Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have another speaker coming to the floor; so I will yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard some curious arguments on the other side, as my colleagues on this side have pointed out a few times, but let me just talk about a couple of them where there's a charge that this will cost the taxpayers. We measure what the costs are to the taxpayers of this country by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. And CBO, in looking at the land exchange aspects of this and the other costs associated, have concluded that the cost to the taxpayer is effectively zero. Now that's the official agency that we go by, so when we hear that there's a whole bunch of costs associated with that to the taxpayer, it's simply not so. What is even more ironic, Mr. Chairman, when they make that argument, they ignore the fact that jobs that will be created here get paid wages. Those wages then will be subjected to tax policies of the Federal Government to where the Federal Government actually gets more revenue. But that is ignored, it seems like all the time, when we hear the other side argue on this issue. Let me talk about the issue of NEPA because that has been bandied around a few times. The NEPA laws of our country are not changed at all by the passage of this bill, but what we do is we put logic to the process. Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, our great government was designed to have a dispersion of power. We sit in the legislative branch and we make the policy of this country, and the executive branch carries out that policy. It's been that way since our Republic was founded. All we are saying is that when Congress directs an action--in this case, an action of a land exchange--it shall not be subject to NEPA because we are exercising our authority under the Constitution to direct policy. Why should a NEPA policy be used to slow down a direction that Congress has given? So that's the only part of the NEPA policy that we are affecting in this bill. Now, I want to say this very explicitly. Under this bill, all NEPA laws as to the construction and the carrying on of this mine will be subject to NEPA laws. And nothing is changed. Nothing is changed. So when people throw around NEPA as one reason why we shouldn't adopt this, that is simply a bogus argument. Finally, I just want to make one more point here about this being a giveaway. In fact, there are some of my persuasion that may have a bit of heartburn with this because, as a matter of fact, we are giving the Federal Government more land than we are exchanging for private development of this copper land. Mr. Chairman, I know you've heard the arguments over this in the time you and I have been here, and yet this is something that I think is worthy of support because we do want to make sure that those lands are protected in a way. So to suggest that there's a giveaway here is simply not the case because the exchange is of equal value. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the pending trade agreements, all three trade agreements, with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama. In my home State of Washington, where one in three jobs is dependent on international trade, we understand the importance of expanding foreign markets for economic success. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that these agreements will increase jobs. Let me give you an example on a parochial basis in my district. Today, potato growers and processors face an 18-percent tariff when sending their product to South Korea. This agreement will end the tariff immediately, allowing our growers to fairly compete in this very important market. It is critical to my constituents that we act now on all three of these trade agreements. Let me be parochial again, Mr. Speaker. Apple sales in Colombia dropped 48 percent last year because Chile had duty- free access to the Colombian market while my growers in my State did not--in fact, they had a 15-percent tariff. The passage of this agreement is expected to increase apple sales by 250,000 boxes a year, allowing us to regain a market share or at least to compete on a level playing field. As our economy is struggling to recover, I encourage all of my colleagues to act now to support all three of these trade agreements because all three of these trade agreements will expand an opportunity for our economy to grow, and especially, Mr. Speaker, the diverse agriculture economy I have in central Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 709, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman remembers, because he was in a committee hearing, under direct questioning, I think it was Director Abbey said that there is no authority to make any designation under law of wild lands because that was a made-up term. There's no designation. Can they inventory? Yes. Nobody argues with that. But you can't make up administratively a new designation, and that's what the issue was. And he testified that he had no authority to do that.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out that the staff clearly researched the language here and applicable laws that relate to these waters. That's what we do when we put this language in here. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I understand the gentleman's comments. And I know the hearing yesterday addresses the issue, which is separate from this. Listen, we should have that debate; we should have that discussion. This issue is an administrative Secretarial order that, to the credit of Secretary Salazar, they withdrew. It was confirmed, by the way, to be withdrawn because of the CR we passed that takes us through September 30. The Secretary, to his credit, said, I'm going to abide by that. As a result, the order has not been withdrawn. This debate here is about next year's funding. So until we get clarification on that order or the order is withdrawn, this language is appropriate. And that's simply all we're saying. Now, we can get into a discussion of whether wild lands is, in fact, a designation or not. And as a matter of fact, wild lands has no definition whatsoever administratively. So there's a question on our side, obviously, if they can even do that because wild lands may be synonymous with wilderness, but wilderness can only be designated by the Congress. And that is the concern that we have. And that's why I think the language that was put into the appropriation bill takes care of next year. And I say, to the credit of the Secretary----

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I'm glad the gentleman brought up Secretarial order 3310 because that's what we're talking about here. Now the first sentence under section one, Purpose, it says: The Secretarial order affirms the protection of wilderness characteristics. Nobody is arguing about that at all. Then you go to page 2 of the Secretarial order, section 4, Policy, and it goes on through the process of inventorying and so forth. And the last sentence is the problem where we have our heartburn. It says: ``Where the BLM concludes that protection of wilderness characteristics''--which nobody argues about--``is appropriate, the BLM shall designate these lands as `Wild Lands.' '' Now that is a made-up definition. Nobody argues about the inventory part, but now all of a sudden they're superseding and suggesting that there should be a new designation called wild lands. That is what the problem is. They have no authority to do that. And they affirmed that, by the way, in testimony in front of our committee. This part of the Interior bill simply says we're not going to fund that. And until the Secretarial order is withdrawn--this one here that says wild lands-- once this is withdrawn, you're right, there's no issue. But it hasn't been withdrawn. That's why that language needs to stay in there. It's nothing more complicated than that. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend from Washington reading the section, but he left out the last sentence of that section. I think this is a pertinent part and this is the point that the gentleman from Alaska is making, and it regards safety inspection. I will quote the last sentence: ``This section does not affect the authority of the Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the Yukon Charlie Preserve.'' I would interpret that as saying the safety part of that is taken care of. But the gentleman from Alaska certainly is right on the part that these are State waters. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my friend's amendment. I hope this isn't a pattern long term, but on this particular bill it seems to be a pattern at any rate. His amendment would strike the important language in H.R. 2584 that addresses the administration's confusing policies involving Endangered Species Act-listed populations of gray wolves nationwide. As I mentioned on the House floor during a colloquy with Chairman Simpson on Monday, the Obama administration has created a confusing and impractical result with its recent announcement to delist the gray wolves in some States, but leave other States, such as Washington, Oregon and Utah with mixed management. H.R. 2584, as written, and as clarified in my colloquy with the chairman, would help remedy this flawed policy. Problems with the Federal management of gray wolves are nearly as old as the Endangered Species Act itself. Five years after ESA's passage in 1978, the gray wolf was listed as endangered or threatened in all of the lower 48 States. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered an experimental introduction of wolves into the Yellowstone area, central Idaho, and the Mexican wolf into Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. It also established a new definition to identify the population of listed species. As a result, wolves multiplied. But, unfortunately, because they can't read maps, they moved into areas where they weren't supposed to go. In 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service divided gray wolves into geographical boundaries that made more sense. It included the entire States of Washington, Oregon, Utah and other areas so that States would eventually be able to develop their own State management plans to remove wolves from the endangered species list. Then, in 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and adopted the theory that wolves should be delisted in Idaho, Montana, and only parts of certain other States, but would leave other areas where wolves likely populate still. This is under ESA. As a result, in my own Fourth Congressional District in central Washington, and I'll put up a map here, the wolves are delisted on the eastern side of Highways 97, 17, and 395. Highway 97, Highway 17, and 395. Delisted over here, listed over here. This makes absolutely no sense, and it shows how the ESA is badly in need of updating and how ineffective the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in managing wolves. And I might add, this is true in Oregon, in parts of Oregon and parts of Utah. So I oppose this amendment because the colloquy that I had with the chairman is one that sets the stage for properly managing these wolves in the States that I associate with. I just might add on a personal level, I live very, very close to here. But I live in the listed area. Now, we do fish marking. I know my friend is very well aware of fish marking, and I'm not opposing the authorizing on this bill, as the gentleman knows--this year, anyway. But there is no listing here for the gray wolf. Now, I have no idea if a wolf crosses down here into my area, if it is, in fact, a listed or a delisted wolf. But apparently Fish and Wildlife think that they know where Highway 97 ends, where 17 comes down here and connects with Highway 395, because that's what their arbitrary rule says. It doesn't make any sense at all. And so as a result of this, the colloquy I had with Chairman Simpson clarified this, that it includes the whole areas that are within that geographic boundary. And for that reason, I oppose my friend's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I asked the gentleman to yield because this is precisely the point that this debate and discussion on the Endangered Species Act is having. If you recall in the CR, the Endangered Species Act was amended to allow Idaho and Montana to delist, because the way ESA was written, unless the whole identified population could have been managed, nobody could manage, and that was the flaw. And that's what we have been saying--as we had last night and we will probably have later discussions on this--why ESA needs to be looked at in a comprehensive way, because it was clearly a flaw. It was clearly a flaw. I'm glad that the CR amended the Endangered Species Act to take care of this provision. The colloquy that we had regarding Washington, Oregon, and Utah was simply to recognize these larger populations but recognize States are moving in a direction of managing their populations.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield real quickly?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. As a matter of fact, the gray wolves are showing up in the Cascades now, the eastern side of the Cascades. So you'll get them.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The argument is not about the Endangered Species Act. The argument is about the serious business of sitting down and reauthorizing an act that has not been reauthorized since the 1980s.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I totally agree with you, and I said that in the opening remarks. The gentleman from Washington suggested that, and I totally agree with him.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I can't argue with the gentleman. I'm simply saying we need to look at this. It has been 23 years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to respond to my friend from Virginia. The bill passed, if my memory serves me correctly, with bipartisan support. But, yes, of course there are political risks in doing whatever we're doing in this body; and we all face that. After all, this is the people's government. But the point is it needs--and we've been saying over and over, the ESA needs to be updated. It's been 23 years, for goodness sake.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me make one point: This debate is not about the Endangered Species Act; it is not about the Endangered Species Act. I have to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Washington State. I think that Chairman Simpson has brought to the House floor a bill that prioritizes funding to ensure that the core responsibilities and environmental protections are met in a broader sense. When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, this bill focuses on funding the actual recovery of species. It does this by, one, continuing funds for recovery activities and doing that despite the fact that this bill, the ESA, has not been reauthorized for 23 years-- not 20 years; 23 years--and, two, by limiting funds for lawsuit-driven new listings and habitat designations. This bill sends a clear message, as the gentleman from Idaho said, that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated and improved. It needs to be reauthorized. As I mentioned, it's been 23 years since this bill was reauthorized by Congress. A person can be born and graduate from college in the amount of time that has passed since Congress last acted to make serious responsible improvements to this law. Now, the gentleman from Washington acknowledged me on the floor earlier, and I will tell him, as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction on the Endangered Species Act, I can inform the House that this committee will be conducting robust oversight of the need to update this law in the coming months. The current law is failing to truly recover species while it frequently hamstrings jobs and economic prosperity, like the gentleman from Idaho mentioned. And we will also examine legislative priorities. In my view--and this is important about this debate--in my view, the real obstacle to improving ESA is the fact that a number of groups are heavily invested in litigation mindset, a litigation mindset that prefers lawsuits against the government over improving the act and improving the recovery of species. These groups have filed lawsuits by the one hundreds against Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries. This bill, under Chairman Simpson's leadership, effectively halts these lawsuits. By limiting any spending on new listings or habit designations, this bill will allow the biologists to get back to work recovering species, rather than responding to court cases. Both funding and personnel will be able to focus on the real work of bringing species back from the brink. By striking this provision, the Dicks amendment would reopen the litigation process. The same activist groups, Mr. Chairman, that filed these lawsuits endorse this amendment. As we speak, they are waging an expensive paid advertising campaign on behalf of this amendment. Because they profit from these lawsuits, to me, it appears they are more concerned about the ability to go to court, get a settlement and get paid than they are about recovering species. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. This bill strikes the right balance by directing funding to actual recovery of species. And it strikes the right balance by bringing a halt to litigation over new listings and habitat designations. This bill will create an opportunity where Congress can do its job to update and modernize the ESA. It's time that we take a thoughtful analysis of the inadequacies of this current law, inadequacies that allow the ESA to be abused through lawsuits, rather than serving as a true conduit for species recovery. Let me go on to say that, as the chairman, I think, said very well in his remarks, there is no incentive for the stakeholders to come and try to work out the differences or update this law if Congress keeps kicking the can ahead. That's what the issue is all about. I can't imagine, for example, that people really believe that this bill should be in place, yet, when there is a major construction project here in the Washington, DC, area, like the Woodrow Wilson bridge, they waive the act. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't make sense. And we don't get an opportunity, those of us that are impacted by this act, get a chance to waive it. So it just seems to me that there has to be an update of this. The act has not been updated for 23 years. It's time to do it. And as the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction on that, I'm glad to work with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on this. In fact, I'll work with anybody on this because I too believe that the species are very important, as the gentleman from Virginia said. But let's do it in a way that protects species and does not harm those people that make a living from the land and/or the water. I yield back the balance of my time.