Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to see that the gentleman understands that America needs oil and natural gas. That was a very good statement on his part. We would prefer to see more domestic production of this necessary commodity rather than importing it from foreign countries. I think we're making progress in that regard, Mr. Chairman. The good news is this is already law, what the gentleman is trying to address. Title 43, chapter 29, section 1534 of the U.S. Code specifically prevents the export of both oil or gas produced from the Outer Continental Shelf unless the President finds that it is, one, in the national interest; two, will not increase our reliance on natural gas; and, three, that it is in accordance with the Export Administration Act, which puts further regulations on exports. Now, the House has said repeatedly that increased energy production on Federal lands is in the national interest. So I suppose the gentleman could say there is some wiggle room there. But, nevertheless, this amendment had failed in committee last week, it has failed on the House floor on many occasions because of this protection that's already in law. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no more requests for time, and I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this law has been on the books since 1940. Now, in 1940, there was a whole lot of unrest in the world just prior to the Second World War, and in the wisdom, apparently, of the Congress of that time, they said that energy production from the Outer Continental Shelf, which I might add, was probably not as robust as it is today, there are only certain conditions that you would export what comes off. And as I listed those things before, I think they're important. That law was a good law then. It's a good law now. This amendment adds absolutely nothing to that whatsoever. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let's be very frank about this. This amendment won't increase safety, but it will add red tape to the leasing process and open new avenues for lawsuits to interfere with the process of creating American energy and creating American jobs. The types of safety measures identified in the amendment are already in place, and they are already enforceable. On multiple occasions, the Obama administration has testified that offshore drilling operations are being conducted safely. With this amendment, the minority continues to try to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production, American energy production, creating jobs, American jobs, lowering energy costs, and improving our national security, all doing that because, potentially, we lessen our dependence on foreign oil. So it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply do not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with a robust and responsible program of oil and gas development, while, at the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not, nor should they be mutually exclusive goals. Right now, we have two choices before us. Tomorrow, when we vote on this, and the suspension that will be before us, we can choose to endorse the President's energy plan to hold 15 sales in five areas in the OCS, or we can support this bill before us, which will have nearly double, 29 sales, in over double the areas, 11 areas. Both options will ensure that the drilling is done safely. Both options will ensure that our environment is protected. But only one option follows through on the promise made to the American people when the moratoria was lifted. The American people clearly want our Nation to harness our energy resources. But the President's energy plan takes 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and makes it off-limits. This amendment, I should add, has failed when it was offered on this floor last February, and it also failed when it was offered in committee last week. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. Okay. Let's say it again: The gentleman's remarks would imply that, because there is increased oil production in this country, it's due to the actions of this administration. Nothing, Mr. Chairman, could be further from the truth, because it takes a while to go through the process of leasing and developing potential resources before you drill, and even then you don't know until you drill. All of that process started prior to this administration's taking office. It happened in the Bush administration, and as a matter of fact, it happened in the Clinton administration. That's where the increased production, in large part, came from. Even that isn't entirely true, because the increased production of American oil is really coming from State and private lands, not from Federal lands. In fact, over the last 2 years, Federal lands production has been down under this administration. It is principally because of North Dakota and West Texas that we are finding more production of American energy. By the way, Mr. Chairman, I think that's good--but why should we ignore the potential resources that we have on Federal lands and not allow that to produce our American energy? This amendment really does not help that process. All it does is add red tape to the process, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is yet another attempt to legislate a decision that was made during the Clinton administration. The constant attempt to renegotiate contracts that were signed, sealed, and delivered under the Clinton administration is in violation of contract law. That should be very, very basic, it would seem to me, if, indeed, we are a Nation of laws. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Interior Department did not have the authority to go back and insert price thresholds on these leases. The Department lost this issue in district court, in the appellate court, and they lost it in the Supreme Court. If this amendment were to pass, the issue would most certainly be challenged in court where, undoubtedly, the Department would again lose after having spent taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible. Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a contract negotiated under government law. Now, some would say it's a bad contract. Maybe it was. I'm not going to second-guess what the Clinton administration did--but, in fact, they signed that contract law. This amendment has repeatedly failed on the House floor, and I hope it fails again. I urge its opposition. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. If the intent of this amendment, as the gentleman says, is just to say that companies aren't forced to, but could renegotiate their contracts, I would say they could do that right now. Anybody that enters into a contract is free--if both parties want to--to renegotiate a contract. Nothing prevents them from doing so. But to have the heavy hand of government say in the future that ``if you don't do this,'' I think is a step too darn far. I think that that is really the wrong way to go. That's the last thing that we need, is saying a condition of leasing or doing business with the government is that you have to retroactively go back and change a contract. That would have a chilling effect, Mr. Chairman. Again, I don't know why the Clinton administration signed these contracts. Who knows? But to add this, where do you stop then? Where do you stop with all of the Federal contracts that could be not only in energy production, but anything else? This is a very bad amendment. It's a very bad precedent, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In deference to my good friend from Florida, I really believe that this is a political amendment that would simply require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the impact that increased oil and gas production would have on gasoline prices. This bill is about increasing American domestic energy production. It's about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's about creating American jobs and creating American energy. Simply put, requiring producers to estimate the impact that each and every well has on global markets is nothing more than a bureaucratic paperwork nightmare that would be put on those that would want to go and drill offshore and a delaying tactic by those that are opposed to offshore development. I don't think this is a good amendment. As I said in deference to my good friend from Florida, I really believe that this is a political amendment. With that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding and say that if you run out of time, I will claim the time. First, I do not deny that, except the figures that you're using aren't quite accurate; I will say that in the sense that the 2 percent you're talking about is known reserves.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. The 2 percent figure that you are using is the known reserves. The potential resources that we have are much, much greater than that. And really, when you are looking at potential future energy production in this country, you look at the potential resources, not the known reserves. There's a big, big difference. Two percent is reserve. So I will acknowledge that while we have 2 percent right now, our potential resources are much, much larger. And I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is talking about is lease sales. Somebody has made an investment. They do not know if that area has any oil or natural gas. They don't know. They will go through all the studies. They'll spend millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars finding out if there is something there. Then, if they think there is, they will drill, costing that much more. Now, I might add, with these lease sales, there is a set time. The Federal Government gets money from these lease sales. Why would somebody give the money to the Federal Government if they didn't think there was something there? And, by the way, many times these leases come up empty and the company walks away and the only revenue goes to the Federal Government. But let me speak to one other area of the amendment, because what the gentleman is really saying with this amendment is he is asking somebody that produces a crude product to estimate the price of a finished product. That's like telling an apple grower in my part of the country that, if he or she is to sell apples overseas, what's the price of applesauce going to be down the line? Now, it doesn't make any sense to do that. Now, whether the gentleman purposely did that or not, I don't know. But in any case, I don't believe that the amendment ought to be adopted for other reasons, but certainly for that one. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In many respects, Mr. Chairman, we just had this debate. And again, with deference to my good friend from Florida, I think this is another political amendment because what it will do is require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the potential impact produced by oil and natural gas production, what impact that would have on climate change. Not only that, you would have to do it on a well-by-well basis. Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, some sort of requirement like that would simply dry up anybody wanting to drill offshore or utilize our resources offshore. Now, if that's what the gentleman wants, then okay, that's a good concession; but, if not, it simply does not make any sense. But from a practical standpoint--and I think this is very important, Mr. Chairman--if the issue--and there is some debate about this, no question. But if the issue of producing oil and natural gas will affect the climate, and we, as a country, probably have the most stringent environmental laws on our air quality and water quality, why would we put this extra burden on us when it wouldn't happen in other parts of the world? But the net effect of this, if it were to become law, would be to drive everybody from America. So the net effect, if the issue--now, if the issue is really to protect the environment and protect the air, why would you drive it to areas that have less stringent environmental laws? Yet that would be the practical effect if this amendment were to become law. Like I said, we've been over this before. It puts extraordinary burdens on individual wells and individual producers. And as I mentioned, in deference to my friend, I think it is a political amendment. I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Well, I, too, am shocked; but I'm glad we got that out of the way. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, this bill is a bill that addresses American energy and American jobs and, therefore, has a positive effect--potential positive effect--on our economy. This amendment adds nothing to that. As a matter of fact, I think it's an impediment to this bill becoming law if it were to be adopted. And if I could think of some sorts of things to say regarding oranges, I would say it; but I'm totally at a loss. So I will simply say that this amendment does not deserve support, I urge its rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have had an extensive debate today on the floor centered around American energy and American jobs. It is interesting in how this discussion has unfolded over time. Many times we on this side of the aisle are accused of repeating over and over and over different issues, and I suppose to a certain extent that is true. But one of the reasons why this effort is done on a regular basis is because the genius of our Founding Fathers was such that they created a government where there was a division of powers, and we all know that, the three branches of government. But the genius of our Founding Fathers was even greater than that in the fact that they created the legislative branch, and they divided that power. They divided that power between the House and the Senate. What that simply means, Mr. Speaker, is that before any legislation can pass, any law that's put on anybody in this country has to pass both Houses of the Congress. Now, I recognize I'm a Member of the people's House. There has been no Member of this House in the history of our country that was not elected to this House. On the other hand, the Senate is a different body, as we well know. The Senate is made up of only two Members from each of the States regardless of population. Because we come from different constituencies, one a smaller constituency within a State, another from a whole State like the Senate is, you are bound to have different ideas as you approach legislation. But again, the genius of our Founding Fathers was to say, okay, before anything can become law, both Houses have to act on that legislation, and it has to pass both the House and the Senate without a comma being different. Therein, of course, lies the challenge. So we have been accused here many times of passing the same type of legislation, at least on the same issue, and passing it over to the other body. But what we have found, unfortunately, in this Congress is that the other body has simply not acted on a lot of pieces of legislation. Now, I'm not saying they should pick up, although it would be nice if they took everything that we passed and say it is a wonderful idea, pass it over there, and send it to the President. Well, they don't do that. But one of the functions that they could do and they haven't done is pass legislation, albeit different than what we have. And then, of course, we have a mechanism to work out the difference. But in many respects, Mr. Speaker, not even that has happened. In other words, they haven't passed legislation where they may have a disagreement with us that we can work out the differences. So that leads to a lot of frustration, obviously, on our side of the rotunda; but we feel it is important as the Republican majority to continue to make the case in what we believe in. I might mention also that the House is controlled in the majority by the Republicans; and, of course, the Democrats control the Senate. So there is a difference. So that's why we continue to send legislation over to the Senate, and we hold out hope that maybe one time they will take up legislation, maybe on the same issue, and we can go to conference and work out whatever differences. So that's why we continue to bring this legislation to the floor. I look forward to a time when the Senate will, in fact, act. Now, let me talk then about this piece of legislation that we had on the floor today and why it was brought to the floor and how the process is going to unfold tomorrow. As I mentioned in my opening remarks on debate, the President, any President, by the way, is required to submit a 5-year energy plan on the Outer Continental Shelf, the OCS, and submit it for a 60-day review by Congress. That clock started ticking in June last. So we felt it was important because I, for one, and a number of my colleagues on the House Natural Resources Committee, in fact, throughout this Congress, felt that the President's plan was inadequate and that there ought to be an alternative to that plan. Thus, we had a markup several weeks ago on the plan that we had before us today. We are debating it tonight now. We've gone through the debate, we've had the amendment process, and we will vote on this bill tomorrow. But what is missing in all of this equation was simply that there is no effort to defend the President's plan. As a matter of fact, in the debate that I had heard from the other side, rarely did I hear anybody say that the President's energy plan was a good plan. So, tomorrow, there will be on suspension legislation that I reluctantly will offer that is essentially the President's energy plan. We'll have a vote, and tomorrow the House will have an opportunity to say ``yes'' to this job- creating bill that we had on the floor today or the President's plan. There will be a distinct choice that Members of this body will have an opportunity to vote on. I certainly hope that they'll support this job-creating plan, American-energy-creating plan that we debated today, and I hope that they will reject President Obama's plan. With that, Mr. Speaker, 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and I congratulate the gentleman for his introduction and getting this far. With that, I urge adoption and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Turner).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2362) to facilitate economic development by Indian tribes and encourage investment by Turkish enterprises, as amended.