Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

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. 3408.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

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. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which contains the energy provisions in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act. This is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand American energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our national and economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay for infrastructure, and, Mr. Chairman, all without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. In this year's State of the Union speech, President Obama proclaimed his support for expanding American energy production with an all-of- the-above energy strategy. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the President's actions while he has been in office have been anything but pro-energy. In fact, his rhetoric--and I don't say this lightly, Mr. Chairman--is 180 degrees from his actions. Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly blocked U.S. energy production. The offshore drilling moratorium and the Keystone pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. He has canceled and withdrawn scheduled lease sales, shut off promising areas to new drilling, blocked mining in mineral-rich areas, and issued countless job- destroying regulations. Mr. Chairman, actions do speak louder than words. The bill we are considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President Obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs policies of Republicans. While President Obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling, this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas resources in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. As a result, economic analysis has shown that well over 1 million jobs--long-term jobs, long-term American jobs--can be created. While President Obama opposes energy production in ANWR, this bill will open less than 3 percent of the total area to responsible and safe drilling. That issue has been around a while, Mr. Chairman. ANWR represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in the United States. This is one of the reasons that way back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was still President and the Democrats controlled the Congress, they specifically set aside the north slope of ANWR for energy production. Safe and responsible energy production in ANWR will protect the environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing upwards of 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. By the way, this is more than the U.S. imports daily from Saudi Arabia. While the President has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million acres in the Rocky Mountains to oil shale development, this bill will set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued. According to the government estimates, this region may hold--and, Mr. Chairman, this is a significant number. This region may hold more than 1\1/2\ trillion barrels of oil equivalent. That's six times Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years. And I'm just talking about oil shale. Robust oil shale development could also create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that should be self-evident. Finally, while the President refused to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, this bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to approve it within 30 days. The Keystone XL pipeline will create more than 20,000 American jobs and displace less stable energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure North American oil. Since this President took office, Mr. Chairman, gasoline prices have climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded. Prices will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our energy independence and develop our own energy resources. Today, Mr. Chairman, Republicans are moving forward with a plan to create more jobs and create more American energy. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

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. 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.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed 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, how much time do I have?

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

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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Grimm).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Quileute Indian Reservation is located along the coast of the Olympic Peninsula in my home State of Washington. It consists of approximately 880 acres and is home to about 375 residents. Most of the reservation is located within the flood zone, and much of the tribal infrastructure, including their school, elder center, and housing, is within the tsunami zone. Recent tsunamis in the Pacific clearly demonstrate the risk faced by the tribe and the need to move housing and infrastructure inland. For the safety of this small tribe, legislation is needed that would transfer a few hundred acres from the vast Olympic National Park to the tribe. This will allow them to move their school and other structures to safer land away from the threat of frequent flooding and tsunami risk. There are no park-owned facilities or trails in the transferred land, and there are few opportunities in this transferred land for park visitors. To expedite the passage of the key objective of this bill and to allow it to move forward promptly, the Natural Resources Committee deleted a potentially controversial 4,000-acre wilderness designation that is of no benefit to the tribe. The committee also added language borrowing transferred land from being used for gaming purposes, and the tribe does not oppose this limitation. I believe these two changes have removed all potential obstacles that could threaten the timely passage of this needed legislation that has been offered by my friend and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks. I urge the adoption of H.R. 1162, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm pleased that this legislation is moving forward. I know this has been something that has been worked on by my friend and colleague from Washington for some time, and I'm glad we have finally gotten this far. And hopefully now that it's a clean bill that really deals with the safety of the Quileute Tribe, which is the important part and that's the reason for the bill, I hope it can move very fast through this House and obviously through the Senate. With that, I urge adoption of H.R. 1162, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.