Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that this amendment, though well intended, is duplicative; and I think that has been admitted by the other side and therefore is unnecessary. I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, so at this point I am going to wait and close as soon as the gentlelady is done. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who has a district in the State of Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do oppose this amendment because it is duplicative and unnecessary. This amendment attempts to expand upon the language in the bill that already mandates that the Secretary conduct a safety review to affirm oil spill response and containment capability prior to issuing a permit. We believe that the Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must calculate worst-case discharge before approving a permit. On June 18 of last year, the Department issued a notice to lessees outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a permit could be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee ``describe the assumption and calculations that you used to determine the volume of your worst-case discharge scenario.'' This exact language, this exact intention has already been addressed, so I would oppose this amendment as redundant and unnecessary. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that the experts that we should rely on are those that are in the Department of the Interior, Director Michael Bromwich with BOEMRE and all the way down, who have been working on this for the last year. They have extensive regulations. Some of what is proposed are actually regulations right now. And while the bill does call for certain safety standards to be satisfied and met, we have delegated the responsibility for the exact language and implementation of those regulations to those who deal with this 8 hours a day, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out. So there is a balance. We give the broad parameters. They carry out, as a regulatory agency, every last final detail. And Congress, as has been admitted, does not have the technical expertise to foresee every single development and foresee every single problem that could arise. So while overseeing, we have to do some delegation. This bill does that. We strike that fine balance. And the administration's department has been doing a strong job of strengthening the safety requirements. I do take issue with the pace of their permitting. But as far as the safety implementation, they have put very aggressive safety measures into place. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment was already rejected by a bipartisan vote of the full Natural Resources Committee and, once again, I urge opposition to it. This amendment micromanages and dictates specific safety and blowout preventer standards for permit applications. Many of these standards would do little or nothing different than what is already being done by the Department of the Interior. However, these restrictions would, if this amendment passes, be etched into law, making Congress the technical arbiter and micromanager of Outer Continental Shelf regulations, and reducing the flexibility and ability of the Department to adapt to new technology and new development in drilling safety. So if we're lagging behind developments in the industry, this would actually prevent us, or could prevent us, from adopting those new and better standards in the future. The technical standards proposed in this amendment have not been subject to a thorough review or understanding of the impacts of such changes. This is particularly troubling when you consider that this language was written before we even knew why the blowout preventer failed. H.R. 1229 already takes steps to increase the safety of offshore drilling by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review to ensure that the proposed drilling operations meet ``critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements.'' That language is lifted straight out of the bill. So my colleagues on the other side are acting as if nothing has changed and no safety reforms have been made. By doing so, they are ignoring the facts on the ground and the actions of their own party's administration. I'm not willing to indict the administration and say that they have done nothing in this regard. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there is a public comment period that is available right now, and that is a proper and appropriate forum for an outside group to make the kind of standards- related comments that would be possibly helpful. But when it comes to actually issuing the permit, that is something that should be delegated to the Federal Government. They do have the resources. In fact, they have expanded resources to do a better job of that, hopefully, in the future. So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do oppose this amendment. Although well intended, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act itself makes drilling already safer by requiring that the Secretary ensure that any proposed drilling operation be subject to a safety review--it's there in the bill already--and that it meet established critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements, and this has to be done before the issuance of a permit. The decision to approve individual permit applications is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I don't believe it should be farmed out to other organizations that may or may not have the background, the expertise, or the resources to evaluate drilling permits. In fiscal year 2011, House Republicans voted to increase funding for the Department of the Interior in order to ensure that they have the resources to safely, responsibly, and effectively approve permits. The Interior Department has a responsibility, as it drafts legislation, to solicit public comment; and they do take advice and counsel from all Americans, including those with expertise in these areas. However, once the standards are set, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce the standards. Oversight is the Federal Government's responsibility, and it should not be delegated to outside organizations. Whether intended or not, this amendment would slow down and make more complicated the already lengthy and involved permitting process. So I urge opposition to this amendment, and urge opponents to vote ``no'' on it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although well intended, this amendment is duplicative and would add delays to the permitting process and production of American-made energy. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior as overseers of permitting in the gulf to ensure safe and environmentally responsible drilling in the gulf. Since the spill last year, the Department of the Interior has made extensive changes to permitting requirements for offshore operations. Every drilling permit is required to go through multiple environmental reviews before the application can be approved. This begins with an initial programmatic environmental impact statement and is followed by a lease sale-specific environmental impact statement and continues with additional environmental reviews as drilling activities move forward. In carrying out its responsibilities, the department already must comply with numerous environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive orders. These regulations include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. And I may have left some out. This demonstrates the redundancy in this amendment and why it is not necessary. Administration officials and even Director Bromwich have stated on numerous occasions to both the Natural Resources Committee and the American people that they would not permit operations if they did not believe they meet all the requirements to be conducted safely, efficiently, and in an environmentally responsible manner. The Interior Department already complies with these particular environmental regulations when approving permits. And the fact that the Department is permitting operations, although at a slower pace than I would like to see, demonstrates that they have confidence in the regulations that the agency has set for offshore drilling operations. The real effect of this amendment, whether intended or not, is more delays to offshore energy production and more lengthy and burdensome lawsuits. So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman and the others from the Natural Resources Committee on the Republican side who have spoken on this issue or are with the Energy and Commerce Committee and made great comments about how we do need to do what we can in Congress to lower the price of gasoline. We do that by increasing production. The two go together. We don't do it by increasing taxes on the energy producers. We allow for policies to allow for more production. We have to pass H.R. 1229 to make sure that, whether it is deliberate or not, this administration will not continue to stonewall the permitting process. It is a long and lengthy process. There are multiple environmental reviews that take place. Then to hold it up at the last and not allow for a permit to be issued is just not acceptable. All the work has been done when it becomes time to issue the permit. So what this bill says is you have 30 days, with a couple of extensions, if necessary, to make the final decision. And you don't have to issue the permit. You can say no, if that is the best decision. Just take action, and let's have a little certainty in the business world and in the economy of our country, especially the Gulf of Mexico and the coastal States like Louisiana that are so heavily affected. On the issue of safety, Mr. Chairman, we all do share the goal of wanting to make sure that offshore drilling is the safest in the world. Significant and fundamental changes have taken place over the past year to improve offshore drilling safety and response. Regulations have been enhanced and strengthened, standards have been increased, new technology has been developed, reviewed, tested and is being currently deployed. BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich came to our committee and testified in front of the Natural Resources Committee and he said, ``We have confidence that offshore drilling can be conducted now more safely than it had been before and that we would be better able to deal with a blowout than we were before.'' Now, if anyone on the other side of the aisle wants to act as if nothing has been changed and there have been no safety reforms imposed, they are indicting the Obama administration in saying that they have turned a blind eye to the situation since the BP crisis took place, and that is simply not true. As I said a minute ago, new regulations have been imposed and standards have been strengthened. So I am not going to sit here and indict the administration on the safety aspect. There have been a lot of safety regulations by bureaucratic regulation put into place. This bill does acknowledge that two additional things will be part of our law when this bill passes. H.R. 1229 says, number one, the Secretary will issue a permit. The need for a permit has not been ever codified, so we are requiring that a permit has to be issued before drilling can take place. Number two, the Secretary is to conduct a safety review. That is being mandated and put into law. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1229. We are going to be looking at some amendments shortly.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the issue of safety that has been raised a couple of times here. I quoted from the bill text earlier to show that there, indeed, are safety requirements that have been put into the bill as part of H.R. 1229: The Secretary will not issue a permit unless critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and containment requirements, have been satisfied. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that anyone who reads the bill will see on the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, ``Safety review required. The Secretary shall not issue a permit under paragraph one without ensuring that the proposed drilling operations meet all, A, critical safety system requirements, including blowout prevention; and B, oil spill response and containment requirements.'' So when we look at the facts, we should start with the text of the bill itself. At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. LAMBORN. Then I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining for both sides.