Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I do not.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, first my condolences to the gentleman from Utah for being a Cubs fan. I am a Red Sox fan, and we have had some problems too. But that was an interesting moment and an interesting analogy made. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of the specifics of the instance of which he speaks. But I would say that this, as a remedy for a past action, would apply in the future, and it would not undo whatever took place in the past that the gentleman is referring to. And the principle here is fairly extraordinary. It kind of says, Federal bureaucrats never make mistakes. So we have proposed leases in an area. We go through a public comment period. Local people comment. A hunting and fishing group comes in and says, you know, this is absolutely, like, the primo area for hunting or fishing or something else. Or it becomes apparent that this is, like, right in a main recreation corridor, something that the Federal bureaucrat overlooked in drawing up the lease boundaries. But if this were adopted and became law in the future, at the end of the public comment period, it would be, We are the Federal Government. Thank you very much for pointing out that we really screwed that up, that we were just about to wipe out a prime habitat, that we were just about to block or really degrade a prime recreation corridor. We are bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. We didn't realize that. But we are sorry; public comment periods don't mean anything anymore. We cannot condition, withdraw, or change the lease. And that would be it. I don't think that would be good. I really don't. So, there may have been--and, again, I am not aware of the circumstances to which the gentleman is referring in the specific, but I believe that this amendment, looking forward to whoever is in the White House and whoever is administering these programs, would really preclude any part of the public from having meaningful comment and getting a meaningful response from the Federal bureaucracy which has proposed leasing in their neighborhood. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, nothing I have heard has refuted the points I made earlier. In fact, the gentleman from South Carolina made the point about high diesel prices. Well, if he was harking back to a time when diesel was actually cheaper than gasoline, well, back then, we didn't export much refined diesel. Now we are exporting in the vicinity of 1 million barrels a day of diesel. So the price of diesel is up because we are paying the so-called world price. And if we exported 2 million barrels a day, the world price wouldn't go down. And then you have the issue with the speculators on Wall Street, as I mentioned earlier. According to the head of ExxonMobil, 60 cents a gallon--and that would be diesel and gasoline--goes directly to speculators on Wall Street, those high-frequency traders who are so vital to our economy. We do have a few statistics just to keep it straight. Gasoline production was at a record high in May, but unfortunately, gas prices were pretty darn high. This is from the Energy Information Administration, and they quote the American Petroleum Institute, which is the group that wants to begin to export crude oil. So if we produce more crude oil, we will put it in the world market or sell it to China so they can refine it. And that will somehow insulate us against price spikes because we will be flooding the world oil market with oil that is produced more cheaply here but sold more expensively over there. But unfortunately, that means that we pay the same price here that gets paid over there. That is another problem. But anyway, the chief economist for API, John Felmy, said: ``We've developed a good export market for distillates. So we produce more gasoline than demand warrants.'' Yet the price is up. Go figure. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I have no further requests for time and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have before us two bills which have previously passed the House but that have been merged into one bill and that will again pass with a Republican majority. It mandates offshore oil drilling from Maine to the southeast coast. It mandates offshore oil drilling off of South Carolina. This would all be done under expedited or potentially nonexistent environmental reviews if they didn't meet extraordinarily brief timelines, and they would not be allowed to evaluate any options that did not include drilling. As the Republicans are extremely fiscally conservative, this would double the revenue sharing for offshore oil drilling, creating a $30 billion loss for the Federal Government and benefiting a few southeast States. As for the onshore portion of the bill, every permit for drilling on Federal lands in the United States would have to be issued within 60 days, and the concept of multiple use, which is hunting, fishing, recreating, mountain biking, horseback riding--go on down the list--and other activities, are all subsumed to energy development, which becomes the big--oh, wait. What? I mean, really. This is my June 2013 speech. I mean, this is last year's speech. Who gave me last year's speech? Really. Oh, guess what? It really doesn't matter, because this is the same bill from last year--two bills into one. Exactly the same bills passed the House last year and the year before that and the year before that. Every year since the Republicans have taken over, when gas prices spike up, they pass imaginary legislation and pretend they are doing something about high gas prices instead of tackling the real causes, which I will get to in a moment. So many people have heard about Christmas in July. We now have a new tradition here, which is Groundhog Day in June for energy bills, in a faux sort of attempt to pretend we really care about the extortionate prices that people are paying because of Big Oil in the United States and speculation on Wall Street. God forbid we should take on either of those very powerful and generous forces, generous to some, not to others. Does anybody believe this? I guess there are a few people who believe anything, but since they first brought this bill to the floor in 2011, U.S. oil production has gone from 5.6 million barrels a day to 8.4 million barrels a day--not shabby, basically a 50 percent increase. Let's look at another chart. Exports--we are talking about--now, we have a new theory. This isn't about lowering prices in America; it is about avoiding even higher prices in America because we are stabilizing the world markets. Well, I have had a lot of complaints from truckers. Look at how much diesel we are exporting. Since the Republicans started this campaign, the combined exports of refined gasoline--remember the shortages, that is why we are paying higher prices, supply and demand--have gone from 700 million barrels a day to 1.5 billion. We have doubled our export of refined product, and the truckers are really getting stuck here. Look at this line. You want to know why diesel prices are up? Because diesel exports are up phenomenally--phenomenally. So we can blather on about: Gee, all we need is more production, more production--so we can export more? In fact, now, the oil industry is pushing to end our ban on the export of crude oil. Now--right now, at least--we get some value added, and we get a few more jobs by exporting refined products. Now, the industry wants us to lift the ban and say that we will export crude oil from the United States of America, I guess, so that we can prevent bigger price spikes if there are future crises because this is the new theory promulgated by The Wall Street Journal. We hear a lot about the President. Here is a reality check on that issue: Federal onshore production is up 30 percent under President Obama. In fact, President Obama is providing over record production levels and plummeting imports, while the exact opposite happened under the Bush-Cheney energy policy, which actually was designed to make us more dependent upon foreign oil, and that did happen in spades during the Bush-Cheney administration. The Energy Information Administration, they are right, there was a blip in our production offshore. It had to do with a little oil spill called Deepwater Horizon, and there was a temporary suspension of drilling and new permits. That is history now, but that does make your average look lower over time. The Energy Information Administration says that offshore production will reach record levels--that is, all Federal offshore oil production will reach record levels by 2016; but that is reality that doesn't matter. Now, we have a really nifty title, and that is something that they spend lots of money on consultants around here--both parties do--to come up with nifty little sayings. The nifty title is Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014. Well, since we started this argument with the Republicans on this issue about increased oil production leading to lower gas prices--well, 2008, when we had drill, baby, drill, in order to lower gas prices that were $3.50 to $4 a gallon--and guess what? They haven't gone down, so that argument kind of doesn't work anymore, but now, they are saying: well, they would have been higher if we weren't producing more oil. If we produce just more, they might not have been even more higher, or maybe they would be lower because that is what we said for the last 4 years, that they would be lower. Since we are exporting a whole heck of a lot of it, they are not because we are paying a world price for oil, and now, they want us to pay a world price for natural gas, one place where we do have an advantage, so the prices don't go down. There is such an abundance of oil, as I mentioned earlier, the American Petroleum Institute wants to lift the ban on the export of crude oil from the United States. Wouldn't that be great? The U.S. can export crude oil to China. China can use it to run their electrical generating facilities, which supply their manufacturing facilities, which will produce value-added products, things that we formerly used to make here in the United States, and they will sell them back to us. We get to sell them a raw material, kind of like a colony, and they sell us back sophisticated materials. That is kind of like something we fought a revolution over a couple of hundred years ago, but now, that is okay with some on the other side. This is both coasts and Alaska and tremendous degradation of environmental protections on the inland areas, as I mentioned earlier. This will really do away with multiple use. Now, we heard from the chairman, who is an esteemed colleague, that the spike in Iraq would have been worse if we weren't producing so much and exporting so much. Actually, I just saw the statistics yesterday. Oil production hasn't dropped at all. The other OPEC companies are putting more oil out, and Iraq is at 95 percent of where they were before this, so actually, there has been no reduction anywhere, but somehow, prices are up about 20 cents a gallon at the pump. Now, if we just produced more oil, that wouldn't happen. No, that is not true. We are producing more oil. If we just exported more refined oil and diesel and gasoline, that wouldn't happen. Well, no, because we are. What happened? Wall Street is speculating on the price of oil. We had sworn testimony from the CEO of ExxonMobil 2\1/2\ years ago, before the United States Senate, when gas was getting to 4 bucks a gallon, and he said, hey, don't blame me, this isn't ExxonMobil doing this, it is Wall Street--because of the deregulation of Wall Street, the fact that we haven't yet implemented position limits on speculators, on commodities, as we were supposed to do under Dodd-Frank, which they want to repeal. He said 60 cents a gallon. Drive up to the pump, and you are sending 60 cents a gallon to Wall Street speculators. So if they wanted to do something today or tomorrow or yesterday or last year--or maybe next June--about spiking oil prices, it would be to go after the speculators on Wall Street. That is the quickest relief that we could provide. Mandate position limits--or even better--repeal the provisions of the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act--which I voted against, which was a Clinton-era Republican bill--that actually allowed massive new speculation by nonconsumers, nonproducers, something that we never had, never needed, and don't need today. So next time you go to the pump, say, oh, well, if we just drill right here off of Maine or right here off of Massachusetts or right here, I would pay less; or think, wow, if they wanted to really give me relief, they would take on the big oil companies, they would take on Wall Street--but they won't do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, unfortunately, it isn't left to the States. The gentleman is wrong. The Bush-Cheney energy act preempted the States-- preempted the State authority. It gives a faceless, nameless Federal bureaucracy, which on every other day is opposed by the other side of the aisle, the authority to grant eminent domain for a private company, for private profit, for the export of natural gas, which may well drive up the gas prices of the property owners adjacent to or who have been penetrated by that line. This amendment doesn't delay anything. It doesn't give any significant new authority. It just requires the simple disclosure that if this terminal is built, a new pipeline is going to be required, and that pipeline, under section 3, with the faceless, nameless Federal bureaucrats behind it, is going to be granted eminent domain authority to take people's property. That is the bottom line. You can try and dance around it and say, well, I am against Kelo because that was another kind of development, but no, I am against this amendment because we wouldn't want people to know that they were going to lose their property rights to eminent domain because of faceless, nameless Federal bureaucrats. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We just had a debate over the potential impact of export of LNG on domestic prices. There is no arguing that the low domestic prices for natural gas have been a boon for our country. Some manufacturers are actually moving operations back from overseas. Others here are being advantaged in the international markets, much to the concern of some of our competitors in Europe and elsewhere. So we can say that is good. We are not going to settle that issue in my amendment. I am going to bring up another issue. But the reason natural gas companies want to export is to realize higher prices, and some of these terminals will require new pipelines to connect to domestic natural gas supplies, particularly some of the new supplies. Here is the problem. In 2005, Congress passed the Bush-Cheney energy plan, which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--a group of nameless, faceless, obscure bureaucrats--the authority to grant eminent domain to pipeline companies. That means companies have eminent domain authority generally reserved for the greater public interest to build pipelines to export natural gas. Now I had three amendments. This one simply requires disclosure. I just want to bring a bit more focus during the expedited--should this bill become law--application and approval process for persons in the area, whether or not there is a prospect that a natural gas pipeline will exert eminent domain over their property. Now, it is just disclosure, because, as I say, my other amendments weren't allowed, if eminent domain is going to be used to export natural gas to a pipeline terminal. Now, earlier this year I voted with, as I have every year, every single Republican in favor of H.R. 1944. That is legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 2005, Kelo v. City of New London, where the city of New London was found to have the authority to use eminent domain on behalf of private development interests. The Republicans, as I mentioned earlier, brought up a bill to overturn that decision, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, which passed with every Republican vote and a number of Democrats on our side of the aisle. The same principle applies here. I am not challenging--because that is not allowed--the issue of eminent domain for a private pipeline for the export of natural gas, but I am saying that at least persons who are in proximity to that, or actually in line with that proposed pipeline, should have the opportunity when the company applies to know that it may be used so they can address their point of view during the application process. Now, there are some industry talking points saying wait a minute, wait a minute, this eminent domain isn't in section 3. They are right. I agree with them. They are absolutely right. However, section 7 regulates pipelines, and pipelines in some instances will be required and will be used to access these natural gas terminals, and I am simply saying that persons in those areas should know that eminent domain is intended to be used. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, the ranking member mentioned earlier that there is a section in the bill of merit which would require four studies: whether the technology and personnel needed to monitor the effect of high-frequency trading are accurate; the role it plays in providing liquidity; whether it creates discrepancies between market participants--I would recommend people read ``Flash Boys'' if they want the answer to that question--and whether the CFTC's existing authority is sufficient with regard to high-frequency trading. Those all have great merit. We should have the answers, but I have one additional request, which would be to examine whether high- frequency trading increases market volatility. CFTC already did one study. They found that there were 27,000 contracts traded during a 14- second period during the flash crash, but they came to no conclusion regarding how or what role they may have played in the flash crash. I think that we should further investigate this. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 809.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is not so obvious with this administration. They are desperate for the TPP, they are desperate for the trans-America free trade agreement, and we are very worried that they would think that disapproving this application from Ireland representing Norway, who intends to operate a rent-an-airline, rent-a-crew from Singapore, would somehow derail their talks. So I don't think it is obvious. This is sending a message to the White House that we are not going to let this happen. With that, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I agree. And Mr. Westmoreland will also be brief. This is extraordinarily important, and I thank the Chair for his indulgence and his support. We, in the Open Skies Agreement with the EU, anticipated that some countries might try and go forum shopping, that is--like the cruise line industry--look for a nation that has lesser laws regulating labor, safety, and then also allow outsourcing. This would be a model for Norwegian--for this airline, which does not fly to the United States, to incorporate in Ireland. They would then hire crews from Malaysia to fly planes based in Singapore and hope to serve the United States with these crews. This is the cruise line model. It is a recipe for disaster. You shop around the world to find the least regulated, least trained, and cheapest labor you can--as has happened with the cruise line industry-- and in this case, in aviation, it will both threaten consumers and national security given the Civil Reserve Air Fleet requirements of aviation. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. We won't take much time if the gentleman just would allow me 1 or 2 minutes.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, these limitation amendments often don't go to matters of national security.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, for years, I have struggled with the VA bureaucracy in my region. There are attempts to downgrade the Roseburg Hospital. We are still fighting over adequate status and staffing. It took 6 years after I got funding for a critical new VA clinic in Eugene for them to break ground so we can get expanded services in staffing. Day in and day out my staff and I have to push the VA to get our veterans the benefits they have earned and the services they deserve. Now we find that these problems were systemic and nationwide. It is right that General Shinseki has resigned, but that is just the beginning of the housecleaning and the reform we need in the Veterans Administration to see that they become an organization that is totally oriented toward serving our veterans and getting them the services they have earned and they deserve. Veterans shouldn't have to fight, they shouldn't have to wait in line. We can do better, and we must.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague from California, Representative Huffman for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for working with us on this important amendment. West Coast fishermen are in a tough spot, and in a very unique spot. Unlike other regions of the country where fishermen had their buyouts funded by taxpayers, our fishermen took on the loan willingly and knowing they would have to pay it back. And they are paying it back-- but at an interest rate that is two points above prime and therefore costing them 5 percent of their landings. Representative Huffman, Representative Herrera Beutler, and I are working to legislatively refinance this loan. In fact, today, that refinance bill passed out of the House Committee on Natural Resources and it has already passed the Senate Committee. But it's going to take some time to implement. West Coast fishermen are facing increased observer costs. We are transitioning to electronic monitoring, but that's going to take time-- too much time in my opinion. But until electronic monitoring is adopted by the Council and NOAA, fishermen will have to pay for 100 percent observer coverage--which can be as high as $350-$450 per day. And now, fishermen are bearing an additional cost--$2.4 million this year to help pay for the management of the fishery--known as the ``cost recovery fee.'' West Coast fishermen are willing to pay this fee. They knew the fee was coming. But, right now, with the mounting costs of the buyback loan, the observer costs, and pending trailing amendments that will make the fishery more economically viable--this additional financial burden is too much. This amendment would provide one year of relief to West Coast fishermen. It would mean the difference for many fishermen of selling their boats and trying to find a different livelihood in already distressed coastal communities, or staying in business. This amendment is bipartisan. It does not score. And it might not seem like a lot of money to people in this body, but it's a huge deal for my fishermen, their families, and small businesses that depend on the fleet to make a living. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, next Monday is Memorial Day, one of the most solemn holidays in America. We remember those who gave their lives in ultimate sacrifice to our country, those who were wounded, those who are veterans, and those who are still serving our country in dangerous occupations around the world to defend our freedoms. This is a day that should be solemnly celebrated, and it will be in many places. It could be better solemnly celebrated if the United States Congress would exert a little more oversight and get a little more funding to the VA, so that we don't have veterans dying on waiting lists. We have got to get to the bottom of that scandal, and we have got to adequately fund that agency and give them permanent funding. Beyond that, there is another group in America who have a very special Memorial Day celebration every year, and that is the United States oil industry. They are, of course, very patriotic. They don't pay much in taxes in the U.S. They have over $100 billion stashed overseas because they don't want to pay U.S. taxes, even though they pay a higher rate many places overseas. They are very patriotic, and so every year, they have a special celebration where they run up the price. Now, the oil companies and their handmaidens on the Republican side of the aisle will say: It is all about shortage. All we need is to drill in sensitive areas offshore. All we need to do is build the XL pipeline, and your prices will come down. Well, that is pretty amazing except, of course, it is a huge lie. Today, the United States of America will export more than 450,000 barrels of gasoline, while they are running the price up on Americans, saying: Hey, don't you know there is a shortage? Funny thing, I haven't seen any little red flags or yellow flags like they used to have at gas stations saying they have got no gas. No, they have got gas, but they have got it at an exorbitant price, so this is the annual celebration. Now, ExxonMobil, last year, they were hurting. They only made $32.6 billion. Their last CEO, when he retired, they gave him a $500 million bonus. They are hurting. He went out and bought oil fields with it in Africa. That is pretty cute. There is a shortage, and that is why you are paying over four bucks a gallon in many places, particularly in my district and in the Western United States, over four bucks a gallon because of this extraordinary shortage. So here we are, it is Memorial Day. Wouldn't it be nice if we reined in the oil companies? Wouldn't it be nice if we stopped subsidizing them with tax breaks? Well, not on the Republican side of aisle, they think that is patriotic to subsidize the oil companies' tax rates because they need them because there is a shortage. Well, no, there isn't a shortage, but, hey, they still need and want those tax breaks, and they want to price gouge people at the pump. So I, for one, will celebrate Memorial Day appropriately, remembering those who have served our country, but for one Member of Congress, I would like to do something about what is going on with oil and gas prices. I would like to take away their subsidies. I would like to get the speculators on Wall Street out of the oil and gas business. They are driving up the price. Even according to ExxonMobil, 75 cents a gallon you pay at the pump today, 75 cents of that dollar--$4--that is going to Wall Street speculators, something that didn't use be to be allowed and a bill that I voted against which deregulated that commodities markets, which was supposed to be re-regulated under Dodd-Frank, but the Republicans are opposing any and every effort to re-regulate the commodities market. Unfortunately, there are few on my side of the aisle who are in the pockets of the oil industry, too, so we could do better. We could do better for our veterans, and we could do better for the American consumers. Let's do it.