Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, we had the same discussion yesterday. Once again, these are offshore leases that are part of the American public's domain, not the State of South Carolina or California or Massachusetts or Florida. I understand that application.

But, once again, we also have heard that we want to have responsible renewable energy, so we are actually predisposing no seismic aspect. Well, how do you actually look at moorings in regard to subsurface anchors if you didn't use seismic activity? That is contradicting all the way around the aspect here.

Once again, this just shows that we want nothing of the sort: no seismic, no wind, no solar, no oil and gas. That is unbelievable.

If this is the kind of attitude that we want going forward, those in Arizona and the Western States that have public lands ought to be getting a lot more say in those applications.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. And when we start looking at it, maybe what we ought to do, if we are talking about oil spills, one of the worst ways to actually import oil is through boats. So maybe we ought to disallow ships, because a ship that has an accident is one oil spill away from anywhere.

So this just begs my indifference in regards to what the heck we are trying to do here. It is looking at our assets. We have a due diligence to the American people to look at those assets for public assets.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again, I have been sitting on the floor. I sat in the House Committee on Natural Resources yesterday and heard this assault on oil and gas. So I want to remind everybody that the only mechanism to fund LWCF is actually these funds from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas.

It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing that we have this rhetorical conversation on the House floor.

So we are against adding any access to know what the resource actually is by seismic. We are responsible on behalf of these resources to the American public. Yes, the American public actually owns these jurisdictions. And what we are doing is we are leveraging as that opportunity to fund LWCF.

Be careful, Will Robinson, what you are asking for.

Those responsible applications, we heard it over and over from the gentleman from Louisiana. Once again, these are an asset of the American people, not South Carolina, not Florida, not California, not Massachusetts. So responsible applications here, we have got to be taking in good stewardship.

So with that in mind, I caution everybody that LWCF is the only mechanism for funding. The only mechanism for funding is these Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases.

These are responsible aspects, and they actually know what the resources are. You are going to need seismic, if you are going to look at alternative energy aspects, particularly wind, in regards to permanent moorings.

So from that standpoint, I just offer a cautionary plea. Be careful what you ask for. You may end up having no funding at all.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, we don't need a moratorium off the coast of California. We actually need a resurgence in domestic energy development offshore.

I heard from the gentleman that the last oil spill was in 1969. Let's see, it is 2019. Fifty years later, technology has been much different.

While the local demand for oil in California has dropped over the last 40 years, foreign dependence has increased from 5 percent to 57 percent.

In 2018, California imported 135 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia alone. According to the national offshore energy industry, leasing in the 240 million acres of currently off-limits areas would support an additional 165,000 jobs and inject $15 billion in annual contributions to the economy.

There are already 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. Once again, let me repeat, there are 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. These platforms produced nearly 17,000 barrels of oil per day in 2016 and brought in $32.8 million in total royalties in fiscal year 2016. In a State that is importing 57.5 percent of its refined oil from foreign nations, it is imperative that we take the opportunity to utilize domestic energy supply.

Once again, let's highlight that: 57.5 percent is from overseas, which is much dirtier than what we produce here. If we are concerned about climate change and emissions, we ought to be importing less and looking at what we actually do.

Last but not least, I would like to remind everybody that we just had a conversation on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is funded exclusively by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. Once again, the people who don't want this for their States, maybe they should turn down LWCF funding because it seems contradictory to the conversation.

Once again, I remind my colleagues that Federal waters belong to the U.S. people, not the States of California, Florida, South Carolina, or Massachusetts. We have a due diligence to look at the management of those resources.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, yes, I am landlocked by California, but you know the old adage. I am waiting for oceanfront property in Arizona, as the song goes.

Once again, let's take a look at this. When we start talking about offshore assets for the Outer Continental Shelf, there is less jurisdiction with regard to that versus what we do on-shore. If we are giving this type of leverage to States with offshore assets, we ought to be giving those States like Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana more jurisdictions because the law is better on their side than it is with those on offshore.

Once again, I find it interesting that we have a dichotomy here. We are all for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we are unwilling to look at the resources it takes and where they are derived from to make sure that that is permanently, in perpetuity, funded.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, the EPA's announcement in late December intended to revise the cost-benefit findings behind the MATS aspects and benefits. The Obama-era EPA's own estimate of the cost implementing MATS exceeded its estimate of benefits by 1,233 to 2,400 times, an absurdity papered over by the accounting trick of double counting as co-benefits reductions in non-mercury emissions as though these reductions were already achieved under other regulations.

The financial costs of this implementation are between $4 to $5 million annually--no, I am sorry--$9.5 billion annually.

Once again, the rule hasn't even been put out yet.

Don't you think we ought to be waiting to find out what the actual rule is before we say no go?

Because we don't even know where it goes.

We also want to take a look at catastrophic wildfires. Catastrophic wildfires are the largest aspect in regard to contaminants into the air as we witnessed in hazardous breathing times, particularly in Montana and California. So from that standpoint, I urge a ``no'' vote against this one because it is premature to actually what the rule is coming out.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source