Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I appreciate the gentleman's comments on why he represents the area he represents. But he did vote against ANWR, has supported no production, very, very important to me. I can say one thing. The Obama administration, I got a big kick out of someone saying we can blame the President. I can remember Bush was in office for 8 years and we blamed him for the earthquakes and the tsunami and I don't know what else. What bothers me the most is that this country moves its economy with fossil fuels. Our trucks, our ships, our planes, our automobiles and our trains are all using fossil fuels and must do so. That's what moves our commerce. That's also what will raise the price for everybody and every household in this Nation. It is being taxed by these high costs of fossil fuel. We can stabilize that cost if we're allowed to produce off our shores and on our shores. But to not say we're going to produce any more oil-- which is exactly what this administration is saying, because they want to transfer into a new era of time. We want to transfigure the country into a new era of time. We don't care about jobs. We don't care what happens to the economy. We're going to do it because we're right. I'm saying you're dead wrong. Can we use the fossil fuel in America to use it as a bridge to new fuels? Yes. But you cannot stop using fossil fuels. We're buying $400 billion a year overseas from foreign countries, bleeding this country every day. It's time we get on with the job. At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that corrects a drafting error in the bill that was discovered by the legislative counsel after H.R. 1231 was reported from the committee with bipartisan support. The amendment changes the paragraph numbers in section 2 so they correctly reflect the sequence of appearance in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It's unnecessary and boy if we can't get the government to work together there is something wrong, something deadly wrong. This is about defense. This is about the department of enter, this is about the American people. We ought to be able to work together and I'm sure they can. I'm confident of it and the idea that this is going to hurt the mission is again a way to stop drilling. That's all it is. Maybe if we had that 23 percent open and we knew exactly where it was we might be able to drill there but I don't think they would support that either. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is the second amendment of three today designed to close off portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas exploration production, the opposite of what the bill under consideration today is about. The underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and responsible energy production. H.R. 1231 aims to fulfill the promise that both Democrats and Republicans made to the American people when we voted on a bipartisan basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on offshore energy production. Since taking office, President Obama and his administration have effectively reimposed the moratorium, and this bill would reverse his actions. This amendment proposes to take America in exactly the wrong direction in which we should be heading. Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy production. With the price of gasoline going to $4 and $5 a gallon, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and keep our focus on those offshore areas that contain substantial oil and natural resources, where increased American energy production will create new jobs, lower energy prices, and increase our economic and national security. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California brings out some legitimate points. But right now, today, under existing law, the northern California planning area is available for leasing. This bill does not change that current situation. It has been available since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon and the President and Congress lifted the offshore drilling moratoria. I will remind the House that in 2008 the coast of California was opened for potential leasing and drilling, that Democrats were in the majority in the House and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was Speaker of the House. For months, they resisted Republican efforts to end the offshore ban, but eventually the American people won out and the bans were lifted. I would also like to point out that this bill provides direction that when the Federal Government is writing 5-year leasing plans, that the focus be on areas with the greatest estimated oil and natural gas resources. This particular planning area does not have and has not registered high in this regard and this bill does not direct that leasing occur in this planning area. With gasoline back to the 2008 highs of over $4 per gallon, let's keep the focus on where it should be, increasing American offshore energy production. That's what we're trying to do. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My good friend from Washington, they may not have a wind spill, but there's opposition to wind power. And wind is extremely expensive and only can be successful as long as it's subsidized by the taxpayer. As long as this administration keeps insisting on wind and solar power, they're doubly taxing our taxpayers of this Nation and hurting our economy. That's reality. So they're doubly taxed because now they're paying taxes because of the high cost of oil, the high cost of gasoline. And $1,100 a year they have additionally been taxed this year versus last year. And yet we talk about wind power. They're taxed because that comes out of the general fund. We're borrowing money from the Chinese. That's reality. Wind and solar are fine as long as they're subsidized. As long as you pay for them, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, they're fine. But that's an additional tax on you. If it was so economical, so well to be done, then we would have done it a long time ago. And I say it will work. It's like ethanol. It works. It's still not economical. So we have to go back to what commerce is run by--and it's fossil fuels. We can have all those other forms of energy. I do not want them subsidized. We can have all those other forms of energy, but we have to have the ability to move product. I look at the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma. Every one of those ships is burning a fossil fuel that deliver those goods. Every truck that leaves that port that goes out to deliver those to the people around this Nation is burning fossil fuels. Every train that leaves is burning fossil fuels. Every airplane that lands, built by Boeing, is driven by fossil fuels. This is a chance for us to speak up in Congress and say we are going to develop our natural fuels in this country so we can compete legitimately. You cannot compete by borrowing money to buy foreign oil, and that's what that side wants to do. I'm saying that's wrong. And I will join hands with you if you vote for ANWR and you vote for other forms of energy, too. Let's get it all together, guys. Let's have an energy plan. All we're trying to do here is undo what the Obama administration did, and that's put a moratorium in. I urge the defeat of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Both the Outer Continental Lands Shelf Act and the 2003 National Defense Act already fully protect the Defense Department's responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf and the State coastal areas of the OCS. H.R. 1231 continues these protections. As Chairman Hastings stated last week during debate on a very similar amendment to H.R. 1230, preserving the working relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great importance to the Natural Resources Committee. Because of this, H.R. 1231 meets the mutual goals of balancing national security and energy independence, but this amendment would upset the balance. May I say, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense never notified, never talked to us about any opposition to this legislation. H.R. 1231 fully supports the Department of the Interior's work with the Department of Defense in addressing the necessary stipulations that will protect the military mission on the OCS during the development of lease sales. I also want to point out that gaining access to domestically available and affordable energy resources is also of paramount importance to our national security because it lessens our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Let me say that again. It must be very clear: Energy security and energy independence are a national security priority. Additionally, developing our own energy resources benefits the Department of Defense. According to the Brookings Institution, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil increases the cost of Defense operations by $1.3 billion. Lowering energy prices should be a priority for American consumers and for the Department of Defense. This amendment isn't truly aimed at protecting DOD activities. It's aimed at trying to block lease sales and stopping offshore energy and development. That's what this is about. So I congratulate the people who are offering this amendment. It's exactly what you'd like to do. Again, Defense activities are not hindered by energy development. The Departments of Defense and the Interior work well together to balance the needs of our Nation. H.R. 1231 allows both offshore energy leasing and military activities to go forward and exist in a safe, responsible way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam 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. 1231.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, on March 17, 2011, the House will consider H.R. 1076, to prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content. Unfortunately, I have a prior commitment that will prevent me from taking this vote. However, I feel strongly about this issue and I wanted to make those feelings known. According to people that I have met with at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a public radio or broadcasting station is considered critically dependent on federal funding if thirty percent or more of its funding comes from federal funding. There are twenty-six National Public Radio (NPR) stations in Alaska and nearly half of them are critically dependent on federal funding. These stations serve cities, like KUAC in Fairbanks and KSKA in Anchorage. They serve salmon runs, like KDLL in Kenai and KDLG in Dillingham. The even serve places that are seemingly at the end the world, like KHUB on St. Paul Island and KBRW in Barrow. In many cases, these radio stations are the ONLY broadcast signal that many Alaskans get. To deny them access to basic news, early childhood education programming, and even emergency alerts, merely to serve a political agenda, is irresponsible. I must, first and foremost, consider what is best for Alaska. When 11 NPR stations in Alaska would have to close their doors to the public if this bill becomes law, I must stand up for all Alaskans. As Alaska's lone voice in the House of Representatives for the last four decades, I am proud to support NPR.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest one thing. The native communities in Alaska support this. They support drilling. I've had them in my office. And to say that, I represent that State, not Alexandria, Virginia. And they've come to me and said we need it. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho, the chairman of the appropriations committee, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we must explore for and develop the Arctic resources in an environmentally safe and sustainable manner, and we must allow that exploration work to proceed without bureaucratic impediments. This amendment accomplishes both. This amendment would limit funds in the bill from being used by the Environmental Appeals Board, EAB, to invalidate any permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for activities on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. The EAB is an extension of the EPA that hears administrative appeals pertaining to permit decisions and civil penalty decisions of the agency. Very frankly, EAB is populated by environmental appeals judges who are lawyers associated with EPA or the Justice Department. This amendment does not circumvent the EPA's authority. Instead, it continues to give permitting decisions to the professionals in the regional office. What this amendment will do is remove the ability for lawyers to overrule EPA permit writers. Over $4 billion has been invested in trying to drill exploratory wells, and to date not a single well has been drilled because of one EPA air permit. Mr. Chairman, I must say, this is an example of how an aid agency is trying to issue the permits correctly, but they have a board that can listen to someone who objects to it that rules against them. And we have, in fact, had a little over 680 leases in the Arctic Ocean, oil that we need being held up by bureaucrats. We will do this safely. The air will be clean. They're 80 miles from any human, other than those who work on these ships. And if you believe it's right to buy this oil from overseas, shame on you. Again, we are spending close to $40 billion this year or more buying foreign oil; 72 percent of our oil is coming from overseas. The right thing to do is allow us to take and explore and find out if that oil is there; and if it is, to develop it. Remember, we're not the only ones in the Arctic anymore. Iceland, Greenland, China, Russia are all drilling. We're the only ones not involved; yet we have the best equipment, the best environmental wreckers in the Arctic. We have the proper equipment to do it safely. It's being held up by bureaucrats who don't want to issue the permits. EPA has said it's all right, but the review board says, no, it's not, within the agency itself. All it says, if they have the permit issued, then it should go forth, and let's get on to serving this country as we should for the benefit of this Nation, for the benefit of those so we don't have to go to war over in the Middle East over oil. So if you don't like what's going on over there, let's support this amendment. I believe it's the correct thing. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike the language in H.R. 1 that prohibits the Department of Education from funding the Alaskan Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Program. The amendment will not add money to the Department of Education budget but will allow the department to fund those programs as they see a need. I yield at this time to the good lady from Hawaii for a very short statement. (Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am deeply disappointed in the lady from Connecticut. This is a program that has been in existence since 1994, and you voted for it every time. This is not an earmark. This is an existing program. And I've heard you rail all night about restoring money, which are all earmarks. You're dead wrong.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I am going to say respectfully, this is an existing program, and the reason it was started is because Alaskan natives and the Hawaiian natives do not receive money from the BIA. It was started to recognize an inequity of those people that live in both of our States. It is not a new program, and this language as written is at the discretion of the Department as they see a need. Like I say, I thought we were going to start a little bit of a bipartisan effort on this side, and I don't see it when those people will take away from some of the most impoverished people who have not had that opportunity. So I am urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. And I say to those that oppose it, shame on you. I have heard the bleeding hearts all night, and it deeply disturbs me that they would say this is something different when it is an existing program.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.