Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my very good friend from Massachusetts that I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to know where to start as I close the debate on this portion of the bill because there's been so much information out there and so much information that, frankly, I won't say it's untrue, but it's not exactly accurate. Let me start with the idea that the price of gasoline has dropped with this administration. In January of 2009, the average price of gasoline in this country was $1.82 a gallon. Now what is magic about January 2009? Well, that was the month that the President was inaugurated and the price of gasoline was $1.82 a gallon. Today, the average price of gasoline is $3.48. Now if your math is such that the price of gasoline drops when it starts at $1.82 and ends at $3.48, you've got fuzzy math. But that's what we keep hearing. Furthermore, we have heard I don't know how many Members on the other side speak, but I dare say every one of them said that this is a giveaway to oil and gas. If they didn't say it, they implied it, trying to get that message across. Now, I wondered when I heard the debate here about there's no reference to renewables if they read the bill. I am now convinced they did not read the bill, Mr. Chairman. And let me tell you why. Because when we talk about renewables, we're talking about Federal lands and we say that the Secretary--and I'm reading from page 15, title III, section 44, paragraph 3. It says: The Secretary shall determine a domestic strategic production objective for the development of energy resources from Federal onshore lands. Now that's the directive. So on page 16 we make reference to renewable energy. And they said, Oh, it's just a study. What do you mean it's just a study? Well, if you read, Mr. Chairman, we are asking for a study for the estimates of what? On subsection A, it's oil and natural gas. What? We're asking for a study of oil and natural gas on Federal lands. Then, you go to C. It talks about the critical minerals. Then it goes on to renewables. In other words, the point I'm making, Mr. Chairman--and this is very important--if this is a giveaway to oil and gas companies and not helping renewables, then why is it the precise same language for the type of production of energy on Federal lands? You can't have it both ways. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very good bill because we're focusing on where the greatest resources we have in this country are on Federal lands. That's where the greatest potential resources are. This bill is aimed at those resources. That's why this bill is so important. Let's set production goals on all energy development. And that means all-of-the-above. That means above ground. That means underground, as my friend from Mississippi said. That's what we are attempting to do. But to suggest that this is a giveaway when precisely the same language applies to all energy production, frankly, is inaccurate. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. 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. Mr. Chairman, the Natural Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR A, was specifically designated as a petroleum reserve back in 1923. It's a place that we can develop our resources for energy and national security. Title VI of this bill will ensure that production can occur on NPR A by requiring at least one annual lease sale, streamline the permitting process to ensure lease sales lead to energy production, and ensure a right-of-away plan to allow for the transportation of the product out of NPR A. In addition to making technical corrections, this amendment aims to accomplish two vital goals that are imperative for facilitating development at NPR A. First, it would require, at the request of the State of Alaska, up to two additional rights-of-way planned in and out of NPR A. This would prepare for future development by providing approved rights-of-way in and out of this area. Secondly, it would repeal the designation of the Colville River as an Aquatic Resource of National Importance. This designation was blatantly used by the anti-energy EPA as nothing more than a tool to stop energy development on this area. While the President touts his energy record and speaks of his support for leasing and energy development in the NPR A, he fails to mention that due to red tape from his administration, Alaskans have waited for years and years for approval to build a simple bridge across the Colville River to begin production in NPR A. What you do not hear is that the EPA has paid no attention to the Colville River until after ConocoPhillips filed its application for a bridge. It was shortly after that application that EPA declared it was an Aquatic Resource of Natural Importance. And it was that action that stopped the development and production for nearly a decade before approval of this simple bridge and pipeline. What the Obama administration says and what the administration does to promote energy development in Alaska are entirely two different things. So those two things that I mention in this amendment would give Alaskans the assurance they need to create jobs and encourage development of the NPR A. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend that I have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, there are technical amendments in here which I acknowledge and the gentleman did acknowledge, and there are two substantive changes, and I acknowledge both of those. Now, I just want to repeat, he talked about the issue that the Colville River was an aquatic resource of national importance. He's basing that as the reason why we should not adopt this amendment. I want to point out again, and I made this observation in my remarks, the Colville River was not designated this until after--and I want to say this again very slowly; sometimes you don't hear things in this echo chamber--after Conoco wanted to develop the NPR A. When they developed the NPR-A, they had to have access across the Colville River. But the EPA said all of a sudden: Wait a second, this might be a good time to make that change. That's pure politics, Mr. Chairman. And I will say this. I was up in Alaska last year, and I stood right at the spot where they want to build a bridge across the Colville River. The Colville River there is not very large, and to suggest it falls into that category and we should not adopt this amendment flies right in the face of common sense. So with that, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would really restrict the ability to produce energy on Federal lands, and I think, quite frankly, it is purely a political amendment. Rather than allow existing environmental protections and reviews to ensure that we have safe drilling operations, this amendment seeks to use an arbitrary standard that, frankly, is more of a scare tactic than good science; and it would actually harm school districts, principally those in the Intermountain West, that take advantage of their large landholder status to lease their lands for energy development. In addition, it would infringe upon the ability of Native American tribes to manage their lands and their resources. It's bad policy, particularly for the consequences of tribal lands that are trying to develop their energy resources. This would restrict their ability to do that. Now, we've heard the other side talk about why we need to do this, and the implication is that we need to do this to protect drinking water at our children's schools that may become contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this very emphatically. This information of contamination is based on absolutely no science or factual evidence. As a matter of fact, to put an exclamation point on that, earlier this week, the gentleman who is offering this amendment, his governor, Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado--who, I might add, is a Democrat--was quoted as saying--and I'll say the whole quote here, and I'll say it as slowly as I can so everybody can understand what Governor Hickenlooper said: There have been tens of thousands of wells in Colorado, and we can't find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the process of fracking that has polluted groundwater. Now, I didn't say this. I am quoting the governor of the gentleman who offered the amendment, his State. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say, I believe this is a politically motivated amendment, and it, frankly, does not even deserve debate on that. So I urge rejection of this amendment, and 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, developing our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf is all about achieving a balance. The Federal agencies involved have to balance the needs of the coastal community and the environment while also providing for safe energy production. This is how you preserve the multiple-use aspect that we have for Federal land management, and I endorse that concept. Fortunately for the gentleman, the author of this amendment, the purpose of his amendment is already the law of the land. No leasing occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf without extensive environmental assessment. Now, I'll give you an example. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management conducts an environmental impact statement, or an EIS, before leasing any area, then another EIS for the specific lease sale area, and then another environmental assessment must be conducted before a company can even begin development. So, with that process that you have to go through, I can only conclude that this amendment is offered not about protecting the environment, but it's really about stopping offshore energy production. Of course, if we do that, obviously what does that do to American energy jobs? Like I said earlier, fortunately, all these protections exist if indeed we're going to have energy production. So I don't think we need this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to reject it. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, then, Mr. Chairman, the arguments have been made. I urge rejection of this amendment, and 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, we've heard this argument and this debate and this issue before. This is nothing but a recycled version of the old use-it- or-lose-it argument that we've heard so many times, but this time it's disguised as an effort to reduce nonproducing leases. This amendment is based on a completely unsubstantiated premise, which is that oil companies are sitting on oil and gas leases, therefore rendering them inactive--at least that's how the claim goes-- if they are not diligently drilling for and producing oil. This is important, Mr. Chairman. Use it or lose it is already the law of the land. Why? Because every lease on Federal land currently includes development language requiring moving forward by the energy companies, and if a company does not produce within those lease terms, then the lease reverts back to the government. Now, keep in mind, picture this: A company is paying money for a lease and there are certain conditions in this lease for them to produce in a time period. If they don't produce in that time period, it reverts back to the government. Is that not use it or lose it? That's the law of the land as it is a part of the lease sales. So, just because a lease sale is not actively producing, that doesn't mean that there's not work on that lease sale. Leases can be held for up to 7 or 10 years because studies or permitting or even lawsuits slow that process down. In addition, it isn't possible to drill every lease at the same time. Think of leases like homebuilding. A homebuilder doesn't start building every home at the same time. You have roofers, you have framers, you have plumbers, you have drywalls, you have electricians all working at different times on different parts of the house. Oil and natural gas is the same way. You have geologists, drillers, production, permitting, and environmental studies. All those things happen in different steps. So the argument that use it or lose it--which is already in place--is something that we should even be debating here is nonsensical. It ignores the realities of oil and gas, the years of exploring, the drilling and permitting that it takes to bring something to the floor. Not only has a use-it-or-lose-it argument failed many times when it's been brought to the floor of this House, but in the House Natural Resources Committee on legislation dealing with this, it lost on a bipartisan vote. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I suspect if there's a vote called on this, it, too, will lose on a bipartisan vote. So to encourage that, I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Could I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, once again, to repeat, the nature of the lease sales that companies enter into is ``use it or lose it'' because if they don't, within the time period of that lease, utilize that for production, they give it back. That's ``use it or lose it.'' That's the law right now. But let me respond here in the short time I have about comments that have been made earlier about increased American production. That's true, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad for that. But the implication of that statement being made by my friends on the other side of the aisle is that it's because of the policies of this administration. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. It takes a while to get land or offshore up to speed and in production, sometimes many years. But the reason production is increasing in some areas and has been increasing--it's now going down on Federal lands--is because of actions of prior administrations. That is never said. It's because of prior administrations' actions, because the last 2 years of this administration, oil and natural gas, the production on Federal lands, has gone down. And finally, the main reason why oil production has increased in this country is because it's happening principally in North Dakota and in west Texas, and it's on private land and/or State land. The Federal Government and this administration had absolutely nothing to do with the increase of that production. As a matter of fact, I think there were probably some efforts to try to slow that down. But, at any rate, I had to make that point, Mr. Chairman. This amendment, again, has been around a few times. I suspect that if a vote is called on it that it will fail on a bipartisan basis again. I urge rejection. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something. Absolutely nothing in this legislation, or this entire legislation, takes away the right of people to protest or petition for the redress of grievances. That is something that is held sacred, I think by all Americans, certainly all Members of this House. During the oil and natural gas leasing exploration and development process, there are over a dozen opportunities for citizens to protest, to appeal, to comment, or to even completely halt energy development on public land. Since the 1990s, however, the use of protests on Federal lands has increased by 700 percent through a considered effort by special interest groups to halt oil and natural gas development on our Federal lands. This explosion of protests has crippled the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, offices while they are working to handle the wave of new protests. A formal protest of leasing is a legitimate step in oil and natural gas leasing process. However, and this is something that I think most people recognize, the abuse of protest to halt that development is something I think needs to be addressed. So the $5,000 protest documentation fee in this legislation goes directly then towards helping the BLM process the onslaught of protests that are currently being paid by taxpayer dollars. It does not take away anyone's right to protest, nor does it interfere with the other nearly 15 ways someone can participate in government's decision regarding Federal energy leasing or development. This provision, as a matter of fact, will ensure that taxpayers' dollars that are going through the normal process are spent protecting the environment and in the planning and the leasing, not tied up in processing paperwork related to endless protests filed by special interests with an agenda, which one has to conclude, of stopping oil and natural gas leasing. I do want to mention, too, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment was also offered in legislation in the Natural Resources Committee, and it, too, was defeated on a bipartisan basis. I suspect that if this is brought to the floor it will probably be beaten on a bipartisan basis again, so I urge the rejection of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out this poster behind me. I know one can't read all of the details here, but this is the process by which somebody goes through a lease process to try to develop some activity on Federal lands. This is the process that one goes through, which, of course, is pretty long. Now, I mentioned in my opening remarks that there are 15 different ways there can be a protest made or a voice heard, or whatever, in that whole lease process. At the back of me on this chart, it is denoted by the red dots. You can see all the way along, starting way over to my right, where right at the start there are places you can have input and that continues throughout, all the way to virtually the end. When you have a process like this--and I will say it--in many cases, some of these red dots are used for frivolous purposes. Well, if they're used for frivolous purposes, there has to be a way, it would seem, to mitigate that in some way so that the government can do its job and do its work under the law as to those who are trying to lease public lands. That's simply what the fee does because the fee goes to the agency that processes this. That means you can ensure, from my point of view at least, that you'll have a process that's fair and open. Nothing is taken away. There are no red dots taken away whatsoever. We're just simply saying there has to be a means by which we finance this process. I think this is a way to do it, so I would urge the rejection of this amendment. As I mentioned, it has been rejected several times before. It was rejected in committee, and I hope it will be rejected on the House floor. With that, 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 you have a very good amendment, and I support that amendment. I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I will urge people to reject the Markey amendment. Now I made an observation. And maybe somebody is saying, Boy, you are really stretching it if you are going to byproducts. And I referenced the way the amendment was written. And the amendment is written where it says very specifically, ``all oil and gas.'' Well, let's see. If a product is made from oil and gas, wouldn't that qualify? So I think this is a very, very serious concern. And once again, it is the unintentional consequences of this amendment. So I urge rejection of the Markey amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.