Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment that prohibits the administration from blocking the proposed Atlantic lease sale from the Department of the Interior's draft proposed plan for offshore oil and gas development.

As cochairman of the Atlantic Offshore Energy Caucus, I have been fighting to advance an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gets North Carolina into the energy business.

[Time: 23:00]
I was pleased when the administration recently heeded calls from Members of Congress--as well as our fine Governor, Pat McCrory, and other State leaders--when they announced a proposal to open up the Atlantic to offshore natural gas and oil exploration.

I welcome the proposal as one of the many steps that must be taken to unlock our natural resources, create jobs, and boost our economy.

The problem is we now face bureaucratic hoops and an uphill rulemaking process that could take the Atlantic lease sale completely off the table. In fact, Secretary Sally Jewell testified recently that she could not guarantee the Atlantic lease would stay in the plan once it is finalized.

For years, there has been bipartisan support for an offshore lease sale off the Atlantic Coast. One was even scheduled off the coast of Virginia, but later blocked by this administration.

North Carolina has incredible potential for energy jobs, and I won't let this opportunity slip through our fingers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is critical to provide certainty to North Carolina and unleash jobs and lower energy prices. Our economy is sputtering along, and too many folks back home are struggling to find jobs. Opening up the Atlantic to oil has the potential to support more than 55,000 jobs in our State and contribute nearly $3 billion in new revenue.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the subject.

The reason we need this step is to guarantee that the folks in North Carolina get a shot at these jobs. We are talking about 55,000 jobs and potentially as much as $3 billion in economic development in our State.

Frankly, it has been frustrating how hard it has been to get this process moved forward. If you look at the proposed lease sale, the sale is allowed in the fourth year of the 5-year period. Only one sale is even allowed. An artificial buffer of 50 miles was inserted into the sale.

We are getting one sale late in the 5-year period, with a 50-mile buffer, when the old seismic shows that most of that oil and gas is around 25 miles out.

The ``yes'' that we got from the administration and the fact this process is even moving forward is good news for North Carolina and the other States on the Atlantic Coast; but it is certainly not, in my opinion, an appropriate response to the potential we have got there.

I agree with the gentlewoman when she said the seismic is old; the seismic was done in the late seventies, but this administration has called for new seismic mapping. I am looking forward to that because, again, we want to use good science.

We have given one opportunity pretty far out in the fourth year of a 5-year period, and I am afraid we are going to lose that because, if you look at the history under this administration, there was a lease sale proposed in Virginia and that was taken away.

I think, to guarantee that we get at least some shot at unlocking this potential off the coast of getting the American sources of energy into the pipeline, getting North Carolinians to work in these energy jobs, I think it is important we have this amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support this.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment that would prohibit the EPA from regulating particulate matter emissions from residential barbecues.

As you may recall, last August, the EPA issued a grant to ``perform research and develop preventative technology that will reduce fine particulate emissions from residential barbecues.''

The EPA gets a lot of things wrong, especially with this preposterous study. For one thing, ``barbecue'' is a term us southerners use to talk about the best pork in North Carolina or a community pig picking.

What they are proposing is reducing emissions from residential propane grills, which means they want to stop you and me from grilling outside on our own property. By the way, propane is one of the most clean and efficient sources of energy out there.

Regulations that waste our time, money, and resources are bad as it is, but they are trying to go as far as restricting our personal freedom.

Mr. Chairman, this grant was met with staunch opposition from conservatives and other outdoor enthusiasts like myself. If this isn't part of EPA's larger goal of regulating grill emissions, then it begs the question why they are wasting our hard-earned tax dollars on this mind-boggling study in the first place.

We have seen overreaches by the EPA time and time again, from their flawed waters of the USA regulation to their disastrous clean power plan that is cap-and-trade by fiat to their new ground level ozone regulations that would have a catastrophic impact on manufacturing in this country; but now, they are studying limiting emissions from residential grills. Enough is enough.

Mr. Chairman, it is summer, and it is grilling season. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind comments about North Carolina barbecue. I do admit the lobster rolls in Maine are pretty good. Maybe we can work out some kind of exchange.

The gentlewoman is right. I am guilty as charged. I am cynical and suspicious of the Federal Government, particularly the EPA, when you look at the some of the things they are spending our tax dollars on and some of the rules they are proposing.

Let's get serious. We are talking about a $15 million grant to study the emissions of a propane grill in your backyard.

Now, we all are concerned about toxic smoke in homes and living conditions of individuals--the example that was mentioned--but we are talking about a propane gas grill in your backyard. The EPA has no business regulating that. They have spent $15 million of our tax money to form a study, which is the first step in a rulemaking process.

I think this Chamber needs to say loud and clear to the EPA: focus on the job that the gentlewoman described, focus on the real issues and the mission of the EPA, and keep your hands off our grills in our backyards.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source