Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. We have seen amendments of this nature multiple times throughout the debates, both in the committee that I have the privilege to chair, the Natural Resources Committee, and here on the House floor. And every single time amendments of this nature have failed, often with bipartisan votes. The amendment would write into law the imposition of strict safety requirements as part of the lease terms. This amendment would override the judgment of two agencies that have the authority to set and enforce safety regulations. Those agencies are the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. I might add, these agencies within this administration have, on multiple occasions, testified that offshore drilling operations are being done safely. This is post-BP, I might add. It seems like the effort is to continue to try to divert attention away from the real issue of increasing American energy production, increasing American jobs, lowering energy costs, and improving our national security. How? By lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Our good friends on the other side, they simply do not want to face the fact that this bill says that we can move forward with responsible oil and natural gas exploration and production here in America while, at the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not mutually exclusive goals. Republicans want to make U.S. offshore drilling the safest in the world so that we can produce more American energy, thus creating more American jobs and thus strengthening our national security. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, amendments of this nature have repeatedly failed in the House. I hope it will do so again, and I urge opposition to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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 as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment passed the House Natural Resources Committee last year in the form of stand-alone legislation on a bipartisan vote. My amendment would accelerate the development of clean, renewable energy projects on Federal lands by streamlining and simplifying government regulations while ensuring thorough environmental reviews. House Republicans are committed to utilizing America's abundant and diverse energy resources to implement the all-of-the-above American- made energy strategy that we put forth last year. This includes utilizing our public lands for renewable energy projects. These projects have the potential to create thousands of American jobs, to generate economic benefits, and contribute to our energy security. Unfortunately, renewable energy projects on Federal lands frequently get caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Regulatory roadblocks and burdensome lawsuits continue to plague and delay these projects, sometimes by many years. This amendment will facilitate the development of clean, renewable energy on Federal lands by providing a clear, simple process for completing important environmental reviews. The amendment would require an environmental review to be conducted only for the specific location where the renewable energy project would be located, rather than requiring thousands of pages of environmental review for numerous different locations. This would significantly reduce the number of years it takes to develop clean, renewable energy projects. So I want to stress that this amendment includes no subsidies, only the streamlining of government regulations. America has been blessed with an abundance of energy resources of all kinds. We all know that. And we should be actively looking to use these resources to create jobs and to improve American energy security. So I urge my colleagues to support the renewable energy development regulatory relief plan I have, and support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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, from time to time there shows, really, progress in the course of debate. The gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out that my side of the aisle has some real heartburn on a lot of regulations. I'll be the first to admit that. Apparently he does, too, by his acknowledgement that we have that acknowledgement, and he doesn't want to be governed by regulations. So I think we're making progress, at least in that way, and I congratulate him. But here's the point. On this specific issue, this Congress has responded, and to their credit, this administration has responded, not probably to the extent that I would like, seeing that the regulatory oversight on potential spills in the gulf or any place in the OCS will be responded to in a timely manner. That was done through the appropriation process by a Republican-led Congress. I congratulate the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations for doing precisely that. But I will repeat again, in my view, in this particular case this amendment is redundant to what the law, through regulations, already is; and I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, since I have the right to close, I will reserve.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, according to the U.S. Census, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of California's largest import is petroleum. So I guess it's a good thing that private geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of American-made energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing infrastructure in southern California. What does existing infrastructure mean? Well, there are currently about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore in southern California which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic feet of gas annually. The lease sale proposed in this legislation allows drilling from existing platforms or, to put it in another vernacular, those that are already in place. If we are going to have a serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to drill not only where there is already drilling going on, but from where the platforms already exist, which is why this bill specifically states: ``no new infrastructure.'' We need to drill where there are known resources, and this California lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while accessing our resources that are known in southern California. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the State of California is already working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on a permit to allow a company to drill from an existing platform in Federal waters into State waters for State resources. Let me say this: the State of California has entered into the same concept that's embodied in this bill. So let me repeat here one more time. It's Governor Brown's administration that is pursuing drilling off these same platforms closer to the coast. Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for drilling that would occur potentially off their shores. This means States like Florida and Virginia will not receive any portion of any revenues for drilling that will occur off their coasts under this bill if this amendment were to be adopted. The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the vast resources of southern California. This amendment would lock away significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil and gas imports. It would also hinder our Nation's energy security. This amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that American families are facing at the pump right now. Many of those families don't have room in their budget to pay hundreds more dollars just to drive to work or drive their kids to school. And by the way, I might add, Mr. Chairman, I think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that does a lot of driving, it's in California. We need to get America producing energy again. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation. With that, I reserve 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. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Two points, Mr. Chairman: first of all, the gentleman suggests that this Congress and this House, led by Republicans, have not done anything as far as safety offshore. I would just remind the gentleman that through the appropriations process there has been a tremendous increase in precisely what the Obama administration was asking for safety. The Obama administration has said essentially that it is safe, although I would argue they should be more aggressive; but they say it's safe to drill. So that argument I don't think really has a great deal of bearing. But more importantly, I would say this: the port of Boston has a liquid natural gas terminal, and they are importing natural gas from Trinidad and Yemen, hardly a stable community or country in the Middle East. Right now, right off the coast of Nova Scotia, just north of this area that we're talking about, there is natural gas drilling going on. So certainly, if we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and foreign energy and we like natural gas, like a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about, then we should reject this amendment and adopt the underlying bill. With that, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time since I have the right to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The proposal of the gentleman from Louisiana has merit. I commend him for proposing it, and I do urge its adoption. The goal of revenue sharing in the bill is to allow States the flexibility to use the money they want with their local States. If this is what the gentleman's State wants to use its money for, I have no problem, and I certainly agree with him. In fact, I would emphasize one other point: Since I've had an opportunity to visit the gentleman's State and to see firsthand what it has done with the initiative, I think that it is a tremendous template for other States, which is precisely why, in the underlying bill, we have the component of revenue sharing. It is for other States to, maybe, emulate what Louisiana has always done. So I think the gentleman's amendment is certainly compatible with what we're trying to do. It is a good amendment, and I commend the gentleman for that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and therefore it belongs to all of the people of the United States as a whole. These Federal offshore resources are unlike Federal lands and onshore resources outside the borders of the States. Each individual State controls several miles offshore of their coasts, and that varies State by State. But beyond that point, the Federal lands are owned by the Federal Government and its resources. This bill, underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known resources. Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find could be even more than what is estimated. This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the American people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, own them. Not too long ago, the entire OCS was under moratoria. Offshore drilling in this country was prohibited. When the gas skyrocketed past $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people collectively said, No more. The American people cried out and demanded that Congress act, and we did by lifting the moratoria. In fact, what the American people found out, Mr. Chairman, at that time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't utilizing. That's why they cried out and said, Okay. Let's end the several moratoria. Now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the American people, to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that prices are again climbing towards $4 a gallon, and to ignore that our Nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in this Nation and not from hostile foreign nations. The American people want to increase American energy production and jobs, not stifle American energy production. Let's not forget that we are creating American oil and gas that can be refined and used here. Some of the States that want to shut down production off their coasts are the highest consumers of these fuels that they would have shut down. Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States and U.S. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for drilling that would occur off their shores. That means States like Florida and Virginia and others that would like to participate could not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off their States under this bill. Finally, I would like to say this because we have had a long discussion today in debate, and I've heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, We love natural gas. I'm not sure if it was said with that same cadence, but the message was there. Listen, Mr. Chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lies off the Atlantic Coast. Can you imagine how much easier it is to get that to market than shipping it from someplace else? So I would urge rejection of this amendment. I reserve 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, since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement have put forward significant regulatory measures governing offshore drilling. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because existing Federal regulations--specifically, 30 CFR 254.26--already require a worst-case discharge scenario in all lease applications, which includes an evaluation of economic resources that may be impacted. So that's in the law already, Mr. Chairman. So I find it interesting that we have an amendment before us that we are debating on essentially legislation and regulatory issues that are already currently in place. Let me make another point to hopefully point out the disconnect of what we are talking about because one of the issues that we are talking about here is the creation of American energy, American jobs, American security, less dependence on foreign sources of our energy. This last January, for example, the State Department expelled the consul general of Venezuela in Miami for plotting a cyberattack on the U.S. Government. And yet here we are, debating an issue that could affect our getting to be less dependent on foreign energy sources and ignoring what is the obvious. We, obviously, ought to be trying to be less dependent on foreign oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. We are talking about a debate on an amendment that is simply redundant of current law. I don't know why we are having this debate, but I think that the redundancy of it here--we always have a worst-case discharge scenario in current law. We simply don't need this. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, just a point. The issue is not claiming time in the minority or majority. The time is in opposition, and with that in mind, I would rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate once again--and this is understanding that people in our great country have different views--I certainly understand what happened in southern California some 40 years ago. Listen, that picture is indelibly in everybody's mind. But nobody can argue there have not been advances in oil exploration in this country, and certainly in the OCS. But as a recognition of that, in this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern California. We said go to the existing platforms where you're drilling and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling. Now, that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the resources that we have--by the way, in Federal waters, not in State waters, in Federal waters--so that we can make ourselves less dependent on foreign energy. The last thing I would say is the State of California is pursuing precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only in State waters. So I urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from southern California. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study only for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Planning Area, as defined in the bill. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in protecting the multiple use of the OCS, and I join him in that interest. For decades, tourism, fishing, and oil and gas drilling have been compatible in the Gulf of Mexico, and there's no reason that the new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way. While I understand the interests of the gentleman to have this study for those areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, I wish that he could have expanded the study to jobs that could have been created by new drilling and the support that comes with that activity. While that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, I would only have to think that because you're having the study on that, there may be some residual, and I would look forward to that residual potentially also. So I thank the gentleman and congratulate him for offering this amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, the underlying bill vastly expands the number of States that would be eligible for revenue sharing to far beyond those four States that the ranking member mentioned. But when our committee held a markup on this legislation 2 weeks ago, I pledged to work with the gentleman from Louisiana and Gulf Members to help bring parity to the differences between the existing revenue sharing currently enjoyed in the four Gulf States and all the other coastal States, which, up until this legislation today, as I mentioned, were not entitled to a share of the revenues from oil and gas production off their shores. Let me repeat that again. Under this legislation, more States will have an opportunity to share this. But this amendment seeks to bring existing revenue sharing in the Gulf more in line with the plan that was included in the underlying bill. And I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor. I support it.