Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 112, the budget resolution offered by my colleague Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, which cuts federal spending, faces our nation's debt crisis head on, and spurs economic recovery and job creation. When President Obama was running for President four years ago, he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. Instead, his spending policies have left the American people with our nation's first, second, third and fourth year of trillion-plus dollar deficits-- contributing more to the national debt than the 40 previous Presidents combined. Unfortunately, the budget request that President Obama submitted to Congress last month is more of the same failed policies. It calls for spending increases to record levels, tax hikes on families and small businesses and still it adds more to our nation's debt for future generations to pay off. President Obama's plan passes this compounding debt on to our children and grandchildren instead of making the difficult decisions necessary to protect our country's future. But at least he has a plan. The Senate has failed to even pass a budget in three years. Chairman Ryan's proposal offers a real alternative to these failed policies. H. Res. 112 cuts federal spending by $5 trillion dollars. It takes on the true drivers of our debt--entitlement spending that takes up more than 60 percent of the federal budget--while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid so that these programs will continue to be available for future generations. It reduces the size of the federal government to the historic average of 20 percent of the economy by 2015--allowing the private sector to grow and create jobs. It reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering tax rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests. And it places our country on a path to pay off our national debt in as few as seven years. Americans need real jobs, real solutions, and real results--not more budget tricks or accounting gimmicks. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me creating an efficient, effective government that spends less and serves better, by supporting the Ryan budget resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the serious state of health care in our country as we approach the second anniversary of ObamaCare. When ObamaCare was drafted behind closed doors without bipartisan input and slammed through the legislative process in 2010, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised us that this government takeover of health care would allow people who like the health care plan they have now to keep it. But I and my Republican colleagues knew better when we voted against the bill--and we were right. In the two years since ObamaCare was signed into law, Americans have already experienced significant increases in premiums, loss of choice in medical coverage, and less access for seniors to obtain quality health care. In addition, Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office stated that as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided health care coverage as a result of ObamaCare--half of who are low-wage workers whom depend on their employer health coverage. Even the Department of Health and Human Services admitted that portions of the President's health care law, which were originally projected to lower costs, would in fact increase taxes on hardworking American taxpayers. Americans deserve access to the quality health care they need when they need it and at a cost they can afford. Improvements must be made, but reforms need to focus on putting patients first and lowering costs. Lowering costs for hardworking American taxpayers can be achieved by expanding health care choices and tools to help families save, making it easier for small businesses to afford to offer care, ending lawsuit abuse, and protecting the doctor-patient relationship from government intrusion. After several years of uncertainty and stagnant economic conditions, the American people need real solutions and real results. This cannot be achieved by budget tricks or accounting gimmicks that do nothing to help hardworking American taxpayers and only result in higher taxes and burdensome federal government mandates. Efficient, effective government that spends less and serves better is the only answer to restoring genuine accountability and faith in our government. The House of Representatives has voted 25 times to repeal, defund or dismantle this law. It is my hope that before the next anniversary of ObamaCare, the Senate and President will join the House to repeal this trillion-dollar government takeover of health care and work on real reforms that lower costs for the American people.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 2087, an authentic, no-cost jobs bill aimed at removing government hurdles to economic development. This bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) would allow Accomack County in Virginia to move forward with plans to develop--and, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this very explicitly--not 32 million, not 320,000, not 320--a 32-acre parcel of land adjacent to a NASA airstrip into a technology and research facility. Currently, the parcel has a restriction limiting use of the property to recreational purposes. This was a condition placed on the property when the county obtained the deed through the Federal Land to Park program in 1976. Unfortunately, the park has been of little benefit to the community. Though the county has made diligent efforts, the park has fallen out of use and is currently overgrown and unmaintained. Now Accomack County has found a better way to serve its citizens, and has determined that with this legislation they can create hundreds of short-term and long-term jobs. Mr. Chairman, again, this property is already owned by Accomack County, not the Federal Government. Congress created the program that allowed the county to take title to this land. The purpose at that time was to help communities like this do exactly what the bill says it should do. Congress has the authority to do this, and it should have the common sense to allow the county to do this. But there have been concerns raised that this bill would create a precedent leading to an avalanche of these types of requests. Let's be clear: This is simply one specific proposal dealing with one parcel of land totaling 32 acres--not 32,000, not 320 million, just 32 acres. To put this into perspective, there are nearly 170,000 acres of land that have been transferred to State and local governments through the Federal Lands to Park program. Nothing in this bill would affect those other acres. This bill is narrowly focused, involves an extremely small area of land, and, frankly, it's unfortunate that this bill is even before us today. However, I will state that there absolutely are instances in which communities and States would be better off if the Federal red tape on private land ownership was lifted, just as there are instances where reducing Federal landownership would be beneficial to local communities and States. Yet here we are debating this specific bill, and it is simply not reasonable to argue that the sky is going to fall if this bill affecting, again, Mr. Chairman, just 32 acres in Accomack County becomes law. With unemployment still over 8 percent, Congress should be looking for every opportunity possible, no matter how big or how small, to create new American jobs. Gas prices are rapidly rising and families and businesses are struggling to make ends meet. Now more than ever, Congress should make it a priority to eliminate hurdles to economic development; and, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this bill does. The gentleman from Virginia has given us an opportunity to immediately help a community with a plan to create jobs. We need to pass this legislation today, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2087. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

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

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. 2087.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I have no requests for time. If he is prepared to close, I'll close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle on the debate on this issue is rather interesting. Let me take a couple of the issues that were brought up and try to address them. First, the issue of an earmark. Now, just to remind our body--we must have a very short attention span--but this House acted not too long ago on the question of earmarks and said we should proceed. That's why we are debating this bill. Why? Because H.R. 2087 does not contain an earmark. It is in full compliance with the earmark definition provided for in House rule 21 in the earmark ban that was instituted by the House Republicans in January of 2011. Why is that or how is that? Because the House definition of an earmark requires that there be spending in some form directed to an entity. In H.R. 2087, we do not direct any spending of any money in any form. It has no fiscal impact. So, Mr. Chairman, to repeat once again-- we had this debate earlier, and the House confirmed that debate, by the way--there is no earmark in this bill. Let me make a couple other observations of the previous speakers that have spoken. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came down here and said it's been X number of days--I forget how many he said--without one job bill. Well, he's right, Mr. Chairman. There is not just one job bill. There are a multitude of job bills that have been addressed by this body, generally on a bipartisan basis. I might add, if you go back just prior to our last district work period, we passed some bills, which were a series of bills that had passed with bipartisan support, over to the Senate. I'd advise my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rather than talking here about a lack of activity, go talk to your colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda over there and say: Move these jobs bills. That's what we ought to be doing. Furthermore, if there are two big issues that the American people are confronted with today, it's jobs and energy. Way last year, we passed energy bills that created American jobs. Don't come down to the floor and say we have not addressed energy jobs. This House has done its work, generally with bipartisan support, but I will note that those that spoke on that voted ``no.'' I don't know what they want to do-- create government jobs? Is that the idea? So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that, I guess in rhetoric and debate on the floor, you get all sorts of different takes, but the facts are the House has passed job-creating bills. They have passed energy job-creating bills. This bill here potentially falls in line with that. I urge my colleagues to support it. With that, 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, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona does not help Accomack County create jobs, and that is the underlying purpose of this bill. Recall that this property was obtained by Accomack County because the Federal Government did not need it or want it anymore. The Federal Government washed their hands of this land. Indeed, there was a deed restriction, but the underlying intent was to benefit the citizens of Accomack County. Today, we are acting again to help those same citizens by allowing them to use the property as they see appropriate. This deed restriction was put in place 36 years ago, and it no longer serves as a benefit to the county. Just because we could demand that they give the land back to the Federal Government does not mean that we should do it, and demanding that they buy the land they already own makes even less sense. In the same vein in which Accomack County requested this land in 1976, they're back asking us again to help their citizens. I understand the gentleman is looking out for the Federal Government--and I respect that--out of fear that somehow a small county in rural Virginia might take advantage of it. But I do want to assure my good friend from Arizona that the Federal Government and its countless millions of acres of land can and will go on without these 32 acres. We hear time and again how grateful we should be for massive Federal ownership in the West and of the bounty of tourist dollars it produces. Now, in this very narrow example of 32 acres, perhaps you will see the blessing of local control and what you can do without Washington's central planning and land management. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is unwarranted and does nothing to produce much needed jobs. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would really like to commend my good friend from Florida on his very unique approach to this bill with this very unique amendment. But make no mistake. If it were to pass, the effect would be to hobble and to kill this job-creating bill, so let's set that aside. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require appraisals to be conducted in each of the following years: 1776, 1865, 2013, 2017, 2032, and 2212. In this amendment as the amendment is written, these appraisals must be done in those years. We did not have a Federal Government in 1776, for example. In 1865, Virginia was part of the Confederacy. That means, however, if we have a requirement to have an appraisal in each of these years, that would require that we go back 236 years and into the future 200 years before this legislation would go into effect. Now, there may be a misconception or maybe a misidentification, I would tell my friend. I am Doc Hastings. I am not Doc Brown, the mad scientist from ``Back to the Future.'' I do not own, nor do I have access to, a plutonium-powered DeLorean that will allow me or Michael J. Fox to complete the complexities of this amendment. I can't go back 236 years; I can't go forward 200 years. So, notwithstanding some new technology, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, we should defeat this amendment. 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, the author of this motion to recommit clearly did not hear the debate. This land is owned by Accomack County in Virginia. It is not a transfer. It's a deed restriction lift. That's all it is. The land is owned by a county in Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when we had testimony on this bill in the committee, the government of Accomack County testified, obviously, in favor of it, and they said they wanted this for industrial use. Now, this is local control. Doesn't the other side even trust local control, for goodness sake, in testimony in front of a committee? I have to say also that history tends to repeat itself. In this body, it tends to repeat itself, it seems like, on a weekly basis. Now, why do I say that? Because the two issues that are facing the American people are jobs and the price of energy. Yet here we have a bill in front of us that would certainly create jobs. And what does the other side do? They want to put up more impediments to it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I first want to note that the author of the motion to recommit voted for the bill out of committee without this amendment. So there certainly is some basis of support for this bill. But I find it very, very ironic that we continue to have what I consider impediments to job creation in this country made by the other side, because the other side has generally--not everybody, to the credit of some of those that understand energy creation--but generally they oppose all American energy. Look at the vote on developing the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Look at the vote on developing resources in Alaska. Look at the vote on developing resources in the intermountain West. They have always been generally opposed to it on that side of the aisle. So now we have here in front of us a bill that would create American energy, and they want to put another qualification on it. Now, the gentleman--as a matter of fact, in the debate he did somewhat mischaracterize because the amendment says ``materials.'' We don't mind, for example--one example, all of the rare Earth we need for high technology, we have to import it. And yet he would have us do it here when we don't even have a source for those materials. That's what this bill says. So, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you what this bill does.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will not yield. The gentleman had 5 minutes to make his case. Let me just tell you what this bill does. This bill creates American jobs with American energy at no cost to the taxpayer. What else do you need to say? Vote against the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, 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 all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2842.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If not, I am prepared to yield back and start the amendment process if the gentlelady yields back.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend from California if she has anymore speakers on the debate portion of this.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It authorizes hydropower at existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities and, by doing so, it allows placement of hydropower generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have already gone through extensive environmental review. This is a bipartisan plan to create new American jobs, cut government red tape, and expand production of clean, renewable and low-cost hydropower. This past weekend President Obama once again tried to claim support for an all-of-the-above energy production, but unlike President Obama's empty rhetoric, House Republicans are taking real action to prove our commitment to expanding all forms of American energy. Americans have now experienced 27 consecutive days of rising gas prices, and now the national average is pushing closer to $4 a gallon. In order to address the skyrocketing prices, Republicans will continue to pursue an all-of-the-above approach that responsibly develops the natural resources that we have right here at home. The facts are, Mr. Chairman, we have followed through on this commitment by passing through the House bipartisan reforms to break down government barriers to American energy production. Just weeks ago, the House passed a bipartisan jobs plan to vastly expand access to our oil and natural gas resources offshore and in ANWR. Today we're putting forth a plan to expand production of clean, renewable hydropower. As families and small businesses across the country are worried about rising gasoline prices, they are also worried about escalating electricity costs. Rising energy prices are a drain on our economy, pure and simple. It increases business costs and makes everything we do more expensive. Hydropower is one of the cleanest and cheapest forms of electricity. In my view, coming from the Pacific Northwest, where nearly 70 percent of our power comes from hydropower, hydropower is the poster child for clean, renewable energy. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the Federal Government is one of the biggest obstacles to increasing the development of hydropower projects, especially small projects. This bill would remove government roadblocks and streamline the duplicative regulatory process for developing small canal and pipeline hydropower projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. This commonsense plan would help generate thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap, abundant and reliable hydroelectricity. Furthermore, it allows for hydropower generation without a single new dam, and at no cost to the Federal Government. Now, let there be no mistake. I am a proponent of new dams. But this bill rightly harnesses hydropower potential at existing facilities. Water users throughout the West will be empowered to develop hydropower at the Federal canals they operate and maintain. It's once again important to note that this bill only allows for small hydropower projects on existing canals and pipelines. Such manmade facilities are already on what I would call disturbed ground and have already gone through extensive environmental reviews. Furthermore, this bill is a revenue generator for the Federal Government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimates that it will generate $5 million over the next 10 years through increased hydropower production and rental fees associated with it. H.R. 2842 affirms Republicans' commitment to a true, all-of-the-above energy plan. It will create jobs in rural areas, lower energy prices, and expand production of clean, renewable American energy by simply getting the Federal Government out of the way. This bill received bipartisan support in the Natural Resources Committee and is endorsed by the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Association of California Water Agencies. I want to commend the bill's sponsors, Mr. Tipton of Colorado and Mr. Gosar of Arizona, for their work on this. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.