Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this because I want to remind everybody this is continental offshore; this is not State-owned property. This is the property of the American public.
So, if we are going to extend that aspect, I want the same type of application to lands out in western Arizona and the Western United States. So we have to start looking at this.
We have seen opposition, basically, state that they can't coexist: fundamental energy development, exploration, and tourism. But we see that very vibrantly in the Gulf State of Louisiana. We see one of the most vibrant fishing areas. The argument doesn't hold muster in that regard.
In regards to that, we need to explore and find out exactly what kind of resources are actually there. It makes a big difference in regards to energy independence because those who spend money for tourism have to have a job, and plentiful energy at affordable prices help American businesses and the American worker.
So the same aspects we are trying to extend here for Florida should be extended all the way across the board.
But, once again, this is the public's property. It needs to be well invested, and the government has the due diligence in which to do that.
We can take into consideration the concerns of the military. We do it time and time again in southwestern Arizona. We have the Goldwater Range, the Yuma Proving Ground, yet we still coexist with the natural resources and environmental protections.
I think, within that aspect, I rise in opposition, and I would ask everybody to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, the irony of this aspect, to explore something that is of the public nature of the people of the United States, the ironic aspect is unfathomable.
To look at seismic, we don't even want to do seismic. We need seismic in regard to looking at moorings in regard to big wind. That is what we have seen over and over again, that this area wants to have big wind.
The other part to this aspect is, how does that work when you have to have a Russian tanker moored outside of your bay, which is one of the most easily spilled aspects of oil that you have to have for heating oil and natural gas in regard to heating your energy platforms in the areas? That is just unfathomable to me.
We do this better, and the technology is actually coming back around.
As the Western Caucus chairman, we went down to Houston to actually see the technology that exists. It is profound, absolutely profound what is there.
No one is asking to go past go, collect $200. What they want to do is follow the rightful process in that aspect.
There is evidence like I cited in the Gulf States. Definitely when you look at Louisiana, it is a plethora. It is one of the most diverse aquatic ecosystems around.
There is a way to have this and looking at it and benefit everybody.
Once again, the dichotomy of trying to separate one aspect of holdings for the American people, and then apply it to out West, where there is even more defined aspects of jurisdiction, to land aspects of public lands and public minerals and gas leases, is just ironic.
Mr. Chair, I remain in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, specifically, the CPP aimed to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide, CO
I have just got to tell you, we are wrapping up scientific evidence, and we are putting a moral cloud on it. That is exactly the definition of what Alinsky wanted us to start talking about and moving processes.
These new mandates placed incredible burdens on States. They would have increased the electrical rates and endangered overall reliability of the grid. Due to this unprecedented overreach, Congress rejected these new regulations, using the Congressional Review Act.
Specifically, the Senate voted on November 17, 2015, to reject these rules, and the House followed suit on December 1, 2015. Unfortunately, President Obama decided to veto both of these pieces of legislation and continue his war on coal.
We shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Climate change has been going on for eons of time. That is why you can actually have a fossil coming from Green River, Wyoming, that is nowhere close to the ocean. I vote against this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, 32 fires in 2015. The average over the last 10 years has been 15 to 20 fires. We ought to know better.
In Arizona, I have had to witness the most catastrophic fires in Arizona history because of our mismanagement of forests: The Wallow fire, the largest fire in Arizona history; and then the Yarnell fire, where we lost 19 firefighters.
It is incredible that what we are doing is we are trying to have jurisdiction over fires. There is a reason why we have had to subsidize that: because we have put the industry out of business by sue and settle.
Folks, there is a cost to these fires, and you have to start looking at mitigation in that aspect. If you want climate change mitigation, the best thing you can do is have a dynamic forest that actually produces more oxygen than carbon. That means medium- and small-growth trees, not old-growth trees. A happy medium of all is a dynamic forest.
So if you are preventing this--the gentleman from Arizona ought to know better. We are sitting on catastrophic results in Arizona. Let's not impugn the trees in Alaska.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It would prevent any funds in this bill from being used to carry out the EPA disastrous 2009 Endangerment Finding.
The EPA's Endangerment Finding has served as legal justification for the Federal Government to attack American energy under the guise of climate change since 2009.
The Information Quality Act provides a framework for the oversight of the quality of information disseminated by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, bureaucrats in President Obama's EPA evaded the requirements set forth in the Information Quality Act by refusing to admit that the document was a highly influential scientific assessment.
If climate change is as dire as some of my colleagues consistently argue, why then did President Obama's EPA go to such lengths to prevent their assessment from rigorous peer review?
Interesting.
In April of this year, President Trump's Office of Management and Budget released a memo to ``reinforce, clarify, and interpret agency responsibilities with regard to responsibilities under the Information Quality Act.''
In April, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned the EPA to stop using the 2009 Endangerment Finding until it subjected itself to the high-level scientific peer review that is legally required under the Information Quality Act.
CEI's petition to the EPA found numerous instances in which the EPA failed to meet the Agency's own peer review standards for the highly scientific assessments. Some of the failure of the EPA noted by CEI include failing ``to allow public, including scientific and professional societies, to nominate potential reviewers,'' allowing an EPA employee to conduct peer review, utilizing peer reviewers who were reviewing their own work, and reliance on the United Nations Climate Change Panel reports that do not meet Federal peer review standards.
Completely obnoxious.
Now, even the staunchest advocates for taking aggressive action on our climate should be able to agree that the process the EPA used to adopt the Endangerment Finding failed to meet the required peer review process.
Fortunately, there is an alternative. Madam Chairwoman, I believe the best way to improve our environment and to ensure the economic prosperity of this country is to rely on sound science, not on the opinions of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.
If climate alarmists are so confident that the 2009 Endangerment Finding is sound science, then conduct proper peer review, following the guidelines of the Information Quality Act put forth by OMB, that will assure the outcome.
Madam Chairwoman, this is not a partisan issue. No matter what side of the climate change debate you fall on, we can all agree that the EPA has evaded its responsibility to peer review and developing sound science when authoring its Endangerment Findings.
The process was broken, and good process makes good policy, which makes good politics. This body should not fund the implementation of policies based on the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I ask one simple question: If Members of this body are so confident of the 2009 endangerment findings, then high- quality peer review would result in the same outcome, correct? What would be the fallacy with that?
Once again, good process builds good policy builds good politics. We fail to do that. We want to use science when it is convenient for us. That is the problem.
The other side calls themselves the party of science. Then they should be all for this peer review aspect. But, no, we don't want to do that because it is not convenient.
Once again, I agree. Climates are always changing. That is why we find fossilized fish up in western Wyoming. Was man around during that time? No, not at all. Were the carbon footprints at that time very similar to what they are today? They were higher at that point in time.
Science has been peer-reviewed, and that is why we have gotten to the point that when I give you one set of circumstances, you get the same outcome. That is what peer-reviewed science is. This country is set upon sound science. We ought to determine that.
Madam Chair, I ask for everybody to vote for this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota. Chronic wasting disease is 100 percent fatal. We have similar diseases like mad cow disease in cattle and scrapie in sheep.
One of the things that we are very concerned with, as the gentlewoman alluded to, is that we have no testing available for hunter populations. Is it communicable to human beings and to other aspects of agriculture? Those are some of the things that we really need to address.
As the gentlewoman said, we have now seen it in 25 States, so it is spreading. Once again, being 100 percent fatal, we have to address this because we have whole populations that are at stake.
We can put our ingenuity to task here. We can solve this problem, but it is at the forefront.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. As a veterinarian, as a physician, he understands the dire ramifications of this. I thank the gentlewoman for accepting this.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairman, this amendment attempts to change the requirements for oil and gas leases. I will say it's very entrepreneurial in its disguise.
But I want to remind people in regard to how big this aspect is. This is a small, little area. To give you an example, ANWR is the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. Energy developed with ANWR is just one-fifth the size of the Dulles Airport. Amazing. If you have ever been there, it is something to be seen.
As the Congressional Western Caucus chairman, we actually took that liberty of going up there and being hosted by the gentleman from Alaska. What you are being told and what is being there in aspect isn't the same.
So, Madam Chair, I actually join the gentleman from South Carolina and ask for a ``yes'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. My colleague, Mr. Mullin, is absolutely correct. When former President Obama directed the EPA, BLM, and other agencies to target industries for greenhouse gas emissions, they went directly for the oil and natural gas first.
But this EPA rule targeting methane is completely unnecessary. It is produced as a byproduct of oil and natural gas production, but it is a valuable product in itself that can be sold and is sold. It is something that oil and gas companies routinely capture and sell. They were doing a great job of this even before this rule. It was unnecessary.
Even EPA estimates show that the methane emissions have decreased while the production of natural gas and oil have increased over the same period. The free market has provided an incentive to reduce methane release on its own. There is no further need for the EPA to impose this bureaucratic hurdle. It is expensive. The cost is estimated to cost our economy $530 million annually. Amazing.
Once again, as Ronald Reagan used to say:
Government is not the solution, government is the problem.
This is a regulation in search of a problem.
Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairwoman, I rise today in support of this commonsense amendment that will protect American jobs and the economy but prohibit funds from being used for implementing the Obama administration's flawed social cost of carbon, or SCC, valuation.
This job-killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the way for cap-and-trade-like mandates. Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals.
Knowing that he could not lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, President Obama attempted to circumvent Congress by playing loose and fast with the Clean Air Act to unilaterally implement this unlawful new requirement under the guise of guidance.
The social cost of carbon is not based on science, and the models can be easily manipulated to arrive at whatever conclusion is desired.
Once again, when we look at carbon, it is a nutrient for plants. To say otherwise is disrespectful. Once again, we play loose and fast with sound science.
So, in regards to this, the House has decisively voted a dozen times to block or defund and oppose the social cost of carbon. I support the gentleman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source