Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I was hoping the gentleman would insert me as well. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity of being here. We are here today on day two of the Democrat week of energy proposals. And once again, we will quote Earl Weaver when he went out to the umpire and said: Is this as good as it gets, or are you going to get better? I will say the same thing on this bill as we did yesterday. Is this as good as it gets, or are you actually going to get better? This is the same concept we had with the first bill that we did. We voted second, but we actually discussed it as the first bill yesterday, in which we did things that are basically illogical, not for science reasons. Science was essentially taken out and shoved into a trash can, but, actually, we did it for political reasons. It is signified by the amendments that the Rules Committee, unfortunately, made in order in which we made amendments in order to have all sorts of studies on the issue. In the real world, you would try and do a study, come up with results, and then come up with the policy. That is not what we did yesterday. We decided on a policy, and then we are going to institute a lot of non-comprehensive, skewed studies to try and see if we can come up with arguments in favor of the policy we already did. It is backwards. It is okay to do it. You have the votes to do it. That is fine. Just don't have the audacity to say that this administration doesn't trust science or that we don't trust science over here, when you also put an amendment in there to deny any kind of seismic research, which would give you the data we haven't had since the 1980s, but only some of that seismic data. It is a skewed approach to it. But the most significant issue is the one that Mr. Huffman has raised several times today in which he was right--slightly off center with it--but he is actually right. Yesterday, many of the arguments that were made were that the States and State populations in these areas want a kind of moratorium on drilling in their areas. I get that. Listening to those people is a good thing to do. But where the gentleman got it wrong, though, is that they weren't talking to the States who were wanting that. We are not talking about the areas within their States or even the water that abuts their States as legally theirs. They wanted the ability to control what happens on Federal waters, which is not part of the State's concept. Once again, if you would allow me the ability to have control of what happens on Federal lands in my State, in the State, we might have an apples-and-apples situation, but that ain't it. There is also the concept that there was not consultation with Native Americans who live in Alaska and that, once again, is actually inaccurate. There have been consultations going on since the gentleman was playing volleyball in college. And they will continue to go on from that side. In fact, that is where the difference comes. The people in Alaska who live there don't want this bill. And, once again, they don't want it because it is impacting their State, their property, their land, which is not what was happening yesterday, where States were trying to impact what was happening on Federal water. It was sad that when we had the hearing on this bill, the Democrats did not invite those residents of this area to testify. We did. And when they came in March to testify, the Tribal leaders from the only village in this coastal plain, the one that is closest to this area, simply said they were against this bill. Their exact words were: ``The Arctic Inupiat will not become conservation refugees. We do not approve of efforts to turn our homeland into one giant national park, which literally guarantees us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope for the future of our people.'' That is what they want in their area. When some of the other speakers said there is no consultation, that is not true. Mr. Young is saying exactly what the constituents want in their area. Even though this land is controlled by Fish and Wildlife, the mineral resources are not Federal. These people who are testifying that they don't want this bill own a majority or a significant portion of those mineral rights. It is their mineral rights, and they should have the ability to say what they want, too. They have spoken clearly year after year. That is where the difference of yesterday and today is significant, and the gentleman is glossing over that. That is significant. These people need to have the ability to control their own destiny. They are not trying to control something that is not within the State. It is their resources. It is their area. We have had this debate before. We had it when I first came here. It is going to continue on ad nauseam. The problem is this is not a good energy position for the future. What we produced yesterday as Republicans is a program that increases jobs, increases the economy, and makes this country stronger. The stuff the Democrats are putting on in their energy week is disjointed, discombobulated, and doesn't actually help anyone at all. Once again, Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Young. Trust his people on what they want to do with their resources--not Federal--their resources.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, we are here on September 11. It is an anniversary of an event that has been impactful for all of us and has definitely changed our country. We cannot forget that. Hopefully, as a Nation, we can learn from that experience and from the dedication that people gave during and after that particular experience. Mr. Chair, we are here in what the Democrats have called their energy week with their energy week proposals. Their proposals are three very disjointed bills not based on science but based on the idea of paying off specific political interest groups for political purposes. Earl Weaver, when he used to coach the Baltimore Orioles, loved to bait the umpires. One time, he went out to the umpire and said: Is this as good as it gets, or are you going to get better? Of course, they threw him out of the game for saying that. However, today, I want to turn to the Democrats and say: Guys, is this as good as it gets, or are you going to get better? Because what we have before us is not an energy policy, it is an energy nonpolicy. When I was in college, gas was $0.25 a gallon. I remember driving my car into those gas stations, and there would be a kid who would be my age or younger coming out and filling up my tank, cleaning the windshields, and checking the oil and the tires. Then, they gave me either a plate or a towel for showing up. I then went to Europe for 2 years, and when I came back, the oil embargo had hit. No one came out to help me. Everything was self- service. No one gave me any more towels or dishes. Gas prices in the embargo era were going up to the astounding almost $1.40 a gallon, which we could not believe. Our new President at the time put on a sweater, started a fire in the fireplace, and came before the American people and told us, basically: Get used to it. Live with less. Take it as an honor to be cold in the dark. That is the process. Fortunately, this country didn't go along with that, nor did the industry go along with that. Instead of being a country in which we were dependent upon OPEC countries, 60 to 70 percent of our energy coming from OPEC--and I am sorry, that is not what an Irish chicken does; that is a cartel. That is a cartel that was very against the interests of the United States. Instead of being that which was in the position to be bullied not by a major power but a secondary power into thinking they could extort this country into changing our foreign policy simply by exploiting our energy vulnerabilities, America changed, and instead, we decided that would not be our policy. We came up with a process of not only expanding our energy production in the United States, but we expanded it in a way that produced energy more efficiently; that used it in a cleaner fashion; that used a smaller footprint to do it; that made us energy independent to the point where we could be, instead of an importing country, an exporting country in the concept of energy; and that energy was used not only to support the United States' independence but also to support our allies and be able to confront negative forces like Russia, which was using energy as a political weapon and still would like to use energy as a political weapon. Now, we are faced with three bills here today, one much different than the other two. But the end result of the Democratic vision of energy presented to us in this energy week is basically to use the rearview mirror and take us backward 50 years into the past, where we go back to the time when our economy was fragile, and our enemies thought they could take advantage of our energy dependency, and they could do that to bully the United States. That is not what the process should be in creating an energy future for this particular country. Mr. Chair, we have three bills that will be before us today. None of them are scientifically grounded. All of them are actually political, paying off political experts, taking science and basically throwing it in the trash and saying okay--which the majority can do. They have the votes to do it but don't have the audacity to stand up and say this administration or this side of the aisle doesn't believe in science because these particular issues are politically motivated. There is no logic to what we are doing. In our committee, it was wonderful. We had the entire committee on the same day that the first bill was voted out also voting for LWCF. Everyone loved the Land and Water Conservation Fund, so we wanted to make this permanent. We wanted to triple the amount of money that we were putting into that fund. At the same time that we voted to triple the amount of money in that fund, we also voted for bills that would basically cut the revenues from those areas that produce the money to go into the fund in the first place, and we call that logical. I call this hypocrisy as well because there is the vested interest, as the majority here was saying, that Governors in their States should have the ability to make decisions on Federal waters that are not within the boundaries of their States but in the same breath saying that Governors in the interior States should not have the ability to have decisions made on Federal lands within our States. I am sorry. That is pure hypocrisy. This is a lack of focus. It is a lack of focus when, a year ago, the Democratic leadership asked the President to find a way to cut down the cost of energy, oil and gas, to use his personal contacts to cut down the cost of that, and then we are bringing bills in here today that will drive up the costs, which will cut down our possibility of doing that in the future. You can do it, but there is a hypocrisy to the very essence of what is going on. Unfortunately, the three bills that will be thrown out here today by the Democrats as their policy will have the net effect of destroying jobs and harming our economy, potentially turning us to an economic tailspin. That can happen. More importantly, it is nice to have a visual contrast, because this morning, Republican leaders, led by Mr. Scalise and Ms. Cheney and several others, introduced a comprehensive energy package, an energy package that is for all energy, all of the above, both fossil fuel and alternative, one that will grow our economy, which will create more jobs, which will give a logical standard of what we should do going forward with a clear view. The clear view of what Republicans would like to do with having a logical, comprehensive approach is in vast contrast to three disjointed, dispirited, nonscientific bills that simply want to pay off political communities. Mr. Chair, 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), who has unusual socks on today and who has been through these wars before.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the opportunity to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), someone who realizes that not only does the base bill stop drilling, but if you add one of the amendments they have, you are going to stop any kind of seismic activity that would allow alternative activity to be developed in these sources, as well.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), our new Member in his first term here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), who happens to be the Republican co-chair of the House Congressional Steel Caucus.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative Policy, which indicates the President's advisers would recommend a veto of this particular bill in the unlikely event that it will actually be considered by the Senate, but, Mr. Chair, you can bet your Social Security payments it won't be. 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. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter of strong opposition to the bill by over 20 entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Consumer Energy Alliance, 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. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the gentleman asks nicely. Yes. I am waiting for one more speaker coming over who may or may not be here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is head of the Congressional Western Caucus and a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am ready to close.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) has for the LWCF. The issue though at hand is not necessarily what we have been appropriating for LWCF. The issue at hand is that you want to triple that amount. If you are actually going to cut the potential revenue that is going to come from these areas, don't ask to triple it at the same time. And I would still ask you--and remind you--I have got a park backlog bill that I want to have funded here. Don't take those funds away from the park maintenance backlog. That is far more significant than what we are talking about. But the real issue we are having here is a difference in the approach to the country's energy solutions, our future. You have three disjointed bills, none of them based on science--a lot of them based on mythology that we have heard here today, none of them scientifically based--but they are here in an isolated way, which the whole goal is to cut stuff. Let's just not produce. Now, at least when Jimmy Carter put on that sweater and started the fire and he talked to the American people, he was at least honest enough with them to say, You are going to have to lower your expectations. You won't be able to live the lifestyle you want to have in the future. At no time has anyone who is purporting this type of an approach that has been pushed by the Democrats talked about lowering or being willing to lower their thermostats in the winter or cut down on their air- conditioning in the summer, or stop driving their boats as often as they want to, or no longer going on planes, trains, and automobiles. Now, they just expect--miraculously--energy to be produced by other areas that they can then enjoy it in some particular way. That is not a logical approach. It can be done, but it is not a logical approach. It doesn't just miraculously happen. The difference is, what the Republicans have placed on the table today is an overall approach to energy, a comprehensive approach to energy. Not just a comprehensive approach of how we build on our fossil fuels, but also how we build alternative energy and how we involve the States in that concept, because every State has a different requirement, a different initiative, and a different need. And we are trying to do that, not some one-size-fits-all blanket approach as we are going to have in this bill and the third bill that we will actually have tomorrow. The approach the Democrats are doing is saying we won't develop American sources because we might spill. Instead, we will try to rely on, maybe, them coming from somewhere else. Some of our colleagues have already talked about how the Russians are already importing into Boston. How California is already getting 57 percent of its energy coming from Saudi Arabia, and they come in tankers. And, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that we fail to realize, if you really want to have a higher mathematical possibility of oil spills, it is significantly higher when it comes from tankers than it is if we do our own drilling. So not only are we not talking about being self-sufficient, not only are we not talking about now trying to be a source of support for our allies, not only are we not trying to be somewhere where we can be a major player in this world, we are going to cut back automatically and actually make a greater risk in the process of doing it. This is a silly approach, and it contrasts specifically with what we are attempting to do. We can have jobs and we can have a future. And we can have a country that will no longer be bullied by other countries, seeing that we are energy-weak, if we approach it the way the Republicans want to approach it. But if we still do this disjointed, dispirited, nonscientific approach based on more myth than reality, then, actually, we are going in the opposite direction. The Democrats in their energy-weakness, would march us back 50 years to a time when America was much more fragile and in which second-rate powers thought they could bully us into submission simply by taking advantage of our lack of a strong, coherent energy policy. And that is what Republicans do not want to see happen again. And that is why I would urge you all to look at the bill that was introduced today--the Republican approach to it. That is the way of the future. It is bright. It is big. It is positive. It moves us forward. Not what we are doing today with a bunch of bills that piece-by-piece take us back from where we came, and we should never return again. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This amendment is perhaps well-intentioned. I am going to make that assumption. But the problem with this amendment is it is not a comprehensive amendment. The goal of this amendment is to specifically illustrate what kinds of issues will be studied by this GAO report, and they are all the negative aspects that could come from this report. There is no aspect here, I mean, it neglects totally to try and set any kind of benefits that would happen from development of oil or gas consumer. Now, that would be a true study. That would be a fair study. That would be a good study. That would be a valuable study. What this has done, in a statement of what will be considered, basically skewed what the GAO will do, so you have come up with a predetermined outset. We can predict exactly what will come out from this study because it is not comprehensive and it hasn't tried to be inclusive. What you should have done is simply direct the GAO to evaluate how taking resources off the table like this will affect our dependence on imports from foreign actors like Russia, whose environmental standards, whose efficiency standards, and whose human rights standards certainly are unacceptable to us in the United States. Doing so--if you had done that, that would have been a comprehensive, that would have been an accurate representation, and that would have been a good and decent study. So I oppose this particular amendment because I think it missed the mark. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in the original speech the gentleman from Rhode Island said he yielded back the balance of his time. Had he not yielded in the first speech?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am sorry. Had that actually been said after the first speech, I would have reserved. But I have yielded back. I am done with this. Unless you really want to go on, I would urge the gentleman to yield back and we will go on with the vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I guess kind of in opposition. It really is not in opposition to the amendment in and of itself, except it illustrates some of the problems the Democrats have in creating this approach to an energy policy coming through here, because the inspection fees that we have mandated by the amendment, if you tack it on to the bill itself, really are based on politics and not the cost of the administration of this particular inspection. In fact, it actually no longer becomes a cost of a service; it actually becomes a tax levied on the committee. What it illustrates is a deeper problem on how the Democrats decided to put these three bills up here on their energy week, and it also maybe indicates why they don't really expect it to go any further, because the offsets are so bizarre. In each of the bills, the Democrats have decided to use--the rules require an offset. In each of the bills, there is a different offset that is required. For the one that we will talk about tomorrow, it is going to be $900 million. I think this one is $400 million. The next one is $200 million. And in each bill, the Democrats have decided to use the same offset to pay for each bill. Now, ironically, if you did the one tomorrow and then you paid for the bill with that offset, then you would have taken that off the table. But that is not good enough here. Now we are using that same offset money to pay for this particular bill. I am sorry. This is simply an accounting smoke and mirrors trick that is being used by the Democrats to actually get these three bills onto the floor. For that, I don't really mind it, per se, because it doesn't affect the impact of it, but it is a sneaky way of trying to cover the bases and check the boxes and using money in double and triple amounts. If this offset is actually the way we are doing offsets in the future, then my parks bill doesn't have a problem going forward because we can use this money for that at the same time. Although, it is ironic that the money that they are going to use to offset these bills will be reduced because you are stopping the energy production in all of these areas. Everything comes together in some particular way. This is cute. This is not necessarily effective, but it is cute, and it is not the way the rules for offsets were intended to try and bring clarity to the situation within the House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I will make it easier for him. I yield back the balance of my time.