Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the chairman for his help and his support. I thank the Congressman, Dr. Andy Harris, for traveling the great distance to New Jersey to be at the hearing that we…
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the chairman for his help and his support. I thank the Congressman, Dr. Andy Harris, for traveling the great distance to New Jersey to be at the hearing that we had in the field. I thank Congressman Chris Smith for his support and traveling, as well, and I thank Congressman Scott Perry. They were all there.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment and to clear up the misconceptions that continue to float around amongst the mainstream media, this administration, and pro-wind advocacy groups, and highlight what is nothing less than an existential threat to our coastlines and the millions of people and communities who rely upon them.
Proponents of offshore wind claim that it is a necessary step in order to transition the United States to clean energy. Yet, oddly enough, BOEM's own environmental impact statement admits that offshore wind will have no impact of any substance on combating climate change and will, in fact, increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Proponents say that it will stimulate economic activity and create thousands of U.S. jobs. Yet, offshore wind turbines are being constructed in Europe and China and not in the United States, and offshore wind companies are attempting to circumvent the Jones Act so they can use cheaper foreign vessels and cheaper crews.
Plus, BOEM has admitted that commercial fisheries will have to--this is important--completely abandon their fishing grounds as a result of offshore wind. Destroying one job to create another is not job creation.
Let's talk about the offshore wind companies themselves.
Orsted, which is building offshore wind farms off of New Jersey's coast, is based in Denmark and used to go by the name Danish Oil and Natural Gas.
Equinor, which is building offshore wind farms off of New York, is based in Norway and is a self-described petroleum refining company.
British Petroleum, BP, which is building offshore wind farms off of New York and Massachusetts, is based in England.
Avangrid, which is building offshore wind farms off Connecticut, has its parent company based in Spain.
These are foreign-owned companies that have bought millions--not thousands, I am not exaggerating here--millions of acres of our ocean, our American ocean, in the Atlantic and intend to expand into the Gulf, Pacific Ocean, and our Great Lakes, as well.
Every great body of water this country is blessed with will now be at the mercy of foreign-owned energy companies, thanks to the Biden administration.
More than 50 percent of our energy, if this plan were to go to fruition, would come from foreign countries. We would rely upon them, and they would not be under our control. That is shameful.
They say that the surveying and construction of these offshore wind farms are not resulting in marine mammal deaths. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have lived there, and I see it.
That begs the question: Why is BOEM offering incidental take authorizations to these companies? For those who don't know what that means, for those who don't understand it, it is the accidental harming or killing of marine species. It is not just whales. It is dolphins and others.
Wind companies need these ITAs because these industrial wind grids are leased right on top of the foraging grounds and the migration routes for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. NOAA's own scientists have sounded the alarms on how these projects will affect right whales not just now but for many decades to come.
I beg to differ. I beg to differ with the proponents who claim that offshore wind will boost our ecotourism along the coast. Would you choose to go to a shore that consisted of thousands of industrialized wind turbines that rise to nearly 1,000 feet tall?
Realize, Mr. Chairman, there is no casino in Atlantic City that is this tall.
Orsted themselves conducted a survey in my home county, Cape May, which is a tourist county, on whether tourists would return after these wind grids are built. Fifteen percent said they wouldn't even think about returning, and Orsted considered this a good thing. Perhaps they forgot to look into what exactly a 15 percent reduction in tourism would do. It would be a loss of $1 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I could talk about defense and standing up for my constituents. Please vote for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.