Offshore Energy and Jobs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are again. It's kind of a Groundhog Day moment for Congress. This bill, or individual parts of this bill, passed in the last Congress five times and never went anywhere in the Senate, and it will meet the same fate again.

Now, the premise here is that if we had mandatory offshore oil leasing in the more sensitive areas of the coast--remember, 75 percent of the known recoverable resources are available currently under lease. Currently, there are 5,484 leases on the Outer Continental Shelf that aren't producing. Those leases cover 30 million acres--85 percent of the total acreage currently under lease. We estimate there are 18 billion barrels of oil under these leases and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When I asked the gentleman from the American Petroleum Institute why they needed to put more acreage under lease when they're sitting on all of this, his answer was, Well, you know, these things take a long time.

If they take a long time, let's encourage them to develop what they've already leased, to go after these 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When they're making progress there, then they might come back and petition for more, and we'll make a decision at that point given the needs of the country; but the premise that somehow by putting more leases out there--with no requirement for them to perform--the price of gas will drop is absolutely untrue. We all know that's untrue. The American consumers know it's untrue.

The principal reason that underlies the 50-cent-a-gallon, one-week run-up in May, which we're still paying, is refineries. Our refineries need to be cleaned and maintained and have periodic maintenance, and, oh, a couple of them have broken down. We have seen incredible consolidation in the refinery industry, and it's always the excuse for jacking up the price on Memorial Day and on the July Fourth weekend and sticking it to the American consumers. Last year, they claimed that all of the refineries were shut down. An investigative reporter went in and got the air pollution records--no. Actually, they were operating, and they were exporting gasoline from the United States to overseas and were claiming there was a shortage here.

Now, we're in a world market. There's not much we can do about that. So the world price is what we pay for oil and gas, and it's a manipulated market; it's a collusive market. If we really wanted to do something, Members on the other side would join me in getting the administration to file a complaint against OPEC for manipulating the markets and for violating the World Trade Organization. You would join in investigating these suspicious refinery shutdowns, which I've asked the Obama administration Energy Task Force to do. You would also join us, instead of giving more latitude to speculators in the oil companies, in actually reining in the speculators. Hey, the head of ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for high prices as 75 cents a gallon is due to excess speculation on Wall Street.

So there are some real things we could do that would bring relief very quickly to American families, but those are not giving the oil industry, which is sitting on 5,484 leases, covering 30 million acres and 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, more acreage to put under lease, particularly with mandatory leasing in sensitive areas.

That's what this bill would do. We've passed it before. Well, not ``we.'' Collectively, the House has passed it before. I expect, as I said, we will see that happen again today, but nothing will happen with these bills in the United States Senate.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 4 minutes to an outstanding new member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just to inject a few facts into the debate, although we often ignore those around here: oil production from Federal lands is higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 596 million barrels of oil from Federal lands last year, compared with 565 in 2008; and the Energy Information Administration found that oil production is higher on public lands offshore now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 474 million barrels of oil last year, compared to 462 in 2008, but sometimes facts are inconvenient things.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), an esteemed member of the Ways and Means and Budget Committees.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), another esteemed member of the Natural Resources Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd just like to respond to the gentleman who preceded me.

The statistic he used was accurate in 2005, the 20 million barrels a day imported. And that was, of course, when George Bush was President of the United States with the Bush-Cheney energy policy. And that was 57 percent, you know, of the oil we consumed.

Now, due to changes with fleet fuel economy

standards and biofuels and other steps taken by the Obama administration, actually, our daily consumption is down to 18.5 million barrels. That's not bad. That's almost an 8 percent decrease in a mere 7 years, with the President only in office for 4 1/2 . And we are now only 36 percent dependent on foreign oil.

That trend continues, of course, as I spoke earlier, about the increase in production on Federal lands and Federal offshore lands between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. So actually, we are making significant progress with the new policies that are designed to create less oil dependence, as opposed to the Bush-Cheney energy policy, which was actually designed to increase our dependence on fossil fuels.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I my consume.

The majority leader just put out some very impressive statistics on the possible potential off of the east and west coasts if we opened up these sensitive areas to mandatory leasing; but it's actually smaller than the known reserves under the leases the Federal Government has already let to oil companies, which they have thus far refused to develop: 5,484 leases, 30 million acres, 18 billion barrels of oil--his number was smaller than that--and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. His number was smaller than that.

So it's the premise that by mandatory leasing of these sensitive areas we're going to somehow have some sort of a boon to production as opposed to somehow incentivizing these oil companies not to sit on these leases forever. We have offered legislation previously from our side to require development of leases within a certain period of time, with escalating costs over time, and with the potential of turning those back and letting them be re-leased to companies that actually want to do the work.

People say, Well, these oil companies won't just sit on it. Yeah, they'll sit on it. It's worth more every day. And they don't pay hardly anything to sit on it. Does anybody think the price of oil is going to be cheaper 5 years from now than it is today? So if they sit on a Federal lease--and, oh, maybe we can get some more to sit on for the future--then that resource which they paid for in 1999 when oil was much cheaper is a phenomenally profitable resource.

So to say we must open up these sensitive areas now is disingenuous at best as opposed to incentivizing the industry to use those which are already leased and which have known resources that exceed the speculative resources under these in sensitive areas off California, off the east coast of the U.S., and in Bristol Bay, where there's a $2 billion a year totally sustainable fishing industry. It's not worth those risks.

The majority leader went on to castigate the administration. I know that many people's speeches are written in advance by their staff and they may not have been listening to the earlier debate and some of the facts I put out, or whatever happened. As I pointed out, during the Bush administration we were importing 20 million barrels of oil a day. That was 2005. And that was 57 percent of our consumption. Under the new policies of the Obama administration, which have led to conservation, more fuel-efficient cars, and biofuels, we are importing only 18.5 million barrels a day. That is 36 percent.

So we have made progress, and we should continue down that path. To lease more fossil fuel resources offshore is not a particularly creative 21st century solution. It may be a grand mid-20th century solution, which was much reflected in the Bush-Cheney energy policy. Actually, at the time when it passed, I said it would have been embarrassing policy for the 1950s, and it was tragic for the 21st century in terms of the potential we have with conservation, alternate fuels, and other measures we can take.

To rush this bill forward--and it will be rushed forward--to die in the Senate is not going to lower the price at the pump for any American. Again, the majority leader referenced that. And I made a statement on that earlier.

We're experiencing, not an oil shortage, but an artificial refinery shortage in the United States of America, which is used as an excuse to jack up prices and stick it to the American driving public every year in May and June and July when our families want to go on vacation. It's stretching their wallets.

If we took steps against the collusive shutdown of refineries, if we took steps against the collusive behavior of OPEC and other countries through the World Trade Organization, and if we took steps to crack down on the speculation on Wall Street, which even the head of ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for those sky-high prices; blame Wall Street--75 cents a gallon is due to the Enron loophole created by a former Republican Congress to allow wild speculation in energy futures by Wall Street as opposed to producers and consumers coming together in a regular commodities market. So if we wanted to provide relief today, we'd crack down on speculation.

If we wanted to provide relief in the slightly longer term, we would deal with the issues of collusion and OPEC and refineries. And if we wanted to enhance the oil supply further, even though we're producing near-record amounts today here in the United States of America, we would encourage, incentivize, or disincentivize these oil companies who are sitting on these many, many billion barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and refusing to develop their existing leases while pandering for more.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the general debate we had some creative math and/or cherry-picking of years to make a point that is not accurate.

The point is that oil production from Federal lands today is higher than it was at the end of the Bush administration--596 million barrels compared to 565 in 2008.

Now, in the offshore, when you use a certain number of years, obviously there is some anomaly. The anomaly was the worst oil spill disaster in the history of the United States, which was the Macondo blowup in the gulf, which of course set back leasing activity and development in the gulf for a period of time. However, we have now adopted new regulations. We're actually requiring blowup preventers that work and a few other sorts of things that the Obama administration has done to make the drilling safer.

Under this administration, there are now more floating rigs in the gulf than before the spill and during the Bush years; and we approved 112 Deepwater drilling permits last year--the most since 2005. Of course that drilling is being conducted more safely than it has in the past.

So, I mean, we're going to be able to switch around, pick different years, and do all of these things, but these are aggregate, longer-term numbers as opposed to specifying a particular year--and particularly picking a year after the worst oil spill rig disaster in the history of the United States.

With that, Mr. Chairman, we do not object to the amendment by Mr. Brady, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. As I pointed out earlier in the debate, yes, the chairman is correct, it does take time, and there are 5,484 leases, 30 million acres, mostly about 85 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, that have an estimated, according to the Energy Information Administration, 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that have not yet been developed.

In any case, I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment. He makes a small improvement in what we consider to be a bad bill by requiring that if States opt into leasing, that there will be a NEPA review. I'm glad that there is some recognition on the other side of the aisle on the value of NEPA reviews to protect our precious natural resources.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. At the beginning of the consideration of this bill, I talked about how this was a little bit of ``Groundhog Day'' because all or parts of this bill passed in the last Congress five times. Now the gentleman is kind of disproving my theory because, well, I guess, at the very end of the movie, they broke out of the ``Groundhog Day'' cycle's being repetitive; but the gentleman is actually breaking us out of the cycle.

Actually, last year, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a Democrat, offered this identical amendment for sanctions to one of the many offshore oil drilling bills passed by the Republicans in the last Congress. On that day, which was the 25th of July 2012--almost a year ago today--I would note, on an amendment that does exactly what this amendment does, which we think is extraordinarily meritorious, that every Republican voted no--N-O. That would, of course, include Mr. Lamborn and the esteemed chairman, Mr. Hastings.

So I'm not sure what has changed in the last year. Perhaps they just opposed it the last time because a Democrat was offering it and because the principle and the danger posed by businesses operating in these countries which are hostile to the United States of America wasn't worth dealing with when you could beat a Democratic amendment. I don't know. Maybe there has been a new realization on the other side of the aisle of the dangers of Iran and Syria since that time. Again, I don't know.

Not one Republican Member of the House voted in favor of this amendment 1 year ago despite the fact that the esteemed gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered it as a motion to recommit on a bill. It could be because Republicans lockstep oppose motions to recommit or Democratic amendments, even if they have merit, just to make some sort of a perverse point.

We support this amendment today, as Democrats did last year, and perhaps all of the Republicans will change their positions this year, and it will be a unanimous vote.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman would have been accurate had the motion to recommit been worded ``promptly,'' but it was worded ``forthwith,'' so it would only have delayed the bill by a total of 10 minutes or 15 minutes, however long the next vote was set for. It would not have sent the bill back to committee, and it would not have disrupted the movement of the legislation. So that part of the statement is not accurate and not a good explanation for why the Republicans uniformly opposed this excellent policy last year, even if it is, as the chairman says, reemphasizing existing law.

We happen to think it's a really great existing law, and we wanted to make that point last year. Your side didn't. I'm glad that you've come around on looking at the companies that do business in Iran and Syria as serious threats to the United States and are going to essentially support the amendment that we offered last year, which you opposed.

That's the best I can do, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we change our minds around here. We haven't. All the Democrats, I expect, will vote in favor of this amendment, as they did last time. Apparently now, most or all Republicans will vote. That is a privilege we have around here, to change our minds. I just wish they had opposed it on better grounds last time rather than saying, well, it would have delayed the bill by 15 minutes.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in adamant opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeFAZIO. This amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior offshore agencies from using voluntary and commonsense planning as part of the National Ocean Policy to inform decisions they make under existing laws.

It's interesting that the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents offshore energy developers of many kinds, yesterday noted:

This is a great example of the progress that can be made when industry and regulating agencies communicate with each other. It's gratifying to see government and an industry come together to cooperatively and responsibly address these complex and important environmental issues.

And the gentleman's amendment would bring that program to a halt, which obviously the industry actually seems to think is useful.

With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source