Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment because part of the process of creating American energy jobs is to reduce regulation. I was struck when my good friend from New Jersey said that this amendment would lead to more litigation. For goodness sakes, when we heard testimony on this issue in front of our committee, the Cape Wind Project off Massachusetts testified something to the effect, and I don't have the exact testimony in front of me, but they are the poster child of litigation. Why? Because that litigation covered a very, very broad area. This specifies where, if somebody has a problem with it, the regulations would deal with the specific area. This really clarifies the whole process more than anything else. So I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out to my good friend from Hawaii, after the BP spill we had a committee hearing down in Louisiana, and part of that was to ascertain the economic impacts in that part of the country, but also to work with or seek from the industry what would happen if there were, heaven forbid, another spill like this. The industry has responded by building a consortium, funding a consortium, I should say, in order to respond to a spill like this. There were two of them that were testifying at the hearing that day. I said, In the event--and hopefully it doesn't happen--if there were an event like BP again, how quickly could you respond to something like that? Because that's what the issue is. You want to make sure that people respond if there is, in fact, another spill. And in both cases, both of them said they could respond immediately and probably cap it, something like this, in less than 3 weeks. That was over a year ago. I suspect now that that technology is even greater than that. But my point is that we have the regulations. We have to have American energy and the ensuing jobs that that has created, and I'm afraid that adopting this amendment would hinder that. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment was offered in committee markup, and it failed on a bipartisan vote simply because it was a bad idea. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, has one goal--to stop the development of natural gas on Alaska's North Slope. This amendment is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Currently, there is no way to export natural gas out of ANWR. There are no liquefying gas facilities on the shore. There is also not a single natural gas pipeline out of ANWR to transport natural gas anywhere in the United States. In fact, there are limited ways to export Alaska natural gas. One of the preferred methods, of course, would be to build a pipeline to cross the U.S.-Canada border and then back into the United States; but under the gentleman's amendment, this wouldn't be possible. I might add, we all know how the gentleman feels about pipelines in general. Another method would be to convert gas to LNG and ship it to the United States. I know the gentleman is well aware of this process because his home State gets about 40 percent of its natural gas from countries like Yemen, Egypt, or Trinidad. However, should Alaska choose to convert to LNG and try to ship it to California, this amendment would stop them from considering that because the import terminal in southern California is in Mexico, where they get their natural gas from Gazprom, which is in Russia. The transportation of natural gas across Alaska is a tremendous challenge. As with any major pipeline in construction, the investment will be in the billions of dollars, but it would certainly employ tens of thousands of people. It is something that should and can happen. However, without a market for the natural gas, it is unlikely that this pipeline will ever be built. As mentioned, this amendment then would stop gas from reaching the U.S. markets both by pipeline and by ship. On this side of the aisle, we hope that a pipeline like this can be built for all of the reasons that we have said in the past. We want the gas to come to America. Our hope is that this gas will displace the natural gas shipments from Russia coming into southern California and possibly even the Yemeni shipments to Boston. This is our hope, and that would be a challenge if this amendment were to be adopted. This amendment goes against the main objective of the bill--American jobs, American energy and American energy security. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I believe that we should open all areas where there are potential resources. I would just remind my good friend from California that you could make the same argument in Alaska, and yet we drill off the coast in Alaska. You can make the same case that there are fault lines in southern California, and the gentleman knows very, very well that there are huge potential resources in southern California. So the answer to the gentleman's question is, yes. I believe that we should keep these resources open for potential, and that's what the underlying bill does. But I will yield to the gentleman if he wants to comment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I know that's what the gentleman says. I'm arguing against the precedent, like the precedent yesterday, where there's an attempt to block offshore drilling from essentially northern Maryland north, and that was defeated by the House. So what I'm afraid of in the long term is the precedent, and I believe we should keep these options open. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Last year, during our offshore debate, an identical amendment was offered, and it failed in the House by a bipartisan vote. In fact, 263 of our colleagues voted ``no'' on this amendment. Right now, under existing law, the Northern California Planning Area is available for leasing. It's been available since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon and the President and the Congress at that time lifted the offshore drilling moratoria. I'll remind the House that in 2008 when gas prices were rising and the Democrats controlled the House, nothing was done regarding these $4-a-gallon gasoline prices until after the session ended and the President ended his moratoria and the Congress entered that moratoria. So going into 2009, there essentially was no moratoria that existed. This legislation, then, aims to open up our Federal resources and increase energy production despite President Obama's failure to do just the opposite. This amendment would simply block additional areas from energy production in the future. The Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It belongs to all of the people of the United States. The State of California--and I need to remind colleagues of this--the State of California's top import is petroleum from overseas. This amendment would block the domestic production potentially of petroleum off their coast--production that could be used to help California consumers and provide California people with jobs. This amendment would do just the opposite of what the underlying bill intends to do, 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 my time. I just want to tell my friend that going into 2009, there were no moratoria. And the reason there were no moratoria on the Pacific or the Atlantic coasts was because the American people demanded that we seek areas where there is potential resources of energy. Why did they demand that of Congress? Because gas prices hit $4 a gallon and potentially were going higher. We are now in that same situation again. And this underlying legislation, as I mentioned, because the gentleman rightfully said there may not be resources off northern California because this legislation directs the Department of the Interior to offer leases where there are known resources, now, there may be some resources, maybe new technology will find it. We need to keep that option open. But I think this amendment will start the precedent of blocking off areas when the American people want to have more American energy, more American energy jobs; and this underlying legislation will do precisely that. And I think this amendment will harm that prospect.

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there is a very important principle here, and that is a contract is a contract. You abide by what you negotiate under the existing law. And this existing law has worked its way through the courts all of the way to the Supreme Court. And in every case, the 1995 law in these leases was upheld. Why would we want to jeopardize and send the wrong message to those who would want to take the risk and make the investments under this law? It would send a very, very wrong signal, in my view. Once again, this amendment has been defeated on this floor a number of times. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' one more time to defeat this amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Idaho for this amendment. And let me correct just one statement that was made just a moment ago. The geothermal industry testified in our committee in favor of this bill. But there seems to be a pattern here when we talk about activity on Federal land, which, of course, is under the jurisdiction of the committee that I have the privilege to chair. And if I hear it once, I hear it dozens of times, and we hear it virtually in all the testimony when we hear of issues that come before our committee, and that is the red tape that you have to go through to utilize our public lands for multiple-purpose use. Let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. Our public lands were designed, unless Congress sets aside specifically, for multiple use. That means commercial activity and that means recreational activity, a wide variety of activities. But when we have these other laws that inhibit that use, then I think it works against what the American people are trying to accomplish. This is a very simple process that says, goodness, if you have a lease in an area, why do you have to have so much redundancy to do the same thing over and over again? I think this amendment is a good amendment. As I mentioned, it passed out of committee on a bipartisan vote, and I urge adoption.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment really is not needed because you can look with a magnifying glass through this whole bill and you will see absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There's nothing in here that impacts that. I know the gentleman, my good friend from New Jersey, has a real passion for this particular fund--sometimes we don't agree on that, but, nevertheless, he has a real passion for it--but there is nothing in here at all that even talks about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I understand the gentleman wanted to make a statement--I appreciate that--and his desire would be to withdraw the amendment. So with that, I'll reserve my time pending his action.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I advise my friend from Massachusetts that I have requests from two other Members, so there are three including me.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is one more example where the other side is playing politics with American energy and American job creation. At a time, Mr. Speaker, when Iran is threatening a global energy meltdown, the Middle East is undergoing numerous uprisings, China's thirst for oil is growing and our consumers are facing rising prices at the pump, it's time to secure our own future with American-made energy. The other side talks about energy security. This legislation, the underlying legislation, offers real opportunity to expand our domestic energy production and secure our Nation. The other side talks about Federal revenue. This legislation would bring in billions of dollars to the Federal and State governments and bring tens of billions of dollars of investment into this country. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, while the other side talks about creating jobs for Americans, this legislation will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs for American workers. And while the other side cheapens these jobs by calling them temporary, we call these jobs what they really are--American jobs. The underlying legislation sets out a commonsense action plan to secure our future, create jobs, and increase Federal revenue and investment into this country. Oppose this motion to recommit and vote ``no,'' and vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3408.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.