[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4393-H4420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JOBS AND ENERGY PERMITTING ACT OF 2011
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2021.
{time} 1445
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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2021) to amend the Clean Air Act regarding air pollution from
Outer Continental Shelf activity, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, as we prepare to take up an important
piece of legislation today, H.R. 2021, I would like to yield such time
as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner,
the sponsor of this legislation; and the gentleman from Kentucky, Ed
Whitfield, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for
moving this legislation along.
Madam Chair, the purpose of this bill is real simple. It is to
streamline the permit process to allow us more domestic production of
oil and gas. In this country, we consume about 19 million barrels a day
of oil and we produce about 7 million, and the exploration on the Outer
Continental Shelf has been delayed for years because of a broken
bureaucracy. The regional EPA, they are going to approve exploration
air permits, only to have them challenged again by EPA's Environmental
Appeals Board. It has been a never-ending circuit of approvals, appeals
and re-applications, and it has stalled exploration for nearly 5 years.
So what does that mean? It means that these resources, which perhaps
contain as much as 28 billion--yes, that's billion--barrels of oil and
122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, have been stalled.
We know that if production is allowed here, safe production, we could
produce perhaps as much as 1 million barrels a day from these sites,
and it would add about 54,000 American jobs. Yet 5 years after the
original lease sales, not a single test well has been drilled, not a
single barrel of domestic oil has been brought to market to reduce our
reliance on Middle East oil, and not a single job has been created to
develop the resources because the bureaucracy is standing in the way of
exploration.
This legislation changes that, and I would urge my colleagues to
support this sensible, bipartisan legislation to streamline the
permitting process and finally allow us to explore and develop the vast
resources of our Nation. This bill was approved by the Energy and
Commerce Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, and I look forward to
the same result today.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I rise in opposition to this legislation. The legislation is not
about creating jobs. It is not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a
giveaway to the oil industry that will increase pollution along our
coasts.
This legislation's supporters have promoted it as a narrow bill
designed to address specific problems that Shell has faced in obtaining
a clean air permit for exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska.
{time} 1450
This legislation will have wide-ranging impacts beyond the Arctic
Ocean. The States of California and Delaware have grave concerns about
the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and
welfare from air pollution. In fact, this bill could affect every State
on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
I agree that the provisions of the Clean Air Act that apply to the
Outer Continental Shelf will have some ambiguities that could use
clarification, but this legislation takes the wrong approach. Each of
the so-called clarifications in this bill would have the effect of
allowing more pollution and providing less public health protection for
the nearby communities and limiting participation of affected
stakeholders in the permitting process.
The Republicans say that it shouldn't take 5 years to get a permit,
and I agree with them. But the truth is it has not taken 5 years for
Shell to get a permit. Shell has pulled permit applications and
modified its proposed operations on numerous occasions. Each time, EPA
has had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on air
quality and public health. This is what EPA is supposed to do. No one
should want EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting
these major sources of pollution.
There are many flaws in the legislation. It allows huge increases in
air pollution from oil and gas drilling activities by moving the point
of measurement from the drill ship to the shore. It threatens the
ability of California and other States to regulate the emissions of
support vessels. And it sets an arbitrary deadline of 6 months for
final agency action on every offshore exploratory drilling permit, no
matter the size or complexity of the proposed operations. The EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation testified before the
Energy and Commerce Committee that 6 months is too short to allow for
adequate technical analysis, public participation,
[[Page H4394]]
and administrative review. Witnesses for the States of California and
Delaware agree this wouldn't work for their State programs. Yet these
concerns have been ignored.
The legislation eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board from the
permitting process, even though it is a cheaper, faster, and more
expert substitute for judicial review. And it requires all challenges
to air permits to be raised before the Federal Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C., thousands of miles away from the affected
communities.
Claims that this legislation will reduce gas prices or the budget
deficit are nonsense. They have no substantiation. There are sensible
improvements we could make, but we aren't making them. Instead, this
bill waives environmental requirements and short-circuits permitting
reviews at the expense of public health.
The administration opposes H.R. 2021 because it would curtail the
authority of EPA to help ensure that domestic oil production on the
Outer Continental Shelf proceeds safely, responsibly, and with
opportunities for efficient stakeholder input. I agree with them.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2021.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the
author of this bill, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee that brought
this bill before the body today, and I thank the chairman, Mr. Upton,
for his work on this piece of legislation. Energy security, job
creation, working to reduce the pain at the pump, that is what H.R.
2021 is about, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. I thank the
chairman for bringing it to the floor today.
This is an important bill for our country and a step in the right
direction when it comes to weaning ourselves off of foreign, Middle
Eastern oil. It allows us to utilize the resources that we have in our
own backyard--American energy for American jobs--responsibly and
environmentally friendly.
Gas prices are fluctuating near historic levels that can send our
economy into yet another recession. Millions of Americans are out of
work. The unemployment rate has ticked back above 9 percent. Unrest in
the Middle East has highlighted our vulnerabilities that stem from
dependence on oil half a world away and from many countries that seek
to do us harm. In the face of seemingly intractable problems, it is our
duty as elected representatives of the people of this country to pursue
solutions that benefit our neighbors and our Nation as a whole. One
such solution is unlocking America's vast energy potential. The Jobs
and Energy Permitting Act is a bipartisan approach--a bipartisan bill--
to bring a massive domestic resource online and create tens of
thousands of jobs.
I am delighted to have my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green) as the coauthor of this legislation.
In this bill, we move in a nimble and elegant manner to tie the loose
ends in EPA's permitting process and the Clean Air Act, itself, to
expedite decisions on EPA's issued air permits for offshore oil
exploration. The needless red tape inherent in EPA's current permitting
process has blocked access to a truly enormous reserve, a reserve in
our own backyard, Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
Taken together, we have been told that upwards of 1 million barrels
of oil a day can be brought online as a result of the responsible
development of these resources, entirely offsetting our imports from
Saudi Arabia. Doing so will create and sustain over 50,000 jobs as
massive projects get underway to bring this resource to American
consumers. Such a vast amount of oil will not only reduce prices at the
pump in the future, as testimony was given before the Energy and
Commerce Committee, but keep us more secure by eliminating imports from
hostile regimes abroad.
For these reasons, the President agrees that we should be moving
forward with permitting exploration off Alaska's coast. This bipartisan
bill is the most efficient way to get the job done.
Through two exhaustive hearings on this bill, we heard testimony from
numerous stakeholders and citizens of Alaska. We believe we have
created a solution that balances both environmental protection with
public priorities, a balance that does not exist with current EPA
procedures.
During our subcommittee and full committee markups we debated
numerous amendments, giving members the opportunity to propose
substantive changes to the underlying bill. I'm glad that we had a very
serious and thought-provoking discussion on this bill during those
meetings, and I look forward to the debate today.
The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a serious bill with serious
implications for our economy and our energy security. I am delighted to
be here today working with my Democratic colleague to move forward with
an effective solution to regulatory problems experienced in Alaska and
Alaska's offshore areas.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to our
Democratic leader in the energy area, the ranking member of the Energy
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member from the full committee,
my friend from California (Mr. Waxman), for yielding this time.
Madam Chair, I'm not opposed to drilling in Alaska and I'm not
opposed to streamlining the permitting process in a sensible and
thoughtful manner, but I do object to cutting out input and
participation from the very communities that would be most affected by
this process or preempting States' authority in order to expedite the
permitting process for one single company.
Unfortunately, many of the less affluent communities who are
ultimately being adversely affected by this permitting process do not
have the resources of the oil industry to lobby Congress on their own
behalf, and so it's up to us, those Members who represent those same
people, to come to this floor to represent them.
While this bill will benefit Shell, the repercussions and
consequences, both intended and unintended, will have a much greater
impact on many stakeholders.
If the majority had been willing to work with our side on this bill,
as we offered on many occasions we wanted to--we begged, we pleaded, we
almost crawled to try to get bipartisan participation on this bill--if
they had been willing to work together, we could have crafted a
bipartisan piece of legislation that could move through the House and
the Senate and ultimately become law.
{time} 1500
However, this bill does not take into account some of the very real
concerns that the minority has outlined to the majority on several
occasions.
In fact, yesterday, the White House issued a statement opposing this
bill because ``H.R. 2021 would curtail the authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to help ensure
that domestic oil production on the Outer Continental Shelf proceeds
safely, responsibly, and with opportunities for efficient stakeholder
input. H.R. 2021 would limit existing EPA authority to protect human
health and the environment. H.R. 2021 would increase Federal court
litigation and deprive citizens of an important avenue for challenging
government action that affects local public health.''
Madam Chair, this bill is certainly not about creating jobs, and it's
certainly not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a giveaway--a
blatant giveaway, an unadulterated giveaway--to the oil industry that
will increase pollution along our coasts. In fact, as the
administration has pointed out, 70 percent of the offshore leases that
oil companies currently possess are not even at this very moment in
production. Again, 70 percent of the offshore leases that oil companies
own are not now in production, and 29 million acres of onshore permits,
as we speak, aren't being developed. So it is unnecessary for Congress
to intervene by sacrificing public participation and air quality
protections for the sake of expediency on behalf of Shell, as this bill
does.
Madam Chair, I hope--I sincerely hope--that we can find bipartisan
support for the amendments that will be offered today, including my
own, which will simply allow the EPA administrator to provide
additional 30-day extensions if the same administrator determines that
such time is necessary to
[[Page H4395]]
provide adequate time for public participation and sufficient
involvement by affected States.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I might just add here that the University
of Alaska did a study on this legislation in oil and gas development in
Alaska's arctic seas, and they concluded that the full development
there would create 54,000 jobs.
At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, Shell Oil Company has spent 5
years of time and $3 billion trying to drill one well in the Arctic
Ocean--5 years and $3 billion. In that time period, worldwide and in
other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf of the world, they have
drilled and received permits for over 200 wells--200 and the rest of
the world ``zero''--in the Arctic Ocean.
All this bill does is set up a fair procedure so that any company
that wishes to drill a well--and the Environmental Protection Agency,
the EPA, should probably be renamed under the Obama administration the
``energy prohibition administration''--can go through the permitting
process and get a decision within an adequate time period.
Our friends in Russia are drilling wells in the territorial waters in
the Arctic Ocean up there. Our friends in Norway are drilling wells in
the Arctic Ocean in their territorial waters. We in the United States,
because of bureaucratic foot-dragging at the EPA, are refusing to even
let one well be drilled.
This bill changes that. It sets timetables. It sets standards. It
determines where you measure the emissions. There will be some
emissions when you drill a few wells in the Arctic Ocean, but they're
not going to be extensive. This bill says that you determine the
emissions at the shoreline, which in the case of this particular well
is about 80 miles away, and you measure it there. Madam Chairwoman,
there will be more emissions created from the EPA agency heads and
staff assistants in their driving up to Capitol Hill to testify than
there probably will be from the service supply ships that go out to
service the handful of wells that will be drilled.
This is a commonsense bill. It doesn't change the underlying
statutory language at all in terms of standards. It does set
timetables. It does define where you measure the pollution, and it does
require that you actually make a decision. It is a good bill, H.R.
2021. In blackjack, if you get a 20, that's almost a sure winner. If
you get a 21, it's a sure winner. This bill is a sure winner, H.R.
2021. Please vote for it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a very
important member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the ranking member very much for yielding.
The underlying legislation represents another attempt by the
Republicans to gut the Clean Air Act. Shell Oil spent years changing
its mind about how it wanted to drill, what ship it wanted to use and
even which of the arctic seas it planned to drill in. They, themselves,
dragged out this process interminably.
This legislation prevents EPA from requiring emissions reductions
from all drilling support vessels, from icebreakers to the drilling
ship, itself, as part of the air permitting process. What that means is
that--listen to this number--up to 98 percent of the total air
emissions associated with Arctic Outer Continental Shelf drilling could
not be regulated by EPA under the permitting process. So hear that
again. Their bill says that EPA cannot regulate 98 percent of the
emissions.
That's not reasonable. That's not a compromise. That's not balance.
EPA has informed Congressman Waxman that, as part of its permit
negotiations, Shell has actually agreed to add technology to one of its
icebreakers to reduce the icebreaker's NOX emissions by 96
percent--to reduce them by 96 percent--and particulate emissions
reduced by 82 percent. Shell has already agreed to use a cleaner
burning fuel than what would otherwise be required by law. Shell agreed
to take these measures so that it could receive its permit from EPA,
and the net effect of all the measures Shell has agreed to take will
reduce the NOX emissions for the entire drilling project by
72 percent. But under this bill, EPA would no longer have the ability
to require or to request measures such as these because the bill says
that EPA can't require reductions in emissions from mobile sources
using its stationary source air permitting authority.
Several weeks ago, Bob Meyers, who led EPA's Air Office during the
Bush administration, pointed out at the Energy and Power Subcommittee
hearing, that, in fact, EPA can regulate icebreakers and other support
vessels under title II of the Clean Air Act. He said that this is why
these mobile sources' emissions could be exempted from being regulated
as part of the stationary source air permitting process. That all
sounds so reasonable, but what these guys are saying is maybe you
shouldn't be regulated as both a mobile source and a stationary source
under the Clean Air Act.
{time} 1510
But there's just one problem. Shell's air permit says that all of its
ice-breakers and other support vessels are foreign-flagged so they
can't be regulated under title II of the Clean Air Act in the first
place. And even if they were American vessels, they're all too old to
have been subject to the most stringent Clean Air Act or international
emissions requirements.
So what they're saying is for all intents and purposes, they're
neither mobile nor are they stationary so they're not regulated at all.
It's like being a carnivorous vegetarian, or you know, Chevy Chase
nightlife. There is no such thing. You know, you have got to have it be
one or the other; you've got to pick one or the other here. And you
can't wind up nothing being required from them.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
So while Republicans say that this bill just keeps the ice-breakers
and the ice-breaker part of the Clean Air Act, the reality is that it
effectively puts EPA's ability to reduce emissions from these sources
on ice.
My amendment to remedy the problem by ensuring that these vessels met
the most stringent mobile source standards so that we would realize
some emissions reductions from them was rejected by the majority in the
committee. So instead of what the majority claims they want to do,
which was to ensure that these vessels were not regulated as both
mobile source and stationary source under the Clean Air Act, what this
bill does is ensure that the emissions from these vessels aren't
regulated at all. That's their goal, that 98 percent of emissions will
go unregulated, and I don't think there's anyone listening to this
debate that thinks that that's a good thing for the public health of
our country.
I urge opposition to this bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I might remind our friend from Massachusetts that EPA
actually approved the drilling permit, the exploratory drilling permit
for Shell, in this case, on three separate occasions; but the delay has
been the appeals by the opposing party to the Environmental Appeals
Board, which is not even in the clean air statute. So this bill is
simply designed to speed up the process and give people an adequate
time to oppose the exploratory permitting.
At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Terry), who's a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, Mr. Gardner's bill addresses this
country's need on energy and power. Mr. Gardner's bill prevents the
government from going out of its way to stop the private sector from
creating jobs. This job alone in the Chukchi Sea will create 54,000
jobs sustained over 50 years. The economic report from Northern
Economics and the University of Alaska I will submit for the Record.
And with 1 million barrels per day going to our country's need of
about 19 million barrels per day makes us more energy secure. So what
we hear from the EPA and the minority is they will do everything they
can to stop fossil fuels even though this is a fossil fuel
[[Page H4396]]
economy. Yes, we need all of the above, but to stop all fossil fuels
creates national insecurity, making us more dependent on foreign oil,
sending more of our financial resources and jobs overseas; and that's
what we need to stop, and that's what this bill takes a large step
towards doing.
Now, the EPA has made it impossible for new exploration off the coast
of Alaska by continually changing the rules. The EPA has even testified
before our committee that there is no anticipated human health risk at
issue, and we've still been waiting 6 years and counting for this
permit to be issued.
Let's make it clear: Bureaucratic delays are blocking energy
development. While the EPA's regional office has granted air permits to
allow this deep sea drilling, the process has repeatedly been stalled
when the administrator's Environmental Appeals Board rejects the
permits already granted. Yes, it gets to Washington; they stop it. And
this process repeats itself. We'll have a bill maybe in a couple of
weeks where the EPA's done the same thing, where they change the rules
to stop a project.
The Federal Government's inability to issue viable permits to drill
offshore Alaska is keeping resources and domestic jobs from the
American people. The Gardner bill, H.R. 2021, aims to eliminate the
uncertainty and confusion that has delayed oil exploration in deep sea
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf, and I hope my colleagues will support
this bill.
Economic Report Overview
Potential National-Level Benefits of Oil and Gas Development in the
Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea
A new study on potential national-level benefits of Alaska
Arctic OCS development, by Northern Economics and the
University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and
Economic Research, builds on a previous study of potential
state-level benefits using the same methodology and
assumptions. Both reports are available for download from
www.northerneconomics.com.
Creates Significant Economic Effects
Development of new oil and gas fields in the Beaufort and
Chukchi Seas resulting in production of nearly 10 billion
barrels of oil and 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over
the next 50 years could create significant economic effects
nationwide.
54,700 New Jobs
An estimated annual average of 54,700 new jobs that would
be created by OCS-related development are sustained for 50
years. The total ramps up to 68,600 during production and
91,500 at peak employment. These direct and indirect jobs
would be created both in Alaska and the rest of the United
States.
$145 Billion Payroll
An estimated $63 billion in payroll would be paid to
employees in Alaska as a result of OCS oil and gas
development and another $82 billion in payroll would be paid
to employees in the rest of the United States. The sustained
job creation increases income and further stimulates domestic
economic activity.
$193 Billion Government Revenue
Federal, state, and local governments would all realize
substantial revenue from OCS oil and gas development, with
the base case totaling $193 billion:
$167 billion to the federal government
$15 billion to the State of Alaska
$4 billion to local Alaska governments
$7 billion to other state governments
Sensitivity Cases Are All Higher
The study's base case assumed long-term average prices
through the year 2030 of $65 per barrel (bbl) for oil and
$6.40 per million Btu (mmBtu) for natural gas. The estimated
total government revenue increases if energy prices remain
higher in the future.
Total Government Revenue
[Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case ($65/bbl, $6.40/mmBtu)........................ $193
Case 1 ($80/bbl, $7.80/mmBtu)........................... 214
Case 2 ($100/bbl, $9.80/mmBtu).......................... 263
Case 3 ($120/bbl, $11.80/mmBtu)......................... 312
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications of the Study
Critical Infrastructure Protection
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) delivers
approximately 14% of domestic oil production to refineries on
the West Coast and has been identified as critical
infrastructure for national security. Built at a cost of $8
billion in 1977, TAPS throughput has fallen from 2.1 million
barrels per day in 1988 to less than 650,000 barrels per day
as North Slope oil fields age. Without additional oil
development, the TAPS is anticipated to encounter operating
difficulty below about 500,000 barrels per day and shut down
when it reaches 200,000 barrels per day. Alaska OCS
development can help extend the operating life of this
critical infrastructure.
Moreover, Arctic OCS development maximizes the value of
Alaska's and the Nation's oil and gas resources. Much of the
expected incremental revenue from OCS development for the
State of Alaska (55%) comes from enhancement of existing
onshore North Slope production, in both volume and value.
This results from reduced transportation costs (from
infrastructure operating at capacity), and from expanded
infrastructure enabling development of small satellite
fields. OCS development will also enhance the probability of
an Alaska gas pipeline due to increased certainty in the
available gas resource base.
U.S. Energy Production and National Security
Domestic energy production is important for the security
and prosperity of the United States. The money spent on
domestic energy cycles through in the U.S. economy, thereby
increasing domestic economic activity and jobs; while money
spent on imported energy leaves the U.S. economy.
The majority (77%) of world oil reserves are owned or
controlled by national governments; only 23% are accessible
for private sector investment. The United States currently
imports over 60% of the crude oil we use. Arctic offshore
development could cut this by about 9% for a period of 35
years. Increasing domestic energy production would improve
the nation's trade balance.
Potential Benefits Delayed
When the first study of state-level economic impacts was
written in 2009, first oil was anticipated in 2019 and first
gas in 2029 for the Beaufort Sea (2022, 2036 for the Chukchi
Sea). This timeline assumed no major regulatory impediments
or delays.'' However, exploration has been slowed, thus
delaying the potential benefits of OCS oil and gas
development.
Sources
Northern Economics, Inc. (NEI) and Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER) Potential National-Level Benefits of
Alaska OCS Development.
NEI and ISER. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and
Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North
Aleutian Basin.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, www.capp.ca.
Shell Exploration and Production. Calculated from TAPS
throughput data and EIA Annual Energy Outlook data for
domestic oil production.
US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook
2010.
Minerals Management Service. 2006 Oil and Gas Assessment:
Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Alaska) and Chukchi Sea Planning
Province Summaries.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise today to
support H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act; and I want to
thank our Energy and Commerce ranking member for providing time.
Representing a heavily industrialized area that's naturally sensitive
to air quality issues, I appreciate how the EPA's enactment of Clean
Air Act provisions has positively attributed to our goal of cleaner
air. For that reason, I have remained hopeful that EPA's administrative
air permitting barriers to exploring Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf
would be addressed, but they haven't. As such, we continue to see air
permits for offshore exploration wells perpetually go back and forth
between the producer, the EPA, the Environmental Appeals Board, with no
movement towards a final decision.
That's why I am an original cosponsor of the Jobs and Energy
Permitting Act, which would rectify several of those process questions
so that we can safely and responsibly produce our natural resources in
the Arctic Ocean. The EPA needs to have a permit approval system in
place that is predictable, workable, and understandable.
When I hear that in the last 5 years Shell has drilled over 400
exploration wells worldwide while waiting for one single permit for
Alaska, something's definitely wrong with the process.
While the opponents of this legislation are saying that this bill
guts the Clean Air Act, that's just not true, because all this bill
does is match EPA's Outer Continental Shelf permitting process with the
air permitting process employed by the Department of the Interior in
the Gulf of Mexico, a Clean Air Act air permitting process that has
been successfully used for decades.
By doing so, we can rest assured that we have a strong, offshore air
permitting process, but that these projects are not left in limbo like
we have seen with the Environmental Appeals Board in recent years.
I also want to remind my colleagues that this bill just addresses
permits for exploration wells where activity typically only lasts for a
few days, not production wells where activities last for months.
I have long been a supporter of safe and responsible drilling on the
Outer Continental Shelf as these resources are a vital source of energy
for the
[[Page H4397]]
United States. With skyrocketing fuel costs, it is imperative for the
U.S. to diversify our energy sources by exploring this area, and this
bill is the first step in that process.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I might just also remind everyone that
this 5-year, 6-year period for this permit was for only an exploratory
permit, not even a production permit.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2021 and
appreciate Mr. Gardner bringing this to our attention.
You know, this is not a bill about Shell Oil Company. This is about a
system that is broken. Shell Oil Company has been trying for almost 5
years to get a permit and still doesn't get the answer. In the
meantime, they've drilled over 400 exploratory wells around the world,
but they can't drill in the United States.
I've recently spent time at gas stations talking to people, their
frustration over our gas prices is why are they so high here, why are
the prices going up. This bill answers why they're going up. We have a
government that has a war on American jobs and a war on American
energy. We have a war on Western jobs because oil production is
concentrated in the West.
Every time a drill bit is stopped by its own actions, the price of
gas will go incrementally up by just multiple percentages of very small
amounts. But when it's stopped by bureaucratic action, then the
market's going to assess that a government is going to be unfriendly to
future production and the price begins to escalate because people get
out of dollars and out of other investments into this because they know
the price of gas and oil are going to go up because they can see the
bureaucratic delays being played out.
So understand that when we have high gas prices in this country it is
because the government is making them high. It's making them high by
moratoriums. It's making them high by delaying tactics in our
administration's responses to these things like this permit.
{time} 1520
The gentleman from Colorado's bill simply says we're going to simply
unravel one piece of the delays that have been happening. It's a well-
thought-out bill, it's a well-thought-out process, and it's one which
will result in lower prices for American consumers. There's absolutely
no health hazard. Lisa Jackson herself has said that. They're going to
give the permits.
What we're doing today is passing a bill that won't help Shell at
all, that will help future producers to understand that they can get
regulatory certainty, that they can get answers when they're asking
questions of the government. It's a reasonable request and one which we
should do.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to correct some of
the statements that have been made that I don't think are accurate.
Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said
if they got a permit that was approved by the EPA, there would be no
adverse environmental impact, but what the proponents of this bill are
trying to do is to circumvent the EPA action and to have Congress
shorten the ability of the EPA to act. There will be pollution
problems. States will not be able to control the pollution off their
coasts. That is why California and Delaware have expressed such great
concern, but other States are going to be in the same situation.
This bill does not deal with just the problem in Alaska. It tries to
circumvent the orderly procedure by which those who are trying to get
permits will come in and submit their permit and show that they're
justified, unlike the situation with Shell, where they submitted a
permit, pulled it back, submitted another one and pulled it back.
At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021, the so-called
Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.
I oppose this legislation for several reasons.
First, it gives oil companies a pass to pollute. It exempts offshore
drilling companies from applying pollution control technologies to
vessels like crew and supply boats, which actually account for most of
the air pollution from drilling off my congressional district's coast.
It also opens up a loophole for drill ships to pollute with no limits
while the ship moves into place. And, instead of measuring pollution at
the source, itself, H.R. 2021 allows oil companies to measure the
impacts at the shore, with net results of more air pollution overall.
Second, H.R. 2021 does away with proven processes that provide an
expert, efficient, and impartial review of air permitting decisions. I
would note that in 20 years, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District has never denied an offshore drilling permit, and there is
more drilling off my district than just about anywhere in this country.
The local air permitting review process works. We don't need to change
it.
In addition, this bill's provision to remove all appellate action to
Washington, D.C., is wholly unfair. This limits the rights of my
constituents to participate in very important matters affecting their
health. It forces cash-strapped local governments to travel thousands
of miles to defend their permitting decisions, placing a serious burden
on local taxpayers.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly to my constituents, H.R. 2021
poses real health risks to the communities surrounding offshore
drilling by weakening local air quality standards. Pollution from the
nearly two dozen oil platforms and the vessels that supply them in the
Santa Barbara Channel includes high levels of airborne pollutants.
These pollutants can cause severe lung problems and other major health
issues. That's why our State adopted rules to strengthen air quality
standards and help protect coastal residents from this pollution. It
makes no sense to block these rules that will help my community clean
up its air.
In sum, Madam Chair, H.R. 2021 is a bad bill.
Let me also address a theme that's been repeated on the other side.
Supporters of this bill continue to parrot the Shell Oil talking point
that it has taken them 5 years to get a Clean Air Act permit for their
proposed drilling in the Arctic Ocean. They cite this 5-year delay as
the justification for this legislation. This claim might make a nice
sound-bite, but it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the
facts.
Here are the facts. First, Shell has pulled its permit applications,
modified its proposed operations, and changed its target drilling sites
on numerous occasions over the past few years. Shell pulled the permit
application for drilling in the Beaufort Sea for 2 years until going
back to EPA with a brand new request in 2010. Every time Shell changed
its plans, EPA had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on
air quality and public health. That's what we expect EPA to do. No one
wants EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting these
major sources of pollution.
Second, Shell delayed final EPA action on its air permit for drilling
in the Chukchi Sea by submitting insufficient permit applications.
That's Shell's fault, not EPA's.
Finally, EPA has prioritized Shell's permit applications and
finalized them quickly. The two Shell permits at issue were proposed
and finalized within 3 to 4 months of receiving completed applications.
Both went from submission of a completed application to a decision by
the Environmental Appeals Board within 1 year. EPA now says it is on
track to finalize Shell's revised permits by the end of this summer.
If this bill is about addressing Shell's so-called 5-year permitting
delay, then I see no basis for this legislation. The truth is that this
bill isn't about expediting the permit process. It's about rolling back
air quality protections. This bill will create more problems than it
purports to solve because it will allow oil companies to pollute more
offshore and cut concerned stakeholders out of the very process itself.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would also like to clarify that this
bill does not change the Clean Air Act in any way as it relates to
monitoring
[[Page H4398]]
stationary sources or mobile sources. I wanted to point that out.
Second of all, the gentlelady from California mentioned additional
drilling going on in the Pacific region. The government records show
that since 1994, not one exploratory permit has been issued. There are
production wells out there, but not one new exploratory permit since
1994.
I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Kinzinger).
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011.
Every generation has an opportunity to excel in one area. Every 10
years or so, a country decides whether they're going to be a recipient
of something or whether they're going to be a world leader.
For too long, the United States of America has accepted that we are
going to be a net importer of energy, that we are always going to be
energy dependent, that we are always going to be reliant on foreign
sources of energy.
Ladies and gentlemen, two of Alaska's arctic seas contain up to 27.9
billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This
could deliver up to 1 million barrels of oil a day, beginning the
process of getting us unaddicted to foreign oil, beginning the process
of bringing us energy security, and getting America back to work.
We have an opportunity here in the United States to get people back
to work, but it is being limited and hamstrung by bureaucrats in
Washington, D.C., and by those with a political agenda.
We have the equivalent of a pile of cash under our mattress, but
we're taking out loans from the Mafia to care for our energy needs. It
is high time that we stand up and say we have resources in the United
States, and we're not going to allow political agendas to drive us to
continued energy dependence, and we're going to stand up and say
produce it here in the United States of America and do it now.
The American people, Madam Chairman, are beginning to understand that
this administration and its agencies are having real consequences and
real impacts on the unemployment rate, on the joblessness, and on the
price we are paying for a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline,
because every dollar that a gallon of gasoline increases, it is a
regressive tax on Americans. Meanwhile, we sit around and we argue
while bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., have their way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague.
Madam Chairman, the legislation before us would repeal pollution
standards for ships and oil rigs located offshore anywhere in America.
It appears to be based on the belief that as a general principle, air
does not move. This legislation endangers air quality from Alaska to
Virginia while offering another token of appreciation to the oil
companies that were so generous in creating a new majority in the 112th
Congress.
{time} 1530
The premise of this bill is that pollution generated offshore doesn't
matter because it will not affect any humans onshore or humans working
offshore. And I know that those of us who represent littoral States are
most reassured by our colleagues from Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska
in reassuring us that we won't negatively be affected by this
legislation.
Based on the content of this bill, apparently the majority believes
that individuals employed on offshore oil rigs and ship servicing rigs
do not breathe while they're working offshore. This bill would
deregulate ongoing oil drilling in Alaska and prospective oil drilling
off the coast of Virginia and all other coastal States. The majority is
attempting to pass yet another bill to sacrifice the health and
economic livelihoods of American citizens to pad the pocketbooks of Big
Oil.
This legislation, which presupposes that air does not move, is as
dangerous as the previous Republican oil bills which denied the
existence of global warming and enacted wholesale repeals of the few
safety and environmental safeguards that still protect coastal
communities from oil drilling.
We keep hearing from across the aisle that this legislation will
create 50,000 jobs. My friends, don't be misinformed. The study they
referred to is a Shell Oil-funded study that simply estimates how many
jobs could be created, all things being equal, like no pollution
regulation, by offshore oil drilling in Alaska. Today's debate is not
about whether to drill; it's about whether we will allow a massive
increase in pollution when we do it. It is a false choice, and I urge
my colleagues in the House to reject it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle
would make it appear that we are abandoning all environmental
protections, and I would say that under this bill, there are still five
opportunities for public comment. The NEPA process is not changed in
any way.
At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for giving me this
time.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and
Energy Permitting Act. This bill will help clarify and improve EPA's
decisionmaking in air permitting off the coast of Alaska and restore
much needed certainty to that regulatory process.
Estimates show that the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have the potential
to produce up to 1 million barrels of oil per day while creating over
54,000 American jobs. It is unacceptable that the bureaucratic
permitting process has caused delays for 5 years and continues to block
American energy resources from being developed. This bill would hold
the administration accountable for its actions and provide the
certainty so desperately needed by the private sector to grow jobs and
get our economy back on track.
At a time of record high gas prices, we should be committed to
developing American energy resources, reducing our dependence on Middle
Eastern sources of energy, and providing good-paying American jobs.
Let's put America back to work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I would like to say that the American people expect the Congress to
provide opportunities for us to fully explore our natural resources.
This is a very modest bill that only changes one very small part of the
Clean Air Act. It relates explicitly only to exploratory drilling
permits, and it changes only appeals to the Environmental Appeals
Board. The Environmental Appeals Board is not even in the statute of
the Clean Air Act; it was put in by regulation.
And what's happening here in the one issue that we're talking about
today, the EPA has approved this drilling permit on three separate
occasions, yet it's been appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board,
and it's tied up and tied up and they will not make a final decision.
And if you cannot exhaust your administrative remedies, you cannot even
go to the court system. So this legislation simply expedites the
process without removing protections for people concerned about the
environment, as we all are. And I wanted to make that comment.
I would also at this point like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
We've heard all kinds of arguments today, red herrings that would
make the Fulton Fish Market proud of this debate.
This bill is not about jobs, my colleagues on the other side of this
debate said. This bill is not about pain at the pump, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle said. This bill won't create jobs, I've
heard in the arguments today. That it is a massive excuse for people to
do incredible things to the environment, unthought-of things. Again,
red herrings that the American people are tired of.
The American people are asking for jobs. They are asking for relief
at the pump. This bill is nothing more than creating economic
opportunity for not only people in Alaska but throughout this country
with the creation of 50,000 jobs. When we access our resources,
[[Page H4399]]
evidently, there are some who believe it doesn't create jobs. When we
create 1 million barrels of oil a day coming into our supplies,
apparently that doesn't create jobs. When we build operations for our
workers in the north shore of Alaska, the supply facilities in the
lower 48 States, apparently that doesn't create jobs.
Apparently we don't lose jobs when people are beginning to pay nearly
$4 a gallon for the price of gas. That seems to be the argument that I
hear against this bill.
My constituents are paying $3.50, $3.60 for a price per gallon of
gas. And apparently, as energy prices increase, some believe that
doesn't cut jobs, that doesn't hurt our economy. I have heard time and
time again, through testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee,
through town meetings, constituent calls and letters, they are tired of
paying $50, $60 every time they fill up the tank with gas. They are
tired of paying their hard-earned money for rising gas prices because
this Congress has failed to pass energy policies that rein in the
bureaucrats and regulators.
We have an opportunity with H.R. 2021 to create jobs, to create
opportunities for energy security in this country. And I would remind
my colleagues that these permits, the rights to explore have already
been leased, paid for. I ask that Members support this bill, and I ask
for a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I want to, first of all, say that this bill
will not create jobs. This bill is not meant to create jobs. If the
drilling is to create jobs, those jobs would be created regardless of
whether this bill passes or not.
This bill's supporters also claim that it will lower gasoline prices,
that it will reduce the budget deficit, and that it will cut
unemployment. Well, they might as well have said that it would cure the
common cold as well.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
This bill was written by Shell, for Shell, to address its
frustrations with the permitting process in Alaska, a frustration that
it was responsible for, Shell, itself. Ironically, the EPA has said on
many occasions that it is working overtime to finalize Shell's permits
by the end of this summer.
This bill won't get a drop of oil to American markets for American
consumers one millisecond faster.
{time} 1540
Shell told the Energy and Commerce Committee they won't be able to
produce oil from its Arctic operations for at least 10 years, at least
another decade. Even if this bill increased the rate of offshore
production, new drilling is unlikely to affect world oil prices.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. RUSH. In 2009 the Energy Information Administration looked at the
difference between allowing full offshore drilling and restricting
offshore drilling. The EIA found that there would be no impact on
gasoline prices from full drilling in 2020, and only a slight impact by
2030, with gas prices falling by a mere 3 cents a gallon.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jobs and
Energy Permitting Act of 2011. If you want to talk about a jobs bill,
you want to talk about a bill that will actually allow us to decrease
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, this is it.
Now, some of my colleagues on the other side say, oh, it's going to
take 10 years to get that oil. The reason it's going to take 10 years
is because for the last 4 years they've been trying to get their permit
to go and drill where there's known oil, known reserves and the EPA's
been combining with these radical environmentalist groups to block
them. And so what they're saying is, those people don't want the energy
in America. They want to go to places like Brazil, they want to go to
Egypt, they want to go to some of these other Middle Eastern countries,
many of whom don't like us, and get the oil there. But when we find
known reserves in America, they are using our own Federal regulators to
block American energy.
So what we're saying is, let's pass the piece of legislation that's
here on the floor now that's going to allow us to utilize our own
American energy. This one find alone up in Beaufort and Chukchi Sea in
Alaska, this one known reserve right here that we have the ability to
put online is going to bring in a million barrels of oil a day. That's
American energy. That's not oil that's going to be imported on tankers
where 70 percent of your spills occur from Middle Eastern countries,
where the billions of dollars we're sending them are going to countries
who don't like us. That's American jobs, over 50,000 jobs that can be
created by getting these bureaucratic hurdles out of the way.
They've got to follow all the rules. They've got to play by the
rules, but you can't keep using these bureaucratic agencies combining
up with radical environmentalist groups who don't want any American
energy to be used to block production of American energy. That's what
this bill does. It creates American jobs. It allows us to say, okay, a
million barrels a day we no longer have to import from Middle Eastern
countries.
So anybody that pays lip service and says they want to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, if they oppose this bill, then they're
supporting foreign oil because this bill says a million less barrels of
oil we have to bring in from these other countries because we have got
it in America.
We want to bring in our own oil. We want to create American jobs, and
we want to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. This is how you do
it. This is how you put more oil through that Alaskan pipeline, which
is getting ready to dry up because they won't let them explore for
energy in America. Let's explore for energy and create jobs.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I just want to take issue with the
statements that have been made over and over again that this drilling
in Alaska by Shell Oil will relieve our dependence on foreign oil.
Let's look at the facts. This country consumes 25 percent of the
world's oil. All the oil reserves in the United States amount to 2
percent. We are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by
producing more oil. We don't have enough oil to produce to satisfy our
demand.
Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't produce more domestic oil. And I
want us to produce more domestic oil.
The gentleman from Louisiana said let's play by the rules and not let
these radical environmentalist groups stop the permit. Well, I don't
even know what he's talking about, and he may not know what he's
talking about when he talks about radical environmental groups. There's
no radical or other environmental groups that are opposing this
drilling in Alaska. The people who are seeking the permit have put it
in and pulled it back, and they've spent this additional time keeping
EPA from acting on their permit.
Now, there's been talk about this Environmental Appeals Board, that
it's not in the Clean Air Act. Well, the Clean Air Act provides that
administrator shall set up an energy board to review the environmental
issues.
Play by the rules? The Republicans want to repeal the rules. They
don't want this appeals board, which has been in creation since
President George H.W. Bush, which has worked well. They don't want them
to review the application. They want to change the rules.
Now, let me tell you what it does in California. And my colleagues
from California, Democratic and Republican, you don't know what your
districts are going to be yet, so pay attention because our State is
going to be hurt.
According to the State of California, which opposes this bill, in
addition to increasing pollution, this legislation preempts local
control and review. The bill short-circuits California's existing
effective delegated permitting process, greatly increasing the
likelihood of litigation, and removes all proceedings to Washington,
D.C., imposing a substantial burden on the State and local governments
and effectively disenfranchising local stakeholders.
Now, we hear so much from the Republican side of the aisle: Why
should we have Washington make the decisions? Instead, what they're
trying to
[[Page H4400]]
do is keep California from making its own decisions.
Well, what does California have to do with drilling off the coast of
Alaska? Nothing, except in this bill they drafted it in a way that
prevents California and Delaware and Virginia and other States from
taking charge of what is known within their purview.
Let's let Shell get a permit under the regular procedures. If they
need some help in clarifying ambiguity, we're glad to work on it.
But Republicans want to repeal the laws that protect the public
interest and environmental protection just to give Shell a special
break. It's not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We won't
even see that oil for another decade. It's a giveaway to Shell Oil, and
they're using this as an excuse to repeal protections for other areas
to control their own pollution sources.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is a
power grab, and the bureaucrats, the radical bureaucrats on the
Republican side have come up with this bill; and they're trying to
impose it on the whole country to help the oil companies.
I don't think that it's worthy of our support, and I urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 3 minutes.
The gentleman, in his statement, noted that we consume 25 percent of
the world's oil, but we possess only 2 percent of the world's reserves.
And that's precisely why we're trying to pass this bill, because oil
resources can only be counted as proven reserves if they've been fully
explored, and we have not had the opportunity to fully explore.
And so why should we continue to be dependent on foreign oil when we
have not been able to even explore because we have a bureaucratic
agency at EPA, the purpose of which is to deny the opportunity to fully
explore?
This is modest legislation. It simply clarifies that if you have a
ship, that ship is going to be treated as a mobile source. If you have
a drilling platform, that's going to be treated as a stationary source.
If you're drilling, we're going to look at the ambient air quality
impact onshore, not offshore. And then we're just going to ask the EPA
to eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board for exploratory permits
only, nothing else, and to make a decision within 6 months after the
completed application is there.
{time} 1550
I think that this graph adequately demonstrates what our problem is
here in America. This is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In 1985 we were
moving 2.1 million barrels a day through that pipeline. Today, we're
down below 600,000 barrels a day. So if we have the reserves, the
American people are simply asking us to restore some balance in these
Federal agencies. We want to protect the environment, but we also want
an opportunity to explore and use our own oil resources, and we have
reason to believe that they are abundant.
I want to thank Mr. Gardner for his leadership on this issue. And I
would urge everyone in this body, just like we had five Democrats in
committee who voted for this bill, I think it's imperative for the
American people that we do so, and I would urge that we adopt H.R.
2021.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, which
undercuts Clean Air Act standards and would allow large oil companies
to circumvent air pollution regulations. I strongly believe that
America needs to ensure our energy security and reduce our dependence
on imported oil, but this bill is not the way to accomplish this goal.
I support safe and responsible resource extraction and further
developing our renewable energy capacity. But energy independence will
not be secured by curtailing the authority of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to protect the nation's
air quality standards.
H.R. 2021 would severely limit the EPA's authority to protect human
health and the environment. It would allow companies to waive permit
reviews by the Environmental Review Board and would exempt them from
requirements to use pollution control technologies, despite the ready
availability of these technologies. Removing these controls would allow
damaging pollutants to be released into the air, including nitrogen
dioxide, particles, and sulfur dioxide, which would have significant
health, environment, and climate impacts. The regulations to prevent
this pollution are reasonable, commonsense provisions, yet this bill
would undercut them, allowing widespread damage to human health and the
environment for benefit of few wealthy companies. The health and
environmental damage would be seen on all coasts where drilling takes
place.
According to some estimates, Shell's proposed 2010 drilling plan for
the Arctic alone would have released as much particulate matter as
825,000 additional cars on the roads, traveling 12,000 miles each. This
is only a single company's plan for a single drilling location; the
full ramifications of this bill across all companies and all regions
would be immense and disastrous.
H.R. 2021 would also increase Federal court litigation, taking
authority from local courts and giving it to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
This replaces an established, inexpensive process for citizen
challenges to government actions with a longer, more expensive review
process by a court that may not be familiar with the local coastal and
air quality conditions.
In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Federal policy should
be more diligent than ever in pursuing safeguards and regulations that
make sure that such costly, destructive events are made less frequent,
rather than commonplace. Stripping out the environmental protections
that we already have is irresponsible and it puts not only the Oregon
coast, but communities from Alaska to California and from Maine to
Florida at unnecessary risk. H.R. 2021 does nothing to secure a clean,
safe path toward energy security. I oppose this legislation.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Jobs and Energy
Permitting Act. The duplicitous nature of the title itself should be
sufficient reason to oppose it. This bill should actually be called the
Shell Oil Exemption Act, because that is the intent and the effect of
this legislation. Operating on the myth that the State and Federal
Clean Air Act permits are blocking oil industry efforts to drill
offshore, the legislation would grant them generous exemptions at the
expense of the public's health and at needless harm to the environment.
Shell, the world's second largest oil company, can't seem to get its
act together. Rather than admit to its feckless effort to drill
offshore in Alaska and invest in pollution control technology, it has
invested in the political process to buy some regulatory relief. I
guess it's cheaper. But claims it makes that its Clean Air Act permits
have taken five years is simply false.
EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy affirmed that and I quote,
``every time Shell has applied for a permit, a permit has been issued
by the agency within 3 to 6 months of that permit application being
complete.'' She also noted that Shell ``has consistently revised the
request, changed the project, changed what sea they want to drill in.''
Shell also pulled is application to drill in the Beaufort Sea for two
years and submitted an incomplete application.
There is no rational reason why Shell or any other oil company should
be able to exempt their offshore operations from the Clean Air Act.
Operations in the Gulf of Mexico aren't exempt.
This proposal also affects the environment in areas other than Alaska
including my home state of Virginia and other areas where future
drilling may occur like California, and Florida that unlike Alaska face
more serious challenges of bringing their non-attainment areas into
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
It's my understanding that exploration drilling can result in the
release of as much particulate as 825,000 carts traveling 12,000 miles;
as much CO2 as the annual household emissions of 21,000
people; more than 1000 tons of NO2, a pollutant associated
with respiratory illness; and more than 57 tons of particulate matter
(PM)2.5, a pollutant linked to respiratory illness and climate change.
Exempting offshore drilling would mean that other, land-based
businesses would be subject to additional reductions to offset the
pollution generated offshore.
Madam Chair, this bill is bad news for the public's health, the
environment and for businesses.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows
H.R. 2021
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 ``Jobs and Energy Permitting
Act of 2011''.
[[Page H4401]]
SEC. 2. AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT.
Section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7627(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end of the second sentence the following: ``, except that any
air quality impact of any OCS source shall be measured or
modeled, as appropriate, and determined solely with respect
to the impacts in the corresponding onshore area''.
SEC. 3. OCS SOURCE.
Section 328(a)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7627(a)(4)(C)) is amended in the matter following clause
(iii) by striking ``shall be considered direct emissions from
the OCS source'' and inserting ``shall be considered direct
emissions from the OCS source but shall not be subject to any
emission control requirement applicable to the source under
subpart 1 of part C of title I of this Act. For platform or
drill ship exploration, an OCS source is established at the
point in time when drilling commences at a location and
ceases to exist when drilling activity ends at such location
or is temporarily interrupted because the platform or drill
ship relocates for weather or other reasons.''.
SEC. 4. PERMITS.
(a) Permits.--Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7627) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(d) Permit Application.--In the case of a completed
application for a permit under this Act for platform or drill
ship exploration for an OCS source--
``(1) final agency action (including any reconsideration of
the issuance or denial of such permit) shall be taken not
later than 6 months after the date of filing such completed
application;
``(2) the Environmental Appeals Board of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall have no authority to consider any
matter regarding the consideration, issuance, or denial of
such permit;
``(3) no administrative stay of the effectiveness of such
permit may extend beyond the date that is 6 months after the
date of filing such completed application;
``(4) such final agency action shall be considered to be
nationally applicable under section 307(b); and
``(5) judicial review of such final agency action shall be
available only in accordance with such section 307(b) without
additional administrative review or adjudication.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 328(a)(4) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``For
purposes of subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting ``For
purposes of subsections (a), (b), and (d)''
The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed
in part A of House Report 112-111. Each such amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Speier
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 112-111.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike section 2 (and redesignate the subsequent sections
accordingly).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment
which strikes section 2 of the bill.
Section 2 of this bill would amend the Clean Air Act to force
emissions from any offshore source to be measured only at the
corresponding onshore location. Yes, you heard me correctly, the bill
demonstrates willful ignorance of the fact that pollution is also
harmful over water, not just on land. This dirty air loophole is so big
you can float a Deepwater Horizon-sized oil rig through it.
I know our philosophies differ here, but the fact is that even if we
produced every drop of recoverable oil offshore today, it would only
last us for 3 years at our current consumption rate. Then we would be
right back where we started from without having reduced our demand on
oil, except we would be about billions of dollars poorer after
subsidizing the oil companies to turn the rest of offshore USA into the
Gulf of Mexico. That does not sound like a deficit-cutting, jobs-
creating proposal to me.
H.R. 2021 purports to simply reduce the amount of time it takes to
get a permit to drill, but it also gives Big Oil a free pass on having
to properly account for the toxic pollution it releases on the Outer
Continental Shelf. It moves the geographic point where emissions are
measured from offshore, near the drilling location, to an onshore point
many miles away.
This change would clearly weaken public health protection for oil
workers--are we interested in them?--fishermen--are we interested in
them?--recreational boaters, not to mention all those who do business
or make a living in our coastal communities. Apparently, it's the old
out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach; what you can't see won't hurt you.
After the BP oil spill just last year, such an approach should be
dismissed as reckless.
One year ago today, oil was gushing into the gulf and toxic emissions
were streaming into the air. But if this bill passes, the same level of
Clean Air Act protections that gulf oil workers, fishermen, and coastal
residents relied on to fight BP for damages would no longer apply in
the gulf or anywhere else.
Let's be clear. In this bill, the rules don't apply to Shell. Shell
wants to drill in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska without monitoring at the
source. I get it. We all get it. But that isn't prudent; that isn't
fair; that isn't safe.
Here are the facts this bill would cover up:
Shell's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic would dump as much
particulate matter into the air as over 825,000 cars traveling 12,000
miles; as much CO2 as the annual household emissions of
21,000 people; and more than 1,000 times of NO2, a noxious
pollutant that causes respiratory illness. This is according to Shell's
own permit applications. The pollution may be emitted from rigs or
vessels far offshore, but the effects are felt miles away by native
populations with vibrant fishing communities by the coast.
If Shell Oil or any other company wants to do business on the Outer
Continental Shelf, they need to demonstrate that they can meet
standards set forth in the Clean Air Act. I mean, that's just
fundamental. Instead, they have succeeded in getting Republicans here
in Congress to waste taxpayers' time by pushing bills granting them
exemptions from the rules at the expense of public health and the
environment. In fact, by creating this loophole, H.R. 2021 would
actually further complicate the permitting process and increase
expenses for all parties involved.
The California Air Resources Board, which oversees oil and gas
permitting in my State, testified on this very point in committee. This
bill, they said, will require more time and expense to properly model
onshore emission impacts. Districts may incur added cost and delay to
deploy an adequate onshore monitoring network and obtain data
sufficient to establish a baseline--costs that will be passed on to the
permit applicants.
As a ``jobs and energy permitting'' measure, therefore, this bill
would fail on both counts while doing real harm to air quality in
California and many of the 20 other coastal States. It will certainly
achieve the goal of increasing oil company profits at the cost of
everyone else.
I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and
oppose this dirty air loophole.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would like to quote from Lisa Jackson,
who was talking explicitly about the permitting issue here. She said: I
believe that the analysis clearly shows that there is no public health
concern here. And that's why EPA, on three separate occasions, approved
this air quality permit, but on the appeal process it was denied by the
Environmental Appeals Board.
Now, if you look at the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it
is very clear in that legislative history that, as it pertains to Outer
Continental Shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore
and the ability of onshore to attain and maintain their Clean Air
National Ambient Air Quality standard requirements.
And so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. We're not
changing
[[Page H4402]]
the ambient air quality standards. We're not changing the way they
monitor stationary sources. We're not changing the way they monitor
mobile sources. We're simply clarifying that that was the legislative
history, that was the intent, and the full range of environmental
protections are still in place.
So I believe that this amendment is not necessary. We already have
adequate monitoring in place.
Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the balance of my time, in opposition, to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
The issue that we are discussing here was actually brought up in
debate at the time of the conference committee, this very language, the
very title that we are discussing. I will read some language from the
conference committee report.
Of primary concern is the fact that OCS air pollution is causing or
contributing to the violation of Federal and State ambient air quality
standards in some coastal regions.
{time} 1600
We are dealing with onshore. The debate is on onshore. The debate at
the time was over onshore regulations, on coastal regulations.
In addition, the testimony before the House Energy and Commerce
Committee focused on this language in the regulations dealing with the
rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of Federal and
State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of the PSD
program, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing
exploration and development of the OCS, going directly--directly--to
the interpretation that the focus on OCS requirements, as the
regulations themselves state, is onshore, that the onshore air quality
represents a rational relationship between OCS sources and obtaining
and maintaining air quality standards.
California, this was the language, this was the conversation. The
debate took place during the very conference committee about coastal
regions, about onshore regulations.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 112-111.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to the
bill.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 19, strike ``but shall not be subject'' and
insert ``and shall be subject''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, in the past I have made the
statement regarding offshore drilling as a native Floridian that I will
be the last person standing opposed. But it would seem to me there is
ever-mounting evidence that Republicans are willing to expand offshore
drilling regardless of cost to the environment.
This particular iteration of what I describe as a near-criminal
energy policy takes the form of a sellout of hard-working Americans'
right to breathe clean air. In particular, this bill excludes Shell
Oil's icebreaker ships in the Arctic from regulation under the Clean
Air Act.
Shell has and will continue to argue that since its icebreakers are
regulated under title II of the Clean Air Act, the vessels don't also
need to be regulated under title I. Yet the fact is that Shell's ships
would not be regulated under title II due to the fact that they are
foreign-flagged and predate the effective date of the regulations.
Shell is asking Congress, and Republicans are obliging, to create a
legal loophole so that Shell, their company, can pollute with impunity
and not be bothered by complying with environmental regulations
designed to minimize our desecration of the Earth.
This loophole would create a dream scenario for Shell and the rest of
the oil industry, currently taking in record profits as gas prices soar
for the average American family. For its 2010 drilling operations, it
was not the amount of emissions from the drill ship itself that
triggered the application of the Clean Air Act regulations to Shell's
operations, but the emissions from Shell's icebreakers.
The exploration drilling proposed by Shell, as has been noted, would
release particulate matter well in excess of 800,000 cars traveling
12,000 miles. These kinds of support vessels are responsible for up to
98 percent of the air pollution from drilling outfits, and Republicans
are asking Congress to close our eyes to this matter.
My amendment would bring the oil companies' dreamworld crashing down
around them. My amendment eliminates the loophole created in this bill,
giving EPA the authority to regulate the support vessels and the
emission sources that they are.
I was in the Rules Committee. I heard this argument about 5 years and
Shell, and I also heard my colleague Mr. Rush clearly explain that
Shell filled out applications that were not fully filled out, and then
when they were sent back at some point they even pulled their
application before sending it back incomplete. Now, you can't have it
both ways.
But, more important, I would ask every speaker that speaks in favor
of this measure, tell the American public today how much this is going
to reduce the cost of gasoline today, tomorrow, or next week, or next
year.
The fact is, Hilda Solis, the Labor Secretary, did something today
about the next iteration of jobs. She announced grants for different
segments of this country in the amount of $38 million in grants for the
Green Jobs Innovation Fund program. That is where our head needs to be.
Our heart may still be in the need to use fossil fuels, but this
measure isn't going to make one whit of a difference with reference to
the cost of gas.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from Colorado is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment, which mixes two
basic concepts of stationary title I issues and mobile title II
sources. What we are talking about here is something akin to requiring
the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he
parks next to the factory. It is requiring a re-engining of service
vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary
source.
So basically what we are talking about in the bill is saying that
once a drilling ship starts to drill, that is when it becomes
stationary. To require the vessels that service that drill ship, to
require them to be stationary would be like requiring the UPS truck to
fall under the same regulations as the factory that it is delivering
to, or treating an emissions testing facility like it has wheels and
ought to be moving around to everybody else because it is testing the
emissions of a stationary source. So I rise to oppose this amendment,
again, because of issues it is trying to deal with, mixing stationary
and mobile sources.
The issue of foreign-flagged ships is dealt with in international law
under our treaties that we have in this country. It is dealt with in
the MARPOL Treaty. If we want to increase those regulations on U.S.
vessels, Congress can do that. However, to increase regulations on
service vessels only because they were hired to service an OCS vehicle
makes no sense.
It was said in debate earlier too, I believe it was said we are not
going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by
[[Page H4403]]
producing more oil. I guess that argument means the same thing as we
are not going to have more food by producing more food; we are not
going to have more appliances in this country by producing more
appliances. The arguments we have heard against this bill are off
point, off subject, and are simply on claims that don't make any sense.
So when it comes to this particular amendment, delivery trucks aren't
regulated as stationary sources, nor should the service vessels to a
stationary source, the drilling ship, as will be considered once this
legislation becomes law
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to yield back the
balance of my time and ask for a record vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS 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 gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Mr. WELCH. 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, after line 9, insert the following (and redesignate
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(1) such completed application shall include data on oil
subsidies provided by the Federal Government to the
applicant;
{time} 1610
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, oil companies, of course, benefit from
significant subsidies. This amendment would require that applicant oil
companies for permits to drill would disclose as part of their
application the taxpayer-provided subsidies that they enjoy. They would
make that specific as to the leases for which they're seeking
permission to drill.
Now, we've had a long debate, Mr. Chairman, in this body about the
wisdom of subsidies to oil companies and we have a strong contingent in
this body that favors those subsidies, making arguments that it's good
for the economy, good for producing energy, and beneficial to the
taxpayer. We have many in this body, myself among them, who believe
that these subsidies are too rich and they're unnecessary.
When oil company profits are a trillion dollars in the past year,
when the price of oil has been hovering between $95 and $113 a barrel,
when the companies have enjoyed record profits this year, the question
arises by me and by many as to whether or not it makes sense to ask the
taxpayers to reach into their pockets and to provide subsidies to a
mature industry--an important industry, but a mature industry and a
very profitable industry with a very high-priced product where they can
generate and are succeeding in generating significant profits for that
industry.
This is not about whether they're doing good or they're doing bad--we
have oil companies that are doing their job--but it is about whether
taxpayers should be, at the very minimum, made explicitly aware as to
how much it is they're being asked to subsidize oil companies when they
seek these leases.
One of the challenges we have that has been a major point by the new
majority is that we have a budget deficit and we've got to control
spending. Spending is both on the direct appropriations side and what's
called here the tax expenditure side. I think our constituents would
know that as tax breaks. Why not take every action we can when it comes
to spending and it comes to tax breaks to mobilize the awareness of the
American people so they know what it is we're spending their money on,
whether it's for a spending program or a tax break subsidy.
So this is about disclosure. It's about unleashing the power of
knowledge, making it available to the American people so they can tell
their representatives, You know what? We think that subsidy is a pretty
good idea, or, You know what? We don't have to continue to be shelling
out money for that subsidy. We want to go in a new direction.
So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about empowering the democratic
objectives of this country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POMPEO. I rise in opposition to the Welch amendment and in strong
support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, a piece of
legislation that would create jobs in America and American energy for
American consumers.
The Welch amendment requires a company applying for a permit to
provide data on ``oil subsidies provided by the Federal Government.''
Mr. Chairman, this is an absolute red herring. There's no definition of
``oil subsidy.'' That's intentional. The gentleman who proffered this
amendment is an attorney. He ought to know better. I don't know what
oil subsidies to which he's referring.
Section 199, manufacturing deduction, which goes to all businesses
whether they produce oil or otherwise, so long as they're engaged in
manufacturing. Maybe he's referring to the writing off of intangible
drilling costs and claiming tax credits for employing American workers.
If those qualify as American Government giveaways, that should
absolutely be something that I would think that he would support. These
folks are paying royalty taxes and giving great revenue to the United
States Treasury.
This piece of legislation, without this amendment, will create many
jobs and revenue for the United States Treasury.
What Mr. Welch is really interested in, Mr. Chairman, what this
amendment really does is it attempts to punish oil companies for
producing American energy and American jobs. This piece of legislation,
H.R. 2021, will do just that, and this amendment attempts to stop it.
If there were subsidies that applied only to the oil industry or
specifically benefited folks who purchased traditional oil and
petroleum, I'd be the first to rise and say, You're right; that's a
subsidy. We ought to get rid of it. But that's not what this amendment
attempts to do. Rather, this amendment attempts to stop a piece of
legislation that will create energy; will lower the price of gasoline
for American consumers; will, again, add jobs all over our country;
and, once again, provide American energy so that American consumers may
benefit.
I'd like to urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Welch amendment
and support the underlying Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH. I would just say this to my colleague: You and I disagree,
obviously, on the subsidies. We don't disagree that the oil industry
does provide good jobs to a lot of American families and a product that
we need to keep our economy going. But there's a reasonable basis for
disagreement about whether a particular subsidy has outlived its useful
life. It is real money out of the pocket of the taxpayer.
While the suggestion is made that it would be tough to figure out
what the subsidies are, these companies that enjoy these subsidies have
accountants who scour the Tax Code to make certain that every legally
available subsidy is one that they, in fact, do take. They actually owe
that due diligence and that effort to their shareholders to make
certain that they get maximum value for the shareholders, and that
includes paying not a nickel more in taxes than they're legally
required to pay by the rules that this House of Representatives sets.
So this is not about whether you're for or against the tax subsidies
as they exist--we disagree on that--but it is about saying to the
American taxpayer, when the company is filling out
[[Page H4404]]
this application, after they've done their tax filings, which they do
every year, they can specify what the benefit is they are getting
courtesy of the United States taxpayer. That's really what this is
about.
What is the problem with letting people know how their money is being
spent?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WELCH. 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 Vermont will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
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, after line 9, insert the following (and redesignate
the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
``(1) such completed application shall include data on
bonuses provided to the executives of the applicant from the
most recent quarter;
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 2021.
As constituents see soaring gas prices, soaring oil prices, oil
companies have revealed record profits. The top five multinational oil
companies earned over a trillion dollars in the past decade. In my
district, where jobs and commerce depends on a coastal marine and
tourism economy, I have constituents that are paying up to $4.50 a
gallon. These oil firms, these conglomerates, are eating up more and
more of our constituents' paychecks.
And where is it going? Only a small portion--some estimate as little
as 7 percent--are reinvested back into the economy to pay for
efficiencies and research into alternatives to oil. Rather, oil
companies are providing bumps for stockholders and high bonuses to
their company executives--a pat on the back for high prices at the
pump. Remember that up to 90 percent of the tax subsidy money given to
executives and companies by the taxpayers went to buybacks for
preferred stock purchases.
My amendment would provide transparency to the U.S. taxpayer.
{time} 1620
The amendment requires that all completed permit applications include
data on executive bonuses distributed by the applicant company in the
most recent quarter.
In May I offered a similar amendment to H.R. 1231, which would have
required the Secretary to make available to the public data on
executive bonuses for any company that is given a drilling lease, and
it received at that time 186 votes. We have an opportunity now to
successfully pass this amendment, and the time is now to hold the
largest oil companies accountable. I urge my colleagues to support this
important amendment in order to provide transparency to the American
taxpayer.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, once again, we are faced with the question
of whether we want to focus on the issues that this bill is intending
to address--the issue of job creation, the issue of energy security--
and whether or not we are going to take advantage of the resources that
we have in our own backyard, which is American energy for the American
people.
This amendment presents, once again, one more distraction from the
very purpose of this bill. It is a distraction for our colleagues. I
understand that they want to oppose this bill, but I believe they ought
to oppose the bill on its merits. If they want to oppose the bill, vote
``no'' on the bill. If they want to offer constructive amendments, then
introduce amendments to try to improve the bill, but presenting red
herring amendments in amendment after amendment ought to be defeated.
Aside from the distraction that this amendment creates, there is no
real need for this amendment from a practical perspective. If an
interested person wants to know the amounts of bonuses paid to an oil
company executive, the information is available. As it is a publicly
owned company, it's already available. I don't believe we require bonus
disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. When a staffer
helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the
bill, I don't believe that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer.
Again, this is a red herring on a bill that focuses on jobs and job
creation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KEATING. I think the point is that environmental groups, marine
jobs groups and groups that depend on tourism in my district don't have
shareholders. They aren't the beneficiaries of this. The purpose of
this amendment is to find out who really benefits.
If you represent a district like mine, there is a great risk in
this--a risk in jobs, a risk in commerce, a risk that is irreparable, a
risk that is one that should be taken very seriously. If one is taking
that very seriously, one has to look at who, indeed, is benefiting by
this. It's clear, given some of the other alternatives that are there
right now, that the people at the pump are not benefiting by this. The
people in my district who are depending on jobs that could be risked as
a result of failures from this drilling have a great deal to risk. It
is not a red herring. In fact, if you're going to apply any kind of
fish analogies, another important industry in my area, the fishing
industry, is one that is assuming this risk as well. Now, all of these
risks are there. Who is benefiting by this risk?
The purpose of this amendment is to tell the public who, indeed,
benefits by it. It is the executives who are getting these large
bonuses, because this is about profits, and the profits go to those
executives. They aren't there to help reduce costs for the people at
the pump, and they certainly aren't there to help the people in my
district who are bearing all the risk of this type of drilling.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Who benefits from this bill? The American people benefit
from this bill.
In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it was
made very clear that the west coast could import less oil because of
the development of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Testimony was
received before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that this could
reduce the price of gasoline when we create more supplies, particularly
for areas along the west coast, because of the presence of the Beaufort
and Chukchi Sea reserve. So the American people are the beneficiaries
of increased American production.
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 Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Mr. RUSH. 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 13, insert before the semicolon ``, except
that the Administrator may provide additional 30-day
extensions if the Administrator determines that such time is
[[Page H4405]]
necessary to meet the requirements of this section, to
provide adequate time for public participation, or to ensure
sufficient involvement by one or more affected States''.
Page 4, beginning at line 18, strike paragraph (3) and
insert the following:
``(3) no administrative stay of the effectiveness of such
permit may extend beyond the deadline for final agency action
under paragraph (1);
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would strengthen this
bill by ensuring that we maintain an opportunity for State and
community input even as we seek to streamline the permitting process,
as this bill attempts to do.
My amendment would simply allow the EPA administrator to provide
additional 30-day extensions if the administrator determines that such
time is necessary to provide adequate time for public participation and
sufficient involvement by affected States. Mr. Chairman, input by those
most affected by drilling is a vital and necessary part of the
permitting process.
There was a time not too long ago when my Republican colleagues
valued local participation and States' rights; and now that they are in
the majority, they are attempting to strip away the power of States and
the power of local communities to even participate in the decisions
that will affect them the most.
As Representative of the people, I do not believe that it makes sense
for us to legislate away the ability of our citizens to comment on
drilling decisions that will impact their health, impact their
livelihoods, impact their well-being. I also don't think that our
constituents will buy into the argument put forth by my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle that we must make it easier for all
companies to drill and also take away the public's ability to comment,
even while they say this is for the public's own benefit. It's
ludicrous.
This bill's supporters have said that this is a narrow bill designed
to address problems Shell Oil Company has faced in obtaining a Clean
Air Act permit for exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska; but in
fact, this legislation will impact every State on the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts. The States of California and Delaware testified before
the Energy and Commerce Committee that they have grave concerns about
the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and
welfare from air pollution.
I truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is imperative that the States
and the local communities that will be most affected participate in the
process of awarding permits, and this amendment would ensure that
adequate time is given for that purpose. I don't believe that we should
ever sacrifice the interests of the American public in order to
expedite the interests of oil companies, so I hope that all of my
colleagues will join me in supporting my amendment.
{time} 1630
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I've had the opportunity to serve many
years with the gentleman from Illinois, who's the ranking member of
this subcommittee, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for
him. But I would point out to him that this legislation does not in any
way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express
opposition or comment about a permit. We do not in any way change the
comment period that EPA has to determine if they're going to issue, in
this case, an exploratory permit.
We do not in any way change the National Environmental Policy Act
that provides four additional opportunities for communities, local,
State, individuals, environmental groups to comment on an exploration
permit. There are today five opportunities for people to comment about
air permits. After this bill is passed, there will still be five
opportunities for entities to comment.
Today, individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the EPA
and their actions. After this bill is passed, they can still file a
lawsuit.
This amendment basically gives the EPA Administrator the opportunity
to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the Administrator
deems it necessary; but it's not limited to one 30-day period, two 30-
day periods or three 30-day periods. In fact, it could go on ad
infinitum, and that's the whole reason we have the bill here today,
because I don't care what company it is out there trying to explore to
determine if the oil is there, if you cannot even get an administrative
decision, as in the case in point it has taken 4 or 5 years and there's
still no decision, you can never get to the court system.
So this bill is a commonsense bill that provides some balance, some
checkpoints at EPA so that we have the maximum opportunity to explore,
to determine how much oil we have off the coast of Alaska. And I might
say, in the hearings Alaska government authorities came up and pleaded
for us to do something to help get a decision from EPA.
So I would oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let us not be bamboozled by this argument that my friend on the other
side is trying to perpetuate on the American people. There is one
problem with this bill--well, there are actually two problems with this
bill.
One problem is that it gives the EPA and State permitting authorities
just 6 months, 6 lousy months, to finalize an air permit for offshore
exploratory drilling, which is not enough time to perform an adequate
technical review while allowing for adequate public participation.
Number two, it preempts State authority. It preempts the right of the
State of California, the State of Delaware, and other States with
designated authority to impose more stringent emission controls on
vessels servicing an offshore drilling operation.
Mr. Chair, this amendment attempts to cure a very serious problem
with this bill.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 2 minutes.
To close this debate, I would simply say that we think 6 months is
totally adequate to make some decisions about air quality permits for
exploratory purposes only, and I would remind everyone here that EPA
had a 60-day comment period for its utility MACT regulation that was a
1,000-page regulation imposed by EPA's own estimate of $10 billion on
the American people and increased electricity costs, if it goes into
effect, by 4 or 5 percent, and they did that in 60 days.
Certainly, the 6 months that we give in this bill for an air quality
permit for drilling purposes alone is adequate, and I would
respectfully request that we oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. 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 Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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, beginning on line 14, strike paragraph (2) and
redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
[[Page H4406]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 2021, a bill that curtails the EPA's authority under the Clean Air
Act to regulate pollution from offshore oil drilling and to limit the
public's participation in decisions that directly affect our health.
My amendment strikes the text which strips the ability of the
Environmental Appeals Board to remand or deny the issuance of clean air
permits for offshore energy exploration and extraction. Quite simply,
this amendment allows the EAB to operate as it does today, saving
taxpayer dollars and keeping unnecessary litigation out of the courts
and in a place where unbiased and apolitical judges can make sound
decisions with input from local constituencies who are most affected.
It's worth noting that the EAB was established under George H.W.
Bush, created in recognition of increasing levels of appeals from
permit decisions and civil penalty decisions. Further, three of the
four sitting judges were appointed by Republican administrations. The
judges who sit on the EAB are not political appointees. They are
critical EPA officials whose terms do not end at the end of an
administration.
The board takes approximately 5 months on the average from the time a
petition is filed to receive and review briefs, hold oral arguments,
and render a comprehensive written decision in a prevention of
significant deterioration air permit case. Federal court review would
likely take at least three or four times as long. Only four of the
board's 100-plus air permit decisions have ever been appealed to a
Federal court, and none of the board's air permit decisions have ever
been overturned.
The EAB is cost-effective and efficient and has proven to be the
fastest, cheapest way to achieve a final permit. I ask my colleagues to
support this amendment to allow the EAB to continue to serve to protect
the public health, to keep unnecessary lawsuits from the court system,
and to take into account local community input.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So my colleagues can understand what this bill is about, this does
not repeal the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board to hear
issues relating to production, production permits. This simply
addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the Environmental Appeals
Board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits.
{time} 1640
Let me say it again. Exploratory permits are for a very limited
duration. We're talking an activity that may last 30 to 45 days.
Unfortunately, what has happened, the EAB, which is by all accounts
litigation with judges in robes in Washington, D.C., that are appointed
lifetime bureaucrats, unaccountable, created by the administration, the
EAB would still be able to hear appeals related to production. They
will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. Why?
Because we believe exploration of our resources is important, that it
should not be delayed for 5 years.
In the time that it has taken to reach this point, 400 wells have
been drilled by the lessee around the world. That's job creation, but
certainly not in the United States. That's energy production, but
certainly not in the United States. This bill presents a solution, an
up-or-down, yes-or-no answer to a permit within 6 months, without going
to the EAB for a ping-pong delay back and forth, EPA, EAB, delay after
delay, and says we are going to focus on an issue of national
importance, developing our resources, getting exploration performed, so
that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward
energy security.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the numbers speak for themselves. What
we're talking about with this legislation is really just two permits
that folks were concerned about. The reality of the matter is the
average is 5 months.
Now, I understand what we're talking about is with just exploration,
but we would like to get this right and not have amnesia about what
happens when we get this wrong, because that's not just job-killing,
it's ecosystem-killing. It destroys an entire region. There's a lot at
stake here.
These aren't unaccountable people. They're appointed by
administrations, created by a Republican administration, three of the
four appointed by Republican administrations. It is in fact, in a
sense, the executive branch. And while the executive can't do all this,
it's delegated to appropriate authorities to make sound, apolitical
decisions that affect communities not just for months or years but
conceivably for generations. There's a lot at stake.
This is a simple amendment to deal with a critical problem, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm getting confused by some of
the arguments I'm hearing against this bill, because I hear that 6
months isn't enough time even though the average permitting time is 5
months, some will say. I hear that this is only dealing with two
permits, although I hear that California, Delaware, and Massachusetts
are at risk with this legislation. I hear the argument that some say
this is ecosystem-destroying.
Let me read a quote from Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA,
testifying before the United States Senate:
``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no
public health concern here.''
``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no
public health concern here.''
Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator of the EPA, did not rebut
this testimony that was given by the administrator herself, Lisa
Jackson, before the Senate. Gina McCarthy didn't refutes it before the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
The arguments seem to be confusing and grasping for straws. This is
about energy security, about economic opportunity and making sure that
we can deliver energy that's produced right here in the United States.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Eshoo
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Ms. ESHOO. 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 21, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 4, beginning on line 22, strike paragraph (4) and
redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly.
Page 5, line 2, strike ``such''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This bill, H.R. 2021, contains a rather extraordinary provision. It
says that any appeal of an exploration permit decision can only be
heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a fundamental
change to longstanding law and precedent governing the venue for
judicial review of challenges to EPA action.
Over 40 years ago when Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and
established venue for judicial review, Congress made a very sensible
distinction. That distinction was that local
[[Page H4407]]
and regional EPA actions would be reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the appropriate circuit. Nationally applicable actions would be
reviewed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This distinction has worked well for the past 40 years. If a major
new industrial source will have significant local air pollution
impacts, nearby communities will want to weigh in. Local businesses
will want to ensure that a new source doesn't force more stringent
cleanup requirements for existing sources. State and local authorities
will have views. And the industrial source itself may disagree with
EPA's decision. All of these stakeholders may want to appeal EPA's
decision. Under the Clean Air Act, they can do so in the nearest court
of appeals, without traveling to Washington, D.C. And for permits
issued by States or localities, the decision is reviewed by State
courts.
But this bill creates a new regime for exploration permits. In fact,
under this bill, even for an exploration permit issued by a State or
local permitting agency, all appeals would have to go to the Federal
court here in Washington, D.C.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to
criticize centralized government; bash Washington, D.C.; Washington,
D.C. lawyers. They extol the virtues of local control. They cite the
10th Amendment. But this legislation centralizes control in Washington,
D.C. In fact, it's a boon for Washington, D.C. lawyers.
This provision makes it far more difficult for regular folks to
appeal a decision that can directly affect them. It took one of our
Energy and Commerce Committee witnesses from the North Slope of Alaska
16 hours to travel to Washington, D.C., at a cost of at least $1,000
for that ticket.
This provision forces State and local authorities to fly to
Washington, D.C. to defend a challenged permit decision. That's a huge
burden in terms of money, and particularly so in these tough economic
times.
The premise of this bill is that the oil industry needs faster permit
decisions. Moving review from one Federal circuit court to another does
not expedite permit decisions, and the committee that I'm a part of
received no testimony identifying any actual problems with review in
the relevant circuit courts.
I encourage Members to support this amendment, which would preserve
local control, which would preserve community participation and really
speaks to some fiscal common sense.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, our friend from California's amendment
sort of makes a lot of sense. There are a couple of issues that I would
like to point out about it.
First of all, under her proposal, you would appeal the decision of
the EPA at the local district court, wherever the project might be,
let's say California. So you go through that appeals process through
the U.S. District Court, and then if you don't like that decision, then
you have to go to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
{time} 1650
Well, today, if our bill did not pass, anyone could appeal a decision
of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Appeals
Board, which is located in Washington, D.C. So, today, any appeals to
that board have to come to Washington, D.C., and it really is a
judicial hearing. There are lawyers. There are judges. There is
evidence. And so, today, that's the case.
Our bill simply says that in order to curtail the length of time it
takes to receive or to even get a decision for an exploratory permit
only, nothing else--we're not changing any other aspect of the EPA or
Clean Air Act. We're simply saying, for this one purpose, we want a
decision within 6 months, yes or no, so that the administrative
decisions are exhausted. And then once the decision is made by the EPA,
any party can go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They don't even
have to go through that extra layer at the Federal court but go right
to the district court of appeals here in Washington, D.C.
So this legislation does not in any way change the venue. As I said,
if we did nothing, as it is today, if they appeal to the Environmental
Appeals Board, they come to Washington, D.C., to have the hearing. So I
have been sympathetic to her desire to save people money, not require
them to come all the way to Washington, but that's the way the law is
today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESHOO. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 8, strike ``subsections (a), (b), and (d)''
and insert ``subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e)''.
Page 5, after line 8, add the following new section:
SEC. 5. STATE AUTHORITY.
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7627) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) State Authority.--Any State with delegated authority
to implement and enforce this section may impose any
standard, limitation, or requirement relating to emissions of
air pollutants from an OCS source if such standard,
limitation, or requirement is no less stringent than the
standards, limitations, or requirements established by the
Administrator pursuant to this section.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I'm offering with Representatives
Carney and Castor addresses one of several concerns we have about this
bill: its harmful impact on State programs that today are working to
issue permits while protecting local air quality.
Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee heard testimony from
officials of the States of Delaware and California. Both expressed
serious concerns about the impact of this bill on local air quality.
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources has this to say about the
legislation: ``The constraints placed on States' rights and authorities
will adversely affect our State's ability to protect public health and
welfare from the harmful effects of air pollution.'' The California Air
Resources Board also testified that this measure ``could have far-
reaching, unintended consequences on public health.''
California and its local air districts in some cases require emission
controls that go beyond Federal law, and that is to address our unique
pollution problems. For example, emissions from commercial harbor craft
and oceangoing vessels represent the largest source of smog-forming air
pollution in the entire Santa Barbara County. These emissions account
for over 40 percent of our local air pollution. In response, the
California Air Resources Board adopted rules to help coastal areas like
California come into attainment with ozone and particulate matter air
quality standards. But H.R. 2021 would nullify some of these State
requirements, and it would increase pollution by preventing our local
air quality district from incorporating them into their air permits for
offshore drilling production and processing.
It's very critical to our local air quality and to public health that
emissions from these marine vessels and offshore drilling are subject
to commonsense regulations, and that is why this simple amendment is
before us today. It says that if a State with delegated authority wants
to enact more stringent air quality protections for offshore drilling,
it can continue to do so.
[[Page H4408]]
Mr. Chairman, this is about giving flexibility to our local air
quality districts so that they can apply the technologies that work
best for them--they've been doing so for 20 years--so they can continue
their work protecting our air quality and the health of our
communities. This amendment says that a one-size-fits-all approach that
comes from Washington politicians and giant multinational oil companies
is the wrong approach.
I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment. It's
common sense. It will allow State and local air districts to continue
to do their job to protect the air quality of coastal communities like
the central coast of California--nothing more, and nothing less.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California for
being a part of this debate today.
We had, I believe, this amendment or a similar amendment in
committee. We discussed this amendment. As I mentioned, we've had two
separate committee hearings on this particular piece of legislation. We
had a markup where a number of amendments were offered. A tremendous
amount of debate took place, and I believe debate took place on this
very amendment.
One of the concerns I have with this amendment is the practical
impact it would have in what could best be described as a balkanization
in the regulation of Federal waters, creating a patchwork quilt, so to
speak, of regulations as it applies to the Federal areas in the OCS.
The amendment allows States to promulgate any regulation for the OCS as
long as it can be deemed no less stringent. This will result in chaotic
regulation of Federal waters, many of which may conflict with
interstate commerce.
But perhaps even more important is the dramatic expansion of State
jurisdiction that this amendment would have. And this was also an issue
that was discussed back and forth during our markups both at the
subcommittee level and at the full committee level, whether or not this
would create challenges for the expansion of State jurisdiction.
The current law only allows for the delegation of the exact
authorities of the administrator and not the flexibility to create the
State's own laws to implement the act. I think that's one of the
distinctions that we have sort of walked over during this debate.
It's also important to recognize that the Federal OCS is different
from onshore State borders, where the States do have this type of
flexibility in setting their State implementation plans. We talked in
committee, once again, about the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act. They were enacted for this very reason: to
federalize and provide harmony in the offshore.
So State regulations of the OCS will be used, I believe,
unfortunately, by those who would try to obstruct and stop domestic
energy production. The policy of this bill, of the Jobs and Energy
Permitting Act, is to provide a clear process so that resources can be
explored, and I am afraid this amendment would cause the opposite.
The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bill that was brought forward
because of significant delay in a bureaucratic process through an
Environmental Appeals Board that was not created by Congress but was
created as an administrative construct; something that was designed,
I'm sure, with good intentions. But unfortunately, in its
applicability, in the way it is working, the way people have used it,
it is now being part of a great delay.
In the time that it has taken for the EAB to work on this bill, 5
years, the company that has the lease in the Beaufort-Chukchi Sea area
right now has drilled over 400 wells around the world, not in the
United States, not creating U.S. jobs here, not creating U.S. energy,
but working abroad.
{time} 1700
And if we are going to set this country on a path toward energy
security, I've said it before and will continue to say it, if we are
going to set this country on a path to energy security, then we have to
recognize the national importance of allowing exploration to occur,
exploration permits activities that will take 30 to 45 days.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to make one additional comment. I think
you have a very good point on the balkanization. We have these Federal
waters, the Outer Continental Shelf. We have a lot of oil reserves, and
we're trying to explore, trying to produce more oil. And if this
amendment is adopted, different States can have different rules, so
that would complicate things.
And we already have a situation where we have different agencies of
the Federal Government issuing these permits. In some areas we have the
Department of the Interior. In other areas we have EPA. If you take
that, on top of the balkanization, it's going to take a lot longer than
5 years. We may never get a permit.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
Reclaiming my time, it's frustrating too because we continue to hear
statements from the administration, from others who wish to pursue a
vibrant energy policy for our country that they too agree that we need
expanded resource development in the United States, expanded U.S.
energy opportunities. But it's almost like lip-synching. They are
talking about it, but not actually doing it. And, unfortunately, what
we are seeing is conversations by the administration without the action
to back up that conversation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my
colleague from Colorado, the author of the bill.
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act is what is at issue here today in
this amendment. It was created more than 20 years ago, largely at the
insistence of California officials. In fact, my Republican predecessor,
Congressman Lagomarsino, introduced this legislation because residents
were unhappy about uncontrolled air pollution from offshore drilling,
as well as local industry and business groups who were upset that
offshore sources were basically free to pollute, while onshore sources
bore the burden of heavier regulation to try to make up for the
degraded air quality. Only two States now have this permission.
I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Delaware (Mr.
Carney).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I
will submit this letter from the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources for the Record.
While I oppose the underlying bill, I will only speak to this
amendment. It addresses what I think is a nonpartisan issue and,
frankly, it appeals to States' rights, which my Republican friends
typically support.
Delaware is in nonattainment with Federal clean air standards, mainly
due to emissions that come from outside our State borders. In order to
comply with Federal law and protect public health, Delaware has the
ability to implement pollution control strategies beyond EPA's
requirements.
Last year Delaware was given Clean Air Act authority for the Outer
Continental Shelf, meaning that the State, rather than EPA, regulates
emissions there. Delegated authority is working. The one OCS permit
requested of Delaware was granted within weeks, not months. Disputes go
through a quick administrative review, rather than costly litigation.
It does not mean a delay, as my Republican colleague alleged.
In fact, this delegated authority is working so well that other
States are actively looking into it. Maryland, Virginia and Alaska have
each asked Delaware for its documents on delegated authority.
A one-size-fits-all approach like H.R. 2021 is not in the best
interest of our States. Our amendment simply preserves delegated
authority to the States that want it, enabling our States to oversee
pollution control as they see fit. This is not balkanization; it's
common sense.
[[Page H4409]]
I urge my colleagues to preserve States rights by supporting this
amendment.
State of Delaware,
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control,
Dover, DE, June 21, 2011.
Hon. John C. Carney,
United States Representative,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Carney: I write to you today to express
State of Delaware's opposition to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and
Energy Permitting Act of 2011. Our concerns with this bill
are outlined below:
(1) The proposed bill will impede states' authority to
regulate emissions and create unnecessary burdens on state
agencies;
(2) By restricting the consideration of air quality impacts
solely to an onshore location in the corresponding onshore
area, the proposed bill does not sufficiently protect human
health and the environment;
(3) The proposed bill shields a potentially significant
portion of emissions from OCS activities from emission
control requirements; and
(4) The proposed bill subverts our state's established
procedures for due process and replaces them with a
potentially cumbersome and costly judicial review.
Delaware's air quality is so severely impacted by
transported air pollution from the Southwest and the West
that Delaware can no longer produce a plan to meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone even if it
eliminated all in-state emissions. This bill will open a new
Eastern front in the assault on our air quality and at the
same time removes available and much needed tools to address
these emissions. Delaware's citizens and those living on the
East coast deserve clean air and need the continued
protection afforded them by the Clean Air Act.
I urge you to reject this bill.
Sincerely,
Collin P. O'Mara,
Secretary.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hochul
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Ms. HOCHUL. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, after line 8, add the following new subsection:
(c) Reporting.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report that
details how the amendments made by this Act are projected to
increase oil and gas production and lower energy prices for
consumers.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Hochul) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Chair, I stand here today to ask one simple question:
How will the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 reduce the cost of
gasoline for consumers?
I think this is a fair question, one that my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle should want the answer to.
The price of gasoline is soaring in our country, and across the
Nation Americans are paying too much at the pump. The average gasoline
right now is $3.63, up over a dollar from a year ago. Diesel, which our
struggling farmers have to pay, has gone up a dollar per gallon in the
same timeframe.
However, as I've stated on this floor before, the people in my
district are paying much more than that. In the past, western New
Yorkers have paid some of the highest gas prices in this Nation. Rising
fuel prices have hurt our small businesses. They hurt our farms, and
they hurt our families at a time when money is far too scarce. And that
is why we must know how the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 will
increase oil and gas production, and we need to know that this will
decrease the cost of energy for our consumers.
Under this bill, American people are supposed to put their trust in
the same oil companies that have consistently betrayed that trust. They
tell us we need to drill more, and they tell us they need to get more
permits on an expedited basis in order to do so.
Well, I agree. I agree we need to reduce our dependency on foreign
oil. But I'm asking for the proper oversight. How do we know that the
permits we're issuing so oil companies can drill in our waters will
result in that production of oil and gas? How do we know they simply
won't secure permits and not choose to drill to keep oil and gas off
the market, or even worse, just to drive up the price of oil by
manipulating supply?
The amendment I'm offering today is quite simple and straightforward.
In one line it gives the EPA administrator 60 days to submit a report
dealing with how this bill will increase oil and gas production, while
lowering the price of energy for consumers. It has nothing to do with
the merits of the bill, which I'm not weighing in on at this time. But
I think that asking for a report within 2 months of passing this act is
not unreasonable, which is why I ask all my colleagues to join with me
today in supporting this amendment.
Today the people back home in my district and all across this Nation
are still fed up with high gas prices, and they want to know what we
are going to do about these problems. This amendment, in a bipartisan
way, can be a step toward finding that solution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 1710
Mr. WHITFIELD. We certainly want to thank the gentlelady from New
York for introducing this amendment.
To answer the question about how is this bill going to help oil
prices and provide more oil for the marketplace, obviously it can't do
it overnight. But the reason that we're here is because it has taken
EPA 5 years and they still have not even rendered a decision on a
simple exploratory drill permit request, which is not even a long-term
activity. It's simply to explore to determine is oil there and can we
use it.
Now, in America we're using around 20 million barrels of oil a day,
and the vast majority of that is being imported into the U.S. from
other sources. And so all we're attempting to do in this bill--we're
not changing any aspect of the Clean Air Act, we're not changing mobile
source rules, stationary source rules, national ambient air quality
standards. We're not changing that. We're not changing the
Environmental Appeals Board from hearing appeals on any other permit
other than an exploratory permit, and that's all this bill does.
And we want to do it because we're trying to find additional oil in
America, and we know we have it. And we also know that if we have more
oil, obviously we can't get it produced tomorrow. We've been trying 5
years just to get the permit, and we don't have that yet. But we want
any company to have the ability to go out and drill and to get an
expedited answer from EPA. We're not even directing EPA to approve the
permit. We're simply saying make a decision. And then if the other side
does not like the decision, they have an opportunity to go to court.
Under the way it's operating today, we can't get a final decision to
even go to court. So here we are in limbo.
I might also say that on the gentlelady's amendment, she does not
give any time for this report to be issued. And knowing EPA's track
record, we could be here 10 years waiting for a report.
But more important than that, EPA really does not perform economic
analyses of energy markets. The Energy Information Administration does
that. They have the modeling to do it, they have the technicians to do
it, they have the information to do it. EPA really does not even do a
very good job on their regulations of thinking about the impact on jobs
in America.
So I understand the gentlelady's intent; I think it's a very good
intent. But as I said, one of the real weaknesses here is she doesn't
even set a timeline for this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Gardner.)
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
[[Page H4410]]
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
This issue of studies, this issue of blue ribbon commissions, it
doesn't address the actual fact that price is very much dependent on
supply. That's the testimony that we have received. If we have 1
million barrels of oil coming into this country from our own resources,
American resources, we know from testimony at the hearing that it will
impact price, testimony at the hearing that said the west coast of this
United States would have to import less, that it would reduce the price
at the pump in California.
We don't have time to create commissions that don't actually relieve
the American consumers' pain at the pump. They're paying for it now. I
too represent farmers, businesses that are paying $3.50 a gallon--they
were paying higher just a few weeks ago--and none of them have come to
me and said, you know, I wish you could study whether or not high
prices are impacting me or not. I wish you could study whether American
production will actually reduce the price at the pump because they know
intuitively that increased supply--American energy resources, when we
develop them, will add to our supply, and it's a function of supply and
demand.
We have the opportunity in this country to create American jobs. I
ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hochul).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HOCHUL. 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 New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
Mr. SCHRADER. 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:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DRILLING OFF THE COAST OF OREGON.
No permit may be issued under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.) for an Outer Continental Shelf source (as
defined in section 328(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
7627(a)(4))) in connection with drilling for oil or natural
gas off the coast of Oregon.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, co-sponsored by the coastal members of the Oregon
delegation. This amendment is very simple; it protects 63 miles of
fragile Oregon coastline and many of the communities that depend on its
health.
This amendment would prevent any permits required under the Clean Air
Act for oil or natural gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off
the coast of Oregon. It respects Oregon State's right to decide what is
best for its coast without Federal interference.
Our Oregon coastal communities depend on the health and natural
vitality of the Pacific Ocean. They already face tremendous pressure
both in the fishing arena and in our tourism economy. They cannot
afford an environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.
While Oregon has operated under a congressionally supported
moratorium on drilling since 1982, this had expired in 2008. Oregon's
citizens and its businesses deserve certainty to be able to invest in
our fishing and tourism infrastructure.
We respect other States' rights to do what they need to do and
suggest what they want. Oregon is leading the way in renewables. We
have a State energy portfolio that highlights hydro, solar, wind, wave,
biomass, and waste-to-energy technologies, not oil or coal.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the north coast
of Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment to prohibit oil and gas drilling off the Oregon coast.
As an Oregonian, I question why we would risk our pristine coast to
support an energy industry of the last century rather than of the next
century, why we would subject our fisheries and visitor-based coastal
economy to the dangers of a BP-style disaster in Oregon waters.
We should focus on generating local jobs, not profits for far-off oil
companies. We could create these local jobs by investing in the energy
industries of the next century that are uniquely suited to the Oregon
coast--waste energy and next-generation offshore wind. Oregon can be
the Saudi Arabia of renewable wave energy. Wave energy depends on two
things, big waves and seabed contours suited to exploit those waves;
and Oregon has both. Oregon is the best place in the world where these
two factors come together.
As for wind energy, next-generation technology will allow floating
wind farms to be operated 100 miles offshore. These are the jobs of the
future. These are the technology and the energy of the future.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that you have to
get an air permit for the energy production that my colleague was just
discussing. You have to get an air permit for the offshore wind
development, for the wave development. So I believe opposition to this
bill actually hurts the very projects that he is promoting.
And so, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it
basically puts this country in a situation where you can go get a
lease, you can achieve an energy lease, but you can't then get a permit
for it. So does that create additional liability for this country? Are
we going to end up entering into an area where we can get sued because
we've issued a lease but then said you can't get a clean air permit--
not only for oil and gas development, but for the very projects that my
colleague was addressing?
So here we are in a situation that gets back to the fundamental
question at issue: Are we going to allow a bureaucratically created
board in Washington, D.C., wearing robes and hearing basic judicial
proceedings--are we going to allow them to stall an issue of national
importance?
{time} 1720
Five years it has taken. Five years it has taken in this one
particular instance. Access to Federal offshore areas is not determined
by the EPA-issued air permits. It is determined by the President of the
United States when through the Department of the Interior lease sales
are or are not held for Federal lands and waters.
This is once again an attempt to shut off exploration activity in the
Pacific. The matter is not to be decided through air permits. It is to
be decided when and if lease sales are proposed for those waters. If
lease sales are proposed in the future, Oregon's interests and concerns
will no doubt be represented by our colleagues who are proposing this
amendment, by the opportunities that remain to debate and provide
comment through the NEPA process, through the leasing process.
There are five opportunities for public comment to provided on
exploration activity, 30 to 45 days' worth of activity. There are five
opportunities for the public to comment.
We have got to get this country into a position where we recognize
that it is a good thing for American-produced energy to have
opportunities to be developed.
We heard testimony from the State of Alaska. This bill has bipartisan
support. It is an effort to say, you know what, we have resources and
reserves. We have facilities like the Trans-Alaska pipeline that right
now has 650,000 barrels of oil going through a day when it was designed
to bring in 2 million barrels of oil a day. If it gets any lower, it is
going to create mechanical problems transporting the oil. If it gets
below 200,000 barrels a day, it will be decommissioned, torn apart. The
potential to bring 2.1 million barrels of oil a day into this country
will be gone if the Trans-Alaska pipeline is removed.
[[Page H4411]]
The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021, gives this body the
chance to say we are going to utilize our resources in a responsible
manner. We are going to tell the EPA that they have got 6 months to do
the analysis. Approve it or don't approve it, but make a decision
because the American people deserve a decision.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from
southern Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You are either for States' rights or you're not. It seems on the
other side of the aisle, when it is convenient to their agenda, they
are for States' rights. But when it is not convenient to their agenda
or their generous campaign contributors, the oil and gas industry, they
are not for States' rights.
My State voted, the legislature, just last year for a 10-year
moratorium on their lands as an expression of interest not only to ban
the leasing of the lands within the coastal waters, but beyond that. We
are serious about protecting our fisheries, we are serious about our
very profitable tourism industry, and, yes, we are serious about wind
and wave development. The gentleman made no sense. He said somehow this
would preclude wind and wave development. Not at all. You don't need a
clean air permit for something that doesn't potentially pollute the
air.
So at this point I would just suggest that let's be consistent. If
the State of Alaska wishes to push ahead, the gentleman from Alaska has
the bill before us. The Republican Party controls the House. Great. He
also had a rule that people from local districts and local States, the
gentleman from Alaska, get to have their prerogative. This is our
prerogative, representing the people of the State of Oregon.
Mr. GARDNER. May I inquire how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1 minute remaining,
and the gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GARDNER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from the largest
port in our great State, Congressman Earl Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this. I appreciate all my colleagues who represent the
Oregon coast for bringing this forward. Now, my district may not
actually touch the Oregon coast, but my constituents and I spend time
there, value its beauty, the ecosystem, and the economic benefits it
brings to the United States. The underlying bill could bring all of
these at risk, allowing expedited drilling for offshore drilling, a
process that is expedited for those who would drill, but a process that
is much worse for citizens who may object.
We need to continue to respect the wishes of Oregonians to keep oil
rigs off our shores, prohibiting sources from obtaining permits to
drill off the coast of Oregon. This amendment is an appropriate
safeguard to protect our coastal environment and communities.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a point when I was seeking
the opportunity to ask the gentleman to yield, section 328 applies to
any offshore project authorized under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act. So under the OCSLA, all offshore energy projects must have a
permit.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, Oregonians don't want or need drilling off
our coast. This amendment is supported by all three Members of the
entire Oregon coastline and our State legislature. We respect, and I
hope this body would respect, Oregonians' right to determine their own
destiny. We are not talking about Alaska, we are talking about the
State of Oregon, and we are only talking about oil and natural gas
permits.
House Members representing this coast are very passionate about its
health and future vitality. We urge this body to pass this amendment
and respect Oregon's destiny.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, I oppose the amendment. We have an
opportunity with the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act to get this country
on a path toward a secure energy future. It is a matter of national
interest. It is not just a matter of Oregon or just a matter of
Colorado or just a matter of Alaska. Everyone who is suffering through
the pain at the pump realizes that the resources we have been blessed
with in this country, when used responsibly, can be used for the
benefit of our country and the benefit of all.
The 112th Congress has continued to focus on job creation, just like
the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, job creation and long-term economic
well-being. It was said before, somebody on the other side said we are
not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more
oil. That doesn't make any sense at all.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHRADER. 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 Oregon will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report
112-111 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Speier of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Eshoo of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Capps of California.
Amendment No. 9 by Ms. Hochul of New York.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Speier
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) 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 176,
noes 248, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 467]
AYES--176
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
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
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
[[Page H4412]]
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
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
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stark
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Blackburn
Boustany
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Lummis
Stivers
Young (AK)
{time} 1759
Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Ms. FOXX, Messrs. DOLD, BACA, and STARK changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) 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 167,
noes 254, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 468]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
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
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
[[Page H4413]]
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Labrador
Lummis
Paul
Stivers
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Georgia) (during the vote). There are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1806
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 238, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 469]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
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
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
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
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Doggett
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Hurt
Kucinich
Lummis
Paul
Stivers
Westmoreland
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1813
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
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 258, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 470]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
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
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
[[Page H4414]]
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--258
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
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
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Lummis
Stivers
Watt
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1820
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 253, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 471]
AYES--172
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
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
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
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--253
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Lummis
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
[[Page H4415]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1826
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Quigley) 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 173,
noes 251, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 472]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
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
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--251
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
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
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Lummis
Pelosi
Stivers
Tiberi
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1832
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Eshoo
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 240, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 473]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
[[Page H4416]]
NOES--240
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Butterfield
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Lummis
Meeks
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1838
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 242, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 474]
AYES--180
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
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
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--242
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
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
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 (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Capuano
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Lummis
Lynch
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1845
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hochul
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Hochul) on which further proceedings
[[Page H4417]]
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 186,
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 475]
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)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
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
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--238
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
Chandler
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Lummis
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1851
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Schrader) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 262, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 476]
AYES--160
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--262
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
[[Page H4418]]
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Carson (IN)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Jackson (IL)
Lummis
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1858
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Graves of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Latham, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2021) to amend the Clean Air Act regarding air pollution from Outer
Continental Shelf activities, and, pursuant to House Resolution 316,
reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KEATING. I am opposed to it in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Keating moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2021 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
After subsection (d) of section 328 of the Clean Air Act,
as proposed to be added by section 4 of the bill, insert the
following:
``(e) Determination of Lower Gas Prices at the Pump.--In
conducting analyses relating to requirements for pollution
controls pursuant to this section, the Administrator shall
determine whether the controls under review will result in
lower gasoline prices in the United States, including the
retail price charged at service stations.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this final amendment that I
believe will greatly increase economic and job safeguards for the
American people.
Simply put, the underlying legislation is about risk versus reward.
We know what the reward is: trillions of dollars of profit over the
last decade for oil companies and preferred stock buybacks and bonuses
for executives. We know what the proponents of this bill say the reward
will be: lower gas prices at the pump.
Now, what is the risk that we're looking at?
The risk is existing jobs: existing jobs in the marine industry, the
fishing industry, the tourism industry--industries that are among the
most job-producing in my State and in the States of so many other
people in this Chamber.
My amendment requires the administrator to determine whether or not
this will lower gas prices for American citizens. I believe we need a
safeguard for the American public, who should not bear the burden of
the risk with no guarantee of the reward. I'm sure the many small
businesses in the gulf and in my district which rely on the marine
economies and tourism would agree with this. This final amendment is a
commonsense compromise, and regardless of how the Members feel about
the underlying legislation, this is something that we should all be
able to support.
When I offered my amendment earlier, my colleague from across the
aisle said it was irrelevant because it dealt with exposing executive
bonuses and that it, thus, did not deal with the heart of what this
bill is supposed to do, which, according to him, was to increase
domestic oil production that would translate into decreased gas prices
at the pump. Now, if it's not for lower gas prices for consumers, then
the only rationale for this must be that it's for higher profits for
oil companies. All day, proponents have said the reason for the bill is
to lower gas prices.
This amendment, simply put, asks them to mean what they say. I ask
all of my colleagues to please support this final amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Energy security and job creation, that's what the Jobs
and Energy Permitting Act is about. The amendment, the motion to
recommit that has been offered, is something that we talked about
today: whether or not a study actually results in lower prices at the
pump.
Colleagues, I don't think our constituents will appreciate it if we
put a big sign on the pump at the gas station that reads ``you're going
to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas; you're going to pay $4 a gallon for
gas'' while we study it, while a blue ribbon commission proceeds.
This bill will allow our domestic resources to be accessed in a
responsible manner, in a timely manner to help relieve the price at the
pump. Americans are tired of overregulation. Americans are tired of
job-killing regulations. Americans are tired of the pain at the pump
that they face each and every day. This bill presents an opportunity to
create 54,000 jobs. In the time that it has taken to get a permit
approved in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 400 wells have been drilled
around the world. They created jobs in other countries; they created
energy in other countries, but they didn't do it in our own backyard.
This is our opportunity to get American resources online in a
responsible manner.
This amendment is one more stall, one more study, one more way to
tell the American people that we're not interested in helping relieve
the pain at the pump. We're going to study it. We're going to
commission it. Then we're not going to do anything. This is 54,000 jobs
and 1 million barrels of oil a day brought online from Alaska, creating
jobs not just there but throughout the 48 States.
The other day, I heard people talking about making it in America.
``Make It in America.'' Do you know what we need to make it in America?
We need an energy policy that allows an abundant, affordable energy
resource. To make it in America, we need opportunities to secure
policies that don't overregulate and kill jobs. If you want
[[Page H4419]]
to make it in America, reject this motion to recommit; develop American
resources; put America back to work; and vote ``yes'' on the underlying
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 245, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 477]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Dicks
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Landry
Lummis
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
{time} 1923
Mr. OWENS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253,
noes 166, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 478]
AYES--253
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
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
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
[[Page H4420]]
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--166
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Carson (IN)
Cole
Dicks
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Lummis
Moore
Murphy (PA)
Pelosi
Stivers
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1930
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 477 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________