013. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and it's a bipartisan bill. I'm glad I had support in working with my colleagues across the aisle on the committee, and I urge the passage of this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), a valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask my friend from New Jersey, I have at this point no further requests for time. One additional speaker may be coming, but I'm prepared to close.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out on both sides, this is a very important piece of legislation. Our free economy is made up of a lot of different parts, and it's hard--as a matter of fact, it's impossible-- to regulate all of those parts. The market does it a whole lot better. But in this situation, because of past actions of Congress, there was a stockpile of Federal helium, and it became more and more valuable; but market prices weren't being got for that available commodity. This issue addresses that until the markets can catch up in several years in order to make sure there is a supply of helium. And I'm glad to have worked in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee. We'll deal with the amendment process tomorrow. That's why we have a rule. There are several Members who wanted to improve, from their point of view, this piece of legislation, and you can't do that, obviously, on a suspension calendar, as has been suggested. You have to go through the rule process, and we will do that tomorrow. So, in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, and I want to thank my other colleague from Washington (Mr. Heck) for having this Special Order. I didn't know Governor Gardner that well. We come from different political parties. That's one reason why you don't probably build a close association. But also my last 2 years in the legislature was his first 2 years as Governor, so I don't have the special relationship that Mr. Heck and Mr. McDermott had with him. But the one characteristic that I did realize with him has been talked about a great deal by my colleagues, and that is that he was a very friendly guy. When Mr. Heck was on the floor just a moment ago saying, as a clerk, you know, he'd call him into his office and treated him like an equal. And I found that characteristic the same in my 2 years when I was in the legislature with Mr. Heck, or with Governor Gardner, even when we were the minority party at that time. But probably the story that I remember best on a personal note dealt with my daughter. In the Washington Legislature, and I assume other legislatures are the same way, when sine die comes, it is done at precisely the same time. And the doors of the House Chamber are open, the doors of the Senate Chamber are open, and the joint rules require that the gavel drop at the same time. So, you know, it has to be organized and so forth. And my oldest daughter happened to be a page on that sine die. It was going to be my last sine die, as a matter of fact. So I told her, why don't you go behind the House podium, and you can see how that works. And so she kind of snuck behind there and managed to get that view. And then after sine die, typically, in the Washington Legislature there are a number of get-togethers. The Governor's Office happens to be on the floor right below the Senate Chamber, and parties are going on and so forth. So my daughter changed because we were going to drive home, and she put on a sweatshirt. And the sweatshirt was a remembrance of her going to the State volleyball finals. And so she had a bunch of names, all of her classmates wrote their names on there. So we walked down to the Governor's Office, and he looked at her and grabbed her and, you know, wanted to know what all the names were, what happened, did they win the championship, I mean, all this sort of stuff, just, I guess, so typical of the type of individual that Governor Gardner was. So I can't talk about the policies that my previous colleagues spoke about, but I can tell about that one particular issue. And it just turns out that my daughter is here in town this weekend with her three daughters, and we were talking about that last night. And she says, yeah, you know, I do remember that, where he kind of put his arm around me and made me feel very welcome. So he was a Governor that was forward-looking. I know he's thought about very, very well. My part of the State is a whole lot different than the other part of the State politically; but there's no question that, at least in his second term, he did very, very well in my part of the State. I didn't necessarily like that, but that's part of politics. So he will be missed; and the editorials around the State that spoke of him, I think, were very true. But just from a standpoint of personality, that's my association with him. And he certainly will be missed. With that, I'd like to yield to one of the newest colleagues from the State of Washington, the gentleman from the Sixth District, Mr. Kilmer.

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. 678.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. Those of us from the Pacific Northwest know and understand the importance of hydropower and the significant role it plays in our economy. In my home State of Washington, hydropower produces 70 percent of our power, and it helps keep electricity rates low and affordable for our residents. It is one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of electricity, and helps make other intermittent sources of renewable energy, like wind and solar, possible. Yet too often, as is frequently the case with energy projects on Federal lands, the development of new hydropower gets caught up in bureaucratic red tape and regulations. Today's bill, sponsored by our colleague from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, would cut through that red tape to expand the development of small conduit hydropower. Specifically, it clears up Federal agency confusion by directly authorizing hydropower development at almost 47,000 miles of Bureau of Reclamation canals. It also streamlines the regulatory process for developing small canal and pipeline hydropower projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Mr. Chairman, I want to stress the point that these new projects will only be at existing facilities. These existing man-made facilities have already gone through extensive environmental review when they were initially built. Requiring duplicative reviews on existing facilities only imposes unnecessary delays and, thus, administrative costs. I realize that the Bureau of Reclamation has come up with its own version of streamlining since we considered this bill in the last Congress, but it's only a theoretical version of streamlining since it has never been used in the 6 months after it was created. This bill simply streamlines the regulatory and administrative process so that water users can be free to develop hydropower at the Federal canals they already operate and maintain. This bill will help generate thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap, abundant hydropower and, thus, will bring in new revenue to the Federal Government and, more importantly, Mr. Chairman, create new American jobs. Best of all, we can do this at no cost to the American taxpayer. This is exactly the type of commonsense proposal that Republicans support as part of the all-of-the-above energy plan. Hydropower must be part of the solution. Families and small businesses rely on access to affordable electricity, and this bill is a simple way to lower prices by expanding production on one of the best forms of clean, renewable energy. Mr. Chairman, nearly identical legislation passed the House last Congress with bipartisan support. I hope the House will once again do so today, and that the Senate will take action on this job-creating energy bill. I want to thank particularly members of the Natural Resources Committee Mr. Tipton of Colorado, Mr. Gosar of Arizona, and Mr. Costa of California for their tremendous work on this bill and for being strong champions of small-scale hydropower production. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation on the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, before I yield time to the gentlelady from Wyoming, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I find the gentleman's argument on the other side rather striking because he's talking about American-made jobs and another piece of legislation not associated with this. And I would just point out, what could be more American-made jobs than putting hydropower facilities on American soil? That creates jobs. That's what this bill is all about. And the second point, the gentleman mentioned the rare Earth issue that we have. Last Congress, we passed legislation here so we could utilize the known rare Earth supplies we have in this country, and it was the other body, controlled by the gentleman's own party, that didn't act on it. And he sounds like it is a big, big issue now. I suspect we may have, Madam Chairman, that legislation again in front of us, and I would hope that we could elicit the gentleman's support when that bill comes to the floor. With that, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another valuable member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close general debate if the gentlelady is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This debate has been rather interesting, because it sounds like on the floor there is widespread support for the concept of this bill. And why shouldn't there be? After all, there are 47,000 miles of canals and ditches that could be utilized for energy production. There seems to be one problem, and that problem revolves around NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, which was put in place, by the way, in 1969. I'm not going do say there's a direct correlation between NEPA and the lack of Bureau of Reclamation projects, but it is very interesting that most of the great projects that were built in the West were built prior to NEPA. There were environmental statutes on the book, Madam Chairwoman, back then, and they are all satisfied. I happen to live in central Washington. There are two great projects in central Washington--the Columbia Basin Project and the Yakima River Project; in total, probably over a million acres of irrigated land. Here is the truism, Madam Chairwoman. What we are talking about are our facilities where water is running through them, water is running downhill. We all know that water running downhill creates a certain amount of energy. All we want to do is capture that energy. With the prior chart that the gentleman from California put up, most of the States that will benefit by this are from the West. That means that we can make the desert bloom even more in the West if we utilize these facilities. Finally, I just want to make one other observation. My good friend from California was saying that, okay, this is like a bill we had last year. We passed it; the Senate didn't do anything. Well, I would just remind the gentlelady, and she should know this, and I know she does, we are two distinct bodies, the House and the Senate. If they have a different view, for goodness sake, pass something. If it's different than our view, then we'll figure out how to come together. But to simply say, this is a good piece of legislation but we don't like NEPA, therefore, don't pass it because the Senate won't take it up, is not doing our job. Madam Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. There are some amendments that will be following. We can get into more detail on those. But I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?