Transcript of Congressman Hinchey's Remarks on the House Floor - May 18, 2006

Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion about the amendment that has been put forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). There are some technical problems with this amendment that I think have not been adequately addressed in the context of this debate thus far.

One of those technical amendments has to do with the fact that the experts on this issue, both within Interior and Energy, believe that it may not be possible to give leases for the extraction of natural gas alone. All the leases that we have currently are for natural gas and oil. And the reason for that is, if you drill for natural gas, the likelihood is that you are going to hit oil. And if you hit oil, and you are not capable or prepared to deal with that, then you are going to encounter some very serious problems.

So the amendment that Mr. Peterson is going to bring before the House sometime later this afternoon or this evening has within it this very serious technical problem, and for that reason alone it ought to be rejected.

The gentleman from Florida, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was up here just a few minutes ago talking about the serious damage that this amendment, if it is passed and put into action, might have on the tourist industry in Florida and on the general situation of the coastal region in Florida and California and in parts of the gulf.

So when you are thinking about this particular amendment, keep in mind that if you think you are going to drill just for natural gas, the likelihood is if you hit natural gas you are going to hit oil too. And if you are not prepared for it, you are going to have some very serious problems. We ought to address this issue, but address it in a much more comprehensive way.

As has been pointed out, again by the gentleman from Florida on the other side of the aisle just a few minutes ago, we have not had adequate hearings on this. This is an issue that has not gone through the appropriate authorizing committee. We are attempting to inappropriately put it into the context of this appropriations bill, and for that reason also that amendment ought to be rejected.

Furthermore, we need to be conserving our natural resources, particularly our energy resources. Anything that you find anyplace in the world on energy resources, natural gas and oil, these materials are fungible. They go out anywhere. If we are smart about our natural resources, we ought to be doing everything we can to conserve them, keep them where they are because the value of those natural resources is going to dramatically increase over time. If we exploit them now, extract them now, exhaust them now, we are going to be very sorry for it later on.

In addition to that, we have another circumstance with regard to this amendment and the ideas behind it, and that has to do with the fact that we are not now receiving adequate royalties from the natural resources, particularly petroleum and natural gas, that are being extracted by oil companies from public lands, whether those public lands are dry or under water. And there will be an amendment coming up later this evening, in all likelihood towards the end of this bill, which will deal with the need to get those royalties.

So for those reasons I think that this amendment ought to be rejected.