Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2430, legislation to allow for the continued stocking of fish in certain alpine lakes in the North Cascades National Park Complex, including the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Many of these lakes have been stocked since the late 19th century, long before they became part of the National Park complex. For decades, volunteer groups, working with the State of Washington, have stocked trout in a number of lakes in this area under carefully constructed management plans written by State and Park Service biologists. In addition, congressional consideration of the creation of the North Cascades National Park clearly indicated that fish stocking should continue. More significantly, the legislation creating the Park even identifies fishing as an important recreational use. When questions were raised about the environmental impacts of fish stocking, the Park Service prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on the fisheries in these mountain lakes. The preferred alternative selected in the final record of decision is to allow continued fish stocking in forty-two lakes where the agency has concluded there would be no adverse impact on native ecosystems. In this report the Park Service also requested explicit authority to allow fish stocking to continue within the Park. In order to protect this longstanding practice in the North Cascades, I introduced H.R. 2430 to ensure that fish stocking can continue. After years of consultation with local leaders on this issue, it is clear to me that communities in and around the North Cascades National Park Complex want fish stocking to continue. Many tourists visit the Park for its scenic beauty as well as for its fishing opportunities, helping make fish stocking an important component of the Central Washington economy. Finally, I would like to thank many of my Washington state colleagues who cosponsored H.R. 2430, including Rick Larsen, Norm Dicks, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Brian Baird and Adam Smith. I especially would like to note the assistance provided by Norm Dicks, whose involvement in this issue goes back to his time as a staff member in Congress. I urge all my colleagues to support this common sense legislation and ensure that local residents and all visitors to the North Cascades National Park can continue to enjoy recreational fishing as they have for more than a century.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, since January, House Republicans have simply asked the Democrat majority in the House for a chance to debate an amendment on Second Amendment rights and to have a vote to allow citizens to carry firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in accordance with State law. Unfortunately, Democrat leaders have spent the last 5 months using every legislative trick in the book to obstruct a fair and open process. However, after Senator Coburn managed to force consideration of his amendment in the other body, Democrat leaders have finally cried uncle and decided to hold a debate and a vote. Mr. Speaker, I applaud their capitulation. During today's debate, you'll hear gun control advocates falsely claim that this amendment will increase poaching because American gun owners won't be able to resist the temptation to shoot wildlife encountered in national parks. Mr. Speaker, their liberal base might believe this, but I doubt if the American people will. In fact, the fact is that American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape. Opponents of this amendment will also call it unprecedented, far reaching and radical. But the fact is, it merely puts national parks and refuges in line with current regulations of national forest lands and Bureau of Land Management lands. Let me reiterate this. The Second Amendment rights are already in place in national forests and on Bureau of Land Management property. The current policy is outdated, unnecessary, inconsistent and confusing to those who visit the checker board of public lands, and the policy needs to be changed, and this amendment does just that. Finally, let me remind my colleagues that the current prohibition is only in place because of a lone activist Federal judge in Washington, D.C. who somehow rationalized that the Second Amendment should be subjected to environmental review and red tape bureaucracy--Second Amendment subjected to environmental review--and decided to singlehandedly throw out the previous policy. She did this, despite the fact that the previous administration had conducted months of review in a thorough public comment process. Now, today, on this vote the House has the opportunity to right that wrong. So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in restoring Americans' Second Amendment rights on Federal lands.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. Yesterday the Rules Committee voted along party lines to keep the House of Representatives from considering two amendments I offered that would have helped school districts whose tax bases are significantly reduced by the presence of tax-exempt federal lands. As some of you may recall, I offered the very same amendments to H.R. 3021 last year, when the interests of these school districts were also ignored by Democrats on the Rules Committee. The bill before us today drastically expands the Federal Government's role in school construction and maintenance--activities historically funded at the State and local level--BEFORE meeting its existing responsibilities to schools that are impacted by federal land ownership. As I have noted before, over 33 percent of my district in central Washington is owned by the Federal Government--making 11 school districts eligible for Impact Aid. I know all too well about the consequences of federal land ownership and the impact it has on the ability of schools to make needed improvements. In Grand Coulee Dam, Washington, students attend classes in buildings more than half a century old that are literally falling apart. While local residents have agreed to pay one of the highest levies in the State of Washington, the school district remains unable to secure a bond to make improvements because the community is surrounded by federal lands and has a limited tax base. The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's education is shortchanged because of federal land ownership. And in my view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing billions of dollars that's aimed at other schools that aren't federally impacted. I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee yesterday. The first would have required that our commitment to federally impacted schools be met through full funding of the Impact Aid program before funding is spent on the new federal spending program in this bill. My second amendment would have simply given preference to federally impacted schools as the new construction and maintenance funds are distributed. Unfortunately, Democrat leaders again blocked both of my amendments from being debated or voted on today by the full House. Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not meeting its current responsibilities to federally impacted schools. As I said last year, we certainly have no business creating a brand new $33 billion spending program for other schools--especially at a time when the federal deficit is at astonishing levels. Rather than passing this massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in school construction, we should refocus our efforts toward fulfilling existing obligations to schools and children impacted by federal actions. I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Then I would reserve the balance of my time until the gentlelady has closed for her side and yielded back her time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague and good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the newest Member of the House of Representatives, at least for another 6 hours, until one newer than him is sworn in, Mr. Quigley from Illinois.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker for this side and am prepared to reserve.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures that potential water storage reservoirs and their hydropower resources are kept on the table when it comes to our Nation's future water and power supplies. I have the privilege of representing a rural district in central Washington. Constituents in my district and throughout the Pacific Northwest have benefited tremendously from the emissions-free and renewable hydropower generated from water reservoirs in the Columbia River Basin. In fact, over 80 percent of Washington State's electricity needs are met through hydropower. Water reservoirs, such as Lake Roosevelt behind Grand Coulee Dam and the reservoirs behind the Snake River Dam have not only provided much- needed hydroelectricity, but also deliver water for irrigation, barge transportation, drinking water, flood control and recreation purposes. Many of our Nation's water storage reservoirs contribute to the generation of hydropower, which is, Mr. Chairman, a renewable and clean energy resource. Hydropower projects have provided emissions-free electricity for generations. Recent debate here in Washington, D.C. has been focused on global climate policies and how wind and solar can be energy solutions for the future. I agree that these technologies should be part of our energy portfolio, but our country needs an all-of-the-above approach to meet our needs. We need wind, solar, hydro, oil, natural gas and nuclear power. However, we must recognize that the wind doesn't blow all the time and that it gets dark at night. In my region of the Pacific Northwest, hydropower is the renewable backup resource for wind power. When the wind subsides, hydropower generation is increased to offset the loss of wind power. Without hydropower, wind generation would not be the reality that it is today. Yet some do not recognize that hydropower is a renewable resource and fail to see the need for new water storage reservoirs that help develop and foster these and other renewable energies, reservoirs that have helped develop our Nation and will continue to provide multiple uses, including hydropower. There is simply no reason why we should discount potential new water storage and reservoirs in the future. So to that end, Mr. Chairman, my amendment directs the relevant agencies to assess potential water storage projects that would enhance water supply, water planning and other beneficial uses. While I pointed out the benefits of hydropower, this amendment does not predetermine outcomes. It simply puts potential water storage as a consideration when looking at our entire water supply outlook. Whether it is for drinking water, irrigation or for power generation, it puts that on the table. So I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's working with us on this and would be more than happy to work with him. To that end, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate again the support of the distinguished chairman and the ranking member. With that, I urge adoption of the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the President has proposed that the Federal Government impose a cap- and-trade system aimed at limiting and reducing carbon emissions in our country. This cap-and-trade system is really a national energy tax that could cost $2 trillion. As a result of that, American families could pay up to $3,100 per year in higher energy and fuel costs. Let's set aside the fact that our economy can't afford such a massive new tax on such basic essential services as electricity. Let's also set aside the fact that we'd be handicapping the American worker and small business by imposing such a tax when China and India are unapologetically racing to expand carbon emissions in their country. The President's cap-and-trade scheme aims to curb manmade carbon emissions, but the bill before us today is about wildfires--and the fact is that we know very little about the massive carbon emissions created by such fires. Yet, what little information we do have on wildfires is absolutely astonishing. For example, the 2003 Hayman fire in Colorado produced more CO2 than was produced by the entire population of the State of Colorado in a single year. My amendment simply directs the Forest Service to gather information on the emissions of wildfires because such knowledge is an essential component in making national policy decisions on greenhouse gases that are based on facts and proven science and not conjecture and unproven consensus. We can't afford to impose a $2 trillion energy tax on our economy and on American families and small businesses, especially when we weren't even aware of the massive carbon outputs of wildfires that the Federal Government is doing enough to prevent right now. So I urge support of my amendment.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico deals with what issues Federal agencies should take into account when preparing a cohesive wildland fire management strategy. I will simply note the irony that Democrats on the Rules Committee made when they allowed this amendment to be made in order to require that the management strategy analyze how the world's atmosphere and climate might impact the frequency in severity of wildfires; and yet, my amendment to have the agencies include fire prevention practices on fire management was not made in order. Apparently, we prefer to dedicate our Federal firefighters' time to speculation about the weather and not on real on-the-ground, human-controlled actions that are proven to prevent fires from ever happening. So it seems to me our priorities, at least from the Rules Committee standpoint, might be a bit misplaced. But, nevertheless, this is a good amendment and we accept it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In order not to be a continuing example of Einstein's observation, this bill wisely requires the Secretaries to conduct a review of major wildlife incidents and report the results of the review to Congress. My amendment simply directs that these reports include an assessment of what actions could have been taken before the fire that would have prevented or lessened the severity of the fire. I believe my amendment will increase the value and usefulness of the information gathered, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.