Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, the amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from using its legal authorities to modernize its royalty rate structure, which would result in less revenue to the Treasury.
The Department of the Interior's oil and gas royalties have been the subject of repeated study by the Government Accountability Office and other entities for many years. In 2008, the GAO said the United States could be forgoing billions of dollars in revenue from the production of Federal oil and gas resources due to the lack of price flexibility in royalty rates and the inability to change the fiscal terms on existing leases. In 2013, the GAO issued another report that noted concern that the Department of the Interior had not taken the steps to change the onshore royalty rate regulations.
Modernizing the Bureau of Land Management's rate structures can provide critical flexibility, especially given the dramatic growth of oil development on public and tribal lands, where production has increased in each of the past 6 years and combined production was up 81 percent in 2004 versus 2008.
It seems to me that it is critical that the Department of the Interior is ensuring that the public is receiving a fair return from the production of oil and gas from Federal leases. This amendment would guarantee a sweetheart deal for Big Oil companies at the expense of the American taxpayer.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in spite of the arguments that my colleague from New Mexico has made, I still say this amendment, in my opinion, doesn't pass the straight face test.
I can't imagine my constituents thinking that we should make things any easier for the oil and gas companies or that we should be giving away the opportunity to earn taxpayer revenue on our Federal lands.
The Federal onshore royalty rate has not been increased since 1920. That is 95 years. The offshore royalty rate is 18.75 percent; yet the onshore rates have been stuck at 12.5 percent for 95 years. Where is the equity in that?
As far as I am concerned, I think it is time for the American taxpayers to get a fair return on the use of public resources, especially from some of the most profitable companies in the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns raised by the gentleman from Oregon, but this amendment would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from completing or implementing updates to certain resource management plans in western Oregon.
These updated plans cover 2.5 million acres of land that play an important role in the social, economic, and ecological well-being of western Oregon, as well as to the American public generally. The plans determine how BLM-administered lands will be managed to further the recovery of threatened and endangered species, provide for clean water, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, produce a sustained yield of timber products, and coordinate land management of surrounding tribal land.
The amendment would suspend the BLM's authority to implement a new resource management plan in western Oregon. As a result, the BLM would be forced to rely on a 20-year-old outdated plan that doesn't incorporate significant new information. For example, the old plan does not include important conservation activities, such as the northern spotted owl recovery plan. The amendment would block one of the most comprehensive and detailed landscape plans that the BLM has ever developed and would ignore significant public input. The public has a right to engage in the management decisions of their Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to say I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman from Oregon has raised, and other Members from Oregon who share those concerns. I thought it was important to address some of the considerations and concerns that we have with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. This amendment would mandate that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management include the South and mid-Atlantic area of the Outer Continental Shelf, otherwise known as sale 260 in the 2017-2022 lease sale schedule.
The amendment would undermine the Bureau's fundamental mission to manage the development of offshore resources in an environmentally and economically responsible manner.
The Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf is a frontier area, and the decision to include sale 260 in the 2017-2022 5-year leasing schedule should be informed by sound science, using the best available data.
The Bureau is required by law to consider the environmental impacts of leasing decisions, and this includes a comprehensive programmatic environmental impact statement, which has not yet been completed for the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.
In fact, the most current geological and geophysical data on the oil and gas resources in this area was collected in the 1970s and 1980s. That is really ancient by today's scientific standards.
Without the collection and analysis of new information, input from State Governors and other Federal agencies, and consideration of critical economic analyses, the decision to include sale 260 in the 2017-2022 program is premature and runs counter to the thoughtful and deliberative process established by Congress through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
This amendment would violate multiple environmental statutes, including NEPA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The amendment undermines environmental protection required by law. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina and his concerns about jobs for his home State, but as a Member of Congress who also represents the coastal State of Maine, I know the deep concerns that people have about the potential dangers of offshore oil drilling and the possible dangers to the fisheries, marine mammals, and a whole variety of other things. The reason we have this process is it is critically important to our State.
Mr, Chairman, I continue to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the Member from North Carolina, and I will give him credit. They have better barbecue than my home State. We have got you beat on lobsters, but that is how it goes.
I want to say I think this argument is somewhat cynical and a little too suspicious of our government; perhaps Republicans have gotten too far down this road.
My understanding is this summer, a conservative media outlet ran a sensationalized story about EPA's regulatory overreach. The story claimed that EPA has its eyes on pollution from backyard barbecues. The problem with the story and this amendment is that it is based on a false premise and a mischaracterization of important work.
EPA operates a successful and innovative grant program that encourages students around the Nation to design solutions for a sustainable future. It is called People, Prosperity, and the Planet Student Design Competition for Sustainability. Its purpose is to foster innovation, not to create regulations.
The EPA awarded one of these design grants to a group of University of California students working to design a system to make barbecues burn cleaner and be better for the environment. The students received $15,000 from the EPA for the idea. In addition, the university has said the idea has potential for global application.
Mr. Chair, in many developing nations, women hunch over traditional cook stoves for hours a day, breathing in toxic smoke. Exposure to this household air pollution is responsible for low birth weights, childhood pneumonia, and more than 4 million premature deaths each year.
The availability of cleaner cooking technologies could literally be lifesaving for many of these women and children. Instead of attacking the EPA for these innovative grants, we should be applauding them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am happy to have an exchange--North Carolina barbecue, Maine lobster. It is probably a pretty fair exchange.
I just want to clarify. It is $15,000, not $15 million that the EPA spent working on this innovation.
I understand your concerns, and I appreciate the points that you brought up.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source