Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I hear the crocodile tears for no NEPA in this process. I just remind my colleagues that when this area was designated wilderness, NEPA was not involved. Once the land trade is made, it is subject to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. There is a process in which this will be carried out. I don't support the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary, and it would allow the Federal bureaucracy an automatic excuse to stop implementation of this bill when it becomes law. It would provide the Forest Service with vague authorities to simply delay or outright block an act of Congress. Does that sound familiar? While presented as property rights protection, the plain fact is that this bill only involves the exchange of lands between State lands and State forestlands. So I want to be very clear that not one square inch of private property is included in this exchange. Again, this is only State and Federal lands. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, on my committee, a lot of our discussion on a variety of issues talks about private property rights. When we have debate on that and when we have votes on amendments on those issues, I find it rather ironic that the party of the gentleman that is offering this amendment always tends to vote against those amendments that protect private property rights. Once again, the net result of this amendment would be to give the Federal bureaucracy the ability to slow down carrying out this act. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I only have one other speaker and we have the right to close, if the gentleman wants to use his time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield the balance of my time to the author of this legislation, Mr. Cravaack of Minnesota.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to ensure a fair exchange of lands on States in Federal areas, and there are protections that were put specifically in the bill. Of course, the big protection is that the Secretary of Agriculture, who is a Federal representative in this process, has to agree. So, I mean, you have got one party, two parties that have to agree, and one of them is Federal. Now what could be more protection than that. Now, let me go back just a minute. We seem to have to talk about the history of this. The valuation of the land in 1978, when this wilderness area was developed--I wasn't here, nobody here on the floor that's debating this was here at that time; but I doubt if there was a valuation given to Minnesota at that time, and now they want to come back and say, okay, we have to have a precise valuation on the Federal level. Come on. This corrects something that was not done in 1978. This amendment simply slows down the process, which I might add, Mr. Chairman, that seems to be what the process is with all four amendments that were taken up to date, slow down the process. Thirty-four years, isn't that long enough? This is not a good amendment. I urge rejection of it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Do I understand the time on the other side has expired?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Does the gentleman from Arizona still have time?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is what I was trying to get to. I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time, again, to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, apparently the author of the motion to recommit did not read the underlying bill because what he seeks to do is say you can't exchange land that is open to essentially multiple use, recreational activities. On section 2 of page 5, very specifically in the bill, it says that these activities shall be allowed. I don't know exactly what point the gentleman is trying to make by offering this motion to recommit, unless it is a political statement of some sort. Even if it's a political statement, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it falls short in that regard. Why do I say that? Because last spring, specifically on April 17, we had a bill that this body considered on the floor, H.R. 4089, authored by our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Benishek, called the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012. The essence of that bill was to allow hunting and recreation on Federal lands, and yet the author of the motion to recommit is coming down here saying we should have multiple use on this forest, but he voted against the bill, H.R. 4089, this spring. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the crocodile tears I hear or see from the other side is overwhelming to me. This motion to recommit ought to be defeated. The land exchange that is authored by our colleague from Minnesota rights a wrong that was wrongly made 34 years ago. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6007) to exempt from the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3397) to modify the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program by implementing a simple, equitable, and predictable procedure for determining cabin user fees, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the bill.

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 materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Cabin Fee Act, which I have sponsored for several Congresses, sets a new fee schedule for the 14,000 privately owned cabins in our national forests. It creates a simple, straightforward, and predictable fee schedule that is fair to cabin owners, the Forest Service, and the American taxpayer. H.R. 3397 would replace the current complex and unfair payment system by assigning cabin fees to tiers based on the cabin lot's appraised value. The fees would rise with inflation, but otherwise would be a fixed fee. This means that families would no longer face sudden, unexpected jumps to unaffordable levels, and the maximum fees are kept from going above $5,000 a year. As considered on the House floor today, the Cabin Fee Act is revenue neutral. The CBO score is zero. Many of the private cabins on Forest Service land are simple, rustic structures hand-built by the grandparents of current owners early in the last century and passed down from generation to generation. The overwhelming majority of these cabins are modest family retreats. The purpose of this bill is to keep the fees affordable for people such as teachers, factory workers, and retirees, and not just millionaires, which is what would result if we do not make the change in the law. The cabin owners affected by this bill are charged an annual fee for the use of their land on which their cabin sits. They do not get any ownership rights to the land. They have only a temporary and highly restricted use permit for basically the footprint of their cabin. Because a limited use permit is not comparable to the rights acquired when somebody owns property in fee simple, it has proven impossible under current law to establish a fair basis for setting the fees charged to the cabin owners. The current system has resulted in unrealistic, arbitrary fee hikes that are completely unaffordable for average families. For example, in the Northwest, the Seattle Times published a report that cabin owners in Lake Wenatchee, which is in my district, received notice that their fees would increase by more than 1,000 percent, from $1,400 a year to $17,000 a year. Skyrocketing fees also make these seasonal cabins unmarketable, leaving families who are unable to pay the high fees also unable to sell their cabins. Unless Congress acts to bring about a course correction, thousands of cabin owners will be forced to abandon family heirloom cabins as the currently planned hike in fees goes into effect. This bill is strongly supported by the Forest Service because it preserves this cherished century-old program while greatly reducing and simplifying the Service's administrative burden. The need to fix this problem has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. So I urge support of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2706) to prohibit the sale of billfish, as amended.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the bill.

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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2706, the Billfish Conservation Act, authored by our colleague from Florida (Mr. Miller). Under current law, it is illegal to import or sell Atlantic billfish. Despite this, the U.S. is one of the major importers of billfish in the world. While Pacific billfish populations in general are in better shape than Atlantic billfish, threats to both oceans' billfish from foreign fishing fleets remain. As long as the U.S. allows a market for these fish, their population levels are likely to worsen. To add more protection for both the Atlantic and Pacific billfish, the legislation would make it illegal to sell specific billfish species or possess those billfish for sale, whether they are Atlantic or Pacific. Now, I note, Mr. Speaker, that concern had been raised at the June hearing that U.S. fishermen in Hawaii and the Pacific insular areas might be disadvantaged by these new rules and that the local consumption of billfish products might be made illegal. The bill was amended during committee consideration to address this concern; and the legislation, as amended, now protects these U.S. fishermen and the existing limited, traditional local consumption of billfish products while still providing additional and increased protection for billfish populations in the United States. This is good legislation. I support it. And I reserve the balance of my time.