On the recordSeptember 7, 2017
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say that, once again, while I understand the gentleman's intent to prevent any type of environmental degradation--I think everyone shares that objective--the reality is that this amendment doesn't do anything to advance that objective. And potentially, should there be some type of emergent situation where you would want to slow down lease sales, this amendment would actually prohibit that from happening. We should take a fresh look with public input and with the best science to determine where we produce, how we produce, to maximize domestic energy production, to maximize or to reduce dependence upon foreign energy, to maximize economic opportunities and employment opportunities in the United States. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, of course, I was not here at the time, but it was my understanding that this is nothing unlike what the other side of the aisle did during the Obama administration. So what this amendment seeks to do, in many cases, is not that unusual. And while the gentleman is correct, the size of the payments that BP had to make were because of a certain type of conduct: What we want to do is just freeze things where they are. While I acknowledge that there is a possibility that somehow someone wanted to slow down the process, I don't believe that this administration would do just that.…





