Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment simply because the seismic activity that we are talking about has not been updated since the 1980s. So the biggest problem we have in here is, if you are going to do it with the Atlantic, you are doing this in the darkness of not actually understanding or knowing what the scientific results will be, and this will eliminate that permanently. So the technology for seismic studies has improved significantly over the years and is getting better at all times, but now we have a situation where the underlying bill stopped production on these lands, and this amendment would stop any scientific study to know what we could have done or what we should do at this time. But it is a little bit more insidious than that because this amendment only stops seismic study for oil and gas development; it doesn't stop seismic study for anything else. So, if, indeed, the argument is that the seismic study hurts the animals, that Flipper is offended by these seismic studies, all this amendment does is say Flipper can be offended and harmed if you are going to put in a windmill, but Flipper can't be offended and harmed if you are going to put in an oil rig. And no one really knows, because we won't do the study, whether Flipper is going to be offended. For all we know, Flipper is out there laughing at us right now for going through this silly exercise. But this amendment is not comprehensive, it doesn't meet the need, and it stops us once again from doing any science to know about it. So once again, this bill, these approaches, this is politics. This is not science. This is pure politics. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again, as we talk about seismic, realize there is a different approach to it. Not this administration, but the prior administration said there is no scientific policy that says any seismic study actually hurts any of the animals, whether it is for fossil fuels or it is for alternative types of energy. But the issue at hand is, if you are going to try and deny any seismic so you don't have any studies and we are going to go in the darkness and not really know what we are talking about, then you do it for everything. To try and distinguish between oil and gas and alternatives is simply an arbitrary reason that has no purpose in being there. However, if the underlying bill passes and you are not going to be drilling there anyway--in which case we basically say as a Congress we don't care about understanding what we are doing, we are just thinking it is the right thing to do, so we will go ahead and do it--this is bad policy. It is bad policy for the underlying bill. It is bad policy for the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, clearly, the best thing that can be said about this amendment is it is the last one of this particular bill, and we can move on. The negative part that I have to say about this amendment is the same thing I said about the other amendments. It is a study that is halfway there; it is not comprehensive; it doesn't cover all elements that should be studied; and in fact, it will produce a skewed result because of what narrowly comes within it. There should be a study that says what jobs will or will not happen from this. That would be a study. That would be a portion of it that would be worth it. But it is not covered in what we are attempting to do here. In fact, if you think about it, this is kind of a bizarre approach to things. We already have a base bill to be passed that will ban this activity, and then we are going to institute a whole bunch of studies to see if we should have done the base bill in the first place. This is totally backward in the way bills should be done. If the gentleman really believed in the study and wanted to get the data, for heaven's sake, do that before introducing a bill that bans the activity in the first place. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, once again, same thing: It is superfluous. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have three bills in this package of supposed Democrat energy. This is different than the other time. In the last bill we were talking about here on the floor--at least the five people who actually were here on the floor to talk about it-- that was an ideological approach. This is different. This deals with the military. This deals with military issues on water that is legitimately put off limits for its military purpose. There are military bases of significance in Florida, specifically Eglin. There is a military test and training range on the waters in Florida. They are significant, they are important, and, indeed, they need to be preserved for our military. If, indeed, the military has an area that is essential to military preparedness and readiness, we should be cognizant of that. There is no problem with that. The problem was in this military line, it was simply arbitrarily drawn. You take the latitude and the longitude and you just go down the line, which means the line, itself, is bizarre and arbitrary. The line, itself, is actually closer to New Orleans than it is to Florida. The line, itself, has a greater impact on the economies of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana than it does in Florida. What we should have done, were we wise in this process, is to try to seek some kind of variance to make sure that the science was actually used and that we don't just take a ruler and draw a straight line on some map. Already in the areas that are west of this line--the other things that are already open for oil and gas exploration--there is cooperation between the Interior Department and the Department of Defense in how you do it. Thirty-six percent of all the drilling that is done in the rest of the Gulf is already under some kind of stipulation with the Department of Defense. In fact, there is a memo of understanding between the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior that has been there since 1983 which mandates they cooperate and they consult and they work through these things in an appropriate way. Were something like that to be part of this bill, I know I could support it. And to everyone else who is on the floor, I would argue to do the same thing. The sad part is this bill doesn't do that. Instead, it simply locks up the issue on the one line that happens to be there. Now, here is where I don't blame anyone seated on the floor, the six of us who actually are here. I do blame the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee made a very bad rule and abused some of the powers that the Rules Committee has to deal with it. Not only did they make several amendments self-executing--and, I am sorry. I was on the Rules Committee for a long time. I thought when we did that, that was lousy policy. But it was also lousy policy in this rule to make some of the amendments self-executing. But then they forgot other amendments that could have brought something into conclusion so that we could simply say, if there is a military reason, then, yes, and allow the military to make that decision. That would have been something I would have bought, and I would have been happy to support this particular bill. But instead, the Rules Committee insisted that there be miscellaneous amendments that have nothing to do brought up here and that have nothing to do to try to bring some kind of cooperation together. So we are now faced with a bill that will be done on an arbitrary standard without study. It will be done on an arbitrary line without science being given to it. It will be an arbitrary line that will simply call everything out simply because somebody drew a line on a map without thinking about it. It did not have to be that way. That is the sad part about this particular bill. I respect the sponsor of this particular bill. I respect what he is trying to do. I agree with most of what he is trying to do. But this could have been a much better bill. This could have been a bill that I could support and I think most other people could support and we could move forward, that would have a much better option and chance of actual passage in the Senate as well as passage by a President who would sign it, rather than actually putting forth an SAP which indicates that he would be advised to veto it. That did not have to happen. The reason it is not happening in a better way is simply because the Rules Committee refused some of the options that were in front of them, and they should have done it. They could have done it, and it would be a much better situation than what they had done. So, in this situation, because we now have a bill which, once again, takes science and throws it into the trash can like the other bill did and like the next one tomorrow will do, I have a bill here which I have to oppose, and it did not have to be that way in the long run. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I appreciate the last gentleman's statements. He may remember he still has the land range in Utah to use. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy on this particular bill. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 205--Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019--Rep. Rooney, R-FL, and 18 cosponsors H.R. 1146--Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act--Rep. Huffman, D-CA, and 182 cosponsors H.R. 1941--Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act--Rep. Cunningham, D-SC, and 51 cosponsors The Administration opposes H.R. 205, the Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019, H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act, and H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act. These bills would undermine the Administration's commitment to a prosperous American economy supported by the responsible use of the Nation's abundant natural resources. Development of our resources enhances our energy security and energy dominance, and produces high-paying American jobs; provides increased revenue to the Treasury, States, tribes, and local communities; and is a critical source of conservation funding. H.R. 1146 would prohibit the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management from administering an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. The bill would repeal a provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program for the development of the Coastal Plain that would allow the use of no more than about 0.01 percent of the total acreage of ANWR for surface development of production and support facilities. The Administration supports environmentally responsible energy development in the Coastal Plain, also known as the 1002 Area, of ANWR. Such development is expected to increase America's energy security and independence, create jobs, and provide affordable, reliable energy for consumers while providing much-needed revenue to both the State of Alaska and the Federal Government. Similarly, H.R. 205 and H.R. 1941 would both restrict future oil and gas development in the Federal waters of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). H.R. 205 would amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) to make permanent the current temporary leasing moratorium on offshore leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast of Florida. H.R. 1941 would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to permanently remove from consideration acreage for offshore leasing on both the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Both of these bills would undermine OCSLA, which established a periodic, multi-stage planning process involving State and tribal consultation and a thoughtful comparison and balancing of the benefits and impacts to all the regions of the OCS. These bills would permanently constrain this careful administrative process. Under the bills, large swaths of the OCS would be off limits for resource development without the benefit of periodic assessments of the potential economic, social, and environmental effects of development, as required by existing law. Excluding these areas from leasing consideration could place more pressure for development on other OCS areas and constrain our ability to meet national energy needs as required by OCSLA. Additionally, each of these bills would eliminate the potential for future direct revenue that would otherwise be provided to the Treasury, and through revenue sharing, to the States, tribes, and counties where the development activities occur. In Fiscal Year 2018, energy development on Federal and Indian lands and waters generated approximately $9 billion in direct revenue from royalties, bonus bids, and rents. Of that revenue, $1.78 billion was disbursed to 35 States. The top States receiving Fiscal Year 2018 revenues were New Mexico ($634.9 million); Wyoming ($563.9 million); Colorado ($112.5 million); Louisiana ($91 million); and Utah ($76 million). Additionally, more than $1 billion was disbursed to Indian tribes and individual Indian mineral owners; $1.22 billion to the Reclamation Fund; $970 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF); $150 million to the Historic Preservation Fund; and $3.5 billion to the general fund of the Treasury. Prohibiting energy development in new Federal areas would hinder future administrations' efforts to make up for revenue lost as production declines from leases in aging energy fields. Such restrictions will tie the hands of future administrations and reduce their ability to enhance energy security through strong domestic energy production and to ensure affordable energy for American families. If these bills were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto them.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter in strong opposition to the bill signed by over 20 entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Energy Alliance, and the Laborers' International Union of North America, and a letter in opposition from the Laborers' International Union of North America. September 5, 2019. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We rely on American made energy to power our daily lives, communities and to grow a more prosperous future. Americans deserve clean, safe, reliable, abundant and affordable energy so that our families, communities and businesses can all share the opportunities American energy creates. Our country cannot afford to block access to new energy supplies and risk losing our energy advantage. That's why we ask you to oppose legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives next week that would slow scientific surveys and prevent access to new sources of American offshore energy in the Outer Continental Shelf. For more than seven decades, energy development in the Gulf of Mexico has worked collaboratively alongside tourism, fishing and Defense Department training activities. But H.R. 205 would permanently extend the eastern Gulf of Mexico moratorium on oil and natural gas activities. The Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimates that this could cost taxpayers $400 million in revenue over the next 10 years. Similarly, H.R. 1941 would block offshore energy development in the Pacific and Atlantic planning areas, and H.R. 1146 would lock up energy resources in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. Congress should support progress. Modern energy technologies have enabled an impressive record of environmental stewardship and innovation. But when the government chooses to arbitrarily and permanently close off areas to exploration and potential development, we simply increase our dependency on foreign sources. This reality is visible in places like California and Massachusetts. Despite abundant offshore oil and natural gas resources, California imports 57 percent of its oil supply, a staggering 37 percent of which comes from Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, to meet energy needs each winter, Massachusetts imports liquefied natural gas from Russia. American energy is produced with a smaller carbon footprint under significantly stronger environmental protections than energy produced anywhere else in the world. We ask you to embrace these homegrown opportunities that benefit American families, create high-wage jobs, strengthen the U.S. economy and protect our environment. Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider legislation undercutting domestic energy security and economic opportunity by limiting American energy access. We urge you to reject these bills and instead stand up for energy produced in America, by American workers for the benefit of American families. Sincerely, American Chemistry Council, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Gas Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Pipeline Contractors Association, Consumer Energy Alliance, Distribution Pipeline Contractors Association, Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America. International Association of Drilling Contractors, International Association of Geophysical Contractors, Laborers' International Union of North America, National Association of Manufacturers, National Ocean Industries Association, National Utility Contractors Association, Offshore Marine Service Association, Portland Cement Association, Power and Communication Contractors Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Oil and Gas Association.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I appreciate the debate that we have had on this particular bill--kind of. Florida does have the right to do whatever it wishes to do on its property and on its State lands and State waters, and they should have the right to do it unless there is some kind of impact to Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, in which case, them doing something strictly for Florida's purposes that doesn't take into account the other States is wrong-minded. But for this particular bill, we are really not talking about the economy and the tourism and everything else. This bill is about a military line and military issues. As I have stated earlier, yes, there are military positions in Florida. There is a military testing training range on the water, which is not as good as the land-based one but is on the water in Florida. Those are there and they deserve to be protected, and when the military wants those things set aside without any kind of disturbance, that is logical. That is limited. That is logical, and it is something we should approve, which is why this issue should not be a bill before us. This bill should have been decided as part of the NDAA. But the question here is: Is everything on this arbitrary line that was drawn, is it all needed for military use? It should be the military that makes that decision; and, I am sorry, in the past, they have simply said, no, they don't need it all. So if we were wise, if we were really doing the right thing for this country, if we were really doing the right thing on this issue, we would simply say the military can exclude what the military needs; and what they don't need should be allowed to be open for other kinds of exploration that could benefit Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans and Texas, because they happen to be closer to the line than Florida is. That is the right thing to do. We should not do an arbitrary rule that just says to take the ruler and make the damn line down the middle of the map. That is wrong. That is a violation of everything that is logical. That is a violation of everything that is scientific that we are supposed to do. That is a violation of even taking away the ability of the military to make decisions for themselves. That is why this is a failed opportunity on our part. Had the Rules Committee simply decided to take more rules into effect, we could have modified this bill to make it something that almost everybody in this room could have accepted. But the Rules Committee refused to do that. For whatever political purposes they had in mind, they simply refused to do that. So, we have the option of instead of doing a bill that is the right thing to do and a good thing to do, we have a bill that is going to be questionable here. It is going to be questionable in the Senate. It is going to be questionable on the deck. We could have done the right thing. We should have done the right thing. Hopefully, before this bill is all the way through the system, we will do the right thing. But for that, this is a failed opportunity, and I do blame the Rules Committee for refusing to try and expand the discussion so we could actually make a bill that is viable. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity and all those who have spoken on this bill. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The administration, rightfully, took a second look at the well control and production safety system rule that was implemented by the prior administration. They didn't make a whole lot of changes. About a 17 percent change to the overall rule was all that was done there. But the colleagues that I have heard and, also, those in the press who have talked about this have been opposed to the revised rules because they erroneously argue that they allow BSEE to issue the so- called waivers to oil companies that give them a free pass to comply with the well control rule. In reality, that just is not what is happening. The rule allows BSEE to approve alternative compliance measures for companies that can prove there is a better way of handling a particular requirement that is at least as safe as the original regulatory rules were. So, in fact, the practice is nothing new. In the Obama administration, they approved these types of measures more than the current administration is doing it. The average during the Obama administration was roughly four times per day. The current administration does it roughly 2.3 times per day. BSEE isn't allowing oil companies to get away with not complying with the well control rule. They have simply found a better way of doing it. To codify this rule the way it was before takes away the flexibility and the ability to use technology and new ideas and new science to come up with a better way of solving the problem. This amendment does great harm not only to the process. To attach it to this bill, which ought to be about the military line, simply means, were this to pass, this amendment would make it more difficult for the ultimate bill to reach a solution in the Senate. It is an amendment to the wrong bill. It should have been on the earlier one. It is an amendment that is not needed. It is an amendment that moves us back. It is an amendment that takes out of the administration the ability, simply, to do things the right way. If they can find a better way of doing it, let the administration, at any time, authorize that better way of doing the well control protection rule. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, once again, I am somewhat confused as to the point and direction of this particular amendment. If it is about the military line, this amendment does nothing to it. If it is about protecting the coast of Florida, this amendment does nothing to it. It is about having a better way of doing the system to provide more protection. It moves us back and removes the ability of the department--BSEE, in this situation--to protect and realize that because it takes away their creative alternatives. There are always better ways of doing something. This prohibits us from doing it. This is the wrong amendment on the wrong bill that gives us the wrong direction. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I don't want to try to be snarky on these kinds of amendments, but it is already being done. It is a nice concept. It was stopped, but it has also started again. So this calls for a study to continue and resume. They have already done it. Back in October, in the Department of the Interior, they already resumed the meetings. They are ongoing. Everything you want is actually happening. I think a better study may be figuring out how five noes can be outweighed by three ayes. Nonetheless, this is a redundant amendment because it is already happening. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I am going to end with the final conclusion, again, that it is a redundancy because it is already being done. Why don't you just mandate that everything we are doing in every other department be done at the same time? It would have the same kind of impact, the same kind of effect. It is cute, but it is a waste of our time. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.