Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Section 121 requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to keep detailed records and provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that was not approved by the agency. They don't ask for the ones that were approved, just the ones that were not approved. This is the majority's attempt to try to speed up the approval of oil and gas permits and plans, and I have no objection to that. Here we are 16 months after Deepwater Horizon, and the Congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform. Despite the serious safety and environmental shortcomings found as a result of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the majority wants BOEMRE to return to the good old days of lax reviews and quick approval of oil and gas permits and plans. I think this provision should be stricken. I yield to the ranking member for his comments on this provision.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. This year, I'm sure the gentleman has noticed, we've been trying to reestablish regular order--having a subcommittee markup and a full committee markup and amendments on the floor, which is welcomed by our side. So we have to kind of make a decision: Are we going to ask for a vote on every single issue? We never do that. We try to cooperate. This is comity, something that the gentleman from Ohio understands quite well. So I would just remind him that we're trying to get through these bills, and that's why we try to not ask for a vote on everything. We wanted to save this one for the floor so the American people would hear about what's going on.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just wanted to say that the gentleman and I have worked together, and I have great regard for him. I just wanted to mention a couple of facts and that, if we take up time, I'll try to get you extra time. ``To date, 67 new shallow water well permits have been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on June 8, 2010. Permits have averaged more than six per month over the past 8 months compared to an average of eight permits per month in 2009. Just three of these permits are currently pending, with eight having been returned to the operator for more information.'' Now, the question I have is: Why don't we ask them to give, when they're doing the report, not just the ones that they've turned down but the ones that they've approved? I mean, wouldn't the gentleman want to have all that information instead of just the negative side of this?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield again just briefly?

Mr. DICKS. Now we get to deepwater: Since an applicant first successfully demonstrated containment capabilities in mid-February of this year, BOEMRE has approved 75 permits for 21 unique wells, with 25 permits pending and 22 permits returned to the operator with the request for additional information, particularly information regarding containment.

Mr. DICKS. Now, we want them to do this safely. We don't want to go through what we went through, which was one of the greatest disasters in the history of the country.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. Well, then why do we have this amendment?

Mr. DICKS. Section 124 prohibits expenditures for the Bureau of Land Management to carry out its duties under section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Secretarial order 3310 states a policy that the Bureau of Land Management should act consistently with section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction, and identify within that inventory the resource values, including wilderness, of those lands. Despite what some have claimed, it does not create de facto wilderness. It returns BLM wilderness policy to the way it operated for 27 years before being unilaterally changed by then Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2003. It directs the BLM to develop recommendations to Congress regarding wilderness land designation, and it directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations. Section 124 removes the requirement for public involvement and removes the requirement for the BLM to provide recommendations to Congress. Section 124 doesn't prevent Congress from designating wilderness; it just prevents us from being properly informed before we consider these designations. Secretarial order 3310 is the kind of good government process that encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration of that forward thinking, the Secretary reached out to Congress in June asking for Members' input into the wilderness characteristics of land within their districts. I'm not sure what more we can ask for from the BLM and the Secretary but an open public process, as Mr. Moran has stated. Section 124 seeks to foreclose that process, a process that the majority in the committee report on H.R. 2584 applauded. These wild lands have real benefit--economic, environmental, and aesthetic. It's important that we protect not only public land in its natural state but our ability to make informed decisions about what areas should or should not be designated wilderness. We need the Secretarial order, and we need to be informed. I yield to the gentleman from California if he would like to make a final comment here.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman, who I just heard a few minutes ago praising Secretary Salazar for the way he conducts himself, that he's a good man. And now 3310 is like the Communist Manifesto.

Mr. DICKS. Well, then why don't we trust him?

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman. We agree with his position on this, and we oppose the amendment as well.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. A few years ago, the Supreme Court said that the EPA, under the Clean Air Act, had to come up with and look at the consequences of greenhouse gases and to create this registry, which is a scientific document that allows us to know just exactly what the various sources of these greenhouse gases are. Now we hear a lot about climate change. I just want to point out there is another more immediate problem. The gentleman from Kansas may not be aware of this because it affects our oceans, and Kansas is in the middle of our country. The oceans are now a sink for carbon dioxide. And as we get more and more CO2 in the ocean, it creates acidity, the so-called pH factor, which at normal range is around 8.1, and when it goes down--we have places in Hood Canal, in my home area, that are down at 7.3. At that level of acidity, it starts to take apart coral. It takes apart oyster shells. It takes apart the vital plankton, which are the food for salmon, 60 percent of the food for salmon. This is an incredibly important situation. So the more we can learn about greenhouse gases and what their effect is not only on our climate, but also on the ocean. We are poisoning the ocean. And again, there is this ``let's not take time to work on this issue because somehow it's going to cut away jobs.'' It may end civilization. Think about that. Your grandchildren, my grandchildren--your children, maybe. Maybe you're younger. I worry about them. I worry about what's going to happen if we don't deal with this climate change issue. And we should take this seriously. The best scientists in the world say this is something that needs to be dealt with. So, again, I think this idea of taking out the money for the Greenhouse Gas Registry so that we will have a scientific underpinning to know what these problems are and how much various sources produce is the ``ignorance is bliss'' amendment. Let's defeat this amendment and let the EPA do its job. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I just want to commend the gentleman for an incredibly comprehensive, thoughtful, and credible presentation. You mentioned the bald eagle. Just a few weeks ago, my grandchildren were out at Hood Canal, where I live, and on the beach three bald eagles came down and landed. It was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen. And I just want to thank the gentleman for his support, his cosponsorship of this amendment. And I appreciate your credibility and your forthrightness.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I will do this very briefly. As I recall, from 1995 to 2007, the other side--the majority party today--was the majority party then, and I don't remember any great effort on the Endangered Species Act. I welcome it. I welcome that any act can be made better. Now you guys are in charge again, and you have another opportunity. I believe Mr. Bishop has been on the committee for quite a long time. I'm going to go look in his reform bill in the Record to see what has been happening here.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington State, from the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Can you start with another bow?