GOP bills are about equity and fairness for the West -- Bishop

Two Republican bills seeking to curtail Obama administration regulations of oil and gas on federal lands would put cash- and job-starved Western states on equal footing with other energy-producing states, a key House leader argued yesterday.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations, said H.R. 1965 would ensure that oil and gas leases and permits on federal lands are issued almost as fast as they are on state and private lands, assuring states more revenue for services including education.

"The first bill in this room is asking for Western states to be treated fairly," Bishop said. "Whether one likes it or not, to vote against these bills unintentionally harms kids and harms education in the West."

Bishop was defending the bill on the House floor just minutes before the chamber voted along party lines to approve a rule allowing debate and votes on eight amendments.

But Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a critic of the bill, called it a "warmed-over turkey proposal" that ignores the needs to manage federal lands on behalf of all Americans.

Votes on five amendments and passage of the bill have been postponed until today because a markup before the Energy and Commerce Committee ran longer than expected, according to a House leadership aide.

Bishop, a former history teacher, has argued that Western states struggle to fund schools because they contain large tracts of nontaxable federal lands.

Western states receive some education funding from the payments-in-lieu-of-taxes program, in addition to half of the revenue from oil, gas and coal developed on federal lands within their borders.

"If you care about kids, you have to provide this kind of resource for the Western states," Bishop said. "These two bills are not just rehashes. These two bills are essential for those of us who live in the West."

Democrats strongly disagreed.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) argued that the bill could unintentionally stifle oil and gas drilling because it would erode federal regulations that are critical to ensuring the public's trust.

"Many cities and counties are banning extraction ... precisely because there are insufficient federal and state guidelines," Polis said in reference to recent ballot measures in the Centennial State that placed moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing. "It is really working with counterpurposes and hurting the very prospects for the extraction industry that the gentleman aspires to assist."

Instead of bolstering schools, the bill would undermine "health, safety and environmental protections and judicial review to benefit oil and gas companies," DeFazio said.

"We don't need to shortcut environmental review, eliminate leasing reforms and fine protestors to support education," he said.

As lawmakers began debating the eight amendments, each side clung to long-held party lines.

H.R. 1965, sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), would require the Bureau of Land Management to process drilling permits in 60 days and lease at least 25 percent of the lands industry asks for, in addition to charging citizens $5,000 to protest leasing decisions, among other provisions.

Bishop said it currently takes between 15 and 30 days for states to issue drilling permits, while it takes hundreds of days at BLM, an inherent "unfairness" for Western states, he said.

Lamborn said the bill would allow federal lands to "catch up" to state and private lands, where most of the recent growth in domestic oil and gas production has occurred.

But DeFazio, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said development on federal lands needs to happen with caution since the lands are owned by all Americans.

"These aren't private lands. These are the lands of the people of the United States of America," DeFazio said. "I think a little more due diligence is in order."

DeFazio added that there are 25 million acres industry has under lease that it hasn't yet developed.

"Let's also keep in mind that we have to look at alternative energy development on federal lands so we can deal with climate change, which some of us believe in," he said.

Polis called the bill a "messaging" exercise that "might help the majority's relationship with the oil and gas industry."

Neither Lamborn's bill nor H.R. 2728 by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), which would block BLM's hydraulic fracturing rules and is scheduled for House votes tomorrow, is expected to advance in the Senate.

The White House yesterday threatened to veto both bills, warning that they would compromise BLM's ability to promote safe and balanced drilling on federal lands (Greenwire, Nov. 19).

The Obama administration has argued that its oil and gas leasing reforms -- while perhaps slower -- ensure that the leases it issues are actually developed, rather than being tied up in lawsuits.

Following yesterday's debate, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) blasted the chamber for taking up Lamborn's bill instead of pursuing a budget, working on a farm bill with the Senate or passing comprehensive immigration reform.

A nearly identical version of Lamborn's bill passed last Congress before dying in the Senate.

"I'm against this legislation substantively, but even more egregious is the wasting of four of the twelve days we had available to address the issues I've just discussed," he said. "A raft of critically important issues that this House ought to be considering - and so this is somewhat the fiddle on which we are playing while Rome is burning."

Business groups back fracking bill; sportsmen oppose both measures

The bills yesterday also picked up familiar allies and detractors.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Heritage Action said they would both track members' votes on H.R. 2728, a fact that could influence moderate Republicans.

"While the U.S. is on the path towards tremendous manufacturing growth fueled by shale energy development, this future is not predestined, and unnecessary federal regulation threatens this future," said Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president of government affairs, in a letter to House members. "BLM's proposed rule would alter the balance of regulatory authority in a manner that would further disincentivize businesses from investing in the development of oil and natural gas on federal and tribal lands, while not identifying or addressing any specific issue that warrants the regulation."

And Heritage Action, which is the political arm of the free-market Heritage Foundation, said that hydraulic fracturing "produces massive benefits and poses minimal risk" and that "states are fully capable of regulating fracking, as they have done for over 60 years."

The group said it will include today's vote on H.R. 2728 on its legislative score card.

BLM proposed its draft revised fracking rule in May and is not expected to issue a final regulation anytime soon.

The Interior Department has argued base-line federal standards are necessary to maintain the public's trust and support for oil and gas development on federally owned lands. Drilling regulations, it has argued, have not been updated for decades.

BLM said compliance with its fracking rule is estimated to average about 1 percent of the cost to drill a well, though industry groups dispute that.

Three influential sportsmen's groups yesterday urged members to oppose both bills, warning they would erode critical environmental protections, require arbitrary deadlines and leasing quotas, and cut citizens out of management of their lands.

"These bills continue the onslaught on public lands that attempts to prioritize energy development over all other resources values," said Kate Zimmerman, public lands policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, which joined Trout Unlimited and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in opposing the bills.

Lamborn's bill would "undoubtedly result in more appeals and litigation, harm fish and wildlife, and threaten hunting and angling opportunities on public lands," said TU's Brad Powell.

Reporter Nick Juliano contributed.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said votes on all eight amendments to H.R. 1965 were postponed to today. Three of the eight passed yesterday by voice vote.