Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me clarify just a few major points here. First of all, the President did not say he would veto it. He said he had a concern. I accept that. But the President did not say he would veto this legislation. After all, it was his Secretary of State that negotiated the agreement. Why would he veto an agreement negotiated by his Secretary of State? Secondly, if this could pass so easily out of the Senate, as my friend from Oregon asserts, why hasn't the Senate passed it? We always ask that question over here. In fact, sometimes we get ourselves in a gridlock because we're so, maybe, frightened of what the Senate may or may not do. Listen, if the Senate wants to pass this agreement without this provision, do it. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. Nobody. Now, let me make another observation here that I think is probably more important in this debate than anything else that has been said, and that is, as was pointed out several times--I mentioned it in my opening remarks; Mr. Duncan mentioned it; Mr. Salmon mentioned it--in 2012, this agreement was signed. None of the information was given to us because we had to implement it. Now, I wonder why. Could it possibly be that the mindset of this administration, which, by the way, has consistently been nonresponsive to more exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore--if I may, Mr. Speaker, go back just a bit. When this administration took office, there was no moratoria on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts. One of the first actions of this President was to lock up 85 percent of those potential resources. So maybe they do have a bit of a bias against offshore drilling. So here's an amendment, here's an agreement that was signed over a year ago. It took over a year for it to come here. Because of no action on their part, it was going nowhere legislatively until Mr. Duncan said, Listen, this is something we ought to do. So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, is the reason why they're taking this one element--and I'll talk about that in a moment--as a reason to oppose this legislation really because they're trying to cover up the fact they don't like any offshore drilling? I'll let somebody draw whatever conclusions they want. I simply ask the rhetorical question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be more than happy to yield to my friend on that point. I assume he wants to talk about that, and I'm more than happy to engage in that debate.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I think if you go back and look at the bills that have come in front of this body before in the last Congress--in fact, later on today--you will find that the overwhelming opposition to that legislation, if it's going to mirror what happened in the last Congress, was to oppose offshore development. So I'll just make that observation. Others can draw the conclusion. But here is something that is very curious about this debate on why we should defeat this legislation because of this provision dealing in disclosure. Anybody could have offered an amendment to take that provision out of the bill. It would have been perfectly in order. There's no parliamentary problem with striking from a bill. And there was an amendment, by the way, that was offered by a Member from the other body but was withdrawn. Both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are arguing against this because of this provision, they could have offered the amendment. It would have been made in order, and we could have debated it. But the amendment wasn't offered. I don't know why.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be more than happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I simply said that there is a pattern in this administration and with my friends on the other side that they oppose that. I'll let others draw that conclusion. I will be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, we believe that this provision in Dodd-Frank is contrary to the agreement because the only moneys--and I'll get to this point. I was going to get to it later, but I'll get to it right now. The only moneys that go to Mexico are what the Obama administration agreed to for these royalties or leases. That is the only money that goes to Mexico. So we believe that there's no reason to have this particular requirement in the bill, and that's why we did it. Now you can disagree with that, of course. You have every right to do it. But if you really believe that this bill should be defeated because of that provision, why didn't you offer an amendment? Wait, there was an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn. Curious? I don't know what their reasons are. So all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a good piece of legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And if the Senate, to conclude, has a different view, let them pass their different view and we'll work it out. Isn't that the reason our Founding Fathers had two bodies? So we can work out the differences? With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, June 5, 2013. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hastings: On May 15, 2013, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a result of your having consulted with the Committee on Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our committee from further consideration of the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1613, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1613, as amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your committee's report to accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, Jeb Hensarling, Chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I find this amendment offered on this bill to be rather strange because the amendment usurps itself as an effort to protect states' rights. Well, the underlying bill is about an international agreement between the United States and Mexico, and that boundary is about 200 miles from the nearest shoreline. There is no jurisdiction of any State that goes that far out, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this bill that would change any existing laws as it relates to states' rights and their waters. But this amendment isn't necessary. It's simply restating the status quo. The sponsor of the amendment and all those concerned with upholding states' rights can be assured that the existing rights of the individual 50 States are fully respected and in no way undermined by this bill, as I just mentioned. However, adopting this amendment could impact international relations with foreign states. And the reason why is because in foreign law, as I understand it, the term ``state'' means foreign government. There's no explanation in the amendment about states, so that raises a concern. So by adopting this amendment, you could potentially destroy the agreement that we have in place. And what will that do? Well, it would delay American energy production, and it would delay the creation of American jobs. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just simply to close, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment is really unnecessary, and I think that chart points that out. You're talking hundreds of miles offshore, and yet the amendment asserts itself to protect states' rights. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot connect the dots on that. I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2231.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Unlike the President's plan that we heard from this week, which is to impose new energy taxes and Federal red tape that will increase energy prices and cost American jobs, this Republican plan will expand access to our own U.S. energy resources in order to lower energy prices and increase American jobs. Gas prices have nearly doubled since President Obama took office. The national average today remains above $3.50 per gallon compared to the $1.89 it was when he took office. We shouldn't have to accept potentially $4-a-gallon gas prices, especially when we have the resources right here at home. Higher gas prices mean we are making tough budget choices. For small businesses, it may mean the difference between hiring more workers or having to let some go. For families, it may be the difference between replacing the worn-out household appliance or making due with makeshift repairs. This is why access to affordable energy is so vital. For decades, most of our Nation's offshore areas were under a moratorium, preventing any offshore development. All of that, Mr. Chairman, changed in the summer of 2008 when outrageously high gas prices made our Nation's energy struggles a regular topic of conversation around the dinner table for American families. Later that year, Congress and then-President Bush lifted those moratoria with the hopes of fostering an era of increased energy production. President Obama then came into office with a tremendous opportunity. For the first time in more than a generation, he had the ability to open new offshore areas to oil and natural gas production. Sadly, instead, he went out of his way to shut down this opportunity by putting forth a new 5-year offshore leasing plan that locks up 85 percent of our offshore areas. The plan includes no new drilling, which results in no new American jobs. In fact, it includes the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in an offshore lease plan. Mr. Chairman, that's the worst record since President Jimmy Carter's. We must do better. That's why we are here today to consider the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. This legislation puts us back on the right path: one that will open new areas to drilling, one that will create 1.2 million American jobs, one that will lower energy prices, and one that will generate $1.5 billion in new revenue to the Federal Government. But it's not only energy jobs that will be created; it's associated industries like manufacturing, boating, transportation, and service industries like hotels and restaurants. They, too, will also benefit. This legislation requires the administration to implement a new 5- year leasing plan that includes areas with the most oil and natural gas, such as the mid-Atlantic and Alaska and off southern California. It's not a ``drill everywhere'' plan but, rather, a ``drill smart'' plan that focuses on those areas where the greatest potential lies. It would also require specific lease sales to be held off the coasts of South Carolina and Virginia, the latter of which was originally scheduled to take place in 2011 but was cancelled by the Obama administration. There is bipartisan support in favor of the Virginia lease sale, but, again, this administration canceled it and punted any future sales until after 2017. The bill also establishes a fair and equitable revenue sharing program with all coastal States that have drilling off their coasts, much like what the Gulf States currently enjoy. Revenue sharing will create new incentives for opening offshore areas to drilling. Again, more American energy production equates to more jobs and a stronger economy. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes reforms to further enhance the accountability, efficiency, safety, and ethical standards of offshore energy operations. These reforms will allow for the robust production of our Nation's offshore energy resources while ensuring that all activity is conducted with proper oversight. Offshore energy production has steadily declined under this administration, and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's time to reverse that trend. H.R. 2231 will remove government barriers that are currently blocking access to our American energy resources. It will safely and responsibly unlock our energy and allow us to create over a million new American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Virginia, I'd just point out that the CBO estimates that there will be revenue coming into the Federal Government of approximately $1.5 billion. At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a leader in the House here on energy development.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate and I think it's a good debate, because what's at stake here in the long-run, not only for today but maybe potentially for generations ahead, is the potential energy independence for our country. And I think that's a worthy thing to have a debate about on the floor of the House. Let me address a few of the issues that were brought up by my friend on the other side of the aisle, and let me focus first on leases. The argument on the other side leaves one to believe that leases are just given out to anybody that wants them and then they just sit on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lease is given out on a potential area where there may be oil or natural gas. Those leases cost money and have certain conditions of a time in which whoever buys the lease has to develop that lease, and that can range anywhere from 5 to 10 years, depending on the depth of the water. So the fact of the matter is these lease sales cost whoever purchases the lease. Now if it costs, where does the money go? It comes to the Federal Government. This is a source of income for the Federal Government just on the lease sales. Now, why would any business want to spend money and not try to get a return on it? Many times, these leases then are reverted back to the Federal Government. In fact, the average, depending where you are and the depth, can be as high as 20 percent. It can be as low as 10 percent. On average, it's around 15 percent. So these lease blocks come back to the Federal Government. And guess what. They can be relet again. In fact, in some cases, over 40 percent are relet. What does that mean? That means the Federal Government gets another chance--and still without any energy production, I might add--just on the lease sales. And then you have a truism, I suppose, and maybe not what is understood by a lot of people, but I've heard this over and over, that when you have a lease, you really don't know if there's oil there until you go through all the technology to find it. But the ultimate last step is to drill. And if you're lucky, then you'll get something that you can develop; but if not, all of that money is spent and you get no return back. This is a fact from the standpoint of how leases work. Nobody is going to sit on leases unless they felt that there is a potential there. If not, the terms of the lease sale means it goes back to the Federal Government, and that is something that I think we need to probably understand more than we do now. And then there's the issue of cartels. I think that was mentioned. I think history shows that whenever there is a cartel, I don't care what the commodity is, the very best way to beat the cartel is to outsupply the cartel. And that's precisely what this bill is about, and it's precisely because of the new technology that has been developed by the oil and gas industry to drill smart, which is what this bill does. The potential resources offshore in this country are huge, enough so, that some people say we could be the premier supplier of crude in the next 20 years--and that includes comparing ourselves to the Middle East. Now, it has also been stated that since this administration took office, oil and gas production is up. That's true, it is up; but it's not up on Federal lands. And this is precisely what this bill addresses, oil and gas leasing on Federal lands. Most of that is on private lands and most of it, frankly, is in North Dakota and in west Texas. But if you look at what the results are of this administration as it relates to what their jurisdiction is--which of course is Federal lands and offshore--the Congressional Research Service, a part of Congress, has noted that the recent increase in U.S. oil and natural gas can be attributed to State and private lands, and not Federal. Now, that's what the CRS said, but I can go a step further. There is a Federal agency within the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. Now, this is an agency within the Obama administration, I might add, Mr. Chairman. They say that total Federal offshore production dropped 8 percent last year and natural gas dropped 19 percent last year. This is on Federal offshore. But it goes even further. Since the President took office in 2009, Federal offshore production is down 12 percent and natural gas production is down 40 percent. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat, this is information that comes from the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. That is an agency within the Obama administration. So while we have increased oil and gas production in this country, it is, in fact, in spite of this administration, not because of. The reason why this legislation is so important--again, it's not done for a day; it's done for future generations--it is in our best interests. A growing economy needs a certainty of energy. This bill provides a certainty of energy because we are drilling on Federal offshore areas. And it has a national security aspect to it all, Mr. Chairman. You know, every day we hear news about the Middle East and the volatility in the Middle East, and yet we talk--OPEC is principally positioned in the Middle East, not wholly, but principally in the Middle East. Is it not in our best interest, therefore, when we know we have these resources, to utilize them from a national security standpoint? Finally, of course, it's been said over and over--and it's so true-- energy jobs are good jobs; they're good-paying jobs. Why don't we want to make sure that we can create more American jobs with American energy for national security purposes? Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what this legislation does, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and we support his amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to respond to my good friend from Oregon's statistics. What I said is that the production is down from when the President took office. And that, of course, is true. The gentleman makes the argument that there was more production initially in the Obama administration than the Bush administration. I never argued with that. But there's a reason for it. There were more lease sales during the Bush administration, and it takes a while to get these leases producing. They started producing at the first part of the Obama administration; and since then, they have gone down because of the actions of this administration. So my statistics are correct, and I guess his statistics are correct; but it's not the whole story. The whole story is it takes a lot of time in order to bring a lease sale into production, and that's what the gentleman overlooked.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.