Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. The issue that we are discussing here was actually brought up in debate at the time of the conference committee, this very language, the very title that we are discussing. I will read some language from the conference committee report. Of primary concern is the fact that OCS air pollution is causing or contributing to the violation of Federal and State ambient air quality standards in some coastal regions. We are dealing with onshore. The debate is on onshore. The debate at the time was over onshore regulations, on coastal regulations. In addition, the testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee focused on this language in the regulations dealing with the rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of Federal and State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of the PSD program, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing exploration and development of the OCS, going directly--directly--to the interpretation that the focus on OCS requirements, as the regulations themselves state, is onshore, that the onshore air quality represents a rational relationship between OCS sources and obtaining and maintaining air quality standards. California, this was the language, this was the conversation. The debate took place during the very conference committee about coastal regions, about onshore regulations. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment, which mixes two basic concepts of stationary title I issues and mobile title II sources. What we are talking about here is something akin to requiring the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he parks next to the factory. It is requiring a re-engining of service vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary source. So basically what we are talking about in the bill is saying that once a drilling ship starts to drill, that is when it becomes stationary. To require the vessels that service that drill ship, to require them to be stationary would be like requiring the UPS truck to fall under the same regulations as the factory that it is delivering to, or treating an emissions testing facility like it has wheels and ought to be moving around to everybody else because it is testing the emissions of a stationary source. So I rise to oppose this amendment, again, because of issues it is trying to deal with, mixing stationary and mobile sources. The issue of foreign-flagged ships is dealt with in international law under our treaties that we have in this country. It is dealt with in the MARPOL Treaty. If we want to increase those regulations on U.S. vessels, Congress can do that. However, to increase regulations on service vessels only because they were hired to service an OCS vehicle makes no sense. It was said in debate earlier too, I believe it was said we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. I guess that argument means the same thing as we are not going to have more food by producing more food; we are not going to have more appliances in this country by producing more appliances. The arguments we have heard against this bill are off point, off subject, and are simply on claims that don't make any sense. So when it comes to this particular amendment, delivery trucks aren't regulated as stationary sources, nor should the service vessels to a stationary source, the drilling ship, as will be considered once this legislation becomes law I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, once again, we are faced with the question of whether we want to focus on the issues that this bill is intending to address--the issue of job creation, the issue of energy security-- and whether or not we are going to take advantage of the resources that we have in our own backyard, which is American energy for the American people. This amendment presents, once again, one more distraction from the very purpose of this bill. It is a distraction for our colleagues. I understand that they want to oppose this bill, but I believe they ought to oppose the bill on its merits. If they want to oppose the bill, vote ``no'' on the bill. If they want to offer constructive amendments, then introduce amendments to try to improve the bill, but presenting red herring amendments in amendment after amendment ought to be defeated. Aside from the distraction that this amendment creates, there is no real need for this amendment from a practical perspective. If an interested person wants to know the amounts of bonuses paid to an oil company executive, the information is available. As it is a publicly owned company, it's already available. I don't believe we require bonus disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. When a staffer helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the bill, I don't believe that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer. Again, this is a red herring on a bill that focuses on jobs and job creation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Who benefits from this bill? The American people benefit from this bill. In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it was made very clear that the west coast could import less oil because of the development of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Testimony was received before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that this could reduce the price of gasoline when we create more supplies, particularly for areas along the west coast, because of the presence of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea reserve. So the American people are the beneficiaries of increased American production. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my colleagues can understand what this bill is about, this does not repeal the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board to hear issues relating to production, production permits. This simply addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the Environmental Appeals Board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits. Let me say it again. Exploratory permits are for a very limited duration. We're talking an activity that may last 30 to 45 days. Unfortunately, what has happened, the EAB, which is by all accounts litigation with judges in robes in Washington, D.C., that are appointed lifetime bureaucrats, unaccountable, created by the administration, the EAB would still be able to hear appeals related to production. They will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. Why? Because we believe exploration of our resources is important, that it should not be delayed for 5 years. In the time that it has taken to reach this point, 400 wells have been drilled by the lessee around the world. That's job creation, but certainly not in the United States. That's energy production, but certainly not in the United States. This bill presents a solution, an up-or-down, yes-or-no answer to a permit within 6 months, without going to the EAB for a ping-pong delay back and forth, EPA, EAB, delay after delay, and says we are going to focus on an issue of national importance, developing our resources, getting exploration performed, so that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward energy security. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm getting confused by some of the arguments I'm hearing against this bill, because I hear that 6 months isn't enough time even though the average permitting time is 5 months, some will say. I hear that this is only dealing with two permits, although I hear that California, Delaware, and Massachusetts are at risk with this legislation. I hear the argument that some say this is ecosystem-destroying. Let me read a quote from Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, testifying before the United States Senate: ``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here.'' ``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no public health concern here.'' Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator of the EPA, did not rebut this testimony that was given by the administrator herself, Lisa Jackson, before the Senate. Gina McCarthy didn't refutes it before the Energy and Commerce Committee. The arguments seem to be confusing and grasping for straws. This is about energy security, about economic opportunity and making sure that we can deliver energy that's produced right here in the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, it's frustrating too because we continue to hear statements from the administration, from others who wish to pursue a vibrant energy policy for our country that they too agree that we need expanded resource development in the United States, expanded U.S. energy opportunities. But it's almost like lip-synching. They are talking about it, but not actually doing it. And, unfortunately, what we are seeing is conversations by the administration without the action to back up that conversation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. This issue of studies, this issue of blue ribbon commissions, it doesn't address the actual fact that price is very much dependent on supply. That's the testimony that we have received. If we have 1 million barrels of oil coming into this country from our own resources, American resources, we know from testimony at the hearing that it will impact price, testimony at the hearing that said the west coast of this United States would have to import less, that it would reduce the price at the pump in California. We don't have time to create commissions that don't actually relieve the American consumers' pain at the pump. They're paying for it now. I too represent farmers, businesses that are paying $3.50 a gallon--they were paying higher just a few weeks ago--and none of them have come to me and said, you know, I wish you could study whether or not high prices are impacting me or not. I wish you could study whether American production will actually reduce the price at the pump because they know intuitively that increased supply--American energy resources, when we develop them, will add to our supply, and it's a function of supply and demand. We have the opportunity in this country to create American jobs. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that you have to get an air permit for the energy production that my colleague was just discussing. You have to get an air permit for the offshore wind development, for the wave development. So I believe opposition to this bill actually hurts the very projects that he is promoting. And so, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it basically puts this country in a situation where you can go get a lease, you can achieve an energy lease, but you can't then get a permit for it. So does that create additional liability for this country? Are we going to end up entering into an area where we can get sued because we've issued a lease but then said you can't get a clean air permit-- not only for oil and gas development, but for the very projects that my colleague was addressing? So here we are in a situation that gets back to the fundamental question at issue: Are we going to allow a bureaucratically created board in Washington, D.C., wearing robes and hearing basic judicial proceedings--are we going to allow them to stall an issue of national importance? Five years it has taken. Five years it has taken in this one particular instance. Access to Federal offshore areas is not determined by the EPA-issued air permits. It is determined by the President of the United States when through the Department of the Interior lease sales are or are not held for Federal lands and waters. This is once again an attempt to shut off exploration activity in the Pacific. The matter is not to be decided through air permits. It is to be decided when and if lease sales are proposed for those waters. If lease sales are proposed in the future, Oregon's interests and concerns will no doubt be represented by our colleagues who are proposing this amendment, by the opportunities that remain to debate and provide comment through the NEPA process, through the leasing process. There are five opportunities for public comment to provided on exploration activity, 30 to 45 days' worth of activity. There are five opportunities for the public to comment. We have got to get this country into a position where we recognize that it is a good thing for American-produced energy to have opportunities to be developed. We heard testimony from the State of Alaska. This bill has bipartisan support. It is an effort to say, you know what, we have resources and reserves. We have facilities like the Trans-Alaska pipeline that right now has 650,000 barrels of oil going through a day when it was designed to bring in 2 million barrels of oil a day. If it gets any lower, it is going to create mechanical problems transporting the oil. If it gets below 200,000 barrels a day, it will be decommissioned, torn apart. The potential to bring 2.1 million barrels of oil a day into this country will be gone if the Trans-Alaska pipeline is removed. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021, gives this body the chance to say we are going to utilize our resources in a responsible manner. We are going to tell the EPA that they have got 6 months to do the analysis. Approve it or don't approve it, but make a decision because the American people deserve a decision. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. May I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. GARDNER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a point when I was seeking the opportunity to ask the gentleman to yield, section 328 applies to any offshore project authorized under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. So under the OCSLA, all offshore energy projects must have a permit. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, I oppose the amendment. We have an opportunity with the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act to get this country on a path toward a secure energy future. It is a matter of national interest. It is not just a matter of Oregon or just a matter of Colorado or just a matter of Alaska. Everyone who is suffering through the pain at the pump realizes that the resources we have been blessed with in this country, when used responsibly, can be used for the benefit of our country and the benefit of all. The 112th Congress has continued to focus on job creation, just like the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, job creation and long-term economic well-being. It was said before, somebody on the other side said we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. That doesn't make any sense at all. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Energy security and job creation, that's what the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is about. The amendment, the motion to recommit that has been offered, is something that we talked about today: whether or not a study actually results in lower prices at the pump. Colleagues, I don't think our constituents will appreciate it if we put a big sign on the pump at the gas station that reads ``you're going to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas; you're going to pay $4 a gallon for gas'' while we study it, while a blue ribbon commission proceeds. This bill will allow our domestic resources to be accessed in a responsible manner, in a timely manner to help relieve the price at the pump. Americans are tired of overregulation. Americans are tired of job-killing regulations. Americans are tired of the pain at the pump that they face each and every day. This bill presents an opportunity to create 54,000 jobs. In the time that it has taken to get a permit approved in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 400 wells have been drilled around the world. They created jobs in other countries; they created energy in other countries, but they didn't do it in our own backyard. This is our opportunity to get American resources online in a responsible manner. This amendment is one more stall, one more study, one more way to tell the American people that we're not interested in helping relieve the pain at the pump. We're going to study it. We're going to commission it. Then we're not going to do anything. This is 54,000 jobs and 1 million barrels of oil a day brought online from Alaska, creating jobs not just there but throughout the 48 States. The other day, I heard people talking about making it in America. ``Make It in America.'' Do you know what we need to make it in America? We need an energy policy that allows an abundant, affordable energy resource. To make it in America, we need opportunities to secure policies that don't overregulate and kill jobs. If you want to make it in America, reject this motion to recommit; develop American resources; put America back to work; and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California for being a part of this debate today. We had, I believe, this amendment or a similar amendment in committee. We discussed this amendment. As I mentioned, we've had two separate committee hearings on this particular piece of legislation. We had a markup where a number of amendments were offered. A tremendous amount of debate took place, and I believe debate took place on this very amendment. One of the concerns I have with this amendment is the practical impact it would have in what could best be described as a balkanization in the regulation of Federal waters, creating a patchwork quilt, so to speak, of regulations as it applies to the Federal areas in the OCS. The amendment allows States to promulgate any regulation for the OCS as long as it can be deemed no less stringent. This will result in chaotic regulation of Federal waters, many of which may conflict with interstate commerce. But perhaps even more important is the dramatic expansion of State jurisdiction that this amendment would have. And this was also an issue that was discussed back and forth during our markups both at the subcommittee level and at the full committee level, whether or not this would create challenges for the expansion of State jurisdiction. The current law only allows for the delegation of the exact authorities of the administrator and not the flexibility to create the State's own laws to implement the act. I think that's one of the distinctions that we have sort of walked over during this debate. It's also important to recognize that the Federal OCS is different from onshore State borders, where the States do have this type of flexibility in setting their State implementation plans. We talked in committee, once again, about the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. They were enacted for this very reason: to federalize and provide harmony in the offshore. So State regulations of the OCS will be used, I believe, unfortunately, by those who would try to obstruct and stop domestic energy production. The policy of this bill, of the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, is to provide a clear process so that resources can be explored, and I am afraid this amendment would cause the opposite. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bill that was brought forward because of significant delay in a bureaucratic process through an Environmental Appeals Board that was not created by Congress but was created as an administrative construct; something that was designed, I'm sure, with good intentions. But unfortunately, in its applicability, in the way it is working, the way people have used it, it is now being part of a great delay. In the time that it has taken for the EAB to work on this bill, 5 years, the company that has the lease in the Beaufort-Chukchi Sea area right now has drilled over 400 wells around the world, not in the United States, not creating U.S. jobs here, not creating U.S. energy, but working abroad. And if we are going to set this country on a path toward energy security, I've said it before and will continue to say it, if we are going to set this country on a path to energy security, then we have to recognize the national importance of allowing exploration to occur, exploration permits activities that will take 30 to 45 days.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Madam Chair, this amendment moves funding over to the integrated activities account. I am very concerned about our work when it comes to animal disease and food safety issues, especially when it relates to issues like FMD, chronic waste and disease, mad cow disease, other infectious animal diseases, prion-based diseases. I want to make sure that we are not imperiling the U.S. livestock industry, especially when it comes to our livestock exports. If we were to delay even just 3 to 4 days in terms of finding or responding to an outbreak of FMD, it could cost our country $135 billion in agriculture and possibly destroy our export markets. Madam Chair, I would just ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARDNER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRIFFIN from Arkansas. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. And I too have heard the President talk about his desire to increase trade and the exports of this country. In fact, I believe I've heard the statistic quoted, something to the effect that if we could increase trade in this Nation by exports by 1 percent, we'd create tens of thousands of jobs. We talk about what we're going to do to get this country moving forward again, how we're going to get this economy back, and there is a perfect example of what we can do, not only from my home State of Colorado, but for this country. The goods that we produce, to share them with the world, to make not just U.S. consumers, but world consumers of the excellence in manufacturing that this country used to be, can be, still ought to be and should be into the future. And so again, I think you talk about the opportunities that we have missed. The other night we came to the floor, and there was a group talking about make it in America. Well, you know what we need to make it in America? We need a business environment that fosters job growth. We need a tax policy that doesn't penalize people for choosing to work in the United States. To make it in America we need an energy policy that doesn't force people to pay $60, $70 every time they fill up a tank of gas just to get to work. To make it in America we need regulations that are pro- business, not anti-business. To make it in America we need a government that actually represents the American working families, not just bureaucracy. That's what we need to make it in America. And when it comes to trade agreements, I believe that we can and we ought to make it in America, and we can sell it abroad.

Mr. GARDNER. A group of us had the opportunity today to discuss with one of the Nation's leading economists job creation and what's happening to our businesses around the country. And he made the observation, he said, You know, there are a lot of businesses--exactly what you had said--there are a lot of businesses out there that have money on their rolls, but they're not investing into our economy because of what he called and used the term ``government activism,'' policies that relate to government activism. I said, What do you mean by government activism? I am assuming you are not talking about somebody going out from government with a picket sign. And he said, No, no, no. Government activism in terms of the policies that they are pursuing that result in uncertainty, whether it's a regulatory approach that is an activist approach that takes away the certainty business has for the tax structure, for business environment regulations. And the conversation you had was, If we could bring back certainty, if we could get this country back to a point where businesses know what's ahead tomorrow, they know what's ahead next year, then they can plan, and they won't be afraid to invest that money. They'll start creating jobs now. That's one of the Nation's leading economists who said exactly what my colleague from Arkansas is saying tonight.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from H.R. 1380.