Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I submit the following: Office of the Governor, Cheyenne, WY, July 27, 2010. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Office of the Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: The State of Wyoming has deep concerns at the haste with which Congress is attempting to legislate new oil and gas regulatory processes under H.R. 5626. Provisions which have been added to this bill would affect onshore leasing and energy production and rob the States of their traditional role of overseeing energy production within the States. I urge you to delay action until more definitive information can be obtained and provided to Members of Congress. Based on the hearings and focus that Congress to date has brought to bear on the tragedy in the Gulf, an expansion of the intended reach of any legislation to respond to this offshore spill and precipitously cover onshore energy production would be a mistake. The State of Wyoming has had effective regulation of the oil and natural gas industry through a variety of programs designed to gather and share information, technology and best regulatory methods for several decades. The implications of the bill's encroachment to onshore energy leasing and production are ominous as it represents a takeover of state regulation of well construction and permitting and gives it to the Federal government at the expense of long-established State authority. Such preemption would occur whenever the Department of the Interior determines that a state is not adequately regulating oil and gas, or because of citizen lawsuit. This is overreach of the first order. The State of Wyoming has a proven history of oversight of the energy industry and has effectively overseen industry activity without federal oversight for decades. Regulatory requirements and inspections of well sites are important components of our state program and the prevention of accidents and environmental protection are among our highest priorities. It is my view that the federal government lacks both the justification and the expertise to effectively oversee oil and natural gas production in the State of Wyoming and I urge you to reject the preemption of Wyoming's and other State's authority to perform this important function. Sincerely, Dave Freudenthal, Governor.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been very interesting because most of the talk on the other side of the aisle has been on the oil spill. Most of the talk on this side of the aisle has been on the increased taxes and on the increased spending. There is broad agreement that we have to respond in a responsible way to what happened, to the tragedy in the gulf. Nobody argues with that. There is broad support on this side. What we object to--and we have said this over and over and over again--is the extraneous material that is added to this bill. I didn't hear anybody, for example, on the other side defend the huge tax increases that are embodied in this bill. I didn't hear anybody on the other side of the aisle defend the $30 billion entitlement that is embodied in this bill. That is what our concern is because that is in this bill. As a matter of fact, in my opening remarks, I made reference to the tax increases, and my good friend, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, wondered about the tax increases. I pointed them out to him. They're on page 224. To his credit, he came up here and said, You're right. I appreciate that very much because that really is what the issue is. If you want to get bipartisan approval dealing with the gulf coast oil crisis, we can do that in a bipartisan way, but don't add extraneous material. That is our objection to this bill, because extraneous material is increased taxes, more spending, resulting in a loss of jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and 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 am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

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

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, the last speaker made an interesting point when he was talking about the oceans and how this bill is going to save the oceans. I don't think there is anybody in this body that doesn't want to make sure that our oceans are in a healthy, robust way. But it begs the question why are there restrictions, if this is an oceans bill, and if it's a gulf oil bill, why does this bill deal with onshore oil and gas regulation and restrictions? That question, honestly, has not come up once in the debate even though that reference has been made many times by Members on this side of the aisle. This amendment, of course, is on the manager's amendment. As I mentioned, it is 17 Democrat amendments and one Republican amendment. There may be some good things involved with this amendment. In fact, there are. But why is there always this tendency to throw so much more into these amendments when many of the subjects that are covered in them have not been fully vetted throughout the committee process? That's the concern. And it's a pattern that we see over and over and over again. And frankly, it's a pattern that I think the American people see and respond to when asked about how they feel this body is in a favorable or unfavorable way. Because this body has very low favorable ratings. I think this is part--not the only thing--but this is certainly part of that. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the manager's amendment. I am certainly going to ask them to vote against the underlying bill because the underlying bill, while it's purported to be in response to the gulf oil spill, we saw it was expanded just a moment ago, at least in remarks by the gentleman from Massachusetts, to all of the oceans. In fact, the gentleman from California said the same thing come to think of it. But yet what this bill really is all about, when you look at the substance and how it affects the American people, is another gigantic tax increase, and an addition of mandatory spending on top of the mandatory spending we have within our government right now. We all know, all of us in this body knows that the mandatory spending in this Congress and our Federal Government is unsustainable over time. And yet here we are, albeit on a small level, adding to mandatory spending. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Rahall amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a new fine on spills larger than 1 million barrels, and has a retroactive date of April 1, 2010. Now, I won't debate the fact that making this fine retroactive means that it will likely face a constitutional challenge. But I will debate the fact that once fines are paid by violators to the Federal Government, that money becomes taxpayer money. If we then spend that money on gulf restoration to clean up the mess caused by BP, we would be spending taxpayer dollars to clean up the BP spill. Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers should not be on the hook for the cleanup of the BP disaster. If there are projects in the gulf that demand restoration because of damage from the spill, then BP must be held accountable. If the gentleman has projects that demand greater attention, then I offer to work with him, just as I am working with other members of our committee from Louisiana, to ensure that the Federal oversight gets the gulf cleaned up and the gulf made whole. But I reject the premise that we must use taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess made by BP. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't intend to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota to finish his remark.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this bill is being sold as the response to the ongoing gulf oil crisis. Though what has not been mentioned until right now is that it is stuffed with page after page of provisions that are totally unrelated to the spill. This legislation, if passed, will kill jobs. It will raise taxes, and it will increase Federal spending and cause even greater economic pain to the gulf coast and their families and communities. Republicans believe the Federal Government should be focused on permanently stopping the leak, cleaning up the oil, holding BP and those responsible for the spill fully accountable, and then finding out, Mr. Chairman, what went wrong. Republicans believe educated reforms are needed to make American deepwater energy production the safest in the world, but these reforms must be based on the full facts of what caused and contributed to this tragedy. Here in Washington, though, Democrats are exploiting the oil spill as an excuse to impose a job-killing combination of tax increases, government spending, and greater bureaucratic regulations. Democrats are pushing ahead of the facts to enact unrelated policies that wouldn't stand on their own merits if they weren't hitched to this vehicle and to this tragedy. They are not even waiting for the results of the many ongoing investigations, including the President's own hand- picked commission on this matter. This tragic oil spill and the President's arbitrary deepwater drilling moratorium have already cost thousands of jobs in the gulf and across the Nation. Congress should not be passing a law that will inflict deeper economic and unemployment pain. The unlimited liability in this bill will devastate small operators and lead to, it is estimated, 300,000 lost jobs. The budgets of States and the Federal Government, because of this action, could face a $147 billion deficit in their budgets from lost revenue. The new $22 billion energy tax in this bill will not only cause more lost jobs; it will raise energy and gas prices on American families and businesses. Mr. Chairman, this is what is very interesting: This tax is imposed on just American oil and gas from Federal leases. Foreign countries won't pay this tax. So the argument can be made that this tax actually hurts American workers and gives advantages to foreign competitors. Now, if what I have detailed is not bad enough, this bill includes over $30 billion in new mandatory spending--spending on programs totally unrelated to the oil spill. To make matters worse, Democrat leaders have inserted specific language in the bill allowing every single dollar to be earmarked. This makes this bill a giant earmark ATM that automatically hands out over $1 billion a year from now until the year 2040. This bill is supposed to be about the gulf oil spill, yet it goes far, far beyond offshore drilling. It imposes taxes and restrictions for onshore energy production. But the impact is not just on natural gas and oil onshore. It also affects renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal; and I will say, it affects it in a negative way. But it doesn't stop there. In response to the Federal Government's failure to regulate Deepwater Horizon in Federal waters, this bill requires a Federal takeover of permitting in State waters. In what bizarre world, Mr. Chairman, does this make sense? It is a gross violation, in my view, of the Tenth Amendment and is opposed by an association of 38 States who regulate energy production on their land and waters. Now let's take two steps back and consider what the Democrats are doing with this bill. I believe, and I think all Americans believe, that BP is responsible for the gulf oil spill, and they should be held 100 percent accountable for paying the costs of the cleanup and repairing the damages. I believe that Chairman Rahall agrees with that. I believe everyone in the House agrees that it is BP's responsibility to pay for this and not the taxpayers. So, Mr. Chairman, why does this supposed ``oil spill response bill'' impose a $22 billion energy tax on Americans and increase unrelated spending by over $30 billion? BP is supposed to pay, not the taxpayers. There shouldn't be a new energy tax or billions in new spending in this bill. The fact is, the Democrats are using this oil spill tragedy as an excuse for unrelated tax and spending increases. While this bill will cost billions in new taxes and higher spending, Mr. Chairman, the real toll is the potential lost jobs because of the actions of this bill. American jobs will be lost, and many will be sent overseas because of this bill. Why is this being done, I wonder, to the people of the gulf coast? The gulf coast has already taken a terrible economic hit. By what measures, Mr. Chairman, do they deserve this Democrat Congress taking action on a bill that will inflict even greater economic pain and suffering? So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the CLEAR Act and insist on a bill which we can all agree on regarding the safety and soundness of drilling in the gulf. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3534 because it does not comply with clause 9(a) of rule XXI, because the committee report to accompany the measure does not contain a statement that this bill contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. I would point the Speaker to page 125 of the accompanying report. The report contains a statement that H.R. 3435 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. That is not the proposition that we are considering today. Today we are considering H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009. However, the proposition identified in the committee report is H.R. 3435, a bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save program. As it happens, that measure was signed into law on August 7, 2009, and is Public Law 111-47. So it cannot be the proposition that we are considering today. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI prohibits the consideration of ``a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' The rule specifies ``the'' proposition, not ``a'' proposition. Thus the statement in the committee report fails to meet the test because it describes a proposition rather than the one which is the subject of the report. Normally, clause 9(d) would preclude the Chair from even entertaining this point of order. However, it also specifies ``the'' proposition and not ``a'' proposition and thus is inapplicable in this case. I would also note that the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3534 specifically exempts clause 9 of rule XXI from the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill; so the bill is exposed to this point of order. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.