Young: Federal agencies need overhaul

The House’s top-ranked Republican says he hopes new administration, president means opening up locked-up acreage for development

STEVE QUINN

For Petroleum News

Congressman Don Young was just sworn in for his 23rd term, making him the longest serving Republican among his peers and the second longest serving overall in the current House of Representatives. His service dates to the Nixon administration. He wasted little time introducing a set of bills - 38 of them - that include some longtime priorities for many Alaskans such as opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Young, a longtime critic of outgoing President Barack Obama, spoke to Petroleum News about recent executive orders, his thoughts on overturning them and prospective cabinet members.

Petroleum News: What do you see for the new Congress and new administration and what does it mean for Alaska developing its resources?

Young: Well, the number one issue is the disbanding of regulations passed by agencies without vetting them in the public or with Congress itself. That’s been our biggest drawback in all of our industries. With the fossil fuel, it’s been a real disaster. Very rarely do they (federal agencies) prove (their case) scientifically. It’s usually done by emotionalism; their agenda is not to have any fossil fuels.

The pulling of Shell from the Chukchi Sea was really because of the delay factor, and the constant re-permitting, the lawsuits and the whole works. What I hope to do and see to have done is we are going to look at these regulations. The ones that make sense and protect the environment, we’ll keep. The ones that are put in arbitrarily with no science behind them are going to be put to bed.

Petroleum News: That’s a lot of heavy lifting.

Young: Oh yeah, it is. You’ve got to remember, it can be done relatively quick if you take the courage to do it. We can introduce a bill that says any regulation pertaining to fossil fuel is null and void unless it comes back to Congress to be vetted. Then we can make a decision. This is law not by legislative process but by the executive process, which frankly I believe is against the Constitution.

We’ve taken the Obama administration to court. We’ve won but the courts are very slow and laborious. Another thing that is going to occur - I do hope it will happen - and there is a big debate on this: Can a new incoming president undo executive orders, especially like in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea, plus the monuments in Utah and Nevada?

I argue they can; they argue they can’t. I’m saying let’s really get the best judicial people in the business. If they can do it, let’s pass legislation to undo that, especially size we are talking about. The monuments were never supposed to be 3 million or 4 million acres of land. It was supposed to be something specific like Mount Rushmore or Custer’s Last Stand.

Petroleum News: Every state could have its own priorities. How do you get Alaska’s to the front of the line?

Young: Well that’s our job, the two senators and my job. I think we are going to be somewhat successful, especially with the Secretary of the Interior (nominee Ryan Zinke) a personal friend of mine. He did oppose me on transferring public land to the state. I understand his position. I have to convince him in the case of Alaska we were talking about a specific area that was not eligible to select land under the statehood act. That was all national forest. What happened was we had use of those lands, then they took those lands away with the Alaska National Lands Act, then they passed the roadless rule and all these other different things and it killed these communities. It was like looking into a third world (community) where there is no income. We want to be able to give those communities an amount of land for their economic well being, especially in the harvesting arena of old timber.

Petroleum News: There were three decisions since mid-November that featured Alaska, one in the Bering Sea area and two in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Among those three, which upset you the most?

Young: They all do. I think it’s a misuse of the Antiquities Act. I’ve introduced a bill to really put the Antiquities Act in place of its original intent. Read the report when it was written. It was to be used for taking care of specific historical landmarks, as I mentioned before, like Custer’s Last Stand, Mount Rushmore and Grand Canyon. He’s not the only one who has done it. I will admit that. I think he’s used it more. I think it defeats the act. It makes the act not as efficient as it should be. What I’ve tried to do is OK, if we can’t do it as I’ve said before, we will pass legislation to do it. Not only does it affect the oil industry, it affects the fishing industry. There is no science involved. This is purely poppycock by a president who is going out the back door. I just don’t think presidents should be doing that.

Petroleum News: What did you hear from constituents during your break at home whether it’s the industry or simply people out there walking the streets?

Young: Most of the people walking the street don’t like the idea that the president does things without any input. With the one at the Bering Sea, he says he talked to the Native folks. He didn’t. He talked to activists. He didn’t talk to the president of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp. This affects them more than anyone else. The only ones who supported what the president did are people who are what I call blind to the fact if you don’t manage you destroy.

They think without management there will be no destruction. I argue that if you set things aside the right time comes - and it will come - there will be rush to develop something without the input. Do it now when we have the time. I’ve argued that for years on ANWR. Don’t wait until there is a crisis. What people don’t understand is regardless of what we do, there will be a time when we need those resources and they will be developed but not with the standards that are necessary to protect the other parts of the environment.

Petroleum News: There are those who say if the U.S. doesn’t get a chance to develop Arctic resources, it won’t stop other countries from doing it. They say it puts the U.S. in peril if there is a disaster from another country. How do you see it?

Young: You hit it right on the head. If we think China is not going to get involved. They are building ice breakers. They are going to claim international waters. People don’t realize it but they will. I expect Russia to already do it. You might already see Norway get involved again. I believe ice breakers are necessary or the navigational needs to be in place. The identification of the floor bottom, which is crucial. ... We are just going behind the eight ball. We like to live within ourselves in that if we do this we are going to protect the whole world. That’s nonsense. This goes back to the president. He’s making these decisions without science He’s very good at that. He makes decisions because it feels good. He plays to a crowd.

I’m not saying he’s the only one, but he plays to a crowd to appease and make them happy. It’s not the right thing to do for a nation or the globe itself. Do things correctly and you’ll see a supporter here. Do things incorrectly and you’ll see an adversary.

Petroleum News: One of the toughest areas for you folks has been ANWR, advancing toward leasing, exploration and possible production. Do you think this is your best chance?

Young: Of course it’s our best chance. I’ve passed it out of the House 12 times. I’ve helped pass it out of the Senate once. Clinton vetoed it. That was a long time ago. The argument against it is there is no need for it. We are producing more oil and gas. Why should we destroy this great, beautiful area which it’s not. That’s been the greatest propaganda program I’ve ever seen.

What I’d like for us to do as a Congress is say the (Interior) secretary has the authority and will lease the ANWR area, and you can put language in there and say within a certain time. Under the law, that area was set aside so specifically Congress only can take it off the table or can make able for drilling. Otherwise the president would have put that under a monument. The price of oil is down now. Would we get the appropriate amount of money? Probably not. So what we do is change the timeframe in which they have to act on the lease, so you lease it out - and you would get a tremendous amount of money - but it doesn’t have to be totally developed until the price of oil reaches a certain level so there would be a return on their investment.

But they would know what’s there. They can drill the wells and have it ready to go at a certain time when it reached a certain price, which might be about $70 a barrel, which is about the right price of oil for coming out of Alaska. We would have it available. We would know it’s there. It would be one of the best things that could ever happen. We could help balance the budget with that oil. Just to leave it in the ground I think is inappropriate.

Petroleum News: How about making that part of an energy bill?

Young: That’s possible. We could pass it out of the House. I don’t know how we could do it if the Senate sticks by the 60 vote rule. If they go by 60 votes, we are going to have a hard time doing it. There is no doubt about that. If they use the nuclear option or some other form of getting it done, this is the time to do it. There is nothing environmentally wrong for doing it - regardless of what people say. This is my state. I’ve been there. I’ve watched it. I’ve seen it. The rest of the refuge is protected. We are talking about a minimum amount of acreage, about the size of Dulles Airport. It has the potential - there have only been about two wells drilled there - but we’ll know for sure what would happen if it’s put in the bidding market. Then we will be able to develop it say within 30 years instead of 10 years.

Every time we have a federal lease there has to be action within 10 years. But with lawsuits, and many delays, a lot of people don’t want to invest in that type of property. They would rather invest in private land.

Petroleum News: Speaking of the energy bill, what do you think held things up last session?

Young: I think what held things up was a lot of people on my side thought we could get a better deal later on. I argued - and this is a country boy analogy - if you want to pick a peach and you go to an orchard and the best looking peach in the whole tree is at the top of the tree, but you don’t have a ladder, yet there is one lower, it doesn’t look very good and it isn’t the right size, but you’ve got a peach. We should have taken and ate that peach, then gone back to the barn, got a ladder and got the good peach.

I think we made a mistake. There were some good things in there. There wasn’t a lot of energy in terms of total production of energy. But there were some things that I thought were appropriate. Lisa (Murkowski) had to work really hard with Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray and that group on the West Coast. She did the best she could do, but we got on the House side and some people thought we could do a better job. Of course there was a big fight about the land and water conservation fund. Rob Bishop, very frankly, he’s right it’s got out of hand. We’ve accumulated more land in the federal government’s hands, which is the worst manager of lands in existence. No one can call them to task. No one can say you did something wrong. They can do what they damn well please. The forest fires we’re having is a result of federal management. People don’t realize it.

Petroleum News: What do you think the chances of getting something done these next two years for an energy bill?

Young: We’re looking at Obama repeal or reform; we’re looking at tax reform, a new tax system; we’re looking at regulatory reform; we’re looking at big items. If we can the energy part of that package, it’s going to be good. That may be hard. You look at the people - and it goes back to the popular vote that we have - on the West Coast, that’s all left wing liberals who don’t understand what provides the wealth of their jobs and what provides the comfort of their lives. That’s where most of the representatives come from. It’s going to be hard to get this at the front of the room because they don’t see how it affects them.

Petroleum News: You’re going to be working with a new cabinet. Let’s talk about a few of the candidates: (former Texas Gov.) Rick Perry. He comes from a resource state, but he also wanted to abolish the department when he was a (presidential) candidate. How do you look at his nomination?

Young: I look at it very favorably. I will tell you, and I’ve said it publically, when has the Department of Energy ever produced any energy? They have never said, let’s help produce energy. They will tell you why you can’t produce energy. They know to build energy; they give you restrictions on the production of it, so I’m not high on the department period. I think that is going to be beneficial to Gov. Perry. I know him well. I think he will do a good job.

Petroleum News: For the EPA, Scott Pruitt, the attorney general from Oklahoma, he has sued the EPA and has pending lawsuits, so how do you go with somebody to take over an agency you are suing?

Young: I think you should be able to do it. The EPA is one of the most egregious agencies in existence today, over extending their authority in regulatory law. Some of the requirements, they have had nothing to do with the environment. It’s all done because of a policy or a philosophy of the groups who are in there. I have been terribly disappointed with this EPA administrator. They have done nothing that protects the environment. They have done something that impedes the progress and the development of our resources in this country. I think that Pruitt is a great nominee. There will be a great fight about it. They don’t use good science. They don’t have a good scientific community. If you challenged them on their findings, their decisions, their regulations, they wouldn’t respond because they know they are wrong. But most states don’t want to do that. They are afraid of getting in the cross hairs with them.

Petroleum News: What can Mr. Pruitt do?

Young: What he can do is have his scientists in his department: Make sure they are picked correctly and they are good people so the science is put forth. They don’t do that now. Listen to the people who are affected by the regulation. If I found people working within my agency doing their own thing because they can’t be “fired,” I’d move them. You can do that. We are here to project the environment. You have to put the economy in that. They don’t do that. I respect his desire and capability.

Petroleum News: The Supreme Court ruled the EPA needs to factor in economic variables in one case.

Young: They don’t do it. Show me when they’ve done it. You can’t show me one case where they have factored in the economy. That means we have to take them to court. The Supreme Court can rule whatever they want. If they (administration) don’t follow the rules and they have not followed the rules, this administration is great about not following the rules. Anyway, I’m wound up about that. It has probably done more damage to this country than anyplace I know of.

Petroleum News: Last is Ryan Zinke for Interior Secretary. I know you talked about him a little bit.

Young: I think it was a good selection, primarily because he’s a westerner. He understands the policy of public lands. The BLM is a disaster. They went from a multiple use agency to a single use agency. They have become what we call a miniature park service. They are supposed to be an agency that has timber harvesting, mining, grazing of lands, recreation, public use, not restrictive use.

Every one of the agencies got ahead of themselves. If you wonder why the election was won by Donald Trump it is because the environmentalist elitist group put themselves in front because they knew better than any of the rest of the Americans. Now all of the sudden they got their butts kicked was because they went too far without considering the people’s will. I think Zinke is going to be a real plus because I believe he is going to listen to the people.