[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5167-H5182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL REPLACEMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ENERGY-RESTRICTING AND
JOB-LIMITING OFFSHORE DRILLING PLAN
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 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. 6082.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6082.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1643
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 6082) to officially replace, within the 60-day Congressional
review period under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, President
Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing
Program (2012-2017) with a congressional plan that will conduct
additional oil and natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy
development, job creation, and increased domestic energy production to
ensure a more secure energy future in the United States, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Dold in the chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read
the first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, under the shadow of the Supreme Court's ruling on
ObamaCare, the Obama administration on June 28 quietly announced the
President's proposed final offshore drilling plan for 2012-2017.
Despite claims of their being proud of their energy record, the Obama
administration deliberately chose to announce their plan on a day when
it would get buried in the ObamaCare news coverage. This shows that
even this administration is not proud of their plan that would place 85
percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to energy production.
Under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act, when any
President proposes a new 5-year offshore drilling plan, it must be
submitted to Congress for a mandatory 60-day review before it can
become final and take effect. That 60-day clock is now ticking. It's
now Congress' responsibility to take action and to reject President
Obama's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan and to replace it with a
robust, responsible plan to safely develop our offshore energy
resources.
According to analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Office, the President has proposed fewer leases in his plan
than any President since this process began--that goes back to
President Jimmy Carter, so it's even worse than President Carter.
President Obama's proposal doesn't open up one new area for leasing
and energy production. It would set our Nation's energy production back
to the days before 2008 when two moratoria that prohibited drilling of
a vast majority of American offshore areas were in place. Both
moratoria were lifted after the summer of 2008 due to the outrage of
the American people over the cost of $4-per-gallon gasoline, and they
demanded that the Federal Government take action. President Obama
proposes to effectively reimpose that moratoria.
From nearly the day he took the oath of office, this President has
put the brakes on new American energy production and job creation. In
the first weeks of this administration, the Interior Department took a
nearly complete new offshore lease plan and put it on hold for 6
months, and then they tossed out that draft plan entirely and started
over. It took them over 3\1/2\ years to get a new proposed plan in
place. And along the way, they delayed and canceled multiple lease
sales.
For example, President Obama canceled the Virginia lease sale
scheduled for 2011 last year and now refuses to include Virginia in his
2012-2017 plan. He is responsible for closing an entire new area of
drilling and cheating the Commonwealth out of thousands of jobs and
another industry. If President Obama has his way, Virginia will be left
out in the cold in until 2017 at the earliest.
The bill being considered today, H.R. 6082, is entitled the
Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and
Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. In stark contrast to President
Obama's plan, this bill represents a drill-smart plan that includes 29
lease sales and focuses energy production in specific areas containing
America's greatest known oil and natural gas resources. What a novel
idea: go to where the resources are.
The bill would replace the lease sales scheduled in the President's
proposed plan and safely open new areas that were previously under
moratoria--such as the Mid-Atlantic, southern Pacific, and the Arctic.
It does this while ensuring that necessary and required environmental
reviews are conducted.
The congressional replacement plan would generate $600 million in
additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new American jobs.
Tomorrow there will be a direct up-or-down vote on the President's
proposed plan when we consider, under suspension, H.R. 6168. There will
also, obviously, be a direct up-or-down vote on this legislation. So
Members can decide if the President's plan meets the standards expected
by the American people or if we should replace it with a real plan that
creates jobs and grows our economy.
The House has taken action to replace the President's proposed plan,
[[Page H5168]]
and I call on the Senate to do the same. If the Senate does nothing and
lets the 60-day clock run out, that is an endorsement of the
President's plan. It is an endorsement of the plan that reimposes the
drilling moratoria, creates no new jobs and no new energy.
I believe that we can do better than this proposed plan, and our
Nation deserves better. By passing this bill, we are standing up for
American energy and American jobs and moving our country forward.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome everyone back to yet another
episode of the GOP Wheel of Giveaway game show here. Every week on the
floor of the House of Representatives, the majority picks an industry
to benefit from giveaways of our public lands.
{time} 1650
One month ago, the Republican majority voted to turn over nearly all
of our onshore public lands to the oil and gas industry in just a few
short years.
Two weeks ago, the majority voted to eviscerate proper environmental
review for massive gold and silver and uranium mines on public lands to
benefit the mining industry. And here we are on the House floor once
again debating a Republican bill from the Natural Resources Committee
intended to hand out even more industry giveaways.
Well, it actually gets hard to keep track of which industry is
getting the GOP giveaway each week, so let's consult our chart--the GOP
Wheel of Giveaways--so that we can make sure that everyone at home can
follow along to see whether it will be the oil, the gas, the mining, or
the timber industries that will be the big winner in the giveaway of
our public lands this week.
Of course, we all know that it won't be the solar or the wind
industries benefiting from the Republicans because in the Republican
``oil above all'' game, if you land on renewable energy, you lose a
turn. So which industry is getting the giveaway this week? We are back
on the ``even more oil'' on the House floor today, even more oil
giveaways.
H.R. 6082 would place drill rigs right off our beaches in southern
California, off our beaches in Maine, in New Hampshire, in
Massachusetts, in Rhode Island, in Connecticut, in New York, in New
Jersey--just put the drills right out there, right off the Maryland
coast. And by the way, there will be millions of people, of course, out
on those beaches saying get those oil rigs off the beaches, off the
places where people go and have a good time during the summer, where
the fishing industry is.
My amendment will say, and by the way, if you do find any oil and gas
out there, at least let's keep the oil and gas here in the United
States. Let's not run the risk of spoiling the natural resources of our
country--the beaches, the fishing areas--finding natural gas and then
ship it to other countries; at least let's keep it here. And the
Republicans are going to oppose keeping the natural gas that they would
find off these beaches in California and Maine and Massachusetts and
New Jersey and send it to other countries.
This is truly the ``even more oil'' Republican Party. Whatever
ExxonMobile wants, whatever Shell wants, whatever BP wants, we'll do
it, even if we know millions of people will just be protesting right
from the very beginning--and by the way, without passing one of the
reforms from the BP spill commission to make sure that the drilling
occurs in a safe fashion.
They still, in 2 years, have yet to bring out one single safety
reform that would implement safeguards to protect against the
repetition of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. So the natural gas
that's found can go overseas. It will be done in a risky fashion
because they refuse to learn the lessons of BP in the Gulf of Mexico,
and they've included no new safety measures. That's what ExxonMobil
wants, that's what BP wants, so it's out here on the House floor to be
voted upon, by the way, over the vigorous objection of this Democrat
and Democrats all across the country.
This Congress, the Republican majority, has reported 11 drilling
bills out of the Natural Resources Committee. Those 11 bills have been
combined and brought to the House floor and this is now the sixth
massive passage of giveaways to Big Oil that we have considered. Two of
those bills were largely similar to the legislation we are considering
today to dramatically expand offshore drilling without putting any new
safety measures in place.
All of the previous drilling bills have suffered from the same fate.
They were all far too extreme to pass the Senate and not a single one
of them has been signed into law. Well, let me let everyone in on a
little secret: this bill is also not becoming law. Like the bills
before it, it can't pass the Senate, and the administration has already
said that the President would veto this bill.
But that reality hasn't stopped the Republican House from passing
giveaways to the oil and gas industry over and over again. The reason
they keep passing them is the same reason when you go to a movie and
you see previews of coming attractions. What they're saying here is
we're passing, that is, Republicans are passing, all of this
legislation for the oil companies to drill off our beaches for the big
oil companies. And if just somehow or other Mitt Romney becomes
President and the Republicans take over the Senate, this will become
the law of the Nation. So they see this as a preview of coming
attractions, and they want the public to know that that will happen.
They want to run this year on this premise, and I think that's great.
It's a very honest way of dealing with something that will horrify
people who live all along the coastlines in these States that would run
the risk of having damage done to their beaches.
When you include all of the bills that have been reported by all of
the committees altogether, this Republican House has already cast 139
votes--139 votes--on the House floor this Congress to benefit the oil
and gas industry.
We are going to pass 90 hours of debate on the floor on oil and gas
legislation this Congress just today. What a streak. When most people
think of the great records of American history, they might think of Joe
DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, or Cal Ripkin's 2,362 consecutive
games, or maybe Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points in a basketball
game, or Ted Williams hitting .406 in 1941.
But when all is said and done, the record of this Republican Congress
voting to benefit Big Oil might be just as untouchable a record. With
already 139 votes and nearly 90 hours of debate on these giveaways to
the oil industry on the House floor, this is a once-in-a-generation
performance by this Republican Congress. It may stand as a record that
can never be broken by any other Congress in terms of the number of
giveaways to the oil and gas industry.
Whether it's voting 33 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or
voting again and again for more and more drilling, under the GOP, this
isn't the House of Representatives, it's the House of Repetition.
President Truman dubbed the 80th Congress the ``do nothing'' Congress.
Well, this is apparently the ``do the same thing over and over and over
again'' Congress.
The Republican majority has already cast 139 votes to aid the oil and
gas industry. How many votes have they cast to benefit the wind and the
solar industry? Ah, there's a good question. Well, the answer is zero--
139 for oil and gas, zero for the wind and solar industry. Is that all
you really need to know about what's going on here in Congress?
Can you imagine the millennials out there listening to this debate
saying zero for wind and solar? Zero for the future? Zero for making
our country more of the clean energy leader of the world, of reducing
greenhouse gases, of creating jobs in these industries? Zero for wind
and solar?
The wind tax breaks, by the way, are expiring this year. Do not
expect that to come out on the House floor as a vote that the
Republicans say we must extend. But tax breaks for oil companies, extra
drilling privileges off our beaches for the oil and gas companies? Oh,
yeah, plenty of votes for that.
While we have been spending 90 hours debating legislation to help Big
Oil, recently the majority wouldn't even allow a debate on the floor on
an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard for our Nation
because the Republican energy policy isn't ``all of the above.'' It is
``oil above all.'' And
[[Page H5169]]
that's what we're going to be debating for the rest of the day out here
on the House floor--sad to say for the future of renewable energy for
our country.
At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from
Colorado, I'll yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to my good
friend from Massachusetts that in response to his answer on how many
bills this House has addressed on renewables, the gentleman said zero,
and that is incorrect.
{time} 1700
There have been multiple bills and parts of bills dealing with the
process of putting wind and solar in place, specifically on public
lands, so I just wanted to correct the gentleman in that regard.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today is very
simple. Republicans are taking a proactive step to secure a more stable
energy future for our country.
Just last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
published a report confirming what you can see on this chart, that
President Obama's plan for offshore drilling offers the lowest number
of lease sales in the history of our Outer Continental Shelf program.
There, on the left, my left, ``15'' is the number you see in red.
Going back to 1980, when President Jimmy Carter was in office, he had
36 lease sales in his proposed 5-year plan. And you can see intervening
5-year plans since 1980 until today.
This is the fewest ever. Even this number is generous, because we're
operating under the assumption that the administration will actually
follow through on doing all of these 15 lease sales. This is not a sure
bet, when you consider that since the President was elected, he has
cancelled more lease sales than he has held.
Let me repeat that. This President, in 3\1/2\ years, has cancelled
more lease sales than have been held.
Now, the administration proposes a new leasing plan that offers for
sale the fewest leasing sales ever and locks away 85 percent of our
Outer Continental Shelf from any development.
Why would the President propose the fewest number of lease sales
ever? Is it because we've solved our dependency on foreign oil? No. We
import 5 million barrels a day.
Is it because we've developed all of our domestic resources so
there's nothing left to develop? No. The President's plan leaves tens
of billions of barrels of oil off limits and trillions of cubic feet of
natural gas untapped, unused, and unavailable for the American
consumer.
The President says over and over that he supports U.S. energy
development, then we see that, at every opportunity, he makes the
choice to prevent efficient energy development from happening.
We must do more for the American people in generating more energy for
lower prices and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. This bill does
exactly that.
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. Vote for
American energy and American jobs. Let's replace the President's do
nothing plan with a plan that moves America forward.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to address a point that the chairman made as he
attempted to correct Mr. Markey and said that there have been a number
of wind energy bills considered. I think we would gladly count those
votes in the column of gutting the national environmental protection
act, but wind, no. The wind industry did not support any of those bills
that he was talking about or amendments. They are not wind legislation.
They are environmental spoilage legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill would allow drilling off the coast
of every State in the east coast, from Maine to South Carolina, and off
of California and in Bristol Bay, off of Alaska, which is, I might add,
one of our Nation's most important salmon fisheries. By reviving long
dead lease sales in these fishery areas, they would be reviving sales
that the Bush administration issued just 4 days before they left
office.
Now, it's interesting that tomorrow we will consider Republican
legislation on this floor that is intended to prohibit midnight
regulations, yet, today, we have a midnight drilling lease sale. They
are, in effect, trying to reinstate the Bush administration's midnight
offshore leasing plan. So I just want my colleagues on the other side
to know that tomorrow, when we are talking about midnight regulations,
that they were actually talking about it a day in advance.
The other side has also made the point that the administration's
offshore drilling plan would reinstate a moratorium. Quite the
opposite. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration's offshore drilling
plan already, now, makes more than 75 percent of our oil and gas
resources available for drilling. They are not doing what the
Republicans are saying they are doing.
Two months ago, industry analysts were projecting that, by the end of
this year, we would have 50 percent more floating rigs operating in the
gulf than before the BP spill. It turns out they were wrong. Not by the
end of this year. It's already happened. We have about 50 percent more
rigs operating in the gulf today. We have more rigs operating in the
United States than in the rest of the world combined.
And they're saying the President is trying to kill the oil industry.
H.R. 6082 ignores the fact that President Obama's all-of-the-above
energy strategy has successfully reduced our dependence on foreign oil
from 57 percent in the last year of the Bush administration to only 45
percent today. It ignores the fact that our oil production is at an 18-
year high.
It does raise the question of why we have this legislation in front
of us at all if not to maybe embarrass the President. But, no, the
President will not be embarrassed by the facts, and I hope we will deal
with the facts here.
This legislation is unnecessary and unwise--unnecessary because the
drilling is taking place, and unwise because the other side wants to
strike all of the environmental protections that, rather than weakened,
should be strengthened.
Later we will be considering an amendment that I will offer to strike
the language from the underlying bill that requires the Department of
the Interior to conduct a single multisale environmental impact
statement for all new areas opened for drilling.
You may recall, Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that this
legislation talks about drilling from Maine to South Carolina, off
California and in Alaska. And they propose to say a single
environmental impact statement will deal with that? Well, that's like
the environmental impact statement that applied to the BP drilling in
the gulf that talked about walruses. Yes, because they were using the
same environmental impact statement that they had used in Alaska
previously.
No, the protection of the environment requires a little more
attention than that. Congress has a responsibility to the American
people to ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling is occurring in a
safe and environmentally responsible manner.
Also, later, we will be considering an amendment that I will offer
that has to do with the royalties that will be collected--or should be
collected--from offshore drilling.
The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last
year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize
on the pain of Americans at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits
per day. And this legislation that is brought to the floor by the
Republicans here wants to allow them to drill in many places without
paying any royalties, without paying a fee to the taxpayers for the oil
that the taxpayers own.
{time} 1710
Right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on
Federal lands is produced without paying a penny of royalty. That
should be changed.
My constituents--and I think the constituents of any Member of this
House--would say it's only fair that these oil companies pay for what
they use.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5170]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, a member of the Natural
Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman, Dr. Fleming.
Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank the committee chairman for allowing me
to speak.
First, I would like to agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He
is absolutely correct that oil production has increased in recent years
and that our dependence on oil has actually decreased over the same
period of time.
But why? Because of the private sector.
The private sector industry has been out there and has been drilling
in new areas like North Dakota and in my own home State of Louisiana.
It's the private sector that's driving this. It's producing more oil
than we ever have, and there is much more that we can have.
On the other hand, on public lands, which have been under the control
of the President, we have seen a reduction of 15 percent. So there is
no way in the world we could give our President, President Obama,
credit for that unless, of course, we said, Well, indeed, the private
sector didn't build it--he did. But I really don't think that's the
case.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 6082.
What we are seeing in President Obama's lease plan is a study in
contrasts. When demand for energy was up and prices were spiking in
2008, the Bush administration opened more areas for drilling. That's
just commonsense economics. Here we are 4 years later with high energy
prices again, and this President's solution is to propose a plan that
opens no new areas of drilling.
The Obama administration pounced on the BP spill 2 years ago to
ratchet down our Nation's ability to drill for oil, and then it dragged
its feet in issuing new drilling permits. All the while, taxpayer
dollars were being thrown at failed wind and solar energy projects like
Solyndra and many others too numerous to name today.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional
minute.
Mr. FLEMING. This legislation is smart policy and is a return to
common sense. Our country needs energy, and it needs jobs. The
President's plan doesn't help, but H.R. 6082 does. It will open areas
for drilling that never should have been closed off, and that will lead
to more jobs and more cost-effective energy for Americans.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, in 1969, many in America encountered the phrase
``oil spill'' for the first time. Off the coast of Santa Barbara,
California, there was what has now become the granddaddy of oil spills.
Currently representing that area and those beaches is our good
colleague. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs.
Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, here we are, voting once again to mandate new offshore
drilling in areas where it simply isn't wanted. And just like before,
this proposal simply ignores the facts, the facts stated by my
colleague from New Jersey: the fact that we already make more than 75
percent of the offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling;
the fact that domestic oil production is at an 18-year high; and the
fact that we have more rigs that are drilling in the United States than
in the rest of the world combined.
Instead of addressing the real issues in offshore drilling, like the
need to adopt the safety recommendations of the nonpartisan oil spill
commission, this bill seeks to compound the problems by mandating new
drilling all over the place.
H.R. 6082 also cavalierly dismisses the legitimate concerns raised by
the people most affected by this mandated new drilling idea--my
constituents. After nearly 100 years of drilling off my coastline,
Californians have spoken loud and clear: we've had enough. In fact, a
2010 proposal to allow slant drilling from the shores of a coastal town
in my district was opposed by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of
the voters.
To protect communities now at risk under this bill, I offered an
amendment that would have stopped the mandated new lease sales off
southern California--off my district--but the majority refused to allow
a debate on this amendment. In addition, this new mandated drilling
would happen on platforms that have been in the Santa Barbara Channel
since the Everly Brothers were topping the music charts over 50 years
ago. It's not a good idea to use these old rigs for expanded drilling--
20 of them--including platform A, as my colleague referenced, which was
the very culprit of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.
I offered an amendment to require the Interior Department to certify
these platforms were actually capable of handling new drilling before
it could start; but thanks to the Rules Committee, we won't be debating
that issue either.
What is also true is that the Pentagon doesn't support new drilling
off its base on the central coast. The Pentagon told ExxonMobil that
the company's proposed drilling plan at Vandenberg Air Force Base would
``present a wide range of significant operational constraints.'' That's
why I offered an amendment to protect the national space launch mission
at Vandenberg Air Force Base; but again, the House won't be able to
debate that issue, and the concerns of the Air Force are left
unaddressed.
Mr. Chairman, it's clear that H.R. 6082 is not a well-thought out
proposal. It's another heavy-handed, know-it-all approach from
Washington, D.C.--rubber-stamping destructive drilling, cutting out
environmental reviews, limiting public input. That might be good policy
for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's
bad energy policy for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
reckless offshore drilling bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee and a
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. As I listened to my colleague from Santa Barbara, I
was reflecting on the fact that, during that same period, I represented
the same area of Santa Barbara. I was in the State senate for 8 years.
So I would remind the gentlelady that less than 4 years ago the Santa
Barbara County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution asking for more
offshore development of the Santa Barbara area, so dependent is the
region's economy on that enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, that speaks volumes, I think, about where the American
people stand today as well.
America's energy crisis is not because of any shortage of American
energy. Our Nation is blessed with vast reserves of petroleum, natural
gas, coal, hydroelectricity, and uranium that dwarf those of any other
nation, and they should make us the most prosperous and energy-
independent Nation in the world.
The real energy crisis is here in Washington--some would say right
here in this Chamber--where our government, in thrall to the green
left, continues to thwart the development of American resources.
We have seen this policy time and time again as the President has
blocked the Keystone pipeline, waged war on coal, and thwarted offshore
exploration and development, which is a problem that this bill now
addresses. To add hypocrisy to injury, while blocking American
petroleum development, many of these politicians exhort the Saudis and
Brazilians to increase their production.
Enough is enough. Our Nation is at a crossroads. We can choose either
a future of government-created energy shortages or a future of jobs,
prosperity and abundance produced by American enterprise. That is the
issue before us today, and that is one of the issues that will be
before the American people in November.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is a new member of the
committee, but who is one of the most energetic and informed members of
the committee and passionate about preserving a healthful environment.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, here we go again.
It isn't enough that the Obama administration's offshore drilling
plan
[[Page H5171]]
makes more than 75 percent of our oil and natural gas resources
available for drilling; but the majority is not going to be happy until
we have turned over every square foot of our public lands and our
coastline to the oil and gas companies.
H.R. 6082 abandons any pretense to the support of states' rights by
mandating lease sales for the east coast and southern California--the
coastlines of States that are on record as opposing oil and gas
drilling along their coasts.
{time} 1720
Too bad New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. If your
citizens want to prioritize the tourism, recreation, and fishing
industries, Big Oil wants to move in, and H.R. 6028 gives them the
authority to do so. H.R. 6082 requires no public comment or
consultation with the States. Apparently, those steps, steps followed
by the administration in putting together their plan, are too time
consuming. Besides, they may result in opposition to this ill-conceived
drilling plan.
On the same day that the United States Chemical Safety Board has
released its report on the Deepwater Horizon accident with the finding
that safety lessons were not learned from the 2005 refinery accident,
we're moving a bill that does nothing to improve the safety of offshore
drilling for either the people who work on these rigs or for the many
citizens and businesses whose coastal access, enjoyment, or livelihood
would be lost if there were an oil spill.
Thankfully, this bill will go no further than this House, at least in
this Congress. If it passed the other body, the President has already
issued a veto threat. Why are we doing this? One can only speculate.
I'm disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make my amendment
in order. It would have required oil and gas companies that are awarded
leases to disclose their Federal campaign donations to candidates and
super PACs.
We are in real danger of losing our democracy. Free speech should not
cost millions of dollars, and corporations are not people. Sunshine is
the best anecdote to this particular brand of poison. The public should
know who is funding issue ads and other campaign-focused activities,
especially when those funds come from corporations that profit from
public resources.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case unleashed a
tidal wave of anonymous campaign donations. There are now over 600
super PACs poised to spend at least the $221 million that they have
collected so far to dominate the airwaves with advertisements of the
political viewpoints of corporations and wealthy individuals. According
to a Bloomberg news article published earlier this year, Americans for
Prosperity, an organization backed by oil interests, paid over $12
million for ads attacking the Obama administration's green energy
policies.
The public has a right to know how profits made through exploitation
of public resources of our land and our coastlines are being used to
influence elections. My amendment would have provided the public with
some of that information.
H.R. 6082 will not make us energy independent. It will not make us
more energy efficient. It will not lower fuel prices. Energy efficiency
and investment in our new energy resources are the real way to kick our
oil habit.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 6082.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, before the gentleman begins, may I ask the time
remaining on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 7 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 17\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I give thanks to the
Natural Resources Committee for their hard work on this issue.
As my good friend, Jeff Landry, the Congressman from Louisiana
reminds us, drilling equals jobs. And Republicans have a plan for job
creation in America, and it begins not with a government takeover of
our health care industry like the Democrats thought would create jobs.
It begins with America pursuing energy independence, utilizing the
resources that we are blessed with in this country, primarily right now
in the offshore areas. We do this by expanding the areas of our Outer
Continental Shelf that are included in our Nation's plan for
exploration over the next 5 years. It seems simple to the average
American, and that's what frustrates them so much, that we would refuse
to at least explore our reserves and meet our energy needs in this
country.
With a 9.4 percent unemployment rate in South Carolina, South
Carolina understands that drilling equals jobs. Jobs we want, and that
is why the Palmetto State offshore area is included in this bill.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
American Jobs and Energy initiative by passing H.R. 6082.
Mr. HOLT. At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who, on the Appropriations
Committee and Interior Appropriations, is a champion for the
environment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from New
Jersey for yielding to me.
I have a few facts that we need to put on the table here:
One, this bill isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be accepted by
the Senate, let alone be enacted by the President;
Secondly, we could create more jobs and a more sustainable future if
we dropped the subsidies for oil and gas and we redirected them into
wind and solar power;
Thirdly, this will have no impact upon the world oil price.
The fact is that we have a good deal of experience that shows that no
matter how much production comes out of the United States, it, at best,
has a negligible impact upon what consumers pay at the gas pump. Let me
introduce some numbers to that effect to prove the point.
We currently consume about 18.8 million barrels of oil a day, and we
produce about 5.4 million. Despite the concerted efforts of former
oilmen President Bush and Vice President Cheney and a Congress that
embraced the ``drill, baby, drill'' mantra, total oil production
actually dropped from 2.118 billion barrels in 2001, when President
Bush and Vice President Cheney came into office, to 1.812 billion
barrels in 2008, when they left office. Under the friendliest, most
pro-oil administration, U.S. production declined, despite technological
advances in drilling and despite the lifting of previously restricted
areas to drilling on land and at sea.
Ironically, oil production today, under the Obama administration, is
higher than at any time during the last 14 years. I'll mention that
once again. Oil production today is higher, under the Obama
administration, than at any time during the last 14 years.
Onshore, oil companies hold leases on more than 73 million acres of
the public's land; offshore, more than 37 million acres of the Outer
Continental Shelf have been offered for lease since 2012.
More of the public's lands and waters are available and have been
leased for drilling than at any previous time in U.S. history. It's
worth repeating. More of the public's lands and waters are available
today and have been leased for drilling than at any previous time in
U.S. history.
As of June 1 of this year, there were 1,980 rotary drilling rigs
operating on U.S. lands and waters, more than all other countries
combined.
But all this activity has had no impact on prices. The fact is we
have 36 years of data to show that it will have no impact on the price
of oil.
Why are we doing this? That's the real question that needs to be
answered. The Associated Press undertook a statistical analysis of 36
years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic
oil production. The study found that there was no statistical
correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price
at the pump.
U.S. oil production this past spring has been steady, yet the price
of regular gasoline has fluctuated by more than 50 cents a gallon over
a three month period.
The price spike this past spring can no more be attributed to
President Obama and
[[Page H5172]]
the false claim that he is failing to drill more than he can be
credited with the recent drop in the gasoline prices.
This bill moves us in exactly the opposite direction of what the
bipartisan National Oil Spill Commission recommended: that current
environmental reviews be more thorough and that oil spill response
plans cover all contingencies.
It did not call for an arbitrary mandate to open all areas offshore
on an unrealistic timetable, and it did not recommend drilling
applicants be granted fast track approval.
This bill dismisses the work of the commission and pretends the
trauma we all experienced in 2010, watching day-after-day and month-
after-month, as more than 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the
Gulf didn't happen.
It pretends the suffering and economic losses thousands of residents
and local Gulf businesses experienced didn't happen.
This bill returns to the lax regulatory climate that existed before
the disaster. It should be defeated.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time.
It was just last month that the administration announced its proposed
final lease plan for developing the U.S. offshore energy resources for
the next 5 years, 2012-2017. There was a lot of anticipation about
this. We thought that finally the administration would hear the calls
that have come from this House saying we need to increase our American
energy supply and we need to create jobs, but we were disappointed. Our
calls for relief obviously fell on deaf ears.
Instead of opening up 98 percent of the U.S. offshore, which is
currently unleased for energy exploration, the President's plan will
make the situation worse by closing 85 percent of our offshore areas to
energy production. I think that's significant.
You have to ask the question: What do you really want? If you want
energy independence, open it up. Let's explore for these sources.
{time} 1730
To put that into context, I think what we need to do is look at this
President's plan and compare it to previous Presidents. And, Mr.
Chairman, what we find is that this President's plan offers fewer
offshore drilling leases than former President Jimmy Carter had
offered. The President's plan also ignores the economic struggles that
are facing our country, and it really does not move us toward energy
independence.
What it does do is it moves us a step backwards. We are heading in
the wrong direction on this issue, and it reimposes a drilling
moratorium that had been lifted in 2008, a moratorium that the gulf
coast still has not recovered from. And I think that we need to look at
that and consider those jobs in our coastal regions.
In stark contrast to the President's plan, H.R. 6082 proposes a drill
smart job creation plan that expands offshore drilling and opens new
areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources. I encourage my
colleagues to support this plan.
Mr. HOLT. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chair?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 minutes. The
gentleman from Washington has 14 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6082 which I
believe is a commonsense approach to energy production and jobs in
south Louisiana and for our Nation.
I continue to be disappointed. The President states we must have ``an
all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every
source of American-made energy,'' but at the same time, he fails to
understand the need to develop resources now for future energy
production.
South Louisiana has tens of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas
industry. This administration's hostility to responsible, safe American
energy production by closing 85 percent--85 percent--of our offshore
areas to energy production and issuing burdensome and duplicative
regulations stalls our languishing economy and hurts job growth.
I rise in support of H.R. 6082 because it's a rational and
responsible plan. Not only will this bill generate a robust drilling
plan, creating thousands of new jobs, helping to lower the price at the
pump, improve American energy security, and strengthen our national and
economic security, but it requires separate environmental reviews for
each specific lease sale. This is good policy.
Passage of this legislation sends a crystal clear message to the
administration: a do-nothing energy plan is simply unacceptable.
I look over at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I
would urge the President as well to take a look at that plaque up there
near the ceiling above the Speaker's Chair--read it--from Daniel
Webster. It says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land.''
Passage of this bill gets us on to a good start of developing the
resources of our land, which include good, high-paying American jobs.
Mr. HOLT. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) who represents one of the areas that would
be affected by offshore drilling, should this go forward.
Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
I don't have a lot of time to watch television these days. But I
think most of us have seen on television a commercial comes up time and
time again. It's a commercial with beautiful coastal scenes in it,
telling people, Come to Louisiana, Come to Mississippi, Come to
Florida, Come to the coast. And I looked at that. And I said, That's
great marketing. At the end of the commercial, I was surprised to see
it was sponsored by BP. Now why was that sponsored by BP? It was
sponsored by BP because of Deepwater Horizon and the damage that that
did.
And this bill is just another attempt at giving Big Oil a handout,
putting oil companies and their profits above both the American
taxpayers and American treasures.
Now my district includes the south shore of Massachusetts, the Cape,
the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and the south coast.
We're a maritime community, one that respects the ocean and one that
has prospered from its resources.
This bill would threaten our shores, our marine life, and the
industries that rely upon them by opening up the waters of the east
coast from Maine to South Carolina for quote-unquote ``required oil and
gases.''
Now I ask my colleagues, is this necessary? Why put hundreds of miles
of ocean waters and the livelihoods of our fishing and tourism
industries at risk when our Nation's oil imports are already down to
their lowest level in nearly two decades, and production is up?
Now in the spirit of compromise, I would like to offer a suggestion
that will help the oil companies increase their profits. And that would
be this: Let's defeat this bill, and the oil companies won't have to
spend all that money paying for TV commercials to lure people to areas
that are our Nation's treasures because they've been damaged.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from a coastal State, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of
President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling
Plan.
The President's lease plan for offshore energy resources is
unacceptable. It would close 85 percent of our offshore areas to energy
production and recovery. Just like the Keystone pipeline, this is just
another example of an administration beholden to a radical
environmental agenda.
We must be about safely and responsibly recovering American energy.
We have available energy under our feet and off our shores. This plan
does that by expanding offshore drilling into new areas, areas that
contain the most oil and natural gas resources.
Our economy is still struggling. People are still looking for work.
And this bill would generate $600 million in government revenue and at
the same time,
[[Page H5173]]
put tens of thousands of Americans back to work.
It's time that we choose jobs and energy security over left-wing
ideology.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am the final speaker on our side. If the
gentleman from Washington State is ready to conclude debate, so are we
in the minority.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would tell my friend from
Massachusetts, I have one other request for time and then myself to
close.
Mr. MARKEY. Then, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise today on behalf of the people of Virginia's Fifth District. As
I visit with central and southside Virginians across my district, they
all echo the same sentiment: The burdens caused by high fuel prices in
this stalled economy are negatively impacting their lives.
This issue particularly resonates in the Commonwealth because just
last month, the administration announced that its 5-year energy plan
will exclude resources off of the coast of Virginia. This announcement
comes as a shock to the people that I represent. At a time when the
Fifth District is suffering from 3 years of high unemployment, now the
administration has said it will put thousands more Virginia jobs on
hold. It also shocks us because it shows just how out of touch
Washington is when it comes to the devastation that high fuel prices
are causing at home.
Energy prices may have subsided for now, but now is the time to act.
I am proud to support this legislation which replaces the
administration's unreasonable and irresponsible energy policy. I
believe that this legislation will bring jobs to Virginia, help keep
fuel prices low, and move our country forward to spur economic growth
in central and southside Virginia.
{time} 1740
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is a very simple debate to understand. The Republicans want to
authorize drilling for oil and gas off of the coastlines of southern
California, Maine and New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
New York, Maryland, and New Jersey. Those States do not want that. They
long ago decided the risks were too great for their beaches and for
their fishing industries. They do not want it.
But it also is in the context of this Republican aversion, this
Republican opposition to wind and solar and other renewables receiving
the same attention as oil and natural gas does. And the important thing
about wind and solar is that they would be domestically produced 100
percent. The same is true, by the way, you would think, for natural
gas. Let's just say they find some off the coast of Massachusetts or
off the coast of New Jersey; that would be great. But what the
Republicans refuse to agree to is that that natural gas, after we've
drilled off of our beaches, cannot be exported to other countries. And
the reason that's important is we could use that natural gas and
substitute it for the oil that we import from the Persian Gulf, but
they won't agree to do that.
So the one thing that definitely has to be produced here is wind and
solar because it has to be domestic. Natural gas, though, you can put
it in a ship and you can send it around the world. You can freeze it
like liquefied natural gas. And they won't agree not to do that as part
of this package of running the risk of fouling the beaches of the east
coast and the west coast.
There is just something fundamentally wrong with this; nothing for
wind and solar, everything for the oil industry, including their
discretion to then take the oil and gas that's discovered off our
beaches and selling it overseas.
So this is just wrong on so many levels in terms of what we should be
doing to protect our own country, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say why we are here today. We are here
today because the President submitted his plan. It was late. His 5-year
plan is supposed to go through a 60-day review here in the Congress. We
are here to offer an alternative to that plan because that plan locks
up 85 percent of the potential resources in this country. We offer this
plan because we have heard loud and clear from the American people that
it is in our best interest to be less dependent on foreign energy. And
in the process of creating American energy, we obviously create
American jobs. That, to me, is a win/win situation.
Now, let me respond to some of the arguments that have been made on
the other side, and I want to point out specifically the bills.
The charge was made that the Republican-led House has not taken up
any bills dealing with renewable energy. In fact, the observation was
that there were no bills. In fact, there have been several bills, and
there are three bills that have passed the House. Now, some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle may not like it, but the fact is
that they've passed.
The first one is H.R. 4402. It passed on a bipartisan basis in July.
H.R. 3408, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in February. And H.R.
4480, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in June. So Republicans have
repeatedly said that we are in favor of an all-of-the-above energy
plan, and this, of course, confirms that belief.
Now, I want to make an observation to part of the debate here that we
are giving away something. I'm trying to think of an analogy on how to
describe that, and the best I can come up with is if one has an asset,
the Federal Government has an asset of having control over the Outer
Continental Shelf, and somebody wants to use that asset where there may
be some opportunity to grow the economy or create jobs, or what have
you, that seems to me to be a positive step rather than a giveaway.
In fact, I think about the private landowners in North Dakota or
maybe the State of North Dakota, because the same people, Big Oil, that
are being beat up here on the floor here in debate went to North
Dakota. They talked to the State and they talked to the private
landowners. They said, You may have some assets that we would like to
see if maybe there is some energy development available, very similar
to what's available on the Outer Continental Shelf. So they made an
agreement, I'll pay you, the landowner, some money if you let me look.
And if there is something there, I'll pay you with what comes out of
the ground.
Now, this is exactly the same process we're going through here,
except we're dealing with the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, who is the
beneficiary of that? Well, the beneficiary, in part, obviously, is the
Federal Government because they get money for the leases and they'll
get royalty payments. And I might point out, by the way, Mr. Chairman,
the second largest source of income to the Federal Government after the
income tax comes from leases and royalties. So there clearly is a
benefit to the American people in that regard.
So when this is characterized as a giveaway when supposedly what is
being given away is paid for, it does not, in my mind, pass the
straight-face test.
Lastly, we hear the arguments, specifically from my good friend from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) saying this bill is going nowhere in the other
body. Well, I would remind my good friend that the two Senators from
his home State of Virginia are Democrats, and they are in support of
drilling off the coast of Virginia, which, of course, this bill
embodies. So if maybe they could whisper into the majority leader's ear
and get some action on it, then this bill, indeed, could move through
the Senate, as I suspect it will move through the House, on a
bipartisan basis in the same light.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is a very good bill. I
urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
[[Page H5174]]
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-29. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 6082
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Replacement of
President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting
Offshore Drilling Plan''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) OCS planning area.--Any reference to an ``OCS Planning
Area'' means such Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area as
specified by the Department of the Interior as of January 1,
2012.
(2) Proposed oil and gas leasing program (2012-2017).--The
term ``Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas
Leasing Program (2012-2017)'' means such plan as transmitted
to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate on
June 28, 2012.
SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASING
PROGRAM (2012-2017).
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the Secretary of the Interior shall implement the Proposed
Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program
(2012-2017) in accordance with the schedule for conducting
oil and gas lease sales set forth in such proposed program,
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et
seq.), and otherwise applicable law.
(b) Modified and Additional Lease Sales.--Notwithstanding
the schedule of lease sales in the Proposed Final Outer
Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017), the
Secretary shall conduct under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) oil and gas lease sales in
OCS Planning Areas as specified in the following table, in
the year specified in the table for each lease sale:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lease Sale
No. OCS Planning Area Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
229 Western Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2012
220 Mid-Atlantic.................................... 2013
225 Eastern Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2013
227 Central Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2013
249 Southern California (existing infrastructure 2013
sale)..........................................
233 Western Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2013
244 Cook Inlet...................................... 2013
212 Chukchi Sea..................................... 2013
228 Southern California............................. 2014
230 Mid-Atlantic.................................... 2014
231 Central Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2014
238 Western Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2014
242 Beaufort Sea.................................... 2014
221 Chukchi Sea..................................... 2014
245 Mid-Atlantic.................................... 2015
232 North Atlantic.................................. 2015
234 Eastern Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2015
235 Central Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2015
246 Western Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2015
237 Chukchi Sea..................................... 2016
239 North Aleutian Basin............................ 2016
248 Western Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2016
241 Central Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2016
226 Eastern Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2016
217 Beaufort Sea.................................... 2016
243 Southern California............................. 2017
250 Mid-Atlantic.................................... 2017
247 Central Gulf of Mexico.......................... 2017
255 South Atlantic-South Carolina................... 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Lease Sales Described.--For purposes of subsection
(b)--
(1) lease sale numbers 229, 227, 233, 244, 225, 231, 238,
235, 242, 246, 226, 241, 237, 248, and 247 are such sales
proposed in, and shall be conducted in accordance with, the
Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing
Program (2012-2017), except each such lease sale shall be
conducted in the year specified for such sale in the table in
subsection (b);
(2) lease sale numbers 220, 212, 228, 230, 221, 245, 232,
234, 239, 217, and 243 are such sales proposed in, and shall
be conducted in accordance with, the Draft Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-
2015 as published in Federal Register on January 21, 2009 (74
Fed. Reg. 12), except each such lease sale shall be conducted
in the year specified for such sale in the table in
subsection (b); and
(3) lease sale numbers 249 and 250 shall be conducted--
(A) for lease tracts in the Southern California OCS
Planning Area and Mid-Atlantic OCS Planning Area,
respectively, as determined by and at the discretion of the
Secretary, subject to subparagraph (C);
(B) in the year specified for each such lease sale in the
table in subsection (b); and
(C) in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
SEC. 4. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE LEASE
SALE.
(a) In General.--In lease sale 249 under section 3, the
Secretary shall offer for sale leases of tracts in the Santa
Maria and Santa Barbara/Ventura Basins of the Southern
California OCS Planning Area as soon as practicable, but not
later than December 31, 2013.
(b) Use of Existing Structures or Onshore-Based Drilling.--
The Secretary of the Interior shall include in leases offered
for sale under lease sale 249 such terms and conditions as
are necessary to require that development and production may
occur only from offshore infrastructure in existence on the
date of the enactment of this Act or from onshore-based
drilling.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL DEFENSE.
(a) National Defense Areas.--This Act shall in no way
affect the existing authority of the Secretary of Defense,
with the approval of the President, to designate national
defense areas on the outer Continental Shelf pursuant to
section 12(d) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1341(d)).
(b) Prohibition on Conflicts With Military Operations.--No
person may engage in any exploration, development, or
production of oil or natural gas on the Outer Continental
Shelf under a lease issued under this Act that would conflict
with any military operation, as determined in accordance with
the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Defense
and the Department of the Interior on Mutual Concerns on the
Outer Continental Shelf signed July 20, 1983, and any
revision or replacement for that agreement that is agreed to
by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior
after that date but before the date of issuance of the lease
under which such exploration, development, or production is
conducted.
SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of this Act and in order
to conduct lease sales in accordance with the lease sale
schedule established by this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior shall prepare a multisale environmental impact
statement under section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) for all lease sales
required under this Act that are not included in the Proposed
Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program
(2012-2017).
(b) Actions To Be Considered.--Notwithstanding section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332), in such statement--
(1) the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing
alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental
effects of such alternative courses of action; and
(2) the Secretary shall only--
(A) identify a preferred action for leasing and not more
than one alternative leasing proposal; and
(B) analyze the environmental effects and potential
mitigation measures for such preferred action and such
alternative leasing proposal.
SEC. 7. EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO NOT INCLUDED.
Nothing in this Act affects restrictions on oil and gas
leasing under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
(title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; 43 U.S.C. 1331
note).
SEC. 8. LEASE SALE OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
In determining the areas off the coast of South Carolina
to be made available for leasing under this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) consult with the Governor and legislature of the State
of South Carolina; and
(2) focus on areas considered to have the most geologically
promising energy resources.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House
Report 112-616. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, beginning at line 11, strike ``Proposed oil and gas
leasing program (2012-2017)'' and insert ``Proposed final
outer continental shelf oil & gas leasing program (2012-
2017)''.
Page 1, line 14, strike ``plan'' and insert ``program''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I will just take a few seconds here.
This amendment is very simple. It makes two small technical
corrections to the way the plan is referred to in the bill, and I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
[[Page H5175]]
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
The minority has no objection to the amendment by the gentleman, and
we urge support of it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1750
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning at page 5, line 22, strike section 6.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple:
``On page 5, line 22, strike section 6.''
This amendment strikes language from the bill that requires the
Interior Department to conduct a single multisale environmental impact
statement for all of the new areas that would be opened under this
bill.
Now, it's not going to happen. We are not going to see this into law.
I'm sure this bill is not going anywhere. But if it were, it would be
an environmental disaster.
The notion that one environmental analysis would be sufficient for
lease sales in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, and Bristol Bay in Alaska
is simply absurd. These are very different environments. The steps that
would be taken to prepare for drilling would be different in each one.
The steps that would be taken during drilling would be different in
each one. The steps that would be taken to prepare against an accident
would be different in each one, and the steps for a cleanup would be
different in each one. In fact, it would be hard to imagine three
environments that could be more different. Even along the Atlantic
coast from South Carolina to Massachusetts there are differences.
Congress has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that
offshore drilling for gas and oil is occurring in a safe and
environmentally responsible manner. It's been over 2 years since the
worst environmental oil disaster in American history, the BP oil spill,
and Congress has yet to enact a single legislative reform.
This committee, instead of doing a bill that--seems to be motivated
to try to embarrass the President, I guess, based on a false premise
that the President is interfering with the oil industry. They should
actually be trying to put in place corrections that have been pointed
out that are needed following the knowledge we've learned from the BP
oil spill. The independent BP Spill Commission gave Congress a grade of
``D'' for a legislative response.
Now, the Republican majority has said they wanted to wait until all
the facts were in before taking action to respond to the gulf spill.
Well, the time has come. We've heard from the independent BP Spill
Commission, Mr. Chairman; we've heard from the government's joint
investigative team, Mr. Chairman; and those reports reached similar
conclusions: The BP disaster was preventible, not inevitable. Those
reports concluded that corners were cut, bad decisions were made, and
stronger safety standards could have helped, in fact, could have
prevented the disaster.
In fact, just today, the United States Chemical Safety Board issued
its first report on the BP oil spill disaster and found that, when BP
looked at offshore operations, it ``focused on financial risks, not
process safety risks.''
So that's what we should be doing here today. We should be
strengthening the safety, the public health, and the environmental
protections instead of saying we're going to drill everywhere and water
down the environmental protections.
Here we are considering the 11th drilling bill over the last 18
months. The Republican majority is, once again, seeking to open up
vast, vast swaths of America's coastlines to drilling without proper
environmental review.
Mandating a single environmental impact analysis for the variety of
lease sales included under this legislation is simply insufficient.
Truncating environmental review will make drilling less safe, not more
safe.
Let me be clear: The authors of H.R. 6082 apparently believe that the
Atlantic, the Pacific, and Bristol Bay are similar enough to warrant a
single environmental assessment.
An oil spill off the east coast would endanger 200,000 jobs and $12
billion associated with just New Jersey's fishing and tourism
industries--and that's not counting the indirect effects as this money
flows through our local economies.
Bristol Bay and the North Aleutian Basin form the heart of one of the
most productive salmon fisheries on the planet, contributing more than
$5 billion every year to our economy, yet the underlying bill opens up
these areas to drilling under a truncated environmental review.
My amendment simply strikes the language from the bill that requires
a single multisale environmental impact statement and would go a long
way toward protecting the environment.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
The amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing
energy production and job creation. This amendment would strike the
section of the bill requiring that an environmental impact statement be
conducted prior to any leasing in lease sale areas.
The gentleman takes issue with the manner in which the environmental
impact statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to
mention is that the administration is required to do yet another
environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on
each lease block as a part of the leasing process, and then each
exploration plan has additional environmental work. So, in effect, all
of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied
for the effect that any activity will have on the environment.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will still
be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore
leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National
Fishing Enhancement Act, to name a few.
The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the
environment. It goes an extra mile in requiring a multiple-sale EIS on
all of the lease areas, while also ensuring that leasing does occur,
although that leasing is still subject to all the environmental
protection laws that are on the books.
Support for offshore energy development does not mean that you cannot
also respect the range of different environmental needs based on lease
area.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in the country does not want to
drill safely and responsibly. I know I certainly don't, and I know
Members on my side of the aisle don't. So I encourage my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman has yielded back his time. I
will yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
[[Page H5176]]
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Richardson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, strike line 3 and insert the following:
SEC. 8. LEASE SALES OFF THE COASTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND
CALIFORNIA.
Page 7, line 5, after ``lina'' insert ``and the coast of
California''.
Page 7, line 8, strike ``the State of South Carolina'' and
insert ``each such State''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Richardson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, my staff and I have had the opportunity
earlier today to discuss this amendment with Chairman Hastings, Ranking
Member Markey and their staffs, so I'll be brief.
{time} 1800
The Richardson amendment improves the bill by amending section 8 to
explicitly require the Secretary of the Interior to consult the
California Governor and the State legislature before leasing any areas
off the coast of California. My amendment codifies in the bill existing
law, practice, and custom.
In short, the Richardson amendment extends to California the same
consideration that the bill's drafters afforded the State of South
Carolina. The State of California has within its borders more than two-
thirds of the Nation's Pacific coastline, a far greater percentage than
South Carolina has with respect to the Atlantic coastline.
California's coastline is an international treasure, and our State's
residents should have input on drilling off our shores. Offshore
drilling along the California coastline should thoroughly consider
impacts to tourism, fisheries, coastal recreation, and of course the
economy and its benefits. That is why it's reasonable and necessary
that the people of California, through their chief elected officials,
be consulted by the Secretary of the Interior on the subject of
offshore drilling off the California coast.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to acknowledge the leadership and expertise
and willingness of Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for
working with me on the Richardson amendment, and I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And
I want to congratulate her on her amendment because I think this is a
responsible approach that we are trying to take.
One of the reasons why California is so important, I think as the
gentlelady knows, is that there are geologists that say that there are
over 1.5 million potential barrels of oil off the shore. That should be
important to Californians because not too long ago you were producing
50 percent of your oil production, now it's down to 38 percent. What we
say, obviously, in this legislation is that it should be done from
platforms on land.
So I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I think it's a
responsible approach, and I think it adds to this legislation. And I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to conclude with
saying that I both acknowledge and appreciate the leadership by both
Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey; look forward to working
with them on this and many other issues; and I'm grateful for their
willingness to consider the rightfulness of this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the
rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. REQUIREMENT TO OFFER GAS FOR SALE ONLY IN THE UNITED
STATES.
The Secretary of the Interior shall require that all gas
produced under a lease issued under this Act shall be offered
for sale only in the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very, very simple. It ensures that
the natural gas produced under the leases issued under this legislation
is sold in America. We're talking about the public lands of the United
States, the taxpayer-owned lands of the United States. These are the
American people's lands off of Massachusetts, off of New York, off of
New Jersey, off of California that are being leased under this bill.
The very least we should be able to tell the American people is that
they are actually going to see a benefit from any oil or gas produced
from these lands.
We should be able to tell Americans that we are keeping the natural
gas produced on their public lands here in America to keep prices low
for Americans here in the United States, and we're going to find ways
of putting that natural gas into trucks, into buses, into cars so that
we can stop importing oil from dangerous parts of the world.
We should be able to tell Americans that we're keeping the natural
gas here so that we can create more American jobs in manufacturing
plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, and steel; and that we tell those
countries in the Middle East we don't need your oil any more than we
need your sand because we have natural gas here in America. That's all
that my amendment would do, send a strong signal to the OPEC nations.
Current law does not allow for the exportation of our crude oil, and
it shouldn't allow for the exportation of our natural gas either. My
amendment would ensure that no waivers can be granted, no permits can
be issued to export natural gas produced from the public land of the
United States to other countries when we're still importing oil from
OPEC. How much sense does that make that we find natural gas and start
to sell it to other countries, even as OPEC continues to tip us upside
down and shake money out of our pockets at the pump?
So I'm going to reserve the balance of my time at this point and
continue my argument in a few minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to see that the gentleman understands
that America needs oil and natural gas. That was a very good statement
on his part. We would prefer to see more domestic production of this
necessary commodity rather than importing it from foreign countries. I
think we're making progress in that regard, Mr. Chairman.
The good news is this is already law, what the gentleman is trying to
address. Title 43, chapter 29, section 1534 of the U.S. Code
specifically prevents the export of both oil or gas produced from the
Outer Continental Shelf unless the President finds that it is, one, in
the national interest; two, will not increase our reliance on natural
gas; and, three, that it is in accordance with the Export
Administration Act, which puts further regulations on exports.
Now, the House has said repeatedly that increased energy production
on Federal lands is in the national interest. So I suppose the
gentleman could say there is some wiggle room there.
[[Page H5177]]
But, nevertheless, this amendment had failed in committee last week, it
has failed on the House floor on many occasions because of this
protection that's already in law. So I urge my colleagues to reject
this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Department of Energy right now has applications from 15 companies
to export 28 percent of our current natural gas consumption in the
United States.
Let me be very clear: exporting our natural gas will increase
American energy prices. No economist or energy analyst disagrees. Why
would we find natural gas here and then start selling it around the
world? It would increase the price here. In fact, exporting far less
than what is currently being proposed could send domestic natural gas
prices skyrocketing by 54 percent.
Let me just let everyone out there know right now, we are the Saudi
Arabia of natural gas. We are, right now, the lowest natural gas price
in the world. In the United States, it's only $2.40, $2.50 in Mcf. In
Japan, in Korea, in China, it's seven times higher. In Europe, it's
four times higher. So if you're a manufacturer, if you're a company
thinking about moving your trucking or your bus fleet to natural gas as
opposed to oil and you're in these other countries, it's difficult for
you to do it.
It's time for the United States to figure out how to do this. We have
this incredible bonanza. Now they're proposing to drill off the
coastline of Massachusetts, off New York, off southern California to
find more natural gas. And what are they saying? Let's export it. Well,
you're going to export the cheapest natural gas in the world.
Do you know what T. Boone Pickens says about this? ``If we do it, if
we export natural gas, we're truly going to go down as America's
dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural gas.''
{time} 1810
This is T. Boone Pickens. This is Ed Markey. This is a coalition that
spans the entire spectrum of political thought, but we do agree on this
one thing. Why would we take our most precious natural resource and
sell it to other countries, when it gives us a massive competitive
advantage?
So I'm going to reserve the balance of my time to conclude debate,
but this is a nonsensical policy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no more requests for
time, and I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve my
time.
Mr. MARKEY. How much time is remaining on either side, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 15 seconds.
Mr. MARKEY. Fifteen seconds.
We drill for natural gas off of our beaches, our pristine beaches and
we find it, we take the risk, those States take their risk, that
natural gas should stay here in America. ExxonMobil shouldn't be able
to pack it up and sell it to China, sell it to South America. That
natural gas should stay here in America if it's found off of our
beaches. That's what the Markey amendment calls for.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this law has been on the books
since 1940. Now, in 1940, there was a whole lot of unrest in the world
just prior to the Second World War, and in the wisdom, apparently, of
the Congress of that time, they said that energy production from the
Outer Continental Shelf, which I might add, was probably not as robust
as it is today, there are only certain conditions that you would export
what comes off. And as I listed those things before, I think they're
important.
That law was a good law then. It's a good law now. This amendment
adds absolutely nothing to that whatsoever.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the
rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
The Secretary of the Interior shall require that drilling
operations conducted under each lease issued under this Act
meet requirements for--
(1) third-party certification of safety systems related to
well control, such as blowout preventers;
(2) performance of blowout preventers, including
quantitative risk assessment standards, subsea testing, and
secondary activation methods;
(3) independent third-party certification of well casing
and cementing programs and procedures;
(4) mandatory safety and environmental management systems
by operators on the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is
used in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act); and
(5) procedures and technologies to be used during drilling
operations to minimize the risk of ignition and explosion of
hydrocarbons.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the independent blue ribbon BP Spill
Commission--and this is their comprehensive compendium of what went
wrong and what needs to be done in order to correct what went wrong in
the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in the history of
our country--concluded that there were systemic problems that occurred
in the entire industry.
The Commission recommended sweeping reforms to improve the safety of
offshore drilling. Yet, this Congress has still not enacted a single
legislative reform and, as a result, the BP Spill Commission recently
gave Congress a D, this Republican Congress, on its legislative
response, and only refrained from handing out an F because it said it
didn't want to insult the institution.
My amendment would simply ensure that we put into the statute
specific minimal safety requirements for blowout preventers, cementing,
and the casing of offshore wells. My amendment would ensure that if we
are going to expand drilling off of States like Massachusetts and New
York and New Jersey and Maryland and California, that we put additional
safety requirements on the books to ensure that a Romney administration
or any other future administration cannot simply roll back the Interior
Department reforms.
We don't want a Louisiana mess off of the coast of Massachusetts, off
of the coast of southern California. We want the safety reforms that
the BP Spill Commission recommended be put in place so there is no
recurrence.
The Republicans are saying they want to drill off of the coast of
these States that don't want the drilling. The least that they should
do is build in the safety reforms.
And just today, the Chemical Safety Board released its report on the
disaster. The Chemical Safety Board reached many of the same
conclusions as the BP Spill Commission. The government's joint
investigative team and the National Academy of Engineering said that
this disaster was not inevitable, that it was preventable.
This majority has said they wanted to wait until all the facts were
in before taking action on safety legislation. Well, the time has now
come. We now have two blue ribbon reports, each reaching the same
conclusions. It is long past time for the Congress to take the lessons
of the BP spill and turn them into laws, so that we never have a
disaster like this again.
I'm afraid of what the majority is contemplating here, which is
authorizing the drilling off the coasts of the
[[Page H5178]]
East and the West in our country without building in the safety
reforms. If ever there is a recipe for disaster, ruining the fishing,
ruining the tourism business for these States that don't want the
drilling in the first place because their economies are not based upon
the same premise as the Louisiana and Texas economy, then this is that
recipe. This is what we're voting on here today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let's be very frank about this. This amendment won't
increase safety, but it will add red tape to the leasing process and
open new avenues for lawsuits to interfere with the process of creating
American energy and creating American jobs.
The types of safety measures identified in the amendment are already
in place, and they are already enforceable. On multiple occasions, the
Obama administration has testified that offshore drilling operations
are being conducted safely.
With this amendment, the minority continues to try to divert
attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production,
American energy production, creating jobs, American jobs, lowering
energy costs, and improving our national security, all doing that
because, potentially, we lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
So it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply do
not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with
a robust and responsible program of oil and gas development, while, at
the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken.
These are not, nor should they be mutually exclusive goals.
Right now, we have two choices before us. Tomorrow, when we vote on
this, and the suspension that will be before us, we can choose to
endorse the President's energy plan to hold 15 sales in five areas in
the OCS, or we can support this bill before us, which will have nearly
double, 29 sales, in over double the areas, 11 areas.
Both options will ensure that the drilling is done safely. Both
options will ensure that our environment is protected. But only one
option follows through on the promise made to the American people when
the moratoria was lifted.
The American people clearly want our Nation to harness our energy
resources. But the President's energy plan takes 85 percent of the
Outer Continental Shelf and makes it off-limits.
This amendment, I should add, has failed when it was offered on this
floor last February, and it also failed when it was offered in
committee last week. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1820
Mr. MARKEY. May I ask the Chair to recapitulate the exact time that
the majority and minority still have remaining for this debate?
The Acting CHAIR. There are 1\1/2\ minutes for the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and there are 2\1/2\ minutes for the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. MARKEY. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman is prepared to yield
back, I will do the same.
Mr. MARKEY. I am prepared to give my convincing concluding
presentation to the House floor.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am the last speaker on my side, so you
do what you have to do, and I will respond accordingly.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
I yield myself my remaining time.
Again, just for the record, Republicans can say this as much as they
want, but I have to repeat:
(1) When President Obama was sworn in, 57 percent of our oil was
imported. Today, only 45 percent of our oil is imported--
congratulations, President Obama--no matter how many times the
Republicans want to cover that over.
(2) Seventy-five percent of all of the oil and gas reserves offshore
have been made available by the Obama administration for drilling.
(3) We in the United States are at an 18-year high in drilling.
Now, the Republicans have a problem with this because the 18-year
high in drilling, the reduction from 57 percent of imports down to 45
percent of imports and the fact that 75 percent of all areas off the
shores of our country are open for drilling run totally contrary to
everything that they believe--to everything that they want America to
believe, it is better to be said--because if the American people
actually believed the truth, which is that Obama has reduced our
imported oil from 57 percent down to 45 percent, reduced our dependence
upon imported oil and increased our drilling to the highest point in 18
years, then their whole narrative just goes right down the drain. They
have to keep getting up as though Bush were the right guy, but he did
nothing.
All we're saying is, if you are so desperate to actually license all
of this new drilling off of the beaches of our States, at least build
in the safety precautions, which is what the Markey amendment calls
for, which will prevent another mess like the BP Horizon catastrophe in
the Gulf of Mexico.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Okay. Let's say it again: The gentleman's remarks would imply that,
because there is increased oil production in this country, it's due to
the actions of this administration.
Nothing, Mr. Chairman, could be further from the truth, because it
takes a while to go through the process of leasing and developing
potential resources before you drill, and even then you don't know
until you drill.
All of that process started prior to this administration's taking
office. It happened in the Bush administration, and as a matter of
fact, it happened in the Clinton administration. That's where the
increased production, in large part, came from. Even that isn't
entirely true, because the increased production of American oil is
really coming from State and private lands, not from Federal lands. In
fact, over the last 2 years, Federal lands production has been down
under this administration. It is principally because of North Dakota
and West Texas that we are finding more production of American energy.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, I think that's good--but why should we
ignore the potential resources that we have on Federal lands and not
allow that to produce our American energy?
This amendment really does not help that process. All it does is add
red tape to the process, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. ELIGIBILITY FOR LEASES.
(a) Limitation on Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
not offer any lease pursuant to this Act to a person
described in paragraph (2) unless the person has renegotiated
each covered lease with respect to which the person is a
lessee, to modify the payment responsibilities of the person
to require the payment of royalties if the price of oil and
natural gas is greater than or equal to the price thresholds
described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1337(a)(3)(C)).
(2) Persons described.--A person referred to in paragraph
(1) is a person that--
[[Page H5179]]
(A) is a lessee that--
(i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the
Secretary considers the issuance of the lease under this Act;
or
(ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of
enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to
another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate
of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) any other person that has any direct or indirect
interest in, or that derives any benefit from, a covered
lease.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means a
lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that
is--
(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
(B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section
304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief
Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
(C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on
market price that are equal to or less than the price
thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section
8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
(2) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or
other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or
under common control with, a lessee.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. If the majority Republicans continue to push their ``oil
above all'' agenda, then we House Democrats will persist in our
attempts to make offshore drilling safe--safe for the workers and safe
for the environment--and to make sure that the American taxpayers are
getting their fair share of return on the use of their natural
resources.
The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last
year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize
on the pain that Americans feel at the pump, raking in $368 million in
profits per day. But did the Americans see increased profits from
selling their oil as it was pumped from public lands offshore? No. As a
result of a legal quirk in the 1995 law, oil companies are not paying
any royalties to the American people on leases issued between 1996 and
2000--none, zero.
In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been
pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have
gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all
oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, and
these oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of
all the oil produced offshore in the United States. They don't pay the
American people one penny for their drilling regardless of their huge
profits. It's just unjust.
According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to
lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this big giveaway
to oil companies. Yes, it's a giveaway. The Government Accountability
Office projects that all this free drilling will cost us as much as $53
billion over the life of the leases. My amendment would recover these
revenues that rightly belong to the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is yet another attempt to legislate a decision
that was made during the Clinton administration. The constant attempt
to renegotiate contracts that were signed, sealed, and delivered under
the Clinton administration is in violation of contract law. That should
be very, very basic, it would seem to me, if, indeed, we are a Nation
of laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Interior Department did not
have the authority to go back and insert price thresholds on these
leases. The Department lost this issue in district court, in the
appellate court, and they lost it in the Supreme Court. If this
amendment were to pass, the issue would most certainly be challenged in
court where, undoubtedly, the Department would again lose after having
spent taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible.
Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a
contract negotiated under government law. Now, some would say it's a
bad contract. Maybe it was. I'm not going to second-guess what the
Clinton administration did--but, in fact, they signed that contract
law. This amendment has repeatedly failed on the House floor, and I
hope it fails again. I urge its opposition.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. My amendment would offer oil companies a choice. They could
choose either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf and
not get new leases or they could pay their fair share and proceed with
this willy-nilly drilling that would be allowed under this law, under
this legislation. My amendment does not break contracts. It simply
would not force companies to give up their leases. It would impose a
condition on future leases. As the Congressional Research Service has
stated:
As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion in
setting the qualifications of those with whom it contracts.
These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history
of the world, yet they receive more than $4 billion a year in taxpayer
subsidies. On top of that, they get to drill for free on all of these
public lands. Because of a quirk in the 1995 law, which came about
because that Republican Congress was not eager to make oil companies
pay, we shouldn't continue to give them a free ride.
If my colleagues on the other side are serious about paying down the
deficit and realistically financing necessary investments in this
Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to
recover about $1 billion a year--actually, somewhat more than that
probably--that is rightfully owed to the American people.
{time} 1830
It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off once and for all.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
If the intent of this amendment, as the gentleman says, is just to
say that companies aren't forced to, but could renegotiate their
contracts, I would say they could do that right now. Anybody that
enters into a contract is free--if both parties want to--to renegotiate
a contract. Nothing prevents them from doing so. But to have the heavy
hand of government say in the future that ``if you don't do this,'' I
think is a step too darn far. I think that that is really the wrong way
to go. That's the last thing that we need, is saying a condition of
leasing or doing business with the government is that you have to
retroactively go back and change a contract. That would have a chilling
effect, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I don't know why the Clinton administration signed these
contracts. Who knows? But to add this, where do you stop then? Where do
you stop with all of the Federal contracts that could be not only in
energy production, but anything else? This is a very bad amendment.
It's a very bad precedent, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. LEASES MUST REQUIRE ESTIMATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND
EFFECT ON PRICES.
The Secretary of the Interior shall require under each
lease issued under this Act that
[[Page H5180]]
each application for a permit to drill a well includes
detailed estimations of--
(1) the amount of oil and gas that is expected--
(A) to be found in the area where the well is drilled, in
the case of an exploration well; or
(B) to be produced by the well, in the case of a production
well; and
(2) the amount by which crude oil prices and consumer
prices would be reduced as a result of oil and gas found or
produced by the well, and by when the reductions would occur.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Republicans justify these
irresponsible bills by claiming that more drilling will help reduce the
cost of gasoline and fuel for the average American. Yet opening up even
more of our country's shores to drilling will do little to help
Americans at the gas pump. In reality, the United States is already
producing more oil per day than it ever has. There are more drilling
rigs in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
The drilling plan issued by President Obama that this bill amends
already makes three-quarters of our offshore oil and gas resources open
to drilling. Yet 70 percent of the offshore areas that are leased are
currently not even active. That's 55 million acres under lease not
active.
The price of oil and gas is set on a global level, primarily by the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. At maximum output,
the United States holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, not
nearly enough to significantly impact the price per barrel, which is
set on a global scale. According to the Energy Information Agency, even
tripling our current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030
would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we
continued at our current levels.
Gas prices are set on the world market on the basis of many
geopolitical factors. For example, when the world thought Israel might
attack Iran in February, gas prices went up 10 percent in 2 months to
reach a 9-month high over fear that fuel supply lines would be
disrupted. Though production in our country has actually increased
every year since 2005, crude oil hit a record $147 per barrel over the
same time period, demonstrating that there is little correlation
between drilling levels in the United States and the price of oil.
What drives the price of oil more than any other factor is the large
nonstop worldwide demand for oil. The only way we can reduce gasoline
prices is to reduce our country's disproportionate demand for fossil
fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage
of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. Federal
policies should focus on these kinds of demand-reducing improvements,
not on increasing the land available for drilling. I make it very clear
over and over again that I'll be the last person standing off the
shores of Florida if we continue down the path of wanting to drill in
that area.
Mr. Chairman, with all this in mind, my amendment requires applicants
for drilling or exploration to explain in detail to what extent and by
when any oil is found on the leased property will that decrease the
price of oil for the American consumer.
More drilling will put our businesses, as well as our environment and
our health, at an increased risk. Since we know that there's no
correlation between gas prices and U.S. drilling, this bill is really
nothing more than a giveaway, and I know my good friend from Washington
will say that it is not. He perceives it as not a giveaway. I do. I
think that it's nothing more than a giveaway to the oil and gas
companies. My goodness, gracious, have we not given them enough?
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery
that they are here as guests of the House and any manifestation of
approval or disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is
in violation of the House rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In deference to my good friend from
Florida, I really believe that this is a political amendment that would
simply require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the
impact that increased oil and gas production would have on gasoline
prices. This bill is about increasing American domestic energy
production. It's about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's
about creating American jobs and creating American energy.
Simply put, requiring producers to estimate the impact that each and
every well has on global markets is nothing more than a bureaucratic
paperwork nightmare that would be put on those that would want to go
and drill offshore and a delaying tactic by those that are opposed to
offshore development. I don't think this is a good amendment. As I said
in deference to my good friend from Florida, I really believe that this
is a political amendment.
With that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, do I have any time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, I am going to use my 30 seconds
as I hope to yield to my good friend from Washington for a question.
Perhaps I can get it in.
Do you dispute, Representative Hastings, that we now have 55 million
acres under lease, 70 percent of it is not being utilized and, in the
final analysis, that all of what we wanted to drill, that it would
amount to more than 2 percent of the world's output?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding and
say that if you run out of time, I will claim the time.
First, I do not deny that, except the figures that you're using
aren't quite accurate; I will say that in the sense that the 2 percent
you're talking about is known reserves.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
{time} 1840
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The 2 percent figure that you are using is the known reserves. The
potential resources that we have are much, much greater than that. And
really, when you are looking at potential future energy production in
this country, you look at the potential resources, not the known
reserves. There's a big, big difference. Two percent is reserve.
So I will acknowledge that while we have 2 percent right now, our
potential resources are much, much larger.
And I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman. But in the Gulf of
Mexico, which holds the largest volume of undiscovered technically
recoverable resources, 32 million acres are under lease. However, only
approximately 10 million acres have approved exploration or development
plans, and only 6.4 million of these acres are in production. Leased
areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are not producing or are not subject
to pending or approved exploration and development plan are estimated
to contain 17.9 billion barrels of UTRR oil and 49.7 trillion cubic
feet.
So I will make the argument again to my dear friend that if we're
talking about doing everything that you called for--and I know it's
most sincerely--if we do that, we are not talking about reducing the
price of gas but by a nickel. So show me the plan to get us to energy
independence by drilling.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is
talking about is lease sales. Somebody has made an investment. They do
not know if that area has any oil or natural gas. They don't know. They
will go through all the studies. They'll spend millions, and sometimes
billions, of dollars finding out if there is something there. Then, if
they think there is, they will drill, costing that much more.
Now, I might add, with these lease sales, there is a set time. The
Federal
[[Page H5181]]
Government gets money from these lease sales. Why would somebody give
the money to the Federal Government if they didn't think there was
something there? And, by the way, many times these leases come up empty
and the company walks away and the only revenue goes to the Federal
Government.
But let me speak to one other area of the amendment, because what the
gentleman is really saying with this amendment is he is asking somebody
that produces a crude product to estimate the price of a finished
product. That's like telling an apple grower in my part of the country
that, if he or she is to sell apples overseas, what's the price of
applesauce going to be down the line? Now, it doesn't make any sense to
do that. Now, whether the gentleman purposely did that or not, I don't
know. But in any case, I don't believe that the amendment ought to be
adopted for other reasons, but certainly for that one.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. LEASES MUST REQUIRE ESTIMATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND
RESULTING CLIMATE CHANGE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
require under each lease issued under this Act that each
application for a permit to drill a well includes detailed
estimations of--
(1) the amount of oil and gas that is expected--
(A) to be found in the area where the well is drilled, in
the case of an exploration well; or
(B) to be produced by the well, in the case of a production
well; and
(2) climate change that will result from consumption of oil
and gas found pursuant to the lease.
(b) Climate Change Defined.--In this section the term
``climate change'' means change of climate that is attributed
directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the
composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition
to natural climate variability observed over comparable time
periods.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, in the last exchange that I had with
my good friend, that I deeply appreciate his yielding some of his time
to me, and I'm glad that he didn't compare apples to oranges. I thought
that's what he was going to do, but he went down the applesauce route.
Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues continue, in my opinion, to
cling to an antiquated 19th century energy policy while the rest of the
world has moved into the 21st century. Just because the majority
Members of Congress refuse to acknowledge that human activity
contributes to climate change does not make it true. Climate change is
not an abstract or difficult scientific principle to grasp. The effects
are all around us. Our country is currently experiencing its worst
drought since the Dust Bowl in the year of my birth, 1936.
Just last week, sudden violent storms rocked the east coast--they
were referred to as microbursts--knocking out power for thousands and
killing a number of people. Furthermore, record heat waves are having
serious repercussions on crop yields.
We must pursue responsible, sustainable energy policies both for the
legacy that we will leave our children and also to make certain the
United States is at the forefront of an emerging green economy.
My amendment will not let oil companies shield themselves in
ignorance any longer. It requires in each permit application an
analysis and estimate of the impact on global climate change of the
consumption of the fossil fuels discovered.
While the oil and gas found under each individual lease may not have
a huge impact, there is no question that the aggregate fossil fuel
consumption contributes to global climate change.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to force my
friends, the House Republicans, and big oil companies to acknowledge
the reality that the international community is preparing for.
Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, when I was president of the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly--its
headquarters is in Denmark--I went to Denmark during that 2-year period
of time, close to 30 times over the course of the years that I've been
here. When I fly into Denmark, just coming from the side of Sweden, I
see the windmills tilting that have been tilting for 16 years. And
Denmark's city, Copenhagen, is the beneficiary of much of that
production. They're headed toward the future. We're living in the past.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
In many respects, Mr. Chairman, we just had this debate. And again,
with deference to my good friend from Florida, I think this is another
political amendment because what it will do is require companies
seeking to drill offshore to estimate the potential impact produced by
oil and natural gas production, what impact that would have on climate
change. Not only that, you would have to do it on a well-by-well basis.
Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, some sort of requirement like that
would simply dry up anybody wanting to drill offshore or utilize our
resources offshore. Now, if that's what the gentleman wants, then okay,
that's a good concession; but, if not, it simply does not make any
sense.
But from a practical standpoint--and I think this is very important,
Mr. Chairman--if the issue--and there is some debate about this, no
question. But if the issue of producing oil and natural gas will affect
the climate, and we, as a country, probably have the most stringent
environmental laws on our air quality and water quality, why would we
put this extra burden on us when it wouldn't happen in other parts of
the world?
But the net effect of this, if it were to become law, would be to
drive everybody from America.
So the net effect, if the issue--now, if the issue is really to
protect the environment and protect the air, why would you drive it to
areas that have less stringent environmental laws? Yet that would be
the practical effect if this amendment were to become law.
Like I said, we've been over this before. It puts extraordinary
burdens on individual wells and individual producers. And as I
mentioned, in deference to my friend, I think it is a political
amendment.
I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1850
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in the words of the celebrated
movie that these words came from, I'm shocked, just shocked that this
is a political amendment. And I'm equally shocked that this bill is
political. This is the 143rd time that we're talking about oil
drilling. And somewhere along the line, I'm lost. I thought politics
was what we do. That's what I do. That's what people sent me here to
do. That's what you do, my good friend, is politics. That's what it's
about.
The difference is where we separate ourselves is whether we're
talking about the politics of the future, where there are opportunities
for us to do the things to bring us to energy independence, or whether
or not we are going to cling to fossil fuels until we just can't find
any place else to drill.
[[Page H5182]]
My major opposition to oil drilling offshore has been demonstrably
shown when the Deep Horizon accident occurred. There have been other
accidents. You want to drill in the tundra; there have been accidents
where oil was spilled in that area. And daily in Ft. Lauderdale, I see
ships sitting offshore, and I find that occasionally tar and things
that come from them wind up on the beaches.
We make $60 billion a year in Florida on those resources. I heard you
earlier, my colleague, argue about North Dakota. I don't want to be in
North Dakota in the wintertime, and I'm glad if they are about their
business doing what they want to do; but I know a lot of North Dakota
people, when they finish with the drilling up there, are going to come
to Florida for our beaches, and that's what I'm about trying to
preserve.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Well, I, too, am shocked; but I'm glad we got that out of the way.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, this bill is a bill that addresses
American energy and American jobs and, therefore, has a positive
effect--potential positive effect--on our economy.
This amendment adds nothing to that. As a matter of fact, I think
it's an impediment to this bill becoming law if it were to be adopted.
And if I could think of some sorts of things to say regarding oranges,
I would say it; but I'm totally at a loss. So I will simply say that
this amendment does not deserve support, I urge its rejection, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hanna) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6082) to
officially replace, within the 60-day Congressional review period under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final
Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a
congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas
lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation, and
increased domestic energy production to ensure a more secure energy
future in the United States, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________