Doc Hastings

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. 4315.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), a very active Member on this issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank you for restoring a portion of the administration's proposed cut to the Richland Operations Office at Hanford in my district. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on funding, and I know the provisions on Yucca Mountain and MOX that are in this bill are also key to the Hanford cleanup success. Madam Chair, the Richland Operations Office is responsible for many critical cleanup projects and legal commitments, and progress there has largely been a success. This represents a new model for cleanup. And it has been successful. It is nearing completion and will save taxpayers $250 million. I am encouraged that the $235 million in this bill provided for cleanup for the River Corridor will focus on the 300 Area milestones under the River Corridor Closure Contract. As the appropriations process continues, I look forward to working with you to ensure appropriate restoration for Richland, given the budget constraints that we have. Mr. Chairman, this is my last Energy and Water bill, yet I am confident that Hanford has a friend and an advocate in your leadership. When it comes to the other project at Hanford, the Office of River Protection, there are a number of challenges. Among other things, I am hopeful that DOE and the State of Washington will reach an agreement on an achievable path forward for WTP.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman.

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. 4899.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for offering this amendment. In many ways, Madam Chairman, this is indicative of the bureaucratic hoops that people have to jump through. Now, keep in mind, this lease sale in Virginia went through all of the environmental hoops and then was taken off the roles, if you will. Under current law, you have to jump through the same environmental hoops again, notwithstanding the fact that all of the work has been done. I say this is indicative of what goes on with the bureaucracy in a great many ways throughout our country, but this is especially, I think, troubling to the people of Virginia because not only has their Governor and their legislature spoken very loudly that they would like to have an opportunity to drill offshore, to deny them that opportunity because of what I would call a bureaucratic morass of having to jump through hoops doesn't make any sense at all. I think the gentleman's amendment makes immensely good sense, and I think it is something we should look at in a broader scale in a lot of other areas. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I just want to make this point, which the gentleman from Texas pointed out. What we are saying, essentially, in the underlying bill is that we are not going to fund an executive order. Now let's think about that. It is an executive order that has no statutory authority. In many ways, this is one of the examples of this administration, I think, far overstepping its ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land. This may be one of those examples that the Speaker was alluding to yesterday when he suggested there may be a lawsuit coming from the U.S. House. Because there is no statutory authority for the National Ocean Policy. What I find so interesting is that my friends on the other side of the aisle argue about how important the National Ocean Policy is, but when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency the first two years of this President's term, they did nothing with the National Ocean Policy. Why? Because there is a lot to be looked at in that. So I think that opposition to this is something that we have done over and over and over again, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas for taking the lead on ocean policy.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think it is a very good amendment. That part of the South Atlantic needs to be treated, I think, as one entity just because of the nature of how the State lines are. I think the gentleman's amendment makes immensely good sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I think, once again, the combination of what you and the gentleman from South Carolina said about the new technologies that will help us in the long run to develop our own energy resources makes immensely good sense, and I think this amendment adds to that process. I commend the gentleman, and I support the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, the offshore leasing process is managed by the Federal Government because the Outer Continental Shelves are under Federal jurisdiction; therefore, you have that regulation from the Federal Government. While there is always process, I suppose, with any regulation, this process is transparent, and the Department is already required to publish a Federal notice prior to any lease sale. In fact, when creating a 5-year plan, the Department is also required to consult with States and localities, and this administration has just started its process right now for the time period of 2017-2022. This amendment is really a red tape, paperwork nightmare. It would have an overwhelming burdensome effect on all existing offshore operations conducted today in the Outer Continental Shelf by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy and by requiring a notice for every permit application received. The amendment is so broad in its description of well enhancement activities that, essentially, every time a permit application would be received by the Bureau, it would then require a Federal notice. Just think about that. Every time you have an action like that that requires a Federal notice, does it not logically suggest that that might be open to some sort of legal activity? Maybe that is, perhaps, what the sponsors of this amendment really want to do is to slow the paperwork down so much as to not have the activity of utilizing these resources. This amendment would inhibit offshore safety by turning the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement into a publishing behemoth rather than allowing them to focus on their mission of ensuring safe offshore operations to continue. Finally, I would make this notation, Mr. Chairman, that all permit applications are made public on the Bureau's Web site--and I will just put it in as part of the Record--www.bsee.gov. Why add additional requirements to publish information that is already open and part of that Web site? This amendment is unnecessary. As I say, I think it would add to the burdensome steps and hoops that one has to go through to utilize these resources that, I think, all Americans want. Keep in mind that the issue here is in the long term, utilizing our resources to become more energy independent and utilizing these resources in the long run to have a vibrant energy component of our national economy. You can't have a growing economy unless you have certainty in the energy sector. This amendment, from my point of view, would slow that process down, so I urge the rejection of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because of the burdensome paperwork that I think that this would create, but the gentlewoman made an observation that needs to be addressed because she does live in the Santa Barbara area--and yes, they did experience a spill there many years ago. I would remind my friend from California that also within this legislation is language that strengthens the oversight in a statutory way of activities in the Outer Continental Shelf. Currently, that is done, not with statutory authority, but with regulatory authority going back to the Reagan administration, so if the gentlewoman really wants to make sure that there is some certainty, so that we won't have these devastating spills in the future, I would invite her to join us in supporting this legislation because we put into law--statutory law--how we should regulate the offshore. Again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I think that it is too much--burdensome--from a paperwork standpoint, when the issue is to have certainty in the long term in the energy sector. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of 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 as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I obviously rise in opposition to this amendment, and let me talk about the underlying legislation. The underlying legislation streamlines the judicial process to ensure that there are timely resolutions of lawsuits that seek to block and slow down American-made energy. That was what the whole idea was. In fact, I referred to this in my comments on the previous amendment, where we have a lot of litigation slowing down the process, so the intent of the underlying legislation was to make sure that there was a timely response to this, so that there can be, again, some certainty in the process. Now, what I find interesting--I think the gentleman from Florida makes some valid points as to what, perhaps, the interpretation of the underlying legislation, but I would remind the gentleman that--when this legislation was on the floor as an individual amendment--exact language was in here, the Judiciary Committee--who has jurisdiction, obviously, over this--waived their jurisdiction and felt that the language was very good. I would certainly be willing to--if the gentleman has a way to maybe fine-tune that, I think that is something that we should look at, but-- and this is the important point here, Mr. Chairman, as we debate this amendment--his approach to this is like taking a sledge hammer to a fly. I don't think that that is the proper way to go because he strikes the whole section dealing with giving priority and trying to get certainty in the judicial process, so I rise in opposition to the gentleman. I will say to the gentleman, as this legislation moves forward and he has some suggestions--if and when the Senate, by the way, passes legislation and we can fine-tune this--to address, I think, some valid concerns that he has, while still making sure that energy-produced litigation is dealt with in a timely manner. I think there might be some common ground on that. Mr. Chairman, I believe that his approach, by striking that whole section out of this legislation, is not the proper way to go. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to point out, again, that the Judiciary Committee last year did waive jurisdiction on this, but I do think that the gentleman makes a valid point. We all know that legislation is a work in progress, many times. As I acknowledge, I think the gentleman raises the point; but, again, Mr. Chairman, the reason why this amendment ought to be rejected is because it takes out the whole section, and now, you are left with a situation where there is not a certainty whatsoever in these lawsuits. I don't think that is a proper way to go, especially with the volatility of the energy market worldwide. When we have an opportunity to use the resources we have in this country, whether you are talking about offshore or onshore, to ensure not only the safety, but to add certainty to a growing economy, we should take advantage of that. I would urge rejection of this amendment because I think that what we put in the underlying legislation is valid for what it is attempting to do. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. I guess my career would never be complete unless we did this one more time. But this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is identical to an amendment that failed 2 years ago in this House, and, I might say, it failed by a broad bipartisan vote. I will also remind my friend from Oregon that this issue has been repeatedly settled in the Nation's courts of law, with the courts determining that rewriting the terms of these leases to include price thresholds would be a direct violation of contract law. That is what the issue is here really with this. Now it was during the Clinton administration that this happened. And I agree with the gentleman; it shouldn't have happened. But it happened. And the courts have spoken very clearly on this. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Department of the Interior did not have the authority to rewrite these contracts that were issued under the 1995 law. And I will remind the gentleman that the Department of the Interior has lost this issue in the district court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court. Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a contract legally negotiated under government law, or else be denied the opportunity to do business in the U.S. The amendment aims to back companies into a corner and attempts to force them to break legally binding contracts. And that, from my point of view, is essentially extorting these companies to undo these contracts. Now, I want to, again, speak on this just a little bit broader. I would acknowledge that we have the right in this Congress to pass legislation to change that. After all, we are the body that makes the law. But there is a fundamental issue here that I think that we really have to address beyond this: Should Congress be passing legislation that breaks contract law when courts have said repeatedly that contract law should be inviolable? I think that is what the issue is here today. I understand my friend from Oregon having perhaps some heartburn because this is dealing with oil and gas. I understand that. And frankly, I respect that. But I think that the larger issue here is that we should not be doing what we could do because I think that we should hold contracts, private sector contracts with government, in a higher area than probably some people think we should. So with that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close. So at this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. The observation has been made that these maybe should be renegotiated. Listen, Mr. Chairman, any contract can be renegotiated, as long as both sides want to renegotiate. But that was the law at the time. And what concerns me with this piece of legislation is that it implies there has to be a renegotiation. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to some that they would say that this is the heavy hand of government forcing somebody to do something that they could do under law right now. In some areas, they call that extortion. They may not use that strong of a word, but I am sure that would be implied by some people if they were subject to this. Again, this amendment has been rejected on a bipartisan basis for the last couple of years. The courts have ruled against this. I think we should follow with that. With that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.