Steve Pearce

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. PEARCE. How much time remains?

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this debate has progressed for a long time, but made a very short distance. The American people have a right to expect that we would do our job, that we would do our job to ease the pain in their everyday life. They have a right to expect that we would increase the competitiveness of American companies so that we are able to hold a good, strong economy. They have a right to expect that we would give fairness to all States. They have a right to expect that we would use good common sense in establishing this bill. Mr. Speaker, we are failing on every account in the bill that is before us tonight. When we should be establishing American dominance in the energy field, we are saying ``no'' to nuclear and ``yes'' to bicycle power. When we should be doing our job to find new clean coal technologies, we don't even mention them here. When we should be drilling for every amount of oil that we can find here to create American jobs and to stop spending $700 billion overseas, we are limiting our ability to produce here. We were told 2 years ago that we were going to see a plan, and tonight we were told we have new ideas. Those new ideas are riding bicycles and killing the American economy with higher fuel prices, hurting the American family with continued restrictions of supplies, putting ourselves strategically at risk by selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Mr. Speaker, I request that all Members, Republican and Democrat, vote ``nay'' on the bill in front of us tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this important subject up. It is indeed ironic that we are considering today a bridge safety bill and the very stimulus of the bill was a bridge that was approximately 40 years old, and now then we have this motion to recommit that directs attention to this bridge which is over 100 years old. The Massachusetts Highway Department recognized five significant problems with this particular bridge, the one that is in question under this motion to recommit; first of all, that it was structurally deficient; secondly, that the narrow horizontal clearance of the draw span opening is only 98 feet; thirdly, that the location of the channel opening on its side rather than the center; and then fourth, the vertical clearance through the draw span is only 27 feet above the mean water level; and fifth, there are of course traffic congestion problems at the Route 6, 138 and 103 intersection in Somerset. The provision that was put in to keep this bridge in place was placed in the bill in order to allow emergency traffic and pedestrian traffic. Now, the emergency traffic, the large vehicles, the fire trucks, have already been prohibited from going across this because it's unsafe, and though still we're going to keep the bridge here, and we have to understand that with the prices of energy today, that this block has very little to do with the bridge itself but instead is to do with the fact that our energy policies have been hijacked by a small group of extremists who refuse, at any point, to have more energy brought into this country, either by our own resources or by external resources. And that is the end result of what is going on with this bridge. So the motion to recommit simply says that the bridges that are unsafe as measured by a distinct standard that is available, would be actually torn down. The U.S. Coast Guard said that we need to tear the bridge down. The Massachusetts Highway Department said it's unsafe and would not like to use it. It's going to cost the taxpayers $1.5 million to keep it open. Let's pass this motion to recommit. Let's do the right thing and get more energy into this country.

Mr. PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Reclaiming my time. I would just point out to the gentleman that the 34,000 acres with the Perdido lease has got no production coming from it yet. It's declared as idle according to your specifications. And I would just remind the gentleman that there are always reasons why production is not occurring. No one is withholding oil at $140 a barrel. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend debate by 10 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided, misdirected legislation. After seeing this bill defeated just 2 weeks ago, I quite honestly am surprised that we are back for one more attempt at it. It is really heartwarming to find my colleague from West Virginia, the chairman of my committee, saying ``drill America now.'' The only thing is I am wondering why the chairman did not allow us to have amendments that would allow us to drill now. If he would allow us the amendments that would stop the litigation that is stopping us from drilling now, maybe we could work through some of those 68 million acres, if he would allow us to have amendments which would stop the regulatory process that is delaying unnecessarily and is of no benefit to the American consumer, maybe we could drill now. But I find the chairman's comments just hard to believe. In the context of the discussion today, I would invite the chairman to sign on to a letter with me. The letter is from myself and several other Members asking just in one area, one area where we find bureaucratic delays, 7 years in Utah, the BLM has not issued the resource management plans that are required in order to develop just that. If the chairman of the committee is intent on drill, drill, drill, as he says today, let him just put his one signature beside mine, and we will send it to Nancy Pelosi and send it to the President of the United States from Nancy Pelosi and us in the House and the Members of the Senate. One place where we have some of that 68 million acres, 1 million of the 68 million acres, and let's just work one block at a time to figure out exactly what the roadblocks are because I believe, I believe in my heart that the majority does not want to drill today. I believe that they understand that it is not the oil companies who lack the diligence, but it is instead roadblocks by people who have hijacked the energy policy of this country. In my section of the debate we will talk about the reason the 68 million acres lie unused, and it will go from regulatory process to litigation. It will go into the problems of seismic that are being blocked up along the northern end of this country. We will talk about the delays one step at a time. But let's talk just a little bit about the bill before us today. It is several sections. The first section I want to talk about directs the sale of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the NPR-A. Now that is curious that the Democrats on the floor of the House today do not want to open up ANWR, 2,000 acres. They have been concerned about the environmental degradation of the 2,000 acres of ANWR, and yet today they are saying that they are going to open up 23 million acres to environmental degradation. There is not one bit of infrastructure. There are no roads. There are no drilling pads. There are no pipelines. They are hundreds of miles away from where they need to be for the market. Yet with ANWR, with a 74-mile pipeline, it is sincerely believed that we could get production down to the continental United States within a year. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 800 miles long, took 3 years to have it built and full of oil because this Congress, at that point in time, realized that they could make a difference and they did make a difference by saying that this pipeline is not going to be delayed by litigation. If the gentleman from West Virginia says drill and drill now, then let him make the equal commitment that we will not allow our production to be delayed by litigation which is going to come from every sort of environmental group, either in the NPR-A or ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf. It is really difficult to believe that the majority is sincere when they say drill today, and on the other side of the spectrum we see all sorts of delaying mechanisms from people who contribute money to them. I was interested in the last debate to find that oil companies contribute money to Republicans and therefore there is some scheme. When I look at the bill in front of us today, I see groups, I see an alliance with groups that contribute a lot of money to Democrats. I see over $670 million in the last several years from trial lawyers. There is new language in this bill which will be litigated probably for decades. I see a section in this bill, section 5, that requires project labor agreements, and I see that the unions have given to the Democrats over $1 billion. And then I find the continuing language which says that there are going to be protections in place that satisfy environmental groups; and again, environmental groups have invested over $1 billion in Democrat candidates. So when I hear from the other side their observations about the special interests, I think we should look at the bill. Section 2 requires again the direction that any leases be environmentally responsible. That is new language. Sections 3 and 4 deal with pipeline requirements that companies tell me that they have to currently comply with already, so it appears to be a duplication. The project labor agreements are brand new. These are things where private companies are directed that they will, before they can work on any private project, have labor agreements in place. Then we have a ban that is reinstated on exporting Alaskan oil. Keep in mind that it was Democrat President Bill Clinton that opened up the Alaskan oil to be exported. So again, we find now the flip-flop in that position on their part. The ban was originally in place, and President Clinton decided he would relieve that ban. And now we find it being put back in place. The issuance of new leases, use it or lose it, frankly is already in place in law. There is language that currently states that if you do not use a lease, you lose it. So either this bill is simply to try to convince the American people that we are doing something when we are actually not, or it is even worse than that. I believe that we have no purpose for this bill. I believe that this bill is not going to increase the amount of domestic energy one bit. I think that what it is going to do is to start anew, it is going to start new processes and are going to delay even by months the process in place for the NPR-A. So while it is telling us we are going to drill now and drill in the NPR-A, actually it is doing the exact opposite. It is instituting new rules that will have to go through a completely new process. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, July 17, 2008. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Roy Blunt, Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker, Minority Leader Boehner, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority Whip Blunt: In the last month, through various legislative proposals and public comments, Majority leaders in Congress have accused oil and gas companies of refusing to drill. We think many times idle acres are caused by factors beyond these companies' control. In many cases, Congress and the bureaucracy create roadblocks that shut down companies' access to the lands. Your rhetoric over the last few months leads us to believe we have finally reached a consensus in Congress. In order to start drilling on idle acres where regulatory burdens exist, we request Congressional leaders act now to remove these obstacles on a case by case basis. We also request that you join us in sending a joint letter to the President urging him to issue an Executive Order systematically removing barriers on a case by case basis from lands under development that, due to regulatory burdens, remain blocked from development. We suggest starting with the permanent delays and lawsuits preventing drilling in Utah. Please join us in sending a letter to the President asking that he open drilling in Utah by issuing the final Records of Decision (RODs) on this state's Resource Management Plans (RMPs)--Vernal, Price, Moab, Richfield, and Monticello--which authorize oil and gas activities in Utah. These plans were to have been underway for over 7 years. In our letter we will ask the President to order the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue the RMPs by August 31, 2008. Additionally, we ask you insist that the RODs authorize the Preferred Alternatives in each RMP without the adoption of new Wilderness Characteristics Areas (WCAs). Removing bureaucratic roadblocks to these 955,000 idle acres will ensure that development starts immediately. This would enable the oil and gas industry to effectively tap into over 5.2 Tcf of natural gas and 334 million barrels of oil. This energy would heat 72.9 million homes and power 24.5 million cars. Clearing the regulatory roadblocks in Utah is one simple step to lower the price of energy for the American people. It is only by acting in a bipartisan manner that we can move our nation out of this national energy crisis. We have prepared a letter and await your approval. Additionally, we stand ready to assist you in bringing legislation before the House of Representatives that will eliminate the roadblocks to energy development in America. In coming together to encourage the President to take steps and reduce the regulatory burden on companies developing resources, we will show the American people that the Federal government is serious about lowering the price of gasoline. If we support the President as he removes regulatory roadblocks, we will see increased development on the acres sitting idle and lower energy prices. Sincerely, Stevan Pearce, Member of Congress. Rob Bishop, Member of Congress. Chris Cannon, Member of Congress.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, again we would just look at one area. This is the Powder River Basin, and 86 percent of the leased land is idle because of the fear of lawsuits. It is lawsuits that are stopping much of the production, and yet the gentleman's bill does nothing. It does nothing to stop the lawsuits. If we are serious about drilling and drilling now, then let's put something substantial in this bill, let's take it back to committee, let's amend it like we should have, let's put things that restrict the litigation that is stopping Americans from receiving the oil that they deserve and the lower price of gasoline. Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) for 1 minute.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is not dealt with in the drill now bill, DRILL, someone said maybe that means Democrats Reinventing the Inconvenient Liberal Lies instead of drilling now, but we just have a process that takes a long time. This process is part of what creates the 68 million acres. The 68 million acres of idle land are not idle at all. They are involved in this process. This process is not changed one bit by the bill in front of us. Again, if the bill had come through committee, if we would have had hearings, we could have made these points in committee. It's rather inconvenient because we don't have the ability to amend the bill today. We do not have the ability to offer a substitute bill, no motion to recommit. So we are tasked with simply explaining why the bill should receive a ``no'' vote. But the process today has not changed at all, and you cannot read every single element in this block, but you can just see, as we move the chart toward me, what the steps are that are required to drill any single well. Litigation can occur at many different points. Again, this bill does absolutely nothing to stop any of this regulatory process that exists today. There is not really such a thing as a third-world country. There are only overregulated countries, and when we look at this chart, we see why America is moving towards the status of a third-world country, because we are overregulating to the extreme, and it is winding up with millions of idle acres. Our friends want to say take it away from those companies that are not using it. Either it is because of bureaucratic process, external litigation, but there are very good reasons why acres are idle. I think that our friends on the other side of the aisle are simply avoiding the real question of why we are not drilling in this country, why we are preferring Hugo Chavez oil, why we are giving preferential treatment to oil from OPEC, rather than this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PEARCE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. PEARCE. I really appreciate and respect what the gentleman says, but when you give the figure 68 million acres are idle, I wonder how many of those acres are, in fact, in this bureaucratic process.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Brady, I would point out that this is the area we are talking about leasing, it is not some area up in Alaska that doesn't have any infrastructure, no pipelines. The majority is still avoiding the real question that is in front of this country, why we have $4 gasoline is because we can't get access to supplies that have an effect on the market today. I would recognize Mr. Brady for 3 minutes.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, the Perdido lease in the Gulf of Mexico was sold in 1996. Twelve years later, over $2 billion has been spent before we even produce one drop of oil. That is 34,000 acres that, according to our friends, are idle. And yet, $2 billion has been spent. Another billion dollars has to be spent before that can be produced. And what is going to happen with this bill is that people are going to say, I am afraid I might lose my lease. 12 years to produce one, not even 1 drop of oil on 34,000 acres, and people are going to stop buying leases. This bill is going to kill production, not assist production. I would like to recognize Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia for 2 minutes.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman of the committee pointing out that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was supposed to speed up the delays. And, in fact, we did. You would remember, sir, that it was in our committee that we established the five categorical exclusions. Those are the categorical exclusions that were dropped out in your energy bill earlier this year that slowed the process down. You also remember that we established the pilot offices. The pilot offices were established in several places across the country, and your legislation stopped those too. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PEARCE. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I was simply addressing the questions that were addressed to me by the gentleman from the floor. I would thank you for that reminder, and would point out that, in fact, what we are doing here today, we are saying that people have been laying on these leases, that they are letting them lie idle. But it was actually the Democrats of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 that passed, Democrats in the majority. And you notice that we have many of the gentlemen on the floor of the House today. Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Miller, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Rahall all voted yes in saying that we need, not just 5 years, but 10 years to produce these wells. And now we are having the finger pointed by the same people today, saying that it is irresponsible oil companies who are delaying too long. So the flip- flopping that we are seeing across the country right now is absolutely amazing. We would love to hear the Democrats say that they want to drill and drill now. The only problem is that I have heard Democrats say that drill is a four-letter word. Well, either they can't spell or they can't count; I don't know which. But let's yield 2 minutes to Mr. Carter of Texas.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) for 2 minutes.

Mr. PEARCE. The gentleman asks a question whose fault is it. Let's read down through a list of observations: Wilderness Society v. Wisely, 16 leases, 11,000 acres stopped; Montana Wilderness Alliance v. Fry, stops three leases, limits additional 9; Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, injunction covering 93 percent of the resource area; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership challenges total of 127 APDs, applications for permits to drill; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne stopped 60 wells; Potash Association stopped 72 wells; Biodiversity Conservation Alliance suspends leases; Wyoming Outdoor Council v. BLM, 11 parcels BLM stopped; National Audubon Society challenging the Resource Operational Division, and then we have Pennaco Energy v. U.S.; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. The reason that oil and gas exploration is stopped, the reason that we have 68 million acres is because of litigation and excess regulation, many of which do nothing, nothing to improve the environment. Most are bureaucratic delays. I would suggest that the gentleman should--maybe if he thinks that he can produce oil more cheaply and more effectively than the people who are producing it, maybe he should be there and actually be drilling some wells and find out for himself the difficulty of producing. Mr. Speaker, I would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for 1 minute.

Mr. PEARCE. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that oil companies are very rarely sitting on it. They are delayed by regulation. They're delayed by litigation, and if we were serious about drilling and drilling now, drill today, we would do something more than recommend a Black and Decker drill. I was surprised to hear our chairman of the committee say that because it takes billions of dollars to build these rigs out in the middle of the gulf, and to suggest that it is quite as simple as grabbing a Black and Decker and going and drilling with your hand, simply just, I think, intentionally understates the difficulty in providing low-cost gasoline for consumers in today's market. I was surprised.

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I would yield.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert two documents that show a history of litigation in the NPR-A. If the gentleman from West Virginia is unaware of those, maybe that would help. Litigation History: Oil and Gas Leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska In 1980 Congress amended the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Public Law 96-514), directing the Secretary of the Interior to carry out ``an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas'' in the 23 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Pursuant to this directive, BLM developed an expedited leasing program. In 1983, BLM completed an environmental impact statement (EIS) and issued a record of decision (ROD) opening all but 1,416,000 acres of NPR-A to leasing. The ROD called for five annual lease sales of approximately two million acres each. Soon after the release of the ROD a lawsuit was filed by two Inupiat Eskimos in U.S. District Court for Alaska. The plaintiffs, together with amicus State of Alaska and North Slope Borough, sought a preliminary injunction blocking the lease sale. They contended that BLM failed to make certain subsistence-related determinations required by Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3120. After a trial on the merits, the district court held in favor of BLM, finding that such determinations were not required. However the court issued an injunction precluding execution of the leases pending appeal of the matter to the Ninth Circuit. The district court's decision was affirmed on appeal in Kunakana v. Clark, 742 F.2d 1145 (9th Cir. 1984), thus allowing issuance of the leases. By 1998, all leases issued under the 1983 ROD had expired without a significant discovery. In 1998, BLM completed an ElS and issued a ROD addressing the 4.6 million acre Northeast Planning Area of NPR-A. The ROD opened 87 percent of the area to leasing, excluding an area that included most of the submerged lands of Teshekpuk Lake and lands to the north and east of the lake. Several environmental groups filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Wilderness Soc'y v. Babbit, Civ. No. 98-2395), alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and seeking an injunction to preclude lease sales under the ROD. In an unreported decision, the court ruled in favor of BLM as to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, thus allowing the lease sales to move forward. BLM held lease sales in 1999 and 2002, which resulted in the issuance of several leases near Teshekpuk Lake. However, the court has yet to issue a final decision on the merits, and the case remains pending without any action having been taken by the court for several years now. After completing an EIS, in 2004 BLM issued a ROD addressing the Northwest Planning Area. The ROD opened all 8.8 million acres of the planning area to leasing, but deferred 1,570,000 acres near the village of Wainwright from leasing for ten years. Several environmental groups filed suit against the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in Alaska. The plaintiffs argued that BLM acted arbitrarily in violation of NEPA by authorizing leasing in the entire planning area without considering reasonable alternatives and without doing a site-specific analysis of each of the areas affected by the proposed action. The plaintiffs further argued that the biological opinion was arbitrary in violation of the Endangered Species Act, alleging that it was insufficiently thorough, not co- extensive with the ROD, and paid insufficient attention to the uneven distribution of eiders within the affected area. The district court ruled in favor of BLM on all counts, N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Norton, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. AK 2005). The decision was upheld on appeal in its entirety in N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2006). Seeking to open additional areas of the Northeast Planning Area to oil and gas leasing pursuant to a 2002 recommendation contained in the President's National Energy Policy, BLM completed an amendment to the 1998 EIS in 2005 and issued an amended ROD in 2006. The amended ROD sought to open for leasing all lands in the planning area except the submerged lands underlying Teshekpuk Lake. In doing so, 389,000 acres that had been unavailable under the 1998 ROD would be available. Several environmental groups filed suit against the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in Alaska, alleging violations of NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. Holding in favor of the plaintiffs in part, in National Audubon Society v. Kempthorne, No. 1:05-cv-00008-JKS (Sep. 25, 2006), the court vacated the ROD. The court found that the amended EIS failed to adequately analyze cumulative impacts associated with the adjoining Northwest Planning Area, and that for similar reasons the biological opinion was inadequate as well. The Department chose not to appeal the adverse decision, but instead proceeded to correct the deficiencies noted by the court by supplementing the amended EIS and revising the biological opinion accordingly. BLM issued the final Supplemental EIS on May 23, 2008. Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, potential plaintiffs have 60 days from issuance of a final EIS to bring suit (i.e., until July 22, 2008)

Mr. PEARCE. 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.