Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 64 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3193-H3207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REVERSING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OFFSHORE MORATORIUM ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 257 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. 1231.

{time} 1616

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. 1231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer
leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources,
to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal, and for
other purposes with Mr. Campbell (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) had 16\1/2\ minutes remaining and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) had 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If enacted, this bill will open up areas of the Outer Continental
Shelf where there are the greatest known oil and gas reserves that
contain billions of barrels of oil. With resources like these, it is a
wonder that we continue to rely on other countries for most of our
energy. While the administration is encouraging other countries to
produce oil, Americans are unable to access large areas of our own
energy supply here.
H.R. 1231 will hold the administration accountable by setting
production goals to make sure that we provide enough energy for our
country while reducing the dependence on foreign oil. Gas prices have
increased by 12.9 cents per gallon in my hometown of Chattanooga,
Tennessee, during the last month alone.
Plain and simply, we know that increased oil and natural gas
production will drive down gas prices. We should have the ability to
access our vast resources at home. Mr. Chairman, we have the means to
provide relief for our growing energy deficit, and passage of this bill
will be a step towards providing these means for our country.
Mr. HOLT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Berg).
Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, my home State of North Dakota is rich in
natural resources, and we have seen tremendous economic opportunity
from the Bakken field. Through EMPOWER North Dakota, we were able to
adopt a long-term energy plan in our State. It encouraged new energy
development; and it created high-paying, high-quality jobs in the
energy industry. In fact, today our unemployment rate is the lowest in
the Nation.
We can have the same success on the national level, but to do so we
need a long-term commonsense plan that is a national energy policy that
must work to increase America's energy production, lower gas prices,
and ultimately break our dependence on foreign oil.

{time} 1620

America's families and small businesses are hurting. Gas prices are
over $4 a gallon. Energy bills are hindering business growth. National
unemployment remains a very high 9 percent. There is enormous potential
in the gulf for energy development that can help turn our country's
problems around. Our addiction to foreign energy is not sustainable. It
threatens our national security. It's time to invest our resources that
we have here in the United States. We need to lower energy costs and
get Americans back to work.
As a member of the House Energy Action Team and a proud North
Dakotan, I'm committed to working hard towards a national long-term
energy policy. Let's pass this bill, get the gulf back to work and
break our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. HOLT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The majority, the sponsors of this bill, say that we need it because
supply is dwindling and gasoline prices are climbing and employment is
terrible. Well, I'll grant they have got a point on a couple of items
here. But it has nothing to do with this legislation. They bring
forward a bill to help the oil supply when it is a fact, I say to my
colleague, that 79 percent of all of the potential oil reserves as
calculated by

[[Page H3194]]

the nonpartisan prospectors on the whole Continental Shelf are already
under the current leasing program. Sixty million acres. This is
indisputable. Sixty million acres offshore are under existing lease and
contain 11.5 billion barrels. So this ``hurry up and drill''
legislation is certainly not necessary for that.
As for employment, I said it before and I'll say it again. It is a
fact. During the 5 years previously when the four oil companies took
home $485 billion in profits, their combined American workforce dropped
by 10,200 employees. They made money. They laid people off. So we can
check that one off, too. It's not about employment.
How about prices? This year's leases have nothing to do with this
year's price at the gas pump--or next year's. In fact, not for 20
years. Might it have an effect? Oh, yes, there's a supply problem. The
supply problem is that U.S. oil reserves amount to about 2 percent of
the world's oil reserves. About 2 percent. My colleagues say, Oh, no,
those calculations are wrong. Okay, I'll give you a break. Let's say
we're off by a factor of two. How about a factor of three? How about a
factor of four? We would still be one of the smallest oil supplies of
the oil-producing countries. So this is not about that.
The prices are determined right now at the pump largely by
speculation. According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
speculators increased their energy future contracts--their positions--
by 64 percent over the last couple of years, totaling more than a
million contracts. They are trading in each day far more paper barrels
than barrels of oil are ever delivered. It's speculation, pure and
simple. Speculators have moved from holding 30 percent of the open
interest in the commodity markets to 70 percent. And you wonder why the
prices at the pump are so high. Even Goldman Sachs says that
speculation is responsible for many tens of dollars of the hundred
dollars a barrel that is now the world price for oil.
Going back a decade, the majority voted to exempt all energy
derivatives from CFTC regulations. And then when the Dodd-Frank
financial reform bill came along, they opposed the enactment to give
the CFTC the power to regulate energy derivatives. They voted to slash
the CFTC budget as part of H.R. 1. Right now in the Agriculture
Committee and the Financial Services Committee, they are working to
block any possibility that the CFTC would put in regulations to limit
or reduce speculation.
So if my colleagues want to do something to deal with the high gas
prices, I will give them a list of things to do. It is not this bill.
We do not need to cut corners. We do not need to deem that inadequate
applications for leasing are adequate. We do not need to deem that
environmental impact statements that are clearly inadequate are
adequate. We do not need to open up the east coast and west coast to
willy-nilly rapid drill prospecting. We certainly do not.
Now, one thing I'll hand my colleagues. They yesterday said we really
need to get away from these environmental regulations that are stymying
the oil companies, that are making it hard for them to earn their
profits, these burdensome environmental regulations. I'll give them one
thing. These regulations, the environmental impact statement that was
prepared for the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico this year that they
want to expand on into the future that has in it a plan for dealing
with walruses, because they think that's a really good environmental
impact statement that's based on the real world facts--you're right. In
the Macondo well in the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon, we didn't
lose a single walrus's life.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. In closing, I just repeat, let's live in the real world.
Let's deal with the facts. Facts matter. And this bill can have
devastating consequences for workers, for those who have to travel by
car and buy gasoline, and for those who earn their living fishing and
dealing with tourism in the gulf and in New Mexico and in California.
Let's not pass another ``Amnesia Act.'' Let's not ignore the spill and
drill, baby, drill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I ask how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this
legislation. I would like Americans to understand that the issue of
whether we should drill or not is long overdue because I have heard
this argument for 36 years because I was here when we drilled and
opened the Trans-Alaska pipeline to provide 17 billion barrels of oil
to America--17 billion barrels of oil.
I've heard people say that there's only 2 percent. That is a figure
that was arrived at in 1955. We have new estimates with new technology.
We think we have about 20 percent of the world's reserves in fossil
fuels. And we're not producing them. I've heard the argument this
wouldn't change the price of gasoline. It's not quick enough. I heard
that 25 years ago.
We need to produce so we have a stable supply of domestic fossil
fuels so other countries and speculators don't take advantage. They
have us right now in a position they can take advantage of because we
are not producing any oil of any consequence in the United States right
now. We're down to 600,000 barrels a day in Alaska. If we drop much
more, we won't even have that 600,000 barrels a day. Yet we have in
Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, there's been $5 billion spent to find oil.
We have not had the permit to drill because of this administration.
They think there's 27 billion barrels of oil in one offshore
development. The other one has approximately 14 billion barrels of oil
in one offshore development. Of course, we have ANWR, which that side
does not support, to a great degree, that has probably 39 billion
barrels of oil.

{time} 1630

You add up that amount of oil and you have oil that will last this
country for a hundred years.
Now, yes, we ought to have other forms of energy. But the Obama
administration is trying to force this country into a green energy
future. This is a policy. I heard the former Speaker say it. Of course
it makes sense to reduce our dependency on oil, as I said before, but
no one takes into consideration the impact upon the economy of this
Nation.
New Jersey is building an LNG plant to receive gas from overseas.
That's well and good, buying foreign gas, when we have trillions of
feet of gas in the United States of America.
We are costing not only jobs but the dependency--and everybody talks
about the high price of gasoline. It's caused primarily because of
spiking. Some little incident in the Middle East--the OPEC countries
supposedly have 70 percent of our oil--raises the price of that
gasoline. You can't have a model economy and a business and have those
spikes. If the price was $5 across the board and you knew it was going
to be $5 across the board for the next 40 years, you could build your
economy on that. But we have gas at $5 a gallon now, the first of June,
and it may go up to $6 in August. It may be down a little bit. We need
to stabilize it. Only we can do this.
But this administration is trying to convert America into their green
technology. Technology of wind. Technology of, let's say, solar. Wind
power is 17 cents a kilowatt compared to 5 cents for coal. Mr. and Mrs.
America, you're paying for that. And again, as I said in one of my
statements, this, in fact, is a tax on the American people. This is an
Obama tax because of the lack of the cheaper fuel that's necessary to
keep our economy running.
The impediments of oil and gas production is another reason, the
slowdown of Federal leases. We talk about everything that's leased and
permitting offshore and onshore. Only six permits have been issued
since the Gulf of Mexico, the time the BP spill happened--six permits.
Leasing in the Gulf of Mexico coast has been delayed for several years.
Offshore permitting for oil and gas has been slowed down to a real slow
crawl.
America, I keep telling you, you are being taxed by an administration
that does not understand the necessity for fossil fuels for our
economy. The movement of product, the receiving of product and the
shipping of product, the deliverance of people, the deliverance of

[[Page H3195]]

supplies by air, ship, plane, train, automobile, and truck. That's what
makes this country great.
And here we sit with a group that says, oh, we're going to save the
environment. I'm all for that. But you don't have an energy policy and
you can't have it off fossil fuels. Anybody who says we're going to
have one off fossil fuels is not even thinking about fuels, not even
thinking about energy. You can't do it with wind power. We might get a
little wind power if we put a propeller on the top of this Capitol to
collect all the hot air that comes out of here most of the time. That
might work. But we're not going to do it with solar power. You need all
the forms of energy. And this administration so far has not promoted
anything but the two most expensive: wind and solar.
We need our fossil fuels. We need to make sure the agencies under
this administration make sure that we develop our energies, or we
cannot go anywhere. And if they can't do it, then it's up to this
Congress. This Congress, this bill, this legislation, and the two
previous bills are a step forward, a necessary step for this Nation. We
need to keep going. So employ Americans and quit buying foreign oil.
You talk about being hooked on dope, that's what we are. We're hooked
on foreign oil. Yet we have people that say we can't develop our own
oil, we can't develop our own resources, that it will hurt somebody,
somebody will be harmed and we can't do it.
That's not true. We can do it. In the gulf there were 41,000 wells
drilled without a spill. Add one spill and everybody thinks the world
came to an end. It was bad, yes. Do we learn from it? Yes, as we did
with Exxon Valdez. We learned from that and we will improve upon that.
But not to let them drill, not to let them produce that oil, not to let
them help America out, not employ Americans, that is dead wrong.
So I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and reject the
amendments that are going to be offered. They are not the amendments
they should be.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
1231. I had offered amendments because I believe in responsible
increase in offshore drilling. I offered amendments to improve upon
this bill that would have provided for revenue sharing with coastal
states and a study and report back to Congress to ensure that the
Department of Interior has proper funding for staffing and training and
technical engineers and such other personnel as is necessary to
responsibly increase offshore drilling.
As a Representative from an oil and gas producing District and state,
I am aware that offshore drilling is an important component of the
nation's energy supply and provides many Gulf communities with
significant jobs and income.
My state supplies 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-
third of the nation's natural gas production; a quarter of the nation's
refining capacity and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical
manufacturing.
The Texas energy and petrochemical clusters employ 600,000 people,
which represent 70 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the total
U.S. workforce in those industries.
Houston is home to some of the world's largest oil, gas, and
petrochemical facilities.
As the fourth most populous city in the United States, and the
greater Houston area remains a diversified regional economy, with the
energy industry contributing 50 percent of our economic base for
employment. Even so there is no denying the importance of the energy
industry for creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation.
We have consistently led the nation in petroleum production since the
early 10th century and we have one-fourth of total U.S. oil reserves.
As a coastal state we provide the resources and the mechanisms to
support the offshore drilling industry and we also bare the highest
risk to our natural resources. Its stands to reason that we should also
have access to revenue generated from Offshore leases.
Federal Revenues from offshore leases were estimated at $18.0 billion
in FY 2008 by the Department of the Interior. During the previous 10
years (1998-2007), revenues from federal OCS leases reached as high as
$7.6 billion in FY 2006. Higher prices for oil and gas are the most
significant factors in the revenue swings. Of the $18.0 billion
offshore revenue in FY 2008, $8.3 billion was from royalties and $9.5
billion came from bonus bids. Coastal states can use that money to
further support the industry that utilizes our highways and waterways.
A significant portion of oil and gas produced from Gulf Outer
Continental Shelf leases is transported to those refineries for
processing via offshore pipeline through state waters.
Providing coastal states with additional access to revenue will
enable these states to protect their natural resources and advance the
transport of oil, gas, and petrochemicals across the United States.
Coastal States like Texas with energy development off their shores in
federal waters have been seeking additional federal revenues generated
off our shores.
We particularly want more assistance for coastal areas that may be
most affected by onshore and near-shore activities that support
offshore energy development.
Currently, the affected states receive revenue indirectly from
offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters. This is in contrast to
the direct revenues to states that have onshore federal leases within
their boundaries.
Coastal states bear the greatest risks if there is a disaster.
Because of the current and wind patterns in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas'
coastal natural resources are most at risk for environmental damage in
the event of an oil spill from an offshore production platform or
pipeline. In addition, a substantial portion of federal Outer
Continental Shelf production is refined in Texas and then transported
via state highways or pipeline located in the state.
A significant amount of the infrastructure that will be used to
explore and develop the resources in these new lease sales will be
constructed in Texas and transported through state waters. The same
might be said for other coastal states whose shores and resources are
dedicated to offshore drilling.
Annual rental rates are $5-$9.50 per acre, with lease sizes generally
ranging from 2,500-5,760 acres. However, annual rental rates for the
March 2009 sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico begins at $11.00 per acre
for lease in water depths over 200 meters. Initial lease terms of 5-10
years are standard, and leases continue as long as commercial
quantities of hydrocarbons are being produced.
Demand for petroleum products in the U.S. remains strong. In 2005,
each of the estimated 296 million people in the U.S. used an average of
almost three gallons of petroleum every day. In 1978, the average
American used 3.5 gallons per day.
In 2006, crude oil imports totaled 10.1 million barrels per day
(MBD), two-thirds of the total U.S. supply of 15.2 MBD, according to
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). After several additions of other petroleum products by
refiners and fuel blenders, total petroleum consumption came to 20.6
MBD for 2006.
The oil and gas industry supports job growth in my state of Texas and
across our nation.
In Texas, the oil and gas industry supports 1.7 million jobs and
approximately 25 percent of the state's economy, whereas nationwide the
industry supports 9.2 million jobs and 7.5 percent of our nation's
economy.
We should focus our attention on providing the Department of Interior
with funding and resources it needs to provide for training and
staffing of technical engineers and other such necessary personnel to
review drilling permit applications and determine future offshore lease
sale areas.
The Department of Interior must be properly funded and staffed with
technical engineers to review permits, examine lease sales, and ensure
that each application is afforded proper consideration
For these reasons, I urge the Members as they vote on this important
measure which certainly relates to job creation and national energy
independence, that they consider a fair and balance approach as we aim
to protect the environment and determine the most responsible measures
to provide for the energy our nation requires.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
1231. This bill will ensure that our federal offshore oil and natural
gas resources are accessible to us. This is essential for America's
energy security.
For years, I have supported bills that would increase funding to
research and development projects dealing with new and cleaner energy
sources as well as provide financial incentives to produce energy from
wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, for consumers to purchase fuel
efficient vehicles, increase energy efficiency standards for buildings
and appliances, and promote public transit efforts. I will continue to
support programs and projects seeking to create cleaner energy
technologies because we all benefit from a cleaner environment.
Finally, coming from Texas, which is the nation's leader in renewable
energy production and a pioneer in developing its own state portfolio
standard, I support efforts to promote renewable energy production that
meets the unique circumstances and resources of each state.
But even with these increases in renewable energy, the Energy
Information Administration found that oil, natural gas, and coal will
continue to make up the large majority of U.S. energy use in 2030 and
beyond. As our nation's energy demand continues to increase, reasonable
access and exploration of our offshore resources is a key component of
our nation's energy security.

[[Page H3196]]

It is our job to provide affordable and reliable supplies of energy
to American consumers, and this bill will help in our effort.
For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 1231

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 ``Reversing President Obama's
Offshore Moratorium Act''.

SEC. 2. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM.

Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this
section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and
conduct lease sales including--
``(i) at least 50 percent of the available unleased acreage
within each outer Continental Shelf planning area considered
to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil
and gas resources (on a total btu basis) based upon the most
recent national geologic assessment of the outer Continental
Shelf, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically
prospective parts of the planning area; and
``(ii) any State subdivision of an outer Continental Shelf
planning area that the Governor of the State that represents
that subdivision requests be made available for leasing.
``(B) In this paragraph the term `available unleased
acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf
that is not under lease at the time of a proposed lease sale,
and that has not otherwise been made unavailable for leasing
by law.
``(5)(A) In the 2012-2017 5-year oil and gas leasing
program, the Secretary shall make available for leasing any
outer Continental Shelf planning areas that--
``(i) are estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000
barrels of oil; or
``(ii) are estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000
cubic feet of natural gas.
``(B) To determine the planning areas described in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document
entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of
Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of
the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.

SEC. 3. DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION GOAL.

Section 18(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production Goal.---
``(1) In general.--In developing a 5-year oil and gas
leasing program, and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall determine a domestic strategic production goal for the
development of oil and natural gas as a result of that
program. Such goal shall be--
``(A) the best estimate of the possible increase in
domestic production of oil and natural gas from the outer
Continental Shelf;
``(B) focused on meeting domestic demand for oil and
natural gas and reducing the dependence of the United States
on foreign energy; and
``(C) focused on the production increases achieved by the
leasing program at the end of the 15-year period beginning on
the effective date of the program.
``(2) 2012-2017 program goal.--For purposes of the 2012-
2017 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the production goal
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an increase by 2027
of--
``(A) no less than 3,000,000 barrels in the amount of oil
produced per day; and
``(B) no less than 10,000,000,000 cubic feet in the amount
of natural gas produced per day.
``(3) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually,
beginning at the end of the 5-year period for which the
program applies, to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate on the progress of the
program in meeting the production goal. The Secretary shall
identify in the report projections for production and any
problems with leasing, permitting, or production that will
prevent meeting the goal.''.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in House Report 112-74. 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. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112-74.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as a designee of Chairman Doc
Hastings, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 10, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 4, line 6, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment that corrects a drafting error in the bill that was
discovered by the legislative counsel after H.R. 1231 was reported from
the committee with bipartisan support.
The amendment changes the paragraph numbers in section 2 so they
correctly reflect the sequence of appearance in the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection and we urge swift
passage.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-74.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. 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 3, line 12, insert ``, except in locations that would
interfere, conflict with, or impede operations of the Armed
Forces,'' after ``conduct lease sales''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment
clarifies that any expanded oil production will not interfere with
ongoing operations by the Armed Forces of the United States.
I appreciate Congressman Bobby Scott and Congressman Jim Moran for
their cosponsorship of this amendment. There are no stronger advocates
for the military in my State than those two gentlemen.

{time} 1640

As you know, the United States has more than two dozen coastal naval
bases, including those located in Virginia, Washington, California,
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina,
Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, and Hawaii.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness published a
report, noting that many of these potential locations for oil
exploration could and might conflict with DOD operations in these
locations. For example, DOD has surface/subsurface operating areas and
DOD special use airspace/warning areas off every coastal State in the
continental United States.
You can see from this map that there are the red dots where they
actually have bases and that the spiderwebs are where they have
operations offshore.
These areas are important because the military uses some of these
areas for surface and subsurface training as well as practice with live
ordnance. Oil wells and live ordnance don't mix so well. For example,
the Norfolk Naval Base in my home State of Virginia uses 78 percent of
the proposed Lease Sale 220 area right now for training and live
ordnance practice. The Navy wants to

[[Page H3197]]

ensure that oil drilling in that area does not interfere with live
ordnance release and impact, including air to surface bombing;
sensitive undersea and surface operations; combined shipboard systems
qualification trials; and equipment testing and evaluation.
Norfolk is America's largest naval base and is a major driver of our
State's annual $10 billion government contracting economy. It would be
difficult to quantify how many billions of dollars taxpayers have spent
building and maintaining these military installations all around the
continental United States, but relocation costs would be substantial,
and we don't have that money.
My friend from Alaska talks about putting people out of work or
putting people into work. Believe me, if we had to close or relocate
these bases, there would be a lot of weeping and mashing of teeth in
the unemployment line all across America. The costs wouldn't just be
borne by the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, but also by the servicemen and -
women who would have to relocate, and by the tens of thousands of
contractor employees who rely on the DOD.
Perhaps it's possible to co-locate oil drilling infrastructure in
areas now used by the Navy or other components of the Armed Forces. In
that case, this amendment would not get in the way of the oil
exploration. This amendment simply ensures that any additional oil
drilling which takes place in accordance with this bill will not
conflict with the national security operations of the Armed Forces.
I am sure that energy development and national security can be
mutually reinforcing and compatible, and I hope that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle would support this commonsense amendment to
protect our national defense and national security. I know we can all
agree that preserving those should be paramount as we consider changes
to our Nation's energy policy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Both the Outer Continental Lands Shelf Act and the 2003 National
Defense Act already fully protect the Defense Department's
responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf and the State coastal
areas of the OCS. H.R. 1231 continues these protections.
As Chairman Hastings stated last week during debate on a very similar
amendment to H.R. 1230, preserving the working relationship between the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great
importance to the Natural Resources Committee. Because of this, H.R.
1231 meets the mutual goals of balancing national security and energy
independence, but this amendment would upset the balance.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense never notified,
never talked to us about any opposition to this legislation.
H.R. 1231 fully supports the Department of the Interior's work with
the Department of Defense in addressing the necessary stipulations that
will protect the military mission on the OCS during the development of
lease sales.
I also want to point out that gaining access to domestically
available and affordable energy resources is also of paramount
importance to our national security because it lessens our dependence
on foreign sources of energy. Let me say that again. It must be very
clear: Energy security and energy independence are a national security
priority.
Additionally, developing our own energy resources benefits the
Department of Defense. According to the Brookings Institution, every
$10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil increases the cost of
Defense operations by $1.3 billion. Lowering energy prices should be a
priority for American consumers and for the Department of Defense.
This amendment isn't truly aimed at protecting DOD activities. It's
aimed at trying to block lease sales and stopping offshore energy and
development. That's what this is about. So I congratulate the people
who are offering this amendment. It's exactly what you'd like to do.
Again, Defense activities are not hindered by energy development. The
Departments of Defense and the Interior work well together to balance
the needs of our Nation. H.R. 1231 allows both offshore energy leasing
and military activities to go forward and exist in a safe, responsible
way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would just say to my friend from Alaska
that I won't have anybody questioning my sincerity about trying to
protect the national security interests of the United States of
America. I come from a State with a long military tradition. I am proud
of that tradition, and I am here sincerely to protect national
security. If we want to disagree with that, that's fine, but
questioning the motivations of whether there is another agenda is a
different matter.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield the balance of my time to my distinguished
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from
Virginia.
I would remind my good friend from Alaska that the U.S. Atlantic
Fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval Base, and operates in the same
waters that this legislation proposes to sell for oil and gas
development. Filling this area with drilling rigs is a bad idea.
Now, we have been told verbally and in writing that there should be
no lease sales in 72 percent of this lease area because it's in direct
conflict with the operations of the Navy. Five percent, in addition,
would interfere with aerial operations and should not host permanent
surface structures like drilling rigs. There is another 1 percent that
would have site-specific stipulations. Then you're left with 22
percent, and much of that 22 percent is dedicated to the shipping lanes
for the country's two busiest commercial ports: Hampton Roads and
Baltimore.
There are other areas offshore, I'm sure, that are also important to
the Armed Forces, but we are responsible for Virginia. We know the
situation there. We are not going to jeopardize those jobs. I would say
that national security interests ought to trump oil and gas
development.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I inquire of the time remaining on both
sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 3 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Virginia's time has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this amendment. It's unnecessary and boy if we can't get the
government to work together there is something wrong, something deadly
wrong. This is about defense. This is about the department of enter,
this is about the American people. We ought to be able to work together
and I'm sure they can. I'm confident of it and the idea that this is
going to hurt the mission is again a way to stop drilling. That's all
it is. Maybe if we had that 23 percent open and we knew exactly where
it was we might be able to drill there but I don't think they would
support that either.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
This amendment would prohibit offshore lease sales from going forward
if those leases would interfere or impede the operations of the United
States Armed Forces.
I represent the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, which is home to
the world's largest Naval Base at Norfolk. Our Navy trains extensively
off the coast of my state in the Virginia Capes Operations Area. A
significant section of a proposed lease sale for drilling off
Virginia's coast is within this important military training zone.
There are nearly 30 coastal naval installations in the United States
and the Defense Department has expressed concerns that offshore oil and
gas development could hinder the military's ability to train in many of
these offshore areas.
I have long had reservations about drilling off the coast of
Virginia. I believe the environmental, economic and national security
risks for drilling off the coast of Virginia far outweigh any benefits.
This amendment would simply ensure that offshore oil and gas
development will not disrupt these vital functions to our national
defense.

[[Page H3198]]

I urge my colleagues to support the Connolly Amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-74.
Mr. MARKEY. 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 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the
second period, and after line 19 insert the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Eligibility for new leases and the transfer of
leases.--
``(A) Issuance of new leases.--
``(i) In general.--In each oil and gas leasing program
under this section, beginning with the 2012-2017 5-year
program, the Secretary of the Interior shall specify that the
Secretary will not accept bids on any new leases offered
pursuant to this Act from a person described in paragraph (2)
unless the person has renegotiated each covered lease with
respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the
payment responsibilities of the person to require the payment
of royalties if the price of oil and natural gas is greater
than or equal to the price thresholds described in clauses
(v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
``(ii) Persons described.--A person referred to in clause
(i) is a person that--

``(I) is a lessee that--

``(aa) holds a covered lease on the date on which the
Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or
``(bb) was issued a covered lease before the date of
enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to
another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate
of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or

``(II) any other person that has any direct or indirect
interest in, or that derives any benefit from, a covered
lease.

``(iii) Multiple lessees.--

``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (1), if there are
multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the
Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee
with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment
responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to
include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the
price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of
section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
``(II) Treatment of share as covered lease.--Beginning on
the effective date of an agreement under subclaseu (I), any
share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered
lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the
agreement.

``(B) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any
direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit
from, a covered lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale
or other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff,
servicing, or other agreement) any new lease made available
in an oil and gas leasing program under this section, or the
economic benefit of such a new lease, unless the lessee or
other person has--
``(i) renegotiated each covered lease with respect to which
the lessee or person is a lessee, to modify the payment
responsibilities of the lessee or person to include price
thresholds that are equal to or less than the price
thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section
8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or
``(ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to
modify the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other
person to include limitations on royalty relief based on
market prices that are equal to or less than the price
thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section
8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
``(i) Covered lease.--The term `covered lease' means a
lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that
is--

``(I) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
``(II) issued by the Department of the Interior under
section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty
Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
``(III) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based
on market price that are equal to or less than the price
thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section
8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).

``(ii) Lessee.--The term `lessee' includes any person or
other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or
under common control with, a lessee.
``(iii) New lease.--The term `new lease' means a lease
issued in a lease sale under this Act.
``(iv) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the first quarter of this year, the oil companies
were actually able to make $35 billion in profits; but in my amendment,
we are able to say to them, because of a flaw in leases in the 1990s
which required them to pay no royalties on public lands--taxpayers'
lands--for oil they're drilling for right now and charging $100 a
barrel, $4 a gallon at the pump, that we think there is something wrong
when the taxpayers don't get anything back.

{time} 1650

And so what my amendment says is that they can't apply for any more
leases on taxpayers' land unless they're willing to renegotiate the
mistaken leases that were given to them that, by the way, will allow
them to escape having to pay $53 billion in taxes, in royalties. That's
another word for taxes, ``royalties.'' When you're talking about oil,
``royalties'' is the word we use to describe taxes.
This blank check to the oil industry is absolutely undeserved. The
Republican approach to offshore oil royalty policy is to treat the Big
Oil companies like royalty and to treat the consumers and taxpayers
like peasants. They're just going to give away all these breaks to the
oil industry.
You know, Prince William and Kate Middleton just left on their
honeymoon. Their royalty honeymoon is just beginning. But for the oil
companies who are drilling for free on public land, they have a royalty
honeymoon that has been going on for way too long, and today, we're
going to give the Members of the House a chance to end the honeymoon on
the royalties that the oil industry has to pay.
Now, what are the Republicans going to do? They're going to oppose
it. They're going to say, no, we need more tax breaks, $4 billion worth
of tax breaks, for the oil industry. And so where are they going to
find the money for those additional tax breaks that they want to give
to the oil industry? Well, they looked around and they decided that the
best place to find it was in Medicare, that is, in the health care that
we give to Grandma and Grandpa. And so what they have done is they've
set up a drilling rig for the oil industry on top of the Medicare
program so they can drill into the pockets of Grandma and Grandpa to
find the $4 billion in tax breaks, and then on top of that, protect
them against having to pay the royalties, the taxes on where they're
already drilling for free on taxpayers' land in our country.
Now, that's an unbelievable combination, and they do it while cutting
the renewables budget by 70 percent. Can you believe this? It's 2011.
The Republicans have already passed a bill cutting the renewables
budget--wind and solar, biomass, geothermal--by 70 percent, and they're
setting up an oil rig on top of the Medicare program of Grandma and
Grandpa to drill for even more tax breaks for the oil industry. This is
just an unbelievable debate that we're having.
And they say over here, ``Well, you know, we're the all of the above
party; we want to do it all.'' But the truth is that they're really the
oil above all party, and that's what this debate is all about, how can
we get even more for the oil industry.
So what my amendment will do is to just give people an opportunity to
reclaim that $53 billion from the oil industry and give it to Grandma.
Of all the people who don't need a break, a subsidy this year, it's the
oil industry. You know who needs a break? You know who needs a subsidy?
It's Grandma. Let's not cut Medicare. Let's not cut her health care in
order to help the oil industry. Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H3199]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. With all due respect to Grandma and Grandpa,
there's no Grandma and Grandpa that has Medicare taken away from them
or anywhere else. That's pure demagoguery on this floor, and we know
that, tied into the oil companies.
It's ironic to me, this House has debated and voted on this amendment
over the years. They've defeated it by a bipartisan vote. Just like a
bad penny, it keeps showing up and the Big Oil is all bad. All I know,
the American public is being taxed every year, $1,100 every year by
this administration's high gas prices.
Let's review the facts. The Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases were
issued by, oh, boy, Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt in 1996 and 2000.
Oh, my good Lord, it was the Republicans that did all this. They're the
ones that issued these leases, and those who hold these leases have
repeatedly been successful in challenging the Interior Department's
authority to include price thresholds in lease agreements. The
Department of the Interior has lost at the Federal district court, the
appellate court, the United States Supreme Court, and now we're going
to interfere with a court decision?
If this amendment passes, those holding such leases will be required
to renegotiate the lease terms with DOI to include price thresholds
before getting new leases. Bill Clinton would turn over--no, he's not
in his grave, so I can't say that. The Secretary does not--and I repeat
does not--have the authority to include price thresholds on these
leases. In addition, forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would
be a violation of contract law and would be challenged in court.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that just comes out of where, I
don't know. It's a time to demagogue on the floor about Medicare. It
has nothing to do with oil leases. It has nothing to do with the so-
called tax breaks that Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt put in place.
George Bush wasn't there. Mr. Obama wasn't there. Bill Clinton did
this.
Lo and behold, somebody has to renegotiate something. Let's start
renegotiating contracts all over the countryside. Maybe we ought to
start doing that. Some of the contracts made, and I think we did this
the last election, their contracts were terminated.
I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MARKEY. Could the Chair tell me how much time we have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from Alaska has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Alaska has the right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. We have a big choice here. We can reclaim $53 billion
from the oil and gas industry that they owe to the American taxpayer
and put it into wind and solar and all-electric vehicles and the
revolution that we need to transform our country's relationship with
OPEC. We should be able to tell OPEC, We don't need your oil any more
than we need your sand.
This is a chance here to reclaim the $53 billion in windfall profits
by escaping royalties that the oil industry owes, and put it into a new
technology innovation agenda that talks about the future of wind and
solar and electric vehicles that will transform our relationship with
the rest of the planet.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
Massachusetts' comments, but wind power is subsidized energy. That's
all it is. Wind power is subsidized by the taxpayer. Solar power is
subsidized by the taxpayer. To try to transform this country into using
wind and solar by raising the cost of gasoline to the American consumer
is dead wrong. That's not the way to solve this problem.
I will support wind power when it's not subsidized. I will support
solar power when it's not subsidized, and I will support nuclear power
when we can, which the gentleman's opposed every time, and I will
support hydropower. In fact, I will support all forms of power so we
can become more independent, and I go back to the concept of fossil
fuels. It moves objects. It moves objects. Wind power doesn't move
objects, no. Solar power doesn't move objects, no. It takes fossil
fuels to run our ships, our planes, our automobiles, our trucks, and
our trains. That's the commerce of this Nation, and that's what's
hurting this Nation today in the recovery.
We have to start producing our own fossil fuels so we can have the
commerce that's necessary to employ people and create the jobs in this
country. In this country, it should be done. Yes, we can have the other
forms of power, but we have to have the fossil fuels to continue
hopefully the recovery of this country economically.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.

{time} 1700

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-74.
Mr. KEATING. 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 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the
second period, and after line 19 insert the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Data regarding bonuses provided to executives.--In
each oil and gas leasing program under this section, the
Secretary shall include requirements under which the
Secretary shall make available to the public data provided by
each lessee under the program with respect to the bonuses
provided to the executives of the lessee from the most recent
quarter.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 1231. As
our constituents see soaring gas prices, oil companies have revealed
record profits. The top five multinational oil companies earned over $1
trillion in the past decade. These firms are eating up more and more of
our constituents' paychecks.
And where is it going? Only a small portion of the profits are
reinvested back into the company to pave the way for efficiencies and
research into alternatives to oil. Rather, oil companies are providing
bumps to stockholders and high bonuses to their company executives, a
pat on the back for high prices at the pump.
My amendment would provide transparency to the U.S. taxpayer. The
amendment requires the Secretary to disclose the executive bonuses for
any company that is given a drilling lease.
The time is now to hold the largest oil companies accountable, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to provide
transparency back to the American taxpayer.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, when I first saw this amendment, I
was wondering if we were debating financial services legislation here
on the floor. Clearly, this amendment attempts to raise issues outside
the realm of today's debate on increasing American-made energy and
creating jobs.
The Department of the Interior should spend its time focusing on
reviewing permits, conducting environmental safety reviews, protecting
our resources and leasing offshore areas that are most prospective for
oil and natural gas production. The Department shouldn't have dozens of
employees sitting around reading companies' Securities and Exchange
Commission filings and assembling a list of which executives got what
bonus.

[[Page H3200]]

The information that this amendment would burden the Interior
Department with gathering and publishing is already publicly disclosed.
It should be made public, and that's why it already is. This amendment
is not about openness and transparency of disclosing information.
That's already the law.
The real effect of this amendment is duplicative requirements and
government waste. Let's get away from the political games and gotcha
amendments. Let's allow the Department of the Interior to focus on OCS
safety, environmental protection and leasing, and leave the bonuses to
the Securities and Exchange Commission officials studying that. I
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, in terms of the relevancy to this debate,
I would take this time, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to thank the
Rules Committee for allowing this amendment and, thus, I agree with
them that this is relevant to this debate.
I would like to comment on one more thing. My friend from Alaska
brought up the point of a burden. The burden that exists right now is
the burden that's being borne right on the gas pumps of the people in
my district, in his district, and the people in the United States of
America. That is the burden that working families are undergoing, the
suffering that they are undertaking as they pay over $4 a gallon for
gasoline in my district. Transparency and accountability are necessary,
though the people who are beholden to the price spikes know where their
money is going.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The question I ask is, How much would this cost
the Department of the Interior? Would this take away from safety
inspections? And to my good friend from Massachusetts, the burden is
going to get worse. You are going to be paying about $5 a gallon by the
first of June; if not, maybe a little bit later, but not later than the
Fourth of July. And the burden is something that bothers me a great
deal.
But in Massachusetts alone, not one time has any one of your Members
in the Congress ever voted to produce energy, other than wind power and
solar power. And that doesn't drive your constituents' automobiles.
That doesn't drive your trucks that deliver your products to the
restaurants or the hospitals. That doesn't drive that train that people
ride to try to get automobiles off the road. It doesn't drive the ships
to bring the products to your shores. Fossil fuel is the key to our
commerce; and we should recognize that in this Congress. And we should
develop an energy plan that includes everything. You can't do it with
just wind power. You can't do it with solar power. But you can do it
with all powers.
That's what's wrong with this Congress and this administration and,
yes, previous administrations: they don't grasp the necessity of having
more power available to increase the economy of this country. And we're
on the cusp right now. I believe this bill will help us. If it does not
help us, then shoot me another solution. I have not seen one on that
side of the aisle.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KEATING. 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112-74.
Ms. TSONGAS. 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 4, strike the closing quotation marks and second
period at line 19, and after line 19 insert the following:
``(7) Worst-case containment and clean-up plan required.--
The Secretary shall include, in each 5-year oil and gas
leasing program, a requirement that each applicant for a
permit to drill under a lease issued in a lease sale under
the program must include a plan for containment and clean-up
of a worst-case oil and gas discharge scenario in activities
conducted under the permit, if issued.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last summer, we all saw the painfully disorganized and ineffective
response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The frustration was
palpable across our country. During that tragedy, it was clear that BP
and the Federal Government had no plan to contain the oil spill and
that BP lacked the capacity to respond to a spill of that magnitude.
The amendment that I am offering today is very straightforward and
simple, one that seeks to implement the lessons learned from the events
of last summer. My amendment would require that all applicants for a
drilling permit under a lease sold under H.R. 1231 submit a plan for
containment and cleanup of a worst-case scenario oil or gas spill.
This amendment does not limit drilling. It says simply and sensibly
that when we drill, we should have a plan in place before an accident
occurs. We shouldn't wait until a disaster like last year's 3-month-
long spill has already begun. There wasn't a person I spoke to who
wasn't horrified by the devastating oil spill in the gulf. I believe
that the American people want us to learn from that environmental and
economic tragedy, and this amendment helps us accomplish that. When we
drill, we should have a plan for dealing with possible disaster.
Some have argued that we don't need a law because initial steps are
being taken at the agency level or by oil and gas companies. Some have
said that requiring a worst-case-scenario plan is anti-drilling or
anti-jobs. We shouldn't get distracted from the simple truth of this
amendment: when we drill, we should have a plan. We have seen the
consequences of not having a plan, and it was lost jobs.

{time} 1710

This amendment is pro-jobs. Requiring oil and gas companies to have a
plan in place will not prevent the creation of a single oil and gas
job, but it will protect fishing jobs and tourism jobs instead of
asking us to put those jobs at risk should a spill occur.
Our constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas
companies to plan for the worst. Opposing this amendment irresponsibly
denies the tragic events of last summer.
For the sake of our economy, our environment, and our coastal jobs, I
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, simple amendment
requiring oil and gas companies to have a plan. Join me in
demonstrating to our constituents that we have learned from the events
of last summer, and we are taking steps to prevent such a disaster in
the future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, here again is another amendment that is redundant, but
let's call it what it is: It's an obstruction.
The Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must
calculate worst case discharge before approving a permit. On June 18,
2010, the Department of the Interior issued a notice to lessees
outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a
permit would be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee
``describe the assumptions and calculations that you used to determine
the volume of your worst case scenario.''
It's already required on permit applications today, and is further
reiterated by the language in H.R. 1229, which passed the House earlier
today.
The minority continues to try to divert attention away from the real
issue of increasing energy production, creating jobs, lowering energy
costs, and

[[Page H3201]]

improving national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
In fact, it seems that the Democrats simply do not want to face the
fact that this bill says we can move forward with an aggressive program
of responsible oil and gas development while, at the same time,
ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not
mutually exclusive goals.
Republicans want to make U.S. offshore drilling the safest in the
world, and it is the safest in the world, so we can produce more
American energy, create American jobs and strengthen our national
security.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. I thank my colleague for bringing this issue up. The
June 18 notice to lessees is a great first step toward having worst
case scenario containment and cleanup plans. But a notice to lessees is
not the same as legislation. It is not intended to set policy, and it
is not intended to have the force of law, which is why I am offering
this amendment today.
We need Federal laws, not notices, that require companies to submit
worst case scenario oil spill containment and cleanup plans to ensure
that another spill like the BP spill never happens again. Our
constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas
companies to plan for the worst, or give them an honest reason why we
think no such plan is necessary, given the events last summer.
If the majority agrees that we should have a plan, they should
support this amendment. It simply requires that oil and gas companies
have a plan, nothing more. It is about drilling safely, it protects
jobs, oil and gas jobs, tourism and fishing jobs. And again, as I said,
if the majority agrees that we should have a plan, they should support
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can only say that, to my
knowledge, there's little chance of any oil drilling off the coast of
Massachusetts. But there is a great possibility off the coasts of
Florida, Virginia, Alaska, California, and this bill really sets out
which areas should be drilled, not in large massive areas, but
specifically.
I personally will tell you, if I could drill in Alaska, offshore,
which we should be able to do, but this administration has delayed a
permit for 5 years--5 years. Five billion dollars put into investment
to develop that field. It can't be done because of this administration.
This bill tries to expedite that process for the good of this Nation
and for the good of the people, not the good of the oil companies,
because we need that oil.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TSONGAS. 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 gentlewoman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112-74.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the
second period, and after line 19 insert the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Making moratorium in the eastern gulf of mexico
permanent.--The Secretary shall not make available for
leasing in any oil and gas leasing program under this section
any area referred to in section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public
Law 109-432; 43 U.S.C. 1331 note).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer to H.R. 1231 an amendment that
would make the current ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
permanent. This amendment would not have any effect on the budget as
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. However, it would have a
significant impact on the economy of Florida, given that the State's
tourist industry will be protected from future oil spills which could
destroy our beautiful beaches and coastal areas. Certainly, Florida's
coastline is a treasure, not just for Floridians but for all Americans
and people throughout the world. For years, the Florida delegation has
worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources, and as
long as those rigs are in this area, the potential for devastation to
Florida beaches persists.
If an accident was to occur causing oil to wash ashore and to Florida
beaches, both the environmental and the economic damage would be
devastating to the State. And following the disaster off of Louisiana's
gulf coast last year, we saw a quick glimpse of what could happen to
Florida's economy in the event of an oil spill.
I toured the region by helicopter last year and witnessed the
devastation firsthand. That said, before any new areas are opened and
Florida's pristine beaches are put at risk, I would very much like to
see drilling in the areas that are already open and increased funding
for research for new technology.
I strongly believe that any drilling off of Florida's gulf coast
would be extremely deterrent to the State economy and ecosystem. As we
saw in the BP oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico, wherein 11
workers died and an estimated 5 million barrels of crude oil poured
into the Gulf of Mexico, the risks of drilling oil off of Florida's
shores bring about extreme risk to our State in an already depressed
economy, and with unemployment in the State of Florida still hovering
at 11 percent, the last thing we need is to endanger nearly 1 million
tourist-related jobs and the $60 billion tourist industry in the
Sunshine State.
Drilling off the coast of Florida is a misguided miscalculation. The
risk of danger to the environment and the economy greatly outweighs any
potential benefits. I would very much like to see increased drilling in
areas already open and increased funding for research for new
technology.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The
underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to
safe and responsible energy production. This bill aims to fulfill the
promise that both Democrats and Republicans made to the American people
when we voted in a bipartisan basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on
offshore energy production.
Since taking office, President Obama and his administration has
effectively reimposed the moratorium. This bill would reverse his
actions.
In December 2006, a majority of the House and the Florida delegation
voted in favor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a bipartisan
compromise that opened a portion of the western and central gulf but
maintained the eastern planning area moratoria until 2022.

{time} 1720

This amendment seeks to go backwards and single-handedly undo that
agreement to close off forever the possible energy production in a
portion of the Gulf of Mexico. This is exactly the wrong direction for
America to be heading.
Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy
production. This is especially true in the eastern planning area of the
gulf, which the Department of the Interior believes contains
technically recoverable resources in the amount of 4 billion barrels of
oil and over 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Let's be clear, the area in the eastern gulf covered by this
amendment is currently under moratorium until 2022. That is over a
decade from now. This bill does not propose to change the 2022 date.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. More than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil
spill,

[[Page H3202]]

we have yet to clean up Prince William Sound in Alaska. Oil is still
being found buried in sand from the BP oil spill.
The frequent occurrence of extreme weather that the eastern gulf
coast experiences, including hurricanes and severe storms, could easily
produce an oil spill, even with the technological improvements in oil
and natural gas operations. Storms along the gulf coast in 2005 caused
124 oil spills in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Katrina
caused a 233,000 gallon oil spill, and Hurricane Rita worsened the
damage with 508,000 gallons of oil spilled. If these rigs were in the
gulf coast, our beaches would face complete destruction. As we have
seen recently, cleanup methods for these spills are incapable of
removing more than a small fraction of the oil.
In addition, from the BP oil spill alone, Florida has over 284,000
claims with only 117,000 paid. That is less than half, for a total of
over $1.45 billion. For the total gulf region, there have been 10,000
fishing claims, 122,000 food and lodging claims, 74,000 retail and
sales claims, and a total of $1.6 billion paid on even more lost
earnings and wages. We cannot afford another disaster of this
magnitude. With more drilling, we still are living on borrowed time.
Support the Corrine Brown amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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 gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 112-74.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. 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 4, line 19, strike the final closed quotation mark and
the following period.
Page 4, after line 19, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may
not include in any oil and gas leasing program under this
paragraph any lease sale in the Northern California Planning
Area.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, according to this bill's
drafters, the legislation would not require leasing permits in the
northern California planning area, which is the coastline of my
district. My amendment merely makes that clear.
Drilling on the north coast of California is a disastrous idea, and
the legislation must be clear that it is not acceptable to drill off
California's north coast. Because this amendment is a clarification of
the legislation's intent, there is no cost associated with it.
Just about 3 weeks ago, we marked the 1-year anniversary of the
Nation's worst oil spill. I will not let what happened to the Gulf of
Mexico happen to the north coast of California. I have introduced
separate stand-alone legislation which would permanently ban drilling
off the coast of my district.
It is important to me and to my constituents that H.R. 1231 clearly
notates that drilling will not occur in the northern California
planning area along the coasts of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte
Counties. The coastal area of my district is one of only four major
upwellings in our world's oceans.
An upwelling is where cold, nutrient-rich waters are brought from the
ocean depths to the surface. Upwelling regions promote seaweed and
growth, which, in turn, supply energy for some of the most productive
ecosystems in our world, including many of our world's fisheries.
North coast ecosystems also sustain some of the largest salmon
populations in the lower 49 States and provide essential habitat for
Dungeness crab, rockfish, sole, and urchin.
In 2006 and 2008, commercial fishery disasters that virtually
eliminated salmon fishing in California were economically disastrous to
my district, to our States, and our Nation. If an oil spill were to
occur off the coast of my district, the environmental and economic
costs would be staggering. Drilling for oil or gas off California's
north coast could cause serious harm to the unique and productive
ecosystem and abundant marine life found in this area.
My district is economically dependent upon the rich natural resources
we are blessed to have, but it is also subject to significant
earthquakes which exacerbate the issues, the threats, and the problems
related to oil spills.
One of my counties just wrote to me, and I quote, ``The modest amount
of oil available in terms of our Nation's daily demand does not justify
jeopardizing our fisheries, our environment, and our economic
livelihoods.''
This amendment will merely protect the north coast of California and
will simply clarify what the drafters of this bill say that the bill
does, and that is that they claim that it does not require drilling off
the coasts of Mendocino, Humboldt, or Del Norte Counties.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is the second amendment of
three today designed to close off portions of the Outer Continental
Shelf to oil and natural gas exploration production, the opposite of
what the bill under consideration today is about. The underlying bill
is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and
responsible energy production.
H.R. 1231 aims to fulfill the promise that both Democrats and
Republicans made to the American people when we voted on a bipartisan
basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on offshore energy production.
Since taking office, President Obama and his administration have
effectively reimposed the moratorium, and this bill would reverse his
actions.
This amendment proposes to take America in exactly the wrong
direction in which we should be heading. Congress should not foreclose
the possibility of future energy production. With the price of gasoline
going to $4 and $5 a gallon, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment and keep our focus on those offshore areas that contain
substantial oil and natural resources, where increased American energy
production will create new jobs, lower energy prices, and increase our
economic and national security.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to point out that the majority party has told me and
told my staff that the bill that they have offered today, the bill that
we are going to be voting on, does not affect the north coast of
California. Now, my effort with this amendment is merely to trust but
verify.

{time} 1730

To oppose this amendment really calls into question, what is the
underlying motivation of this bill? Does it do what they claim and not
affect this region of our ocean, again, one of only four major
upwellings in the world's oceans. This is an area that feeds and
promotes the fisheries and the marine life not only in my area, but in
all the ocean. And the idea we would put it at any kind of risk. Those
of you who know the area know how rough the water is, know how rocky
the shores are. If there was an oil spill there, it would never be
cleaned up. The area is seismically active. To drill in that area with
the threat of earthquakes, you are

[[Page H3203]]

looking at a situation that would make the Gulf of Mexico disaster pale
in comparison.
It is not too much to ask that we merely verify what it is the
majority party says that they are not doing with this bill. And the
idea that this amendment would be opposed is quite startling to me. I
believe that this is something that everyone can get behind. To say
that the bill doesn't do this and then refuse to take the amendment
calls into question the motive of the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California
brings out some legitimate points. But right now, today, under existing
law, the northern California planning area is available for leasing.
This bill does not change that current situation. It has been available
since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon and the President and
Congress lifted the offshore drilling moratoria.
I will remind the House that in 2008 the coast of California was
opened for potential leasing and drilling, that Democrats were in the
majority in the House and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was Speaker of
the House. For months, they resisted Republican efforts to end the
offshore ban, but eventually the American people won out and the bans
were lifted.
I would also like to point out that this bill provides direction that
when the Federal Government is writing 5-year leasing plans, that the
focus be on areas with the greatest estimated oil and natural gas
resources. This particular planning area does not have and has not
registered high in this regard and this bill does not direct that
leasing occur in this planning area. With gasoline back to the 2008
highs of over $4 per gallon, let's keep the focus on where it should
be, increasing American offshore energy production. That's what we're
trying to do.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I don't know that there is a great deal more to add to what he has
just said about permits and about the issue that has been discussed
just recently.
The thing that really bothers me is just a few years ago, 25 years
ago, we were importing about 28 percent of our oil. Today we are
importing 62 percent of our oil, more than double what we were doing
just a few years ago, and the American people are paying the price.
Instead of $1.50 or $2 a gallon for gas, they are spending $4 a gallon
for gasoline.
Nationwide, there are 86 billion barrels of oil. Fifty-one percent of
that is in the Gulf of Mexico, which means there are 44 billion barrels
of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and there are 240 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. For us to continue to be dependent on foreign energy
sources is crazy. We ought to start drilling and doing what needs to be
done here in America. And we can do in an environmentally safe way. We
can do it in Alaska, offshore, we can do it in a number of places. But
to sit by and continue to send our money to Saudi Arabia and other
countries around the world that aren't our friends just doesn't make
any sense, and the American people understand it.
I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ought to go back and
talk to their constituents, who are paying the price at the gas pump.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Inslee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112-74.
Mr. INSLEE. 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, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the
second period, and after line 19 insert the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Washington state approval required.--Under this
section, the Secretary shall not make available for leasing
for exploration, development, and production of oil and
natural gas any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the
coast of Washington unless such leasing is approved by the
Governor and legislature of the State of Washington.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to protect the beaches and shoreline and economy of the State
of Washington. This amendment is quite simple. It would simply say that
we will not allow the Federal Government to run over the State of
Washington on issues of drilling off of our coastline, that we won't be
shackled to this antiquated policy of drilling without first providing
reasonable protection, without first addressing the issue of rampant
speculation that is what is exposing my consumers to $4 a gallon gas in
the State of Washington, and without freeing us to do what we should be
doing, which is developing new, clean energy sources. I want to address
each one of those.
Basically our position is we don't think in the State of Washington,
or any State, and particularly the State of Washington, which is the
Evergreen State, we ought to have this policy foisted upon us that is
not an evergreen energy policy for this century for three reasons.
Reason number one: Despite the fact that we have had this enormous
passage of time since this horrendous spill in the gulf, this Chamber
has not passed into law one single safety provision to bring additional
safety to anywhere on our coastline. My amendment would simply say that
the people of the State of Washington and their elected officials ought
to be able to make a decision that we have got adequate, reasonable
safeguards for drilling before it happens off of the State of
Washington. That has not happened, and it is inexcusable.
Second, before this happens, the people of the State of Washington
ought to have reasonable protection against the rampant speculation
that is going on that is driving up these prices. Even Goldman Sachs
has recognized we have had four times the speculative positions taken
and probably a $20 amount that has driven up these prices associated
with this unchecked speculation. Yet this Chamber and my friends across
the aisle have not done a single thing to address this speculation.
Until we do that, we shouldn't have my neighbors and my constituents
have foisted down their throats this policy of mandatory drilling
without them first making a decision.
Third, the people of the State of Washington want to help in our
energy crisis and they are capable of helping in this energy crisis if
this Chamber will just free them to do it.
Here is how they want to help. They want to produce lithium ion
batteries that can run electric cars so we don't have to start being
shackled and just addicted to oil. But this Chamber hasn't done a
single thing, a single thing this year, to help clean energy sources
that Washington State business people want to produce.
I look at the EnerG2 company that is making ultracapacitors. This
Chamber isn't helping them make electric batteries for electric cars.
I look at the REC company in Moses Lake, Washington, that is making
the polysilicate cells for photovoltaic cells to produce the
electricity for electric cars. This Chamber hasn't done a single thing
to help that company advance.
I look at the Targeted Growth company and the Boeing company that are
developing biofuels so that we can have a competitor to gasoline so we
can drive those prices down. This Chamber hasn't done a single thing to
help those companies develop Washington State jobs for a new energy
future.

[[Page H3204]]

Now, we have got a lot of energy off of our coastline. It might be in
assorted ways. But I know it is in offshore wind. But we aren't doing a
single thing to help the offshore wind energy. All we are doing is
trying to shackle an antiquated energy policy on the people of the
State of Washington.
I would have liked this amendment to have helped all of my colleagues
on the Pacific Coast, but because of some of the financial rules that
we have, we have only been able to bring this involving the Evergreen
State. But I would hope that all of my colleagues would join me in
saying that before this gets forced on the citizens of Washington
State, we adopt some reasonable measures.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1740

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, acting for Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Doc Hastings of Washington State, I oppose this
amendment.
As explained in the debate on the prior two amendments, this bill is
focused on increasing American-made energy, creating new jobs, and
decreasing our dependence on energy from foreign nations. Congress
needs to focus on increasing energy production, and this amendment goes
in the opposite direction. In fact, this amendment attempts to impose
unprecedented and impossible obstacles to fostering more American
energy in Federal waters.
It is stated that the purpose of the amendment is to give the State
of Washington a say on leasing in Federal waters off the State's coast.
However, multiple Federal laws already provide Washington State, and
every State, the opportunity to participate in any such decisions. What
this amendment would do is grant double veto power for Washington State
to prohibit Federal activities in Federal waters outside the State's
borders. The Interior Department provides repeated opportunities for
public comment and participation throughout the planning and leasing
process.
Furthermore, the Coastal Zone Management Act requires State
consistency review with its State coastal zone management plan before
the Federal Government takes action in Federal waters off of any
particular State. On top of that, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
provides clear requirements for consultation and cooperation with
affected State and local governments. Considerable care and protection
is provided to each and every State, with extra consideration
guaranteed to coastal States. This is as it should be.
What is particularly revealing about this amendment is that it only
gives Washington State double veto power over certain types of offshore
energy leasing. It singles out only oil and natural gas, but provides
no such veto power over other forms of energy leasing. This includes
wave energy, wind, solar, and other renewable forms.
This double standard exposes the real intent of this amendment. It's
not truly aimed at ensuring a voice for Washington State; it's intended
to score political points. But the political points the amendment
attempts to score are entirely hollow. Why? Because there isn't
estimated to be any recoverable oil or natural gas in Federal waters
off of Washington State.
Again, this bill only goes into areas that have really large
potential. Again, multiple Federal laws already guarantee all Americans
have an opportunity to participate in an offshore planning process,
especially the Governors, State and local officials, and citizens
living in coastal States that will be impacted by leasing, should it
take place.
For those reasons, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.
First, I wish my friend Doc Hastings from Washington was with us
today. He's not feeling well. But Mr. Young is doing an admirable job
with a weak argument, and I'll report that they're getting represented.
I just want to point out we haven't seen horrendous damage to any
ecosystem from a wind spill yet. If you spill a little wind, you don't
end up covering large gulf areas with hydrocarbons or destroying oyster
and shrimping grounds like have been in the gulf. There are differences
from multiple sources.
We are simply saying that before we move forward with additional
offshore drilling, we ought to have reasonable safety protocols, we
ought to address speculation, and we ought to have an energy policy
that looks at all of the above.
My friends across the aisle told us you were going to give us an all-
of-the-above energy policy. All you have given us is an all-of-the-
below energy policy. We need a little better than this.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My good friend from Washington, they may not have a wind spill, but
there's opposition to wind power. And wind is extremely expensive and
only can be successful as long as it's subsidized by the taxpayer. As
long as this administration keeps insisting on wind and solar power,
they're doubly taxing our taxpayers of this Nation and hurting our
economy. That's reality.
So they're doubly taxed because now they're paying taxes because of
the high cost of oil, the high cost of gasoline. And $1,100 a year they
have additionally been taxed this year versus last year. And yet we
talk about wind power. They're taxed because that comes out of the
general fund. We're borrowing money from the Chinese. That's reality.
Wind and solar are fine as long as they're subsidized. As long as you
pay for them, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, they're fine. But that's an
additional tax on you. If it was so economical, so well to be done,
then we would have done it a long time ago. And I say it will work.
It's like ethanol. It works. It's still not economical.
So we have to go back to what commerce is run by--and it's fossil
fuels. We can have all those other forms of energy. I do not want them
subsidized. We can have all those other forms of energy, but we have to
have the ability to move product. I look at the Port of Seattle, the
Port of Tacoma. Every one of those ships is burning a fossil fuel that
deliver those goods. Every truck that leaves that port that goes out to
deliver those to the people around this Nation is burning fossil fuels.
Every train that leaves is burning fossil fuels. Every airplane that
lands, built by Boeing, is driven by fossil fuels.
This is a chance for us to speak up in Congress and say we are going
to develop our natural fuels in this country so we can compete
legitimately. You cannot compete by borrowing money to buy foreign oil,
and that's what that side wants to do. I'm saying that's wrong. And I
will join hands with you if you vote for ANWR and you vote for other
forms of energy, too. Let's get it all together, guys. Let's have an
energy plan. All we're trying to do here is undo what the Obama
administration did, and that's put a moratorium in.
I urge the defeat of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. INSLEE. 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 Washington
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 House Report 112-74 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

[[Page H3205]]

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) 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 193,
noes 228, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 312]

AYES--193

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
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 (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--228

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
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
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
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
Holden
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)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
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
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (MS)
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--10

Fortenberry
Giffords
Hastings (WA)
Hirono
Johnson, Sam
Marchant
Reed
Schwartz
Sullivan
Waters

{time} 1814

Messrs. YOUNG of Indiana, RIGELL, and WEBSTER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. POSEY, ROONEY, JACKSON of Illinois, CRENSHAW, DIAZ-BALART,
and FORBES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 312, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

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 will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 238, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 313]

AYES--189

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
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
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--238

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus

[[Page H3206]]

Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
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
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
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)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
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
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
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
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--4

Giffords
Hastings (WA)
Johnson, Sam
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1822

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) 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

[Roll No. 314]

AYES--186

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
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)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
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
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
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
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
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
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
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)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
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
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Stearns
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--5

Giffords
Hastings (WA)
Johnson, Sam
Smith (NE)
Southerland

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1830

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. PEARCE. 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.
DesJarlais) having assumed the chair, Mr. Campbell, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the

[[Page H3207]]

State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 1231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing
program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and
gas resources, to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production
goal, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________