Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I will do the same.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am the last speaker on my side, so you do what you have to do, and I will respond accordingly.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 6082.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, under the shadow of the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare, the Obama administration on June 28 quietly announced the President's proposed final offshore drilling plan for 2012-2017. Despite claims of their being proud of their energy record, the Obama administration deliberately chose to announce their plan on a day when it would get buried in the ObamaCare news coverage. This shows that even this administration is not proud of their plan that would place 85 percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to energy production. Under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act, when any President proposes a new 5-year offshore drilling plan, it must be submitted to Congress for a mandatory 60-day review before it can become final and take effect. That 60-day clock is now ticking. It's now Congress' responsibility to take action and to reject President Obama's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan and to replace it with a robust, responsible plan to safely develop our offshore energy resources. According to analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Office, the President has proposed fewer leases in his plan than any President since this process began--that goes back to President Jimmy Carter, so it's even worse than President Carter. President Obama's proposal doesn't open up one new area for leasing and energy production. It would set our Nation's energy production back to the days before 2008 when two moratoria that prohibited drilling of a vast majority of American offshore areas were in place. Both moratoria were lifted after the summer of 2008 due to the outrage of the American people over the cost of $4-per-gallon gasoline, and they demanded that the Federal Government take action. President Obama proposes to effectively reimpose that moratoria. From nearly the day he took the oath of office, this President has put the brakes on new American energy production and job creation. In the first weeks of this administration, the Interior Department took a nearly complete new offshore lease plan and put it on hold for 6 months, and then they tossed out that draft plan entirely and started over. It took them over 3\1/2\ years to get a new proposed plan in place. And along the way, they delayed and canceled multiple lease sales. For example, President Obama canceled the Virginia lease sale scheduled for 2011 last year and now refuses to include Virginia in his 2012-2017 plan. He is responsible for closing an entire new area of drilling and cheating the Commonwealth out of thousands of jobs and another industry. If President Obama has his way, Virginia will be left out in the cold in until 2017 at the earliest. The bill being considered today, H.R. 6082, is entitled the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. In stark contrast to President Obama's plan, this bill represents a drill-smart plan that includes 29 lease sales and focuses energy production in specific areas containing America's greatest known oil and natural gas resources. What a novel idea: go to where the resources are. The bill would replace the lease sales scheduled in the President's proposed plan and safely open new areas that were previously under moratoria--such as the Mid-Atlantic, southern Pacific, and the Arctic. It does this while ensuring that necessary and required environmental reviews are conducted. The congressional replacement plan would generate $600 million in additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new American jobs. Tomorrow there will be a direct up-or-down vote on the President's proposed plan when we consider, under suspension, H.R. 6168. There will also, obviously, be a direct up-or-down vote on this legislation. So Members can decide if the President's plan meets the standards expected by the American people or if we should replace it with a real plan that creates jobs and grows our economy. The House has taken action to replace the President's proposed plan, and I call on the Senate to do the same. If the Senate does nothing and lets the 60-day clock run out, that is an endorsement of the President's plan. It is an endorsement of the plan that reimposes the drilling moratoria, creates no new jobs and no new energy. I believe that we can do better than this proposed plan, and our Nation deserves better. By passing this bill, we are standing up for American energy and American jobs and moving our country forward. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, I'll yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to my good friend from Massachusetts that in response to his answer on how many bills this House has addressed on renewables, the gentleman said zero, and that is incorrect. There have been multiple bills and parts of bills dealing with the process of putting wind and solar in place, specifically on public lands, so I just wanted to correct the gentleman in that regard. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from a coastal State, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would tell my friend from Massachusetts, I have one other request for time and then myself to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

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, I just want to say why we are here today. We are here today because the President submitted his plan. It was late. His 5-year plan is supposed to go through a 60-day review here in the Congress. We are here to offer an alternative to that plan because that plan locks up 85 percent of the potential resources in this country. We offer this plan because we have heard loud and clear from the American people that it is in our best interest to be less dependent on foreign energy. And in the process of creating American energy, we obviously create American jobs. That, to me, is a win/win situation. Now, let me respond to some of the arguments that have been made on the other side, and I want to point out specifically the bills. The charge was made that the Republican-led House has not taken up any bills dealing with renewable energy. In fact, the observation was that there were no bills. In fact, there have been several bills, and there are three bills that have passed the House. Now, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle may not like it, but the fact is that they've passed. The first one is H.R. 4402. It passed on a bipartisan basis in July. H.R. 3408, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in February. And H.R. 4480, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in June. So Republicans have repeatedly said that we are in favor of an all-of-the-above energy plan, and this, of course, confirms that belief. Now, I want to make an observation to part of the debate here that we are giving away something. I'm trying to think of an analogy on how to describe that, and the best I can come up with is if one has an asset, the Federal Government has an asset of having control over the Outer Continental Shelf, and somebody wants to use that asset where there may be some opportunity to grow the economy or create jobs, or what have you, that seems to me to be a positive step rather than a giveaway. In fact, I think about the private landowners in North Dakota or maybe the State of North Dakota, because the same people, Big Oil, that are being beat up here on the floor here in debate went to North Dakota. They talked to the State and they talked to the private landowners. They said, You may have some assets that we would like to see if maybe there is some energy development available, very similar to what's available on the Outer Continental Shelf. So they made an agreement, I'll pay you, the landowner, some money if you let me look. And if there is something there, I'll pay you with what comes out of the ground. Now, this is exactly the same process we're going through here, except we're dealing with the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, who is the beneficiary of that? Well, the beneficiary, in part, obviously, is the Federal Government because they get money for the leases and they'll get royalty payments. And I might point out, by the way, Mr. Chairman, the second largest source of income to the Federal Government after the income tax comes from leases and royalties. So there clearly is a benefit to the American people in that regard. So when this is characterized as a giveaway when supposedly what is being given away is paid for, it does not, in my mind, pass the straight-face test. Lastly, we hear the arguments, specifically from my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) saying this bill is going nowhere in the other body. Well, I would remind my good friend that the two Senators from his home State of Virginia are Democrats, and they are in support of drilling off the coast of Virginia, which, of course, this bill embodies. So if maybe they could whisper into the majority leader's ear and get some action on it, then this bill, indeed, could move through the Senate, as I suspect it will move through the House, on a bipartisan basis in the same light. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is a very good bill. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will just take a few seconds here. This amendment is very simple. It makes two small technical corrections to the way the plan is referred to in the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing energy production and job creation. This amendment would strike the section of the bill requiring that an environmental impact statement be conducted prior to any leasing in lease sale areas. The gentleman takes issue with the manner in which the environmental impact statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to mention is that the administration is required to do yet another environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on each lease block as a part of the leasing process, and then each exploration plan has additional environmental work. So, in effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the environment. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will still be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Fishing Enhancement Act, to name a few. The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the environment. It goes an extra mile in requiring a multiple-sale EIS on all of the lease areas, while also ensuring that leasing does occur, although that leasing is still subject to all the environmental protection laws that are on the books. Support for offshore energy development does not mean that you cannot also respect the range of different environmental needs based on lease area. Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in the country does not want to drill safely and responsibly. I know I certainly don't, and I know Members on my side of the aisle don't. So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman has yielded back his time. I will yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I want to congratulate her on her amendment because I think this is a responsible approach that we are trying to take. One of the reasons why California is so important, I think as the gentlelady knows, is that there are geologists that say that there are over 1.5 million potential barrels of oil off the shore. That should be important to Californians because not too long ago you were producing 50 percent of your oil production, now it's down to 38 percent. What we say, obviously, in this legislation is that it should be done from platforms on land. So I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I think it's a responsible approach, and I think it adds to this legislation. And I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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