[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 63 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3131-H3143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              PUTTING THE GULF OF MEXICO BACK TO WORK ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 245 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1229.

                              {time}  1734


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1229) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
facilitate the safe and timely production of American energy resources 
from the Gulf of Mexico, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all 
time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in the bill is adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1229

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Putting the Gulf of Mexico 
     Back to Work Act''.

      TITLE I--AMENDMENT TO THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 11(d) of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1340(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Drilling Permits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     require that any lessee operating under an approved 
     exploration plan--
       ``(A) must obtain a permit before drilling any well in 
     accordance with such plan; and
       ``(B) must obtain a new permit before drilling any well of 
     a design that is significantly different than the design for 
     which an existing permit was issued.
       ``(2) Safety review required.--The Secretary shall not 
     issue a permit under paragraph (1) without ensuring that the 
     proposed drilling operations meet all--
       ``(A) critical safety system requirements, including 
     blowout prevention; and
       ``(B) oil spill response and containment requirements.
       ``(3) Timeline.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall decide whether to issue a permit 
     under paragraph (1) within 30 days after receiving an 
     application for the permit. The Secretary may extend such 
     period for up to two periods of 15 days each, if the 
     Secretary has given written notice of the delay to the 
     applicant. The notice shall be in the form of a letter from 
     the Secretary or a designee of the Secretary, and shall 
     include the names and titles of the persons processing the 
     application, the specific reasons for the delay, and a 
     specific date a final decision on the application is 
     expected.
       ``(B) If the application is denied, the Secretary shall 
     provide the applicant--
       ``(i) in writing, clear and comprehensive reasons why the 
     application was not accepted and detailed information 
     concerning any deficiencies, and
       ``(ii) an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies.
       ``(C) If the Secretary has not made a decision on the 
     application by the end of the 60-day period beginning on the 
     date the application is received by the Secretary, the 
     application is deemed approved.''.
       (b) Deadline for Certain Permit Applications Under Existing 
     Leases.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the amendment made by 
     subsection (a), a lease under which a covered application is 
     submitted to the Secretary of the Interior shall be 
     considered to be in directed suspension during the period 
     beginning May 27, 2010, and ending on the date the Secretary 
     issues a final decision on the application, if the Secretary 
     does not issue a final decision on the application--
       (A) before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, in the case of a covered 
     application submitted before such date of enactment; or
       (B) before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date the application is received by the Secretary, in the 
     case of a covered application submitted on or after such date 
     of enactment.
       (2) Covered application.--In this subsection the term 
     ``covered application'' means an application for a permit to 
     drill under an oil and gas lease under the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, that--
       (A) represents a resubmission of an approved permit to 
     drill (including an application for a permit to sidetrack) 
     that was approved by the Secretary before May 27, 2010; and
       (B) is received by the Secretary after October 12, 2010, 
     and before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 
                   LEASES.

       (a) Definition of Covered Lease.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered lease'' means each oil and gas lease for the Gulf 
     of Mexico outer Continental Shelf region issued under section 
     8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
     that--
       (1)(A) was not producing as of April 30, 2010; or
       (B) was suspended from operations, permit processing, or 
     consideration, in accordance with the moratorium set forth in 
     the Minerals Management Service Notice to Lessees and 
     Operators No. 2010-N04, dated May 30, 2010, or the decision 
     memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior entitled 
     ``Decision memorandum regarding the suspension of certain 
     offshore permitting and drilling activities on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf'' and dated July 12, 2010; and
       (2) by its terms would expire on or before December 31, 
     2011.
       (b) Extension of Covered Leases.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall extend the term of a covered lease by 1 year.
       (c) Effect on Suspensions of Operations or Production.--The 
     extension of covered leases under this section is in addition 
     to any suspension of operations or suspension of production 
     granted by the Minerals Management Service or Bureau of Ocean 
     Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement after May 1, 
     2010.

     TITLE II--JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS RELATING TO OUTER 
           CONTINENTAL SHELF ACTIVITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE.

       In this title--
       (1) the term ``covered civil action'' means a civil action 
     containing a claim under section 702 of title 5, United 
     States Code, regarding agency action (as defined for the 
     purposes of that section) affecting a covered energy project 
     in the Gulf of Mexico; and
       (2) the term ``covered energy project'' means the leasing 
     of Federal lands of the Outer Continental Shelf (including 
     submerged lands) for the exploration, development, 
     production, processing, or transmission of oil, natural gas, 
     wind, or any other source of energy in the Gulf of Mexico, 
     and any action under such a lease, except that the term does 
     not include any disputes between the parties to a lease 
     regarding the obligations under such lease, including 
     regarding any alleged breach of the lease.

     SEC. 202. EXCLUSIVE VENUE FOR CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS RELATING 
                   TO COVERED ENERGY PROJECTS IN THE GULF OF 
                   MEXICO.

       Venue for any covered civil action shall not lie in any 
     district court not within the 5th circuit unless there is no 
     proper venue in any court within that circuit.

     SEC. 203. TIME LIMITATION ON FILING.

       A covered civil action is barred unless filed no later than 
     the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the 
     final Federal agency action to which it relates.

[[Page H3132]]

     SEC. 204. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.

       The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered 
     civil action as expeditiously as possible.

     SEC. 205. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

       In any judicial review of a covered civil action, 
     administrative findings and conclusions relating to the 
     challenged Federal action or decision shall be presumed to be 
     correct, and the presumption may be rebutted only by the 
     preponderance of the evidence contained in the administrative 
     record.

     SEC. 206. LIMITATION ON PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

       In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or 
     approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that 
     such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than 
     necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement, 
     and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that 
     violation.

     SEC. 207. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of 
     title 28, United States Code (together commonly called the 
     Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to a covered civil 
     action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action 
     receive payment from the Federal Government for their 
     attorneys' fees, expenses, and other court costs.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part A of House Report 112-73. Each 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, strike ``and'' after the semicolon at line 4, 
     strike the period at line 6 and insert ``; and'', and after 
     line 6 insert the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) all requirements of all applicable statutes and 
     regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Marine 
     Mammal Protection Act of 1972, and any law protecting fishing 
     and recreation jobs.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, following last year's BP Deepwater Horizon 
disaster, one would think that a foundational and critical element of 
any bill related to offshore deepwater oil drilling would be to improve 
our safety and environmental safeguards based on the lessons that we 
learned the hard way from a horrific national tragedy, costing jobs and 
reducing health and damaging the environment.
  While H.R. 1229 does include a provision that states that the 
Secretary shall not issue a permit without ensuring that the proposed 
drilling operation meets critical safety system requirements and oil 
spill response and containment requirements, it fails to make mention 
of and omits requiring the Secretary to ensure that critical 
environmental and economic laws are adhered to, a prolific problem 
leading up to the Deepwater Horizon spill.
  Mr. Chairman, for years an ongoing problem in issuing permits for 
offshore drilling has been the Department of the Interior's failure to 
follow requirements set out under our Nation's foundational 
environmental protection laws and fisheries laws. These laws, like the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Act, 
protect wildlife as well as fisheries and beaches that sustain the 
gulf's fishing and tourism industries.
  In the gulf region, the number of jobs dependent on tourism and 
fishing is five times the number of jobs related to the oil and gas 
industry.
  While reforms within the Obama administration are moving in the right 
direction, the fact is that this bill, in its current form, leaves out 
a major chunk of what should be included in any safety or oversight 
review that we require of the Secretary, and I'm grateful for the rule 
for allowing a full discussion and vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a May 2010 New York Times article, entitled, ``U.S. 
Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits,'' outlines the roots of 
this problem in detail. The article clearly explains how the Endangered 
Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Department of the 
Interior's drilling permit agency is required to get permits for 
drilling where it might harm endangered species and marine animals.
  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is 
partially responsible for protecting endangered species and marine 
mammals. It said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf does 
affect these animals. That's simply science. The records show that 
permits for hundreds of wells, including the BP disaster well itself, 
were granted without getting the permits required under existing 
Federal law.
  Federal records show that NOAA instructed the minerals agency that 
continued drilling in the gulf was actually harming wildlife and needed 
to get permits in compliance with Federal law; but, sadly, those 
permits were never sought.
  With regard to the National Environmental Protection Act, the 
government has time and time again performed cursory environmental 
assessments, failed to integrate NEPA analyses with related Federal 
statutes, and even exempted entire projects from NEPA review, including 
the Macondo well. In the past, the only way to ensure permits have 
complied with NEPA has unfortunately been through lawsuits. My 
amendment would require these assurances from the Secretary before the 
permit is issued.

                [From the New York Times, May 13, 2010]

           U.S. Said To Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

                            (By Ian Urbina)

       Washington.--The federal Minerals Management Service gave 
     permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill 
     in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits 
     from another agency that assesses threats to endangered 
     species--and despite strong warnings from that agency about 
     the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.
       Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the 
     well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on 
     April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of 
     barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day.
       The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely 
     overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised 
     concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of 
     certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, 
     according to a half-dozen current and former agency 
     scientists.
       Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by 
     agency officials to change the findings of their internal 
     studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to 
     occur or if wildlife might be harmed.
       Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act, the Minerals Management Service is required 
     to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm 
     endangered species or marine mammals.
       The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or 
     NOAA, is partly responsible for protecting endangered species 
     and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that 
     drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals 
     agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge 
     lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling 
     plans. Agency records also show that permission for those 
     projects and plans was granted without getting the permits 
     required under federal law.
       ``M.M.S. has given up any pretense of regulating the 
     offshore oil industry,'' said Kieran Suckling, director of 
     the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental 
     advocacy group in Tucson, which filed notice of intent to sue 
     the agency over its noncompliance with federal law concerning 
     endangered species. ``The agency seems to think its mission 
     is to help the oil industry evade environmental laws.''
       Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, 
     said her agency had full consultations with NOAA about 
     endangered species in the gulf. But she declined to respond 
     to additional questions about whether her agency had obtained 
     the relevant permits.
       Federal records indicate that these consultations ended 
     with NOAA instructing the minerals agency that continued 
     drilling in the gulf was harming endangered marine mammals 
     and that the agency needed to get permits to be in compliance 
     with federal law.
       Responding to the accusations that agency scientists were 
     being silenced, Ms. Barkoff added, ``Under the previous 
     administration, there was a pattern of suppressing science in 
     decisions, and we are working very hard to change the culture 
     and empower scientists in the Department of the Interior.''
       On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans 
     to reorganize the

[[Page H3133]]

     minerals agency to improve its regulatory role by separating 
     safety oversight from the division that collects royalties 
     from oil and gas companies. But that reorganization is not 
     likely to have any bearing on how and whether the agency 
     seeks required permits from other agencies like NOAA.
       Criticism of the minerals agency has grown in recent days 
     as more information has emerged about how it handled drilling 
     in the gulf.
       In a letter from September 2009, obtained by The New York 
     Times, NOAA accused the minerals agency of a pattern of 
     understating the likelihood and potential consequences of a 
     major spill in the gulf and understating the frequency of 
     spills that have already occurred there.
       The letter accuses the agency of highlighting the safety of 
     offshore oil drilling operations while overlooking more 
     recent evidence to the contrary. The data used by the agency 
     to justify its approval of drilling operations in the gulf 
     play down the fact that spills have been increasing and 
     understate the ``risks and impacts of accidental spills,'' 
     the letter states. NOAA declined several requests for 
     comment.
       The accusation that the minerals agency has ignored risks 
     is also being levied by scientists working for the agency.
       Managers at the agency have routinely overruled staff 
     scientists whose findings highlight the environmental risks 
     of drilling, according to a half-dozen current or former 
     agency scientists.
       The scientists, none of whom wanted to be quoted by name 
     for fear of reprisals by the agency or by those in the 
     industry, said they had repeatedly had their scientific 
     findings changed to indicate no environmental impact or had 
     their calculations of spill risks downgraded.
       ``You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling 
     will have an impact,'' said one scientist who has worked for 
     the minerals agency for more than a decade. ``If you find 
     the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a 
     certain species will be affected, your report gets 
     disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another 
     scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you.''
       Another biologist who left the agency in 2005 after more 
     than five years said that agency officials went out of their 
     way to accommodate the oil and gas industry.
       He said, for example, that seismic activity from drilling 
     can have a devastating effect on mammals and fish, but that 
     agency officials rarely enforced the regulations meant to 
     limit those effects.
       He also said the agency routinely ceded to the drilling 
     companies the responsibility for monitoring species that live 
     or spawn near the drilling projects.
       ``What I observed was M.M.S. was trying to undermine the 
     monitoring and mitigation requirements that would be imposed 
     on the industry,'' he said.
       Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the 
     gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the 
     minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling 
     companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to 
     provide environmental impact statements.
       Much as BP's drilling plan asserted that there was no 
     chance of an oil spill, the company also claimed in federal 
     documents that its drilling would not have any adverse effect 
     on endangered species.
       The gulf is known for its biodiversity. Various endangered 
     species are found in the area where the Deepwater Horizon was 
     drilling, including sperm whales, blue whales and fin whales.
       In some instances, the minerals agency has indeed sought 
     and received permits in the gulf to harm certain endangered 
     species like green and loggerhead sea turtles. But the agency 
     has not received these permits for endangered species like 
     the sperm and humpback whales, which are more common in the 
     areas where drilling occurs and thus are more likely to be 
     affected.
       Tensions between scientists and managers at the agency 
     erupted in one case last year involving a rig in the gulf 
     called the BP Atlantis. An agency scientist complained to his 
     bosses of catastrophic safety and environmental violations. 
     The scientist said these complaints were ignored, so he took 
     his concerns to higher officials at the Interior Department.
       ``The purpose of this letter is to restate in writing our 
     concern that the BP Atlantis project presently poses a threat 
     of serious, immediate, potentially irreparable and 
     catastrophic harm to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and its 
     marine environment, and to summarize how BP's conduct has 
     violated federal law and regulations,'' David L. Perry, a 
     lawyer acting on behalf of Kenneth Abbott, a BP contractor, 
     wrote in a letter to officials at the Interior Department 
     that was dated May 27.
       The letter added: ``From our conversation on the phone, we 
     understand that M.M.S. is already aware that undersea 
     manifolds have been leaking and that major flow lines must 
     already be replaced. Failure of this critical undersea 
     equipment has potentially catastrophic environmental 
     consequences.''
       Almost two months before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, 
     Representative Raul M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, sent a 
     letter to the agency raising concerns about the BP Atlantis 
     and questioning its oversight of the rig.
       After the disaster, Mr. Salazar said he would delay 
     granting any new oil drilling permits.
       But the minerals agency has issued at least five final 
     approval permits to new drilling projects in the gulf since 
     last week, records show.
       Despite being shown records indicating otherwise, Ms. 
     Barkoff said her agency had granted no new permits since Mr. 
     Salazar made his announcement.
       Other agencies besides NOAA have begun criticizing the 
     minerals agency.
       At a public hearing in Louisiana this week, a joint panel 
     of Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service officials 
     investigating the explosion grilled minerals agency officials 
     for allowing the offshore drilling industry to be essentially 
     ``self-certified,'' as Capt. Hung Nguyen of the Coast Guard, 
     a co-chairman of the investigation, put it.
       In addition to the minerals agency and the Coast Guard, the 
     Deepwater Horizon was overseen by the Marshall Islands, the 
     ``flag of convenience'' under which it was registered.
       No one from the Marshall Islands ever inspected the rig. 
     The nongovernmental organizations that did were paid by the 
     rig's operator, in this case Transocean.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Although well intended, this amendment is duplicative and would add 
delays to the permitting process and production of American-made 
energy. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior as 
overseers of permitting in the gulf to ensure safe and environmentally 
responsible drilling in the gulf.
  Since the spill last year, the Department of the Interior has made 
extensive changes to permitting requirements for offshore operations. 
Every drilling permit is required to go through multiple environmental 
reviews before the application can be approved. This begins with an 
initial programmatic environmental impact statement and is followed by 
a lease sale-specific environmental impact statement and continues with 
additional environmental reviews as drilling activities move forward.

                              {time}  1740

  In carrying out its responsibilities, the department already must 
comply with numerous environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive 
orders. These regulations include the National Environmental Policy 
Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 
Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act. And I may have left some out. This 
demonstrates the redundancy in this amendment and why it is not 
necessary.
  Administration officials and even Director Bromwich have stated on 
numerous occasions to both the Natural Resources Committee and the 
American people that they would not permit operations if they did not 
believe they meet all the requirements to be conducted safely, 
efficiently, and in an environmentally responsible manner. The Interior 
Department already complies with these particular environmental 
regulations when approving permits. And the fact that the Department is 
permitting operations, although at a slower pace than I would like to 
see, demonstrates that they have confidence in the regulations that the 
agency has set for offshore drilling operations. The real effect of 
this amendment, whether intended or not, is more delays to offshore 
energy production and more lengthy and burdensome lawsuits.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this underlying legislation's very basic 
safety review provision simply doesn't address the broad swath of 
problems that need to be addressed by any serious offshore drilling 
bill. My amendment is a simple way of ensuring that the many 
shortcomings are at least considered by the Secretary, as articulated 
in Federal law, and are discussed during this debate.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not take into account the lessons our 
country learned from the terrible BP Deepwater disaster. In addition to 
accepting my amendment, I certainly hope that the committee will 
address these problems with even stronger language in any future work 
it does on this bill or on the issue of offshore drilling in general 
with regard to safety and the environment.

[[Page H3134]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the proponent of this 
amendment in his zeal to ensure that the environment is properly 
addressed, but those concerns are properly addressed in the permitting 
policy. The problem is that we had a company with around 800 safety 
violations, British Petroleum, that was allowed to continue drilling, 
and you wonder why. Could it be that they were negotiating at the very 
time of the blowout with Democrats in the Senate for making the big 
announcement that they supported the administration's cap-and-trade 
bill? Could it be that they were going to be involved in the carbon 
credit business and would work with the administration?
  Perhaps a better question than the effect on the environment is, How 
close will the applicant for a drilling permit be politically with this 
administration? Because what we see time after time is a situation of 
political payback. We see crony capitalism. If you're a good buddy at 
GE, you're going to do well. If you're on Wall Street and you 
contribute four to one to this administration over its opponent, then 
you're going to do well. You may have to endure being called a fat cat 
from time to time; but, otherwise, we're going to make sure your 
profits exceed anything you have ever seen before.
  We have seen this administration rush to Libya. We have seen this 
administration rush, appropriately, to help our friend Japan. We have 
seen them rush all over the place. But when it came to really helping 
the gulf coast region, this administration rushed in and did more 
damage to people's lives by putting this moratorium on than the spill 
itself did. At some point, it's time for the administration to stop the 
political payback game.
  Perhaps Louisiana would be better off if they dissociated themselves 
from Texas. We know that you can have 500,000 acres burned and have it 
be a disaster area. You can have 2 million in Texas, and they won't 
come to your help because this administration is partisan and bitterly 
so. But it's time for this administration to quit playing political 
games and help people where they need it in our own country, on our own 
gulf coast.
  Let's vote ``no'' on the amendments and get this bill through.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 6, insert the following (and redesignate 
     accordingly):
       ``(3) Consultation with independent safety organization.--
     In making any determination under paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall consult with one or more independent safety 
     organizations that are not affiliated with the American 
     Petroleum Institute.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we just heard a pretty good discussion 
here a moment ago about the safety issues in the gulf. And the 
legislation before us seems to ignore every one of the recommendations 
that the bipartisan, independent commission made about how to conduct 
deepwater drilling in a safe manner. Actually, BP did have a terrible 
record. I am pleased that my colleague from Texas pointed out the 800 
violations that BP had. There was, however, a bit of a problem for at 
least 11 members of the gulf oil industry: They died as a result of the 
inattention to safety.
  The proposal that I have before us deals with one of the 
recommendations that the commission made, and that is that there be an 
independent safety organization created to provide an additional level 
of review of the requirements that drilling be done safely. The 
legislation before us ignores that recommendation by the commission and 
basically says that the American Petroleum Institute is quite capable 
of doing this. Well, the independent, bipartisan commission, said, 
``The American Petroleum Institute is culturally ill-suited to drive a 
safety revolution in the industry. For this reason, it is essential 
that the safety enterprise operate apart from the American Petroleum 
Institute,'' and I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment would require that, as the Secretary is trying to 
determine whether permit applications meet the critical safety 
requirements, he must consult with an independent safety organization, 
and that organization must not be affiliated with the American 
Petroleum Institute.
  Now the institute has said, No problem; we'll create our own. Well, 
I'm sorry, but that's not the way to provide the appropriate safety 
standard. We don't need to have more deaths. We don't need to have more 
blowouts. We need to do the drilling safely, and that it be done in a 
manner that ensures that lives will not be lost and that oil will not 
be spilled in the ocean. That's what this amendment does by providing 
an outside independent organization with the requirement that they 
consult with the Secretary on the applications. We do not change the 
50-day requirement. That remains in place; so there is a timeframe. We 
don't change any of the requirements with regard to losses and the 
rest, which I think are inappropriate; but nonetheless, we don't change 
that in this legislation.
  I would ask for the adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do oppose this amendment. Although well intended, the Putting the 
Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act itself makes drilling already safer by 
requiring that the Secretary ensure that any proposed drilling 
operation be subject to a safety review--it's there in the bill 
already--and that it meet established critical safety system 
requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill response and 
containment requirements, and this has to be done before the issuance 
of a permit.

                              {time}  1750

  The decision to approve individual permit applications is the 
responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I don't believe it 
should be farmed out to other organizations that may or may not have 
the background, the expertise, or the resources to evaluate drilling 
permits.
  In fiscal year 2011, House Republicans voted to increase funding for 
the Department of the Interior in order to ensure that they have the 
resources to safely, responsibly, and effectively approve permits.
  The Interior Department has a responsibility, as it drafts 
legislation, to solicit public comment; and they do take advice and 
counsel from all Americans, including those with expertise in these 
areas. However, once the standards are set, it is the responsibility of 
the government to enforce the standards.
  Oversight is the Federal Government's responsibility, and it should 
not be delegated to outside organizations. Whether intended or not, 
this amendment would slow down and make more complicated the already 
lengthy and involved permitting process. So I urge opposition to this 
amendment, and urge opponents to vote ``no'' on it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. An interesting discussion from my colleague from 
Colorado. I would note that there are numerous examples where the 
Federal Government does rely upon outside safety organizations. For 
example, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations provides safety 
standards for our nuclear industry, specifically, not allowing the 
nuclear power industry to do

[[Page H3135]]

the safety reviews, but, rather, an outside organization.
  We're simply calling for a level of review that is not associated 
with those two organizations that caused the problem. The Department of 
the Interior, and I was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior in the 90s, has some familiarity of the comings and goings, 
the shortcomings as well as the strength of that Department.
  This particular section of the Department of the Interior has proved 
beyond a shadow of a doubt that, over time, it has not been able to 
regulate properly the safety and other elements of the natural gas and 
oil industry. We need to provide an outside level of review on the 
safety requirements, both to keep the Department of the Interior on the 
proper course and the industry itself on the proper course.
  That's what the amendment does. I think it makes an eminent amount of 
sense, and we're really talking about both environmental issues here, 
that is, the health of environment in the coast, which was seriously 
compromised, and also the well-being of the men and women that work on 
these oil platforms. And we know that their fate has been jeopardized 
in the past and should not be jeopardized in the future.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, both here and later on 
the floor.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there is a public 
comment period that is available right now, and that is a proper and 
appropriate forum for an outside group to make the kind of standards-
related comments that would be possibly helpful.
  But when it comes to actually issuing the permit, that is something 
that should be delegated to the Federal Government. They do have the 
resources. In fact, they have expanded resources to do a better job of 
that, hopefully, in the future.
  So, for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 6, insert the following (and redesignate 
     accordingly):
       ``(3) Other safety and environmental requirements.--The 
     regulations required under paragraph (1) shall ensure that 
     the proposed drilling operations meet requirements for--
       ``(A) third-party certification of safety systems related 
     to well control, such as blowout preventers;
       ``(B) performance of blowout preventers, including 
     quantitative risk assessment standards, subsea testing, and 
     secondary activation methods;
       ``(C) independent third-party certification of well casing 
     and cementing programs and procedures;
       ``(D) mandatory safety and environmental management systems 
     by operators on the outer Continental Shelf;
       ``(E) procedures and technologies to be used during 
     drilling operations to minimize the risk of ignition and 
     explosion of hydrocarbons; and
       ``(F) ensuring compliance with other applicable 
     environmental and natural resource conservation laws, 
     including the response plan requirements of section 311(j) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)).
       ``(4) Regulatory standards for blowout preventers, well 
     design, and cementing.--
       ``(A) In general.--In promulgating regulations under this 
     subsection related to blowout preventers, well design, and 
     cementing, the Secretary shall ensure that such regulations 
     include the minimum standards included in subparagraphs (B), 
     (C), and (D), unless, after notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment, the Secretary determines that a standard 
     required under this subsection would be less effective in 
     ensuring safe operations than an available alternative 
     technology or practice. Such regulations shall require 
     independent third-party certification, pursuant to 
     subparagraph (E), of blowout preventers, well design, and 
     cementing programs and procedures prior to the commencement 
     of drilling operations. Such regulations shall also require 
     recertification by an independent third-party certifier, 
     pursuant to subparagraph (E), of a blowout preventer upon any 
     material modification to the blowout preventer or well design 
     and of a well design upon any material modification to the 
     well design.
       ``(B) Blowout preventers.--Subject to subparagraph (A), 
     regulations issued under this subsection for blowout 
     preventers shall include at a minimum the following 
     requirements:
       ``(i) Two sets of blind shear rams appropriately spaced to 
     prevent blowout preventer failure if a drill pipe joint or 
     drill tool is across one set of blind shear rams during a 
     situation that threatens loss of well control.
       ``(ii) Redundant emergency backup control systems capable 
     of activating the relevant components of a blowout preventer, 
     including when the communications link or other critical 
     links between the drilling rig and the blowout preventer are 
     destroyed or inoperable.
       ``(iii) Regular testing of the emergency backup control 
     systems, including testing during deployment of the blowout 
     preventer.
       ``(iv) As appropriate, remotely operated vehicle 
     intervention capabilities for secondary control of all subsea 
     blowout preventer functions, including adequate hydraulic 
     capacity to activate blind shear rams, casing shear rams, and 
     other critical blowout preventer components.
       ``(v) Technologies to prevent a blowout preventer failure 
     if the drill pipe is moved out of position due to a situation 
     that poses a threat of loss of well control.
       ``(C) Well design.--Subject to subparagraph (A), 
     regulations issued under this subsection for well design 
     standards shall include at a minimum the following 
     requirements:
       ``(i) In connection with the installation of the final 
     casing string, the installation of at least two independent, 
     tested mechanical barriers, in addition to a cement barrier, 
     across each flow path between hydrocarbon bearing formations 
     and the blowout preventer.
       ``(ii) That wells shall be designed so that a failure of 
     one barrier does not significantly increase the likelihood of 
     another barrier's failure.
       ``(iii) That the casing design is appropriate for the 
     purpose for which it is intended under reasonably expected 
     wellbore conditions.
       ``(iv) The installation and verification with a pressure 
     test of a lockdown device at the time the casing is installed 
     in the wellhead.
       ``(D) Cementing.--Subject to subparagraph (A), regulations 
     issued under this subsection for cementing standards shall 
     include at a minimum the following requirements:
       ``(i) Adequate centralization of the casing to ensure 
     proper distribution of cement.
       ``(ii) A full circulation of drilling fluids prior to 
     cementing.
       ``(iii) The use of an adequate volume of cement to prevent 
     any unintended flow of hydrocarbons between any hydrocarbon-
     bearing formation zone and the wellhead.
       ``(iv) Cement bond logs for all cementing jobs intended to 
     provide a barrier to hydrocarbon flow.
       ``(v) Cement bond logs or such other integrity tests as the 
     Secretary may prescribe for cement jobs other than those 
     identified in clause (iv).
       ``(E) Independent third-party certification.--The Secretary 
     shall issue regulations that establish appropriate standards 
     for the approval of independent third-party certifiers 
     capable of exercising certification functions for blowout 
     preventers, well design, and cementing. For any certification 
     required for regulations related to blowout preventers, well 
     design, or cementing, the operator shall use a qualified 
     independent third-party certifier chosen by the Secretary. 
     The costs of any certification shall be borne by the 
     operator. The regulations issued under this subparagraph 
     shall require the following:
       ``(i) Prior to the commencement of drilling through a 
     blowout preventer at any covered well, the operator shall 
     obtain a written and signed certification from an independent 
     third party approved and assigned by the appropriate Federal 
     official pursuant to paragraph (3) that the third party--

       ``(I) conducted or oversaw a detailed physical inspection, 
     design review, system integration test, and function and 
     pressure testing of the blowout preventer; and
       ``(II) in the third-party certifier's best professional 
     judgment, determined that--

       ``(aa) the blowout preventer is designed for the specific 
     drilling conditions, equipment, and location where it will be 
     installed and for the specific well design;
       ``(bb) the blowout preventer and all of its components and 
     control systems will operate effectively and as designed when 
     installed;
       ``(cc) each blind shear ram or casing shear ram will 
     function effectively under likely emergency scenarios and is 
     capable of shearing the drill pipe or casing, as applicable, 
     that will be used when installed;
       ``(dd) emergency control systems will function under the 
     conditions in which they will be installed; and

[[Page H3136]]

       ``(ee) the blowout preventer has not been compromised or 
     damaged from any previous service.
       ``(ii) Not less than once every 180 days after commencement 
     of drilling through a blowout preventer at any covered well, 
     or upon implementation of any material modification to the 
     blowout preventer or well design at such a well, the operator 
     shall obtain a written and signed recertification from an 
     independent third party approved and assigned by the 
     appropriate Federal official pursuant to paragraph (3) that 
     the requirements in subclause (II) of clause (i) continue to 
     be met with the systems as deployed. Such recertification 
     determinations shall consider the results of tests required 
     by the appropriate Federal official, including testing of the 
     emergency control systems of a blowout preventer.
       ``(iii) Certifications under clause (i), recertifications 
     under clause (i), and results of and data from all tests 
     conducted pursuant to this paragraph shall be promptly 
     submitted to the appropriate Federal official and made 
     publicly available.
       ``(5) Rulemaking dockets.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than the date of proposal 
     of any regulation under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     establish a publicly available rulemaking docket for such 
     regulation.
       ``(B) Documents to be included.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the docket--
       ``(i) all written comments and documentary information on 
     the proposed rule received from any person in the comment 
     period for the rulemaking, promptly upon receipt by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(ii) the transcript of each public hearing, if any, on 
     the proposed rule, promptly upon receipt from the person who 
     transcribed such hearing; and
       ``(iii) all documents that become available after the 
     proposed rule is published and that the Secretary determines 
     are of central relevance to the rulemaking, by as soon as 
     possible after their availability.
       ``(C) Proposed and draft final rule and associated 
     material.--The Secretary shall include in the docket--
       ``(i) each draft proposed rule submitted by the Secretary 
     to the Office of Management and Budget for any interagency 
     review process prior to proposal of such rule, all documents 
     accompanying such draft, all written comments thereon by 
     other agencies, and all written responses to such written 
     comments by the Secretary, by no later than the date of 
     proposal of the rule; and
       ``(ii) each draft final rule submitted by the Secretary for 
     such review process before issuance of the final rule, all 
     such written comments thereon, all documents accompanying 
     such draft, and all written responses thereto, by no later 
     than the date of issuance of the final rule.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, 1 year has passed since the Deepwater Horizon accident. 
Yet BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and Cameron continue to argue in court 
which of them deserves more blame for the 11 deaths and environmental 
devastation.
  BP continues to fight the estimates of the amount of oil spilled in 
order to minimize its liability. And more than 1 year after the 
beginning of this disaster, Congress has still not passed any 
legislation to improve the safety of offshore drilling and ensure that 
the lessons of the BP spill are incorporated into future drilling.
  The co-chairs of the independent BP commission have testified before 
the Natural Resources Committee that the accident could have been 
prevented, and the commission found that the root causes of the 
disaster were systemic to the entire industry. Their extensive reports 
documented numerous specific failures of the cementing, well design and 
testing and maintenance associated with the Deepwater Horizon well.
  And recently, the Department of the Interior's contractor, Det Norske 
Veritas, released its report on the forensic investigation of the 
Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer, and here's what they found: the 
results indicated that the drilling pipe inside of the blowout 
preventer had buckled due to the force of the blowout; and the cutting 
devices, therefore, couldn't fully sever the drill pipe and seal off 
the well.
  According to the forensic report, contrary to the claims of the oil 
industry that blowout preventers are fail-safe devices, it seems 
unclear whether blowout preventers can actually prevent major blowouts 
at all once they are underway.
  But here we are today with the Republicans bringing out legislation 
that has no meaningful safety protections for the industry.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment was already rejected by a bipartisan vote of the full 
Natural Resources Committee and, once again, I urge opposition to it. 
This amendment micromanages and dictates specific safety and blowout 
preventer standards for permit applications. Many of these standards 
would do little or nothing different than what is already being done by 
the Department of the Interior.
  However, these restrictions would, if this amendment passes, be 
etched into law, making Congress the technical arbiter and micromanager 
of Outer Continental Shelf regulations, and reducing the flexibility 
and ability of the Department to adapt to new technology and new 
development in drilling safety. So if we're lagging behind developments 
in the industry, this would actually prevent us, or could prevent us, 
from adopting those new and better standards in the future.
  The technical standards proposed in this amendment have not been 
subject to a thorough review or understanding of the impacts of such 
changes. This is particularly troubling when you consider that this 
language was written before we even knew why the blowout preventer 
failed.
  H.R. 1229 already takes steps to increase the safety of offshore 
drilling by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety 
review to ensure that the proposed drilling operations meet ``critical 
safety system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill 
response and containment requirements.'' That language is lifted 
straight out of the bill.
  So my colleagues on the other side are acting as if nothing has 
changed and no safety reforms have been made. By doing so, they are 
ignoring the facts on the ground and the actions of their own party's 
administration. I'm not willing to indict the administration and say 
that they have done nothing in this regard.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, here is the BP Blue Ribbon Commission report that was 
conducted to investigate and to make recommendations as to what the 
causes were and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. 
Right now, nothing that is in this report has been implemented in terms 
of legislation here on the House floor. So I will tell you what my bill 
does. It will require multiple lines of defense against a blowout and 
ensures that these defenses are redundant so that failure of one does 
not lead to cascading failures of the entire system as occurred with 
BP's Macondo well.
  First, the amendment sets minimum standards for blowout preventers, 
including a requirement that blowout preventers operate as intended 
even when the force of an ongoing blowout shifts the drill pipe out of 
position.
  The amendment also requires new standards on safe well design and 
cementing to ensure multiple redundant barriers within the well against 
uncontrolled oil or gas blow that could lead to a blowout.
  The amendment also requires independent third-party certification of 
blowout preventers and well designs.
  Finally, the language ensures that if the Department of the Interior 
finds by some other measures that it has or may one day require would 
provide an even higher level of safety, that the Secretary can 
substitute those better alternatives instead.
  This is the direction we should be heading in.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. I would like to point out to my colleague that one of my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), H.R. 56 puts 
into law a portion of that report. And since he is so interested in 
making sure that some of the information in the President's report 
becomes law, I certainly hope he

[[Page H3137]]

will cosponsor that legislation. I am sure those in the gulf would 
appreciate that piece.
  I didn't know that he was an expert in oil and gas drilling. Because 
when I go back home and I talk to those in Louisiana, they tell me that 
they have already instituted safety guidelines above and beyond what 
the gentleman from Massachusetts puts forth here.
  The industry is safer today than it was the day before the Deepwater 
accident. In addition to that, we have the ability now, today, in the 
Gulf of Mexico, that no one else has in the world, to cap the type of 
incident that happened in the Gulf.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I agree with the gentleman from Louisiana; I am not an expert on 
drilling. We are congressional experts. And that is an oxymoron, a 
contradiction in terms, like ``jumbo shrimp'' or ``Salt Lake City night 
life.'' There is no such thing. We rely upon real experts.
  Here are the real experts: The Blue Ribbon Commission put together to 
study what went wrong and what needs to be done, and that is what my 
amendment will do. My amendment is very close to the legislation that 
passed 48-0 out of the Commerce Committee last year and was later 
adopted by the House. So all we are doing is just reflecting what all 
of these experts recommended and were finally incorporated.
  So we can ignore the experts, but then we roll the dice. And, once 
again, a part of our coastline could be held hostage to an oil company 
that was trying to save money but at risk of endangering the lives and 
the livelihood of millions of people off of the coastline off of our 
country.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote for the Markey amendment.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying that the experts 
that we should rely on are those that are in the Department of the 
Interior, Director Michael Bromwich with BOEMRE and all the way down, 
who have been working on this for the last year. They have extensive 
regulations. Some of what is proposed are actually regulations right 
now.
  And while the bill does call for certain safety standards to be 
satisfied and met, we have delegated the responsibility for the exact 
language and implementation of those regulations to those who deal with 
this 8 hours a day, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in 
and year out. So there is a balance. We give the broad parameters. They 
carry out, as a regulatory agency, every last final detail.
  And Congress, as has been admitted, does not have the technical 
expertise to foresee every single development and foresee every single 
problem that could arise. So while overseeing, we have to do some 
delegation. This bill does that. We strike that fine balance.
  And the administration's department has been doing a strong job of 
strengthening the safety requirements. I do take issue with the pace of 
their permitting. But as far as the safety implementation, they have 
put very aggressive safety measures into place.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Dold). It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 4 printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 6, insert the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding paragraph accordingly):
       ``(3) Worst-case discharge scenario certification.--The 
     Secretary shall not issue a permit under paragraph (1) 
     without certifying that the applicant--
       ``(A) has calculated a worst-case discharge scenario for 
     the proposed drilling operations; and
       ``(B) has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     that the applicant possesses the capability and technology to 
     respond immediately and effectively to such worst-case 
     discharge scenario.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment that I propose is a very simple and a commonsense 
amendment. First of all, let us recall where we come from.
  Title 43, section 1340, entitled ``Geological and Geophysical 
Explorations,'' is what is the subject of H.R. 1229; specifically, 
subsection D, entitled ``Drilling Permits.''
  Under that subsection, it states: The Secretary may, by regulation, 
require any lessee operating under an approved exploration plan to 
obtain a permit to drilling any well in accordance with such plan.
  What the amendments are proposing here today and what my amendment 
addresses is what is set forth at page 4. And I propose that it amends 
after line 6 and includes a subsection 3, which addresses the worst-
case discharge scenario certification. This amendment requires: The 
Secretary shall not issue a permit under paragraph 1 without certifying 
that the applicant, first, has calculated a worst-case discharge 
scenario for the proposed drilling operations; and, B, has demonstrated 
to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the applicant possesses the 
capability and technology to respond immediately and effectively to 
such worst-case discharge scenario.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking here to the people, the people across 
this Nation and in the world who watched the worst-case scenario, what 
happened in the BP oil spill. What we are simply saying is that before 
any permit is issued, that the Secretary take the precaution of, first, 
having assessed what that worst-case scenario could be; and, second, 
that applicant who is seeking this permit has both the capability and 
technology, and has demonstrated as such, to address that worst-case 
scenario.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a simple statement and it is a requirement that 
the people would like to see. No one wants to sit there and experience 
a BP oil spill again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do oppose this amendment because it is duplicative and unnecessary. 
This amendment attempts to expand upon the language in the bill that 
already mandates that the Secretary conduct a safety review to affirm 
oil spill response and containment capability prior to issuing a 
permit. We believe that the Department of the Interior already requires 
that applicants must calculate worst-case discharge before approving a 
permit.
  On June 18 of last year, the Department issued a notice to lessees 
outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a 
permit could be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee 
``describe the assumption and calculations that you used to determine 
the volume of your worst-case discharge scenario.''
  This exact language, this exact intention has already been addressed, 
so I would oppose this amendment as redundant and unnecessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HANABUSA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chair, if this amendment is duplicative, it should not be an 
issue, because what it does do is it contains the language that the 
people want to hear. The people want to hear, What is the worst case 
scenario? I also contend that it really does not do that. It is not 
duplicative.

[[Page H3138]]

  What is contained in the bill is the statement of critical safety 
system requirements, including blowout prevention and oil spill 
response and contamination requirements. It does not say ``the worst 
case scenario'' and it does not require the applicant to show, to show 
the Secretary that it has the capability and the technological ability 
to address that. So it is not duplicative.
  But to the extent that the opposer would like to say that it is 
duplicative, then I believe that they should not object to this 
because, after all, it does say what people want to hear. People want 
to be guaranteed that the BP oil spill does not happen again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee who has a district in the State of 
Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  Mr. CASSIDY. Rarely are the goals of our country as aligned as they 
are now. Clearly we need economic recovery with good jobs and with good 
benefits for those who frankly right now have a problem with 
unemployment. As it turns out, we also have the goal of increasing our 
energy security and, lastly, a goal of protecting our environment. Now, 
let's just go through these in order.
  As regards jobs, let's just talk about the oil and gas industry. The 
President, the administration's estimates of the economic impact of the 
moratorium and the permitorium are hundreds of thousands of jobs lost 
and about $2.5 billion in lost economic activity.
  This is not just the gulf coast and it is not just the oil rig 
workers. It is also those who work on pipelines. It is boat builders. 
Indeed, as it turns out, one of the boat builders in Louisiana is the 
largest customer worldwide of Caterpillar engines. An engine that is 
built in the State of Illinois using steel from the Midwest is used on 
the coast of Louisiana to build boats to service those rigs. Needless 
to say, those Caterpillar engines are not now being ordered. That steel 
order going to Caterpillar to build these is not being done. So the 
jobs that ripple out are not just in the gulf coast, but go all the way 
across the country.
  We also have a goal to increase our energy security. Prior to 
Macondo, one-third of the domestically produced oil in the United 
States came from the Outer Continental Shelf. Since we have limited 
further exploration, we have lost that potential to increase our 
domestic supply of energy, to increase our security, to insulate us, if 
you will, from those issues in North Africa which are currently driving 
up our fuel prices.
  Lastly, we have a goal to protect our environment. Oh, we all care 
about that. In Louisiana, we particularly care about that. We do not 
take this for granted. But in Louisiana, we realize you have to be both 
pro-business as well as pro-environment, and we take that very 
seriously.
  So what are the facts on this? The President right after the Macondo 
bill appointed a blue ribbon commission from the National Academy of 
Engineering. These engineers that the President picked said that the 
causes of the oil spill are identifiable and correctable and that a 
prolonged moratorium will not, will not, will not appreciably improve 
safety.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CASSIDY. So what we have seen since, though, is not a 
recommendation that the President's blue ribbon commission is right, 
but rather a regulatory hurdle set upon regulatory hurdle set upon 
regulatory hurdle. Now we have a notice to lessees which demands that 
which this amendment also demands, so we are going to have not just a 
notice to lessees, but we are going to have this amendment on top of 
it. At some point your hostility to an industry becomes hostility to 
workers, becomes hostility to our energy security and, frankly, becomes 
a hostility to our environment.
  I oppose this amendment. I think it is bad for our workers, I think 
it is bad for our economy, and I think it is bad for our environment.
  Ms. HANABUSA. May I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. HANABUSA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chair, I am sure that the gentleman from Louisiana has no 
intentions of saying that anyone who may want an amendment to this bill 
is somehow hostile or somehow anti-jobs, anti-energy security and anti-
environment, because that is not the intent.
  This bill has been labeled Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work 
Act. We have no objection to that, Mr. Chair. But why can't it also say 
Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act Safely? That is all that is 
being requested here.
  Let's look at what happened at the BP oil spill. Let's just make sure 
it doesn't happen again. Another spill like that, by taking these 
precautions, can be avoided, and by doing that, by doing that, we will 
not be faced with a situation where someone from that district would 
say we are hostile because we are not encouraging jobs or not 
encouraging energy security or not encouraging the environment. This is 
exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to do all of these, and 
it has a ripple effect throughout the Nation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, so at this point 
I am going to wait and close as soon as the gentlelady is done.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I request an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. 
It is a very straightforward, commonsense amendment. It addresses what 
the people want to hear and want to know, that we are ready to address 
the worst-case scenario, and the Secretary will not issue a permit 
until it is addressed, it is not only identified, but that the 
applicant has both the technological skills plus the capabilities to do 
it and prevent such a spill.
  We are all interested in the jobs and the economic security of the 
gulf and all the neighboring States in that area, plus its ripple 
effect. That is why we want to see that it never happens again, and 
that is why we want the people, the people, to be confident that we in 
Congress have addressed their concerns.
  I request an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that this 
amendment, though well intended, is duplicative; and I think that has 
been admitted by the other side and therefore is unnecessary.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be offered.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert closing 
     quotation marks and a following period.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair.
  H.R. 1229 includes language that would add a timeline to the 
permitting process for offshore oil and gas drilling. This provision 
states that, ``If the Secretary has not made a decision on the 
application by the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date the 
application is received by the Secretary, the

[[Page H3139]]

application is deemed approved.'' My amendment would simply strike this 
section. In other words, as it stands in the legislation before us, if 
for whatever reason--incomplete information, new information--the 
Secretary has not made a decision whether or not to approve the 
application, then the application will be considered from then on 
approved.
  There are a number of provisions in this bill that could make 
offshore drilling less safe. My amendment is aimed at perhaps the most 
dangerous of those provisions. This bill short-circuits existing 
requirements to protect oil industry workers and those who depend on 
marine resources for their livelihoods and so forth. Ensuring that 
environmental and safety standards are met--so that the new permits 
will not result in a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon disaster--is 
really too important to allow permits to go through the door 
prematurely and automatically simply because of an arbitrary timeline 
imposed by this legislation.
  Depending on the dedication of a particular Secretary to safety and 
environmental protection, H.R. 1229 would produce either precipitous 
automatic approval of an application to drill or unjustified rejection 
of a valid application if the review is not completed within the 
allotted time. Either way, the imposition of an arbitrary deadline is 
bad policy. It's based on a presumption that environmental and safety 
reviews are worthless and that there is really no value in getting the 
review right.
  My amendment would leave in place the permitting timeline set in H.R. 
1229, creating the sense of urgency my colleagues are seeking. But it 
would remove the automatic approval of drilling applications after that 
60-day timeline. If we've learned anything from the Deepwater Horizon 
disaster, it is that we must do more--not less--to protect those who 
work in the oil industry and those who depend on offshore resources and 
onshore resources for their livelihood.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The legislation on the floor today is designed to put Americans in 
the gulf region back to work and to ensure that permits are processed 
in a timely fashion and that bureaucratic delays are not hampering the 
Nation's energy production. There are critics of the timeline that is 
proposed in this bill on both sides of that timeline. Some say it's too 
short. Others say it is too long. It's important that people understand 
that nowhere in this bill do we require the administration to do 
anything but reach a decision, whatever that decision might be. They 
may deny an application at any time in the process as long as they 
provide a clear description of why they are doing so.
  Prior to the incident in the gulf, the administration was very 
capable of processing permits in 5 to 15 days on average. The 30-day 
timeline in the bill is significantly longer, and allows the 
administration extensions. In the end, the administration must reach a 
decision. The provision this amendment proposes to remove is the final 
deadline that the administration must meet and one that should be firm 
to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de 
facto moratorium or permitorium is instituted.
  This amendment, if adopted, would simply further delay offshore 
energy production. It would continue to allow the Department to 
arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that could cost 
thousands of jobs and allow higher prices on energy with less supply.
  I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. May I ask the Chair the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. Each side has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, my friend from Colorado talked about the harm 
that this bill would do and why it's important that the application be 
approved even if the review is not complete, even if the review is not 
yet done right. I wonder if the gentleman from Colorado thinks that 
maybe a student should graduate even if he hasn't taken the exam 
because the semester is coming to an end. Well, time's up. I guess we 
should just declare the student duly passed--even if the review hasn't 
been done.
  That's a question. If the gentleman feels that a student should be 
deemed passed because the semester is coming to an end, even if the 
review of that student's work has not been completed. I would yield to 
the gentleman if he cares to answer that. If not, I will continue.
  This legislation might make sense if we thought there was some 
economic need for it, if we thought that there was some safety need for 
it, if we thought it was important to grease the skids and move through 
the environmental review quickly. But none of those things apply. This 
will not bring down prices. Certainly, release of oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do more for prices at the pump than 
this. This won't make a bit of difference in the price at the pump, 
this legislation. It certainly won't help support an important but 
troubled industry. Actually, this industry is not troubled. This 
industry is going to take home about $100 billion dollars in profits 
this year. We don't need to grease the skids and make things easier for 
this industry because getting the review right would subject them to 
undue hardship. No. In fact, this is a very dangerous provision in a 
bill that is part of the set of ``Amnesia Acts.'' The bill is part of 
these three bills that pretend that there are no lessons to be learned 
from 2010; the bill that pretends the gulf oil blowout never occurred; 
that wills amnesia on the policy of the United States so that we forget 
that the worst oil spill in history from which there are real lessons 
to be learned never occurred.
  I urge passage of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I want to apologize. I was confused as to whether the 
gentleman was asking a rhetorical question or really wanted to have a 
colloquy. By the time I figured that out, he had moved on to the 
remainder of his argument. I would have been happy to and hopefully in 
the future I could have a colloquy on that with him.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. The gentleman must not understand that he wants to 
reinstate the de facto moratorium that is plaguing the Gulf of Mexico 
with this amendment. It is exactly what he's trying to put in place, 
which is allow the administration to drag its feet not only on the 
wells on the drilling in deep water but also on the Shelf as well. He 
must also be confused, because what the Democrats have proposed, what 
the other side has proposed in removing the tax breaks for these 
companies, would make oil and gas--the Congressional Research Service 
has reported that proposal would make oil and natural gas more 
expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase our foreign 
dependence.
  What are we here to do today? We're here to bring relief to Americans 
at the pump and get the Gulf of Mexico back to work.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I will conclude by saying that what this bill wants to 
accomplish is that the administration must reach a decision on whether 
a permit should be issued. This amendment proposes to remove the final 
deadline that the administration would have to meet and one that should 
be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that 
no de facto moratorium is instituted.

                              {time}  1830

  This amendment would simply further delay offshore energy production. 
That does not help jobs. It does not help the supply or cost of energy 
in this country. It would allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a 
de facto drilling moratorium that would cost thousands of jobs.
  I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H3140]]

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, strike the closing quotation marks and second 
     period at line 9, and after line 9 insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) This paragraph shall not apply before the date the 
     Secretary publishes a determination that the agency or bureau 
     of the Department of the Interior that administers this 
     section has been given adequate staff and budget resources to 
     properly review and process every application for a permit 
     under this subsection in order to ensure that no application 
     is processed without thorough review.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1229 would impose an artificial and 
arbitrary 30-day deadline, with up to two 15-day extensions, for a 
total of 60 maximum days for Interior Department action on drilling 
permit applications. If at the end of the 30- to 60-day period Interior 
has not acted by approving or disapproving the permit, the permit is 
``deemed'' approved automatically even if the environmental and safety 
review processes haven't been completed. If the Secretary decides that 
the agency hasn't had enough time to approve the permit, then his only 
choice is to deny the permit, undoubtedly leading to additional 
lawsuits from companies.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation doesn't get to the root of the 
problem. We all know through the numerous hearings last year that one 
of the fundamental causes of the BP spill was a lack of not only enough 
inspectors but a lack of inspectors with high levels of expertise and 
engineering knowledge. You wouldn't referee a game by doing away with 
the rules because the referee didn't know them; you'd get a better 
referee.
  If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and 
expertise to do the job right and on time, the Department shouldn't be 
forced to do the job too fast. We should be working to make government 
more efficient and more effective. My amendment addresses the root of 
this issue by lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the 
Department isn't given the necessary resources it needs to properly 
process applications expeditiously. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, instead of taking this opportunity to correct the 
fundamental problems underlying the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 
this bill simply moves to cut any last semblance of oversight or 
safeguards our country has placed on the inherently risky process of 
offshore deepwater oil drilling.
  H.R. 1229 would impose an artificial and arbitrary 30-day deadline, 
with up to two 15-day extensions, for a total of 60 days maximum, for 
Interior Department action on drilling permit applications. If at the 
end of that 30- to 60-day period Interior has not acted by approving or 
disapproving the permit, the permit is ``deemed'' approved 
automatically even if the environmental and safety reviews have not 
been completed.
  This is the exact wrong legislative response to the BP disaster. 
Rather than acting to make off-shore drilling safer and smarter, the 
underlying bill would make drilling faster and more reckless. Under 
this bill, we could actually have less rigorous oversight and review of 
offshore drilling than we had before the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
  By imposing an artificial and arbitrary deadline, the bill heavily 
biases the permitting process toward approval, placing undue burdens on 
reviewers to accelerate the process regardless of safety and 
environmental concerns.
  If the Secretary decides that the agency hasn't had enough time to 
approve the permit, then his only choice is to deny the permit 
undoubtedly leading to additional lawsuits from companies and the 
unrelenting onslaught of industry and Republican criticism. This bill 
is simply a catch 22 for the Department to either risk another 
disaster, or open up the Department even more to the vitriolic and 
false claims from industry and the Majority party of being anti-
business or anti domestic energy--not that the facts have kept that 
misinformation from being spread in the past.
  Mr. Chair, this legislation doesn't get to the root of the problem. 
We all know through the numerous hearings last year that one of the 
fundamental causes of the BP spill was a lack of not only enough 
inspectors, but a lack of inspectors with high levels of expertise and 
engineering knowledge. Prior to the spill, the few inspectors the 
government did have simply had to take the oil companies' word that 
everything was in order.
  I'm sure we all remember when the big five oil companies were caught 
pointing the finger of blame squarely at BP in a hearing last year, 
only to have it disclosed moments later that every one of their spill 
response documents and other application material was not only 
identical, but included completely inaccurate information, listing for 
example walruses as a critical species for the Gulf of Mexico and 
citing as an emergency contact a professor from Florida Atlantic 
University, who had long since passed away.
  We shouldn't have to take a company's word for it when there is so 
much at stake. We should ensure that the watchdogs have the tools they 
need to verify that everything is done properly. This is what 
my amendment aims to do. Congress shouldn't set an arbitrary timeline 
if Congress doesn't give the Department enough resources they need to 
properly do their job within that timeline.

  In fact, the recommendations of the National Commission on the BP 
Deepwater Horizon spill contain an entire section on ``The Need for 
Adequate Funding for Safety Oversight and Environmental Review,'' which 
lists a number of policy options letting the oil companies, not the 
American people, foot the bill. Sadly, the underlying legislation 
includes none of them.
  Mr. Chair, you wouldn't referee a game by doing away with the rules 
because the referee didn't know them; you'd get a better referee.
  The fact is that the regulators been grossly underfunded and 
understaffed in the past. With the Continuing Resolution's partial step 
toward reversing the ``shameful'' and years-long underfunding of 
offshore oversight, it was only half of what's needed to do the job 
right. The Director of the agency that oversees permitting, Michael 
Bromwich, just last month said: ``That is less than we need, but it is 
a significant sum, especially in a constrained budget environment where 
the funding of most other agencies is being cut. We desperately need 
more environmental scientists and more personnel to do environmental 
analysis. We desperately need more personnel to help us with the 
permitting process and much more.''
  If the Department isn't going to be given enough resources and 
expertise to do the job right, then the Department shouldn't be forced 
to do the job fast. Instead of creating unnecessary catch 22's for 
government, we should be working to make government more efficient and 
more effective. My amendment addresses the root of this issue by 
lifting the arbitrary timeline requirements if the Department isn't 
given the necessary resources it needs to properly process 
applications.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will do my 
best to be brief.
  The purpose of H.R. 1229 is to get residents of the gulf back to work 
in producing offshore energy. It is not only good for them; it is good 
for the entire country.
  This amendment, whether intended or not, would allow the 
administration to continue to impose a de facto moratorium that would 
delay American energy production and keep thousands of people out of 
work. The residents of the gulf are simply in a holding pattern, 
waiting for their jobs to come back. Some of them are even seeing their 
jobs outsourced to other countries as rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, 
bound for other parts of the world.
  Now, there is an established process for the administration to 
propose and advocate for funding and resources, which is different from 
what this amendment addresses. This annual process, the budget process, 
provides ample opportunity for considering what is needed to safely and 
responsibly oversee offshore energy production. Let us note that the 
House Republican majority, in enacting a budget, acted to increase 
funding for reviewing and approving offshore permits for the current 
year, which was not done by the Democratic Congress last year.
  This amendment would delay American energy production. For that 
reason, I oppose it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page H3141]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 
112-73 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Garamendi of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 245, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                               AYES--167

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Capps
     Conyers
     Giffords
     Green, Al
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Langevin
     Manzullo
     Nunnelee
     Paul
     Reed
     Reyes
     Speier
     Tsongas
     Waxman

                              {time}  1857

  Messrs. FLAKE and TURNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HAYWORTH, Ms. MOORE, and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 240, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               AYES--169

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran

[[Page H3142]]


     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bishop (NY)
     Carney
     Conyers
     Giffords
     Green, Al
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Langevin
     Manzullo
     Meehan
     Nunnelee
     Paul
     Reed
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross (FL)
     Speier
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1904

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 300, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 300, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 237, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg

[[Page H3143]]


     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Becerra
     Conyers
     Giffords
     Green, Al
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Langevin
     Manzullo
     Nunnelee
     Paul
     Reed
     Reyes
     Speier
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1912

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, today I was unavoidably detained 
and missed the votes on:
  Polis (CO) Amendment (#1). Requires review of permits by the Interior 
Department to take into consideration all applicable safety, 
environmental and fisheries laws, such as the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''' on this amendment.
  Garamendi (CA) Amendment (#2). Implements the independent BP spill 
commission's recommendation by requiring that in reviewing a drilling 
permit, the Secretary consult with an independent drilling safety 
organization not affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no''' on this amendment.
  Markey (MA) Amendment (#3). Implements offshore drilling safety 
reforms recommended by the BP Spill Commission and would set specific 
new minimum standards for blow-out preventers, cementing and well 
design. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Graves of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dold, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1229) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to facilitate the 
safe and timely production of American energy resources from the Gulf 
of Mexico, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________