Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maine.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), who is a highly respected Representative.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, may I ask a question of the ranking member about how many more speakers he has.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. He just arrived, Mr. Chair, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to clarify a couple of things that have been said in this wonderful discussion, and I thank all the speakers for coming before us. The sky is not falling. Let me repeat that: The sky is not falling. It has been pointed out and reported that if we do not have drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific, it will badly hurt the Land and Water Conservation Fund because it is funded from offshore revenues. The idea that the passage of H.R. 1941 will hurt the LWCF is completely false. This bill will not affect the LWCF at all. Let's talk about it. All the money for the LWCF from this fund comes from the existing oil and gas activities in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. Of the resources that come into the Federal Government from these areas, the central and western Gulf of Mexico, the Land and Water Conservation Fund gets the first $900 million. That is what comes in, and then it is distributed. Last year, what came in for the conservation fund should have been over $4.7 billion. In fact, in the last 19 years, we have brought in, at a minimum, $2.8 billion, far in excess of the $900 million that goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There are projections that the existing activity in the Gulf of Mexico is enough to keep the LWCF funded for many, many decades to come. We don't need to drill in the Atlantic or the Pacific to fund the LWCF. Revenues are not the problem. What is the problem then? The real problem is that only twice in the history of the LWCF has Congress appropriated the full $900 million. As I have pointed out, much more money has come into the Treasury. Only twice have we ever fully appropriated the money. In fact, we have collected almost $40 billion in revenues that should have been spent on the LWCF, but we have appropriated less than half of that, which is $18.4 billion. So I am glad that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very concerned about the LWCF, but I would like to point out that we should make sure we work together, that we get the full $900 million that we should be getting every year and that we are not getting every year. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just, in closing, would like to make a few statements that kind of reiterate what has already been said, I think so well, and how we must protect our coast. Right now, the United States produces, in totality, 12.3 million barrels of oil a day--crude oil, each and every day. It is an all-time U.S. record. We have done that in 2018, and we lead the world now in terms of export production. Of that 12.3 million, we export over 3 million barrels of crude oil a day. It is more than is exported from all the other nations of the world, except for two OPEC nations. We are the number one producer of natural gas. We are a net exporter of natural gas, but we also say we do--by not opening up the Atlantic and the Pacific, we are not putting this tremendous resource of oil development at risk. Right now, in the Gulf, open for development in the future, we normally put up almost 80 million acres in the Gulf for leasing each year. Right now over 72 percent of the potential Gulf that is open for oil and gas development, 72 percent has not yet been developed. There is an estimated 43 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf yet to be discovered and produced. There is enough oil there for the next 66 years of production at the same level that we have today. We must protect our coast. We must protect the future. Mr. Chair, I urge swift adoption of H.R. 1941, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this is a pointless amendment, and I am, frankly, a little bit embarrassed that we are even discussing it. Not only does it not improve the bill, but it is also based on a false premise. Let's be clear: We are not reliant on Russian energy, and the United States is not stricken by energy poverty. In fact, it is the complete opposite of the present reality. The Atlantic and Pacific have remained off-limits to new oil and gas development for decades, but the United States now produces 12.3 million barrels of crude oil each day, which is an all-time U.S. record, and it produces the most in the world. It exports over 3 million barrels of crude oil a day, more than all but two members of OPEC exported in 2018. We are the number three exporter of oil. We are also the number one producer of natural gas in the world, and we are a net exporter of natural gas. Look, if we really want to lead in energy, we should be taking a bigger role in the production of renewable energy. Costs for renewable energy have plummeted, and our global competitors are jockeying to lead the world in clean energy development. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to have dusted off the same tired talking points that they were using 10 years ago--and even longer, 20 years ago--before U.S. energy production skyrocketed. Even worse, the Trump administration acts like it believes those talking points and continues to believe that the future lies in coal, oil, and gas. Mr. Chair, this is a silly amendment, and it achieves nothing. For this reason, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I oppose the Gosar amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, we do not have any concerns with the amendment and do not believe it undermines the underlying legislation. Furthermore, it is our firm belief that, if the Department of the Interior were to consult with the Defense Department, they would find H.R. 1941 poses no national security risk to the United States. The underlying bill does not affect a single producing offshore lease, and oil and gas companies now have tremendous opportunities for new offshore development in the United States. Let's be clear: The United States offers nearly 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for new leasing every year, and companies now hold only 13 million acres of the Gulf under lease, which means that 72 percent of the acres that have been offered are not yet developed. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this amendment has nothing to do with the bill and is simply an attempt to block protections for the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and it is based upon a false concern for women and minorities' jobs. We know that Members from both sides of the aisle understand that our existing coastal economies are incompatible with more offshore oil and gas development. I believe that enacting this underlying bill and protecting the Atlantic and Pacific coast from the dangers of offshore drilling will, in itself, safeguard jobs in the coastal tourism and recreational industries, many of which are held by women and people of color. For example, thriving fish stocks and healthy marine mammals off the coasts of Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida support tackle shops, whale watching tours, and seafood markets. Oil-free beaches and bays in Virginia and the Carolinas drive business for local restaurants, vacation rentals, and outfitters. People from all walks of life, from diverse backgrounds, and from both political parties cherish these special places and rely on healthy oceans, clean beaches, and the abundant fish and wildlife that come with it. For example, last week, the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast wrote to this body and expressed its strong support for the underlying bill. According to the business coalition, which represents more than 4,000 businesses along the West Coast, offshore drilling threatens nearly 746,000 jobs and nearly $53 billion in GDP. The real threat to jobs and economic opportunities in coastal communities would be failing to protect permanently our shorelines from dangerous oil drilling. This is an unserious amendment that does nothing to protect jobs belonging to women and minorities, and it keeps the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts at risk. Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.