[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H752-H787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING INVESTMENT IN OIL SHALE THE NEXT GENERATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND RESOURCE SECURITY ACT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3408.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 547 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. 3408.
{time} 1435
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. 3408) to set clear rules for the development of United States oil
shale resources, to promote shale technology research and development,
and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas 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.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of
the Committee on Natural Resources, and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which contains
the energy provisions in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs
Act. This is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand
American energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our
national and economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay
for infrastructure, and, Mr. Chairman, all without raising taxes or
adding to the deficit.
In this year's State of the Union speech, President Obama proclaimed
his support for expanding American energy production with an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the President's actions
while he has been in office have been anything but pro-energy. In fact,
his rhetoric--and I don't say this lightly, Mr. Chairman--is 180
degrees from his actions.
Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly blocked U.S.
energy production. The offshore drilling moratorium and the Keystone
pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. He has canceled and withdrawn
scheduled lease sales, shut off promising areas to new drilling,
blocked mining in mineral-rich areas, and issued countless job-
destroying regulations.
Mr. Chairman, actions do speak louder than words. The bill we are
considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President
Obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs
policies of Republicans.
While President Obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling,
this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas
resources in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. As a result,
economic analysis has shown that well over 1 million jobs--long-term
jobs, long-term American jobs--can be created.
While President Obama opposes energy production in ANWR, this bill
will open less than 3 percent of the total area to responsible and safe
drilling. That issue has been around a while, Mr. Chairman. ANWR
represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in
the United States. This is one of the reasons that way back in 1980,
when Jimmy Carter was still President and the Democrats controlled the
Congress, they specifically set aside the north slope of ANWR for
energy production.
{time} 1440
Safe and responsible energy production in ANWR will protect the
environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing
upwards of 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. By the way, this is
more than the U.S. imports daily from Saudi Arabia.
While the President has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million
acres in the Rocky Mountains to oil shale development, this bill will
set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued.
According to the government estimates, this region may hold--and, Mr.
Chairman, this is a significant number. This region may hold more than
1\1/2\ trillion barrels of oil equivalent. That's six times Saudi
Arabia's proven reserves and enough to provide the United States with
energy for the next 200 years. And I'm just
[[Page H753]]
talking about oil shale. Robust oil shale development could also create
hundreds of thousands of jobs, and that should be self-evident.
Finally, while the President refused to approve the Keystone XL
pipeline, this bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, or FERC, to approve it within 30 days. The Keystone XL
pipeline will create more than 20,000 American jobs and displace less
stable energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure North
American oil.
Since this President took office, Mr. Chairman, gasoline prices have
climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the
Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17
million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded. Prices
will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our
energy independence and develop our own energy resources.
Today, Mr. Chairman, Republicans are moving forward with a plan to
create more jobs and create more American energy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Budget Office, these
drilling measures the Republicans are bringing out on the House floor
today, together, would only raise $4.3 billion over 10 years, less than
one-tenth of the revenue shortfall needed to fund our highways.
In reality, this bill amounts to little more than a giveaway of our
public lands to Big Oil under the guise of funding our Nation's
transportation projects, and most estimates are that no new revenue
will be produced that is usable for this transportation bill.
Across the United States, oil production is at its highest level in
nearly a decade. Natural gas production has reached levels we have
never seen before in the United States. Oil production on public lands
offshore is higher than it was during each of the last 3 years of the
Bush administration.
According to industry analysts, by this summer, there will be nearly
30 percent more floating rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than
there were prior to the BP spill. Yet the Republican bill would
threaten the tourism and fishing economies of coastal States
by allowing drilling off of our beaches in Florida, in California, up
and down our east and west coasts, and, as well, in an area extensively
used by the military where even Secretary Rumsfeld said ``drilling
structures and associated development would be incompatible with
military activities'' in this area.
This Congress has not enacted a single safety improvement since the
BP spill. The bill would allow for drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, ripping out the heart of the crown jewel of
our National Wildlife Refuge System. The Arctic Refuge is America's
Serengeti. It is one of the natural wonders of the world, like the
Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, or the Great Barrier Reef, and it should
be protected.
If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, it will set a precedent
that will allow the oil and gas industry to place a bull's-eye on each
of the 540 wildlife refuges across this country. And this legislation
would rush to give away 125,000 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming to Big Oil for oil shale development. However, there is no
commercially viable oil shale technology, and oil shale development
could have significant impacts on water quality and quantity in the
West if there were a commercially viable technology available, which
Shell Oil and the Department of the Interior says does not yet exist.
In fact, the Government Accountability Office has said that the
impacts of oil shale development on water could be significant but are
unknown. What's more, this provision has been included by the majority,
despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says that it
would not raise any revenue over the next 10 years to fund our
highways. So understand that.
This is a provision which CBO says raises no revenue in the next 10
years, but it's just stuck in here. The oil and gas industry would like
to see it, so they just tossed it in. Nothing to do with funding
transportation.
And the majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that American
natural gas stays here in America to help our consumers. Natural gas
prices are six times higher in Asia than they are right here. They are
more than three times higher in Europe than they are right here.
Low natural gas prices have been driving the economic recovery of the
United States. We have far more natural gas in our country--and it's
very low-priced--then we have oil. What the Republican bill will allow
to happen is for this natural gas to be exported around the world, and
exporting our natural gas would eliminate our competitive edge by
driving prices up by as much as 54 percent, according to the Department
of Energy.
Not ensuring that the natural gas stays here in the United States
ensures that the majority, the Republicans, are imposing a de facto
natural gas tax on American agriculture, manufacturing, chemicals,
steel, plastics by allowing our gas to be exported.
Here's what T. Boone Pickens says about the idea of exporting
American natural gas. Here's what he says:
If we do it, we're truly going to go down as America's
dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural
gas.
Our natural gas is six times cheaper than Asian; it is three times
cheaper than European. What are we doing exporting it? We should keep
it here for our own farmers, for our own industries, for our own
consumers. That's how we begin to put ourselves on a path of energy
independence.
I agree with T. Boone Pickens. We should keep our natural gas here.
We should not be following the Republican energy plan of drill here,
sell there, and pay more. If we sell this natural gas around the world,
the Department of Energy says the price is going up 57 percent here
because we'll have less of it. That's how supply and demand works.
The same dynamic exists in the Keystone portion of the bill, where
Republicans have failed to include any assurances that even a drop of
the oil or the fuels will stay in this country.
When I asked the president of TransCanada, the pipeline company from
Canada, whether he would be willing to commit to keeping the oil that
passes through this pipeline in the United States, he said no. And why?
Because the oil companies and the refineries want to export the fuels
to the highest bidders around the world, leaving the American people
with all of the environmental risk and little or none of the energy or
economic benefit.
So drill here, sell there, pay more, that's not the Republican
mantra. Drill here, drill now, pay less. Now they've morphed into what
the oil and gas industry want, and all of the economic indicators point
to the conclusion that our consumers will be harmed by that.
On the question of the totality of the economic benefits for our
country, they are simultaneously proposing to kill the tax breaks for
the wind industry, which is now creating 85,000 jobs in our country, in
the face of the wind industry, saying that they will have to lay off
40,000 people over the next year unless the production tax break for
the wind industry stays on the books.
{time} 1450
So all of this is basically upside down as an energy policy. My
strongest admonition to the Members who are listening to this debate is
to vote ``no'' on this Republican proposal.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and the former
chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
3408.
I'm really here to talk about ANWR. You know, I just wrote a little
poem. It's not too good:
Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch a barrel of
oil.
Lo and behold, none was there.
Lack of action by this Congress, beware.
ANWR still lays bare.
Time to drill for the people of America.
We have argued this battle over and over again. The gentleman from
Massachusetts says no use for atomic power, no use for ANWR, we're in
good shape. But look at the prices of gas, Mr. and
[[Page H754]]
Mrs. America. It will go to $5. You say this won't solve the problem.
I've heard this before.
If you want to have money for transportation, think for a moment. I
passed this bill out, got it to the Senate side, this is the 12th time.
One time it got to the President, and President Clinton vetoed it. We
would have saved $4 trillion if we had had ANWR open at that time.
Think of the highway bill we would have had then. That's something I
think the American people should recognize.
We do have the fossil fuels in America. We do have the oil, we do
have the gas. But we haven't had the will to develop them because we
brought them from overseas. We got them in here, and now we're
dependent upon the Mideast, and, yes, Venezuela, our good neighbor
Venezuela, Chavez.
It's time for America to wake up. We need this supply of fossil
fuels, and it's going to stay here. Not wind, not solar, because fossil
fuels are still the cheapest way to move an object. It is the commerce
of this Nation. It moves our trains, our planes, our automobiles, our
trucks, and our ships, and it will continue to do that. That's what
keeps us moving in this country. It keeps our economy strong. As long
as we will have that fossil fuel within the United States, it is
criminal to continue to rely upon the foreign countries.
We talk about Big Oil. Pick on Big Oil. Big Oil this, Big Oil that,
Big Oil this. The truth of the matter is Big Oil does help the United
States of America. Little oil helps the United of America. It keeps our
trucks and our planes flying. It keeps our economy strong.
So I'm urging you to vote on this aspect of ANWR. Open ANWR. Let's
vote on it. Let's provide for this Nation. Let's do what's right for
the people in this Nation. It only covers an area as big as Dulles
airport. Out of 19 million acres, less than 3,000 acres will be
developed. Less than 3,000 acres will be developed to divide us from
probably 39 billion barrels of oil, 74 miles away from the pipeline, a
pipeline that can deliver 2 million barrels of oil a day to the United
States of America, as we have done in the past.
We've had one shipment of oil go overseas, heavy oil. All of the rest
has gone to the United States of America. It's gone to the refineries.
It's time for us as a Congress to act responsibly.
With all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts, he's against
nuclear power. He's against oil. In fact, I question the wind power
because one time he was against that. I'm saying, wait a minute. What
are we doing to run this country for power? How do we get our economy
going again? That is the key to our economy: energy, good cheap energy.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
When the Democrats controlled the Congress in 2009, we passed a bill
out here on the House floor that created an advanced energy technology
bank that included $75 billion that the nuclear industry could have
qualified for, $60 billion for the coal industry for clean coal
technology. Although we also built in incentives for wind and for solar
and for energy efficiency, we did it all. We gave everyone a running
head start. We didn't say ``nothing'' to nuclear. No.
What have the Republicans done over the last year? They passed out
here on the floor a bill that zeroed out the money for loan guarantees
for wind and solar, but they left in the loan guarantees for the
nuclear industry. That's not an all-of-the-above strategy, and you all
voted for it unanimously.
No. Here's where we are. This oil-above-all strategy that you have,
not all-of-the-above, this is basically at the heart of what this whole
debate is all about.
Last year, the oil industry in the United States made $137 billion.
This year, they're going to blast right past that $137 billion. Every
person watching this debate is looking at the pump right now at $3.50,
$4, $4.50 that they're paying, and it's going straight up.
They're going to be reporting profits of upwards of $200 billion. The
Republicans continue to keep in the $4 billion-a-year for tax breaks
for the oil industry. Over 10 years, that's $40 billion that would pay
for the transportation bill.
Subsidizing the oil industry in 2012 to drill for oil is like
subsidizing fish to swim or birds to fly; you don't have to do it. The
consumer is already doing it at the pump. They're being tipped upside
down.
So, there's an easy funding mechanism here. It's just taking away the
oil company tax breaks.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
That is the only way that we can substitute the money that stays
within that sector.
These guys are going to cut back on the pension plans of Federal
retirees in order to pay for a transportation bill when we should be
keeping the funding stream within this energy sector because that's why
we have cars on the road, in order to use this petroleum.
The oil industry right now is having it both ways. They're getting
tax breaks from the taxpayers at the same time that they're taking the
other pocket of every American as consumers, and they're taking money
out of that pocket as well. That's really at the heart of what this
debate is all about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, Dr.
Hastings.
I rise in support of H.R. 3408. This legislation does three vital
things: it will open up land in the West to oil shale development; open
up one of our most promising areas for energy development in the United
States, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and increase offshore
production as well.
These provisions will create hundreds of thousands of American jobs
and ensure the continued production of new domestic increases in our
energy security and decrease our reliance on foreign oil--a goal the
administration has professed to support time and time again.
Oil shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made
energy. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Western United
States holds more than 1.5 trillion, with a ``t,'' barrels of oil--six
times Saudi Arabia's proven resources and enough to provide the United
States with energy for the next 200 years. Opponents to this
legislation will argue that this legislation attempts to promote
technology that isn't proven.
However, while the American oil shale industry is forced overseas due
to regulatory uncertainty and burdensome Federal regulations here,
other nations are profiting right now from this technology, countries
like Jordan, China, and Estonia.
Just this morning we heard from Secretary Ken Salazar who expressed
the administration's support of emerging technologies. You would think
that that would include oil shale. Unfortunately, the Obama
administration's support amounts to offering leases with such extremely
restrictive terms that it attracts hardly any industry support at all.
As a result, countries overseas, which get over 90 percent of their
total energy supply from oil shale, like Estonia, have robust oil shale
industries.
I asked Secretary Salazar how this administration can say it promotes
new energy while stifling research and development of this tremendous
energy potential, oil shale, and he had no good answer.
{time} 1500
Now, this legislation also opens up energy in Alaska, specifically in
the less than 3 percent of ANWR that the bill deals with. This area was
set aside by President Carter in 1980 precisely for oil and gas
development. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge holds the single
greatest potential for a new domestic energy source within the United
States. Offshore, this legislation would increase drilling in Federal
waters while ensuring the protection for our offshore military
operations as well as fair and equitable revenue sharing for all
coastal States. This energy legislation will create consistent policies
to move the domestic energy industry forward and will create good-
paying American jobs for thousands of Americans.
People say all the time to me, Why don't we have a better energy
policy in this country? This legislation does exactly that.
[[Page H755]]
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3408.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on either side.
The CHAIR. Both sides have 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. My good friend and colleague just asked a very good
question: Why don't we have a good American energy policy?
You won't get it with this bill. This may be the worst American
energy policy I've ever seen.
Oil shale, are you kidding me? There is no way that you're going to
see oil shale developed within the United States at any time probably
in our lifetimes. It didn't work in the 1980s. It's not likely to work
in the next two decades. So what's this all about? And by the way, if
you happen to be from Colorado, Utah, Arizona, California or New
Mexico, you'd want to go, Whoa, wait a minute. Oil shale? That takes a
lot of water. We don't have enough water, and you're going to use it
for that? I don't think so.
Come on. Let's get real here. We do need a real energy policy.
You're going to open up ANWR? There are some very special places in
this world, and ANWR happens to be one of them. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge happens to be one of those places. You're not going to
open it up. And by the way, as for those of us from California, my good
friends on the Republican side are always talking about states' rights.
They're always talking about states' rights. Your little piece of
legislation here strips away the right of California to take care of
its own coastline. It's not just authorizing the offshore drilling. You
take away California's coastal zone management powers, stripping away
from Californians--all 38 million of us--our ability to take care of
our own coast. Something is terribly wrong with this piece of energy
legislation.
You're going to fund the transportation with this while stripping
money away from the Land and Water Conservation Fund? How does that
work? How does that work? And by the way, the money won't be there
anyway.
This is not an energy policy--this is a stupid policy--and there
ought to be 435 reasons. Each and every person in this House is
affected in a negative way by this piece of legislation. There are 435
of us who ought to say, Put this aside just as we have discovered the
underlying bill on transportation has found little support and has to
go back and be reworked because of its insufficiencies.
This is no way to fund a transportation bill. This is no way to treat
California. This is no way to have an energy policy for America. Yes,
we do need an energy policy, and we do need to have many different
elements to it; but we don't sacrifice those special places like the
California coast, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, like
Bristol Bay, like the coast of Florida, like the east coast of the
United States. We do not sacrifice that for an energy policy that
doesn't solve the problem that this is purported to solve.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this very
important bill.
I rise in strong support of this legislation.
This administration, Mr. Chairman, has a Secretary of Energy who told
The Wall Street Journal that we should be paying the same price for
gasoline as they're paying over in Europe. At the time he said that,
they were paying $8 to $9 a gallon. Well, I know that most
environmental radicals come from very wealthy or very upper-income
families, and perhaps they can afford gasoline at $8 or $9 a gallon,
but most people can't. In fact, Mr. Chairman, many experts are
predicting we're going to be at $5 a gallon as soon as this summer. I
can tell you that's going to hurt a lot of poor and lower-income and
working people if we go to even $5 a gallon, and it's going to hurt a
lot of small towns and rural areas because people in those places
generally have to drive longer distances to go to work.
I represent, Mr. Chairman, a large part of the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. That national park is slightly under 600,000 acres. We
get between 9 million and 10 million visitors a year. ANWR--and I
happen to be one of the very few Members who has been to ANWR twice--is
the most barren place I've ever been to. Chairman Young estimated that
there are 100 miles without a tree or a bush on it. ANWR is 19.8
million acres, which is 35 times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains.
Time magazine said they get about 200 to 300 visitors a year, and you
have to be a survivalist to go in there.
Now we want to expand our energy production there with just a few
thousand acres--a minuscule portion of ANWR--to help our own people. If
we don't do that, who we're helping are foreign energy producers; but
we're hurting a lot of poor and lower-income and working people in this
country.
When we passed ANWR in the mid-90s and when it was vetoed by
President Clinton, it was said at that time that it would produce 1
million barrels a day coming down into this country, but President
Clinton vetoed it. They said at that time that it wouldn't help right
away. Well, it would sure be helping now if it hadn't been vetoed. In
addition to that, if we would start developing more of our natural
resources now, some of these foreign energy producers would have to
start bringing their prices down. I think--in fact, I'm convinced--that
this legislation would start helping right away or it would, at least,
in a very short time.
We need to start putting our own people first, once again, instead of
just helping out foreign energy producers.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
Here is the reality. The Republicans need money to build roads, so
they want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which
Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has already made clear doesn't have the
votes to pass in the Senate. The same thing is true for California and
Florida and off the coast of Massachusetts and New Jersey. They want to
drill there as well, and it's very clear that the votes aren't there in
the Senate to accomplish that goal either. As the gentleman from
California just said, the likelihood of finding any revenues from oil
shale is at least two decades away, so there are no revenues there.
There is another bill, by the way, that's going to come out here on
the floor. And in order to find the revenues, do you know where they're
going to drill? They're going to drill into the pensions of FBI agents;
they're going to drill into the pensions of the researchers for cancer
out of the National Institutes of Health; and they're going to drill
into the pensions of the Border Patrol agents, who are protecting us
right now down on the Mexico border. That's where they're going to find
almost all of the money for this bill--in the pensions of those people.
Is that really the way we want to build the roads of our country?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is clearly an interesting position from our
Democratic colleagues. They say we need roads; they say we need jobs;
they say we need an energy policy. But not here, not now, not anywhere.
When we look at the challenges that we face from overseas in terms of
creating American certainty for energy, it's something for which we
must all stand together. We're looking at developing oil shale as a
potential resource for this country, right here in America, in order to
be able to create American jobs on American soil while using American
energy resources.
Let's explore this.
{time} 1510
From the Republican side, we've clearly stood for an all-of-the-above
policy. Why is there such reluctance from our Democrat colleagues to
embrace developing the technology to be able to create certainty for
America's energy future, to be able to help struggling young families,
senior citizens on fixed incomes make sure that their
[[Page H756]]
utility bills, their gas bills don't continue to rise? That's what
we're proposing.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman.
When we're talking about protecting Colorado, many of our Democrat
colleagues joined the amendment that I put forward, stating that the
Secretary wouldn't consider but shall address local concerns. If you
understand Colorado water, you can't just take it. It's a priority-
based system. You have to actually own that water to be able to develop
it.
We have a reasonable plan that we're trying to put forward to develop
American energy certainty; but our Democratic colleagues, their
solution of having ``no, not here, not now, not anywhere'' is not a
solution that will work for America. Let's get our people to work.
Let's create certainty for America and stand up for the American
consumer for a change.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, just 2 weeks ago, President Obama stood right here in
this Chamber; and he said that he was going to propose opening up 75
percent of the oil and gas resources off the coast of the United
States. That's a great plan. He doesn't want to drill off the
California beaches. He doesn't want to drill off Florida beaches or off
the New Jersey or Massachusetts beaches. But the rest of it, he's
pretty much saying he's open to. But they're not happy with it over
here. The President has a real plan and a plan that can be implemented.
What they are doing is they bring out proposals here that try to
build real highways with fake oil revenues that are never going to
materialize. So rather than working here in the real world, where the
real transportation needs of our country are dealt with with real
revenues that are coming in, they talk about oil shale which Shell says
is at least another 10 years away. Shell Oil, that is, not some shell
collector along the beaches.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
We are talking Shell Oil who says it's 10 years away. Jim Inhofe in
the Senate says the votes aren't there to drill in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. So that's zero dollars as well. And the likelihood of
them drilling off the coast of California or Florida or Massachusetts
for oil is zero. So rather than going through this facade of trying to
pretend that real highways can be built with fake oil revenues, we
should be taking up the offer of President Obama where he says he'll
open up 75 percent of all the drilling possibilities off the coastlines
of our country. That is what this debate should be all about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee
for the courtesy of speaking in support of H.R. 3408.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3408, the PIONEERS
Act, and by doing so, I'm standing up for American innovation, American
jobs, and renewed American prosperity. Shale oil is a game-changer. You
don't have to look any further than the Eagle Ford shale in my home
State of Texas to see the economic benefits of this stable American
energy resource.
This past Sunday when I went to the Eagle Ford shale, there were 171
oil rigs and 93 natural gas rigs drilling thousands of wells. More rigs
are coming, and major pipeline projects are under way to support
production that will grow to 420,000 barrels per day. Let me say that
again: 420,000 barrels of oil per day. One of my friends on the other
side of the aisle said, Oil shale, no way. I've seen with my own eyes
at Eagle Ford shale; and I say, Oil shale, yes way.
Eagle Ford shale job creation is now in full swing with scores of new
businesses opening up to support the boom. More than 10,000 jobs have
already been created, and 58,000 more are on the way. The economic
recession is a thing of the past in this part of our country and in my
State.
The world, as we've known it, is literally changing in front of our
eyes. Our long-established dependence upon imported energy could be a
thing of the past if we unleash America's energy resources. H.R. 3408
will get us one step closer.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute at this time.
The Republicans, over the past year, have betrayed their agenda. They
have pretty much voted out on the House floor to gut the budget for
wind, gut the budget for solar, gut the budget for plug-in hybrid
vehicles and, at the same time, kept in the money for the nuclear
industry, kept in the tax breaks for the oil industry. So that is
pretty much what the debate is all about. It's about the past versus
the future.
In our country right now, the American people want to know that we're
embracing a future-oriented, technology-oriented, advanced-technology-
oriented agenda for our country. That's what all the Republicans keep
voting against out here, all of the new technologies that allow us to
move on from this fossil-fuel era.
And it would be one thing if they just didn't vote for it, but then
they have the temerity to stand up and to say they believe in all of
the above. No, they do not. They believe in oil above all because
otherwise they would not vote to kill wind and solar out here on the
House floor over the last year.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe's quote has been thrown around here
recently. Let me give another quote by Senator Inhofe:
As I have said, we can make great strides toward increasing
North American energy independence by developing our own
domestic resources. We can do this and support millions of
American jobs, produce affordable energy for consumers, and
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
He said that in March 2010. I think that's important.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other point. There's been an
implication here that it has been the policies of this administration
that have increased oil and gas supplies; but if you look at the
President's own budget that came out this week, there are two aspects
of revenue coming in from oil and gas production. You have the lease
sales, and you have the royalties. If you look at the President's own
budget that came out just 2 days ago, you will see that this year and
in the out-years, money coming in from lease sales decreases. That
means that the policy of this administration is not more energy
production on public lands. It's less.
He has taken advantage of the situation that's going on on State and
private lands and is taking credit for it with what's happened in North
Dakota. This plan here puts together a solid footing for American
energy production on public lands.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I think it would be helpful for both sides to understand
what the time situation is for the conclusion of the debate.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his
next speaker?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My intent, Mr. Chairman, is to hold that
1\1/2\ minutes at the end of the overall debate in case the gentleman
says something that needs to be responded to.
Mr. MARKEY. In that case, I will yield myself the balance of my time
so that I can utter the sentences that will need responding to by the
chairman of the committee.
{time} 1520
Mr. Chairman, let's go back a little bit to this issue of natural gas
and what this Republican bill calls for--more drilling for natural gas
in our country. Okay, we can look at that.
We support natural gas. We think that natural gas is the best story
that's happened in our country in the last 10 years. We love natural
gas. Democrats love it. It's half the pollutants of coal. It's
domestically produced. We have to make sure that when we're extracting
it we don't shoot chemicals down into
[[Page H757]]
the surface so that we pollute the water that our children drink, but
we think that we can work through those issues if people of good faith
are willing to work together.
Otherwise, it's a fantastic story. Why is that? Because natural gas
is not a world market. The world market is for oil. If it's $116 a
barrel in China, it's $116 a barrel in the U.S. It's a global market.
And that's what allows OPEC to hold us hostage, because they control
all of that oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. They control all
that oil so that they can basically hold the rest of the globe's
economy hostage. But natural gas, not true.
Here we've seen a 30 percent increase in our natural gas reserves
over the last 5 years. What does that mean? Well, in China it's $16.
Japan, $16 per million cubic feet of natural gas. What is it in the
United States? It's $2.42. So it's six, seven times cheaper in the
United States. That means it is cheaper for every manufacturer, cheaper
for every retailer, cheaper for every farmer, cheaper for every
consumer.
What are the Democrats saying? We love natural gas; let's keep it
here. Let's not be setting up terminals all across our country to
export the natural gas across the planet with the Department of Energy
saying, if we did that, the price of natural gas in the United States
would rise 57 percent. How can that be good for consumers? Isn't that
our advantage? Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of oil. We are the
Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Why don't we use that to our advantage?
Why don't we use that to inoculate ourselves against what Saudi Arabia
of oil does to us by jacking the price of oil up and down? Why don't we
become independent of them? Why don't we move to all natural gas
vehicles? Why don't we use natural gas in the generation of
electricity? Why don't we use natural gas in the production of all of
our products? And why don't we use natural gas in the homes of our
country, in the factories of our country, in the industries of our
country at a price that's six times lower than China and Japan, three
times lower than Europe?
That's what we are calling for here, an energy strategy that is all-
American. And if we can get to that with this debate today, I think
that the American people will be the winners.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes
until the end of the overall debate.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which is known as the
Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of
Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act.
This is primarily about the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline
has been a topic of discussion in America for the last 3 or 4 years.
When it came to the attention of Congress that this pipeline, which
promises to create tens of thousands of jobs and increase our access to
safe and secure supplies of oil, was experiencing an unreasonable level
of delay, Congress decided that we needed to step in.
We have, in Keystone pipeline, a company willing to invest $7 billion
in private funds at no expense to the taxpayer. That would ultimately
bring nearly a million barrels of oil per day from Canada to the U.S.--
additional oil per day.
Even the President's Jobs Council agrees. Their report specifically
suggested the pipeline is a win-win-win for job creation, modernizing
the Nation's infrastructure, and helping ultimately to lower gasoline
prices in America. I would also like to point out that five major labor
unions support the building of the Keystone pipeline.
A few years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in San
Francisco giving a speech at the Commonwealth Club. In response to a
question about Keystone pipeline, whether or not they would issue the
permit to build it, Secretary of State Clinton said: We are inclined to
do so.
This project has now been studied for over 40 months by seven or
eight agencies of the Federal Government. And normally, to build an oil
pipeline in America, it takes on the average of 24 months. When the
Department of State issued their final environmental impact statement
back in August 2011, they concluded that there were not any significant
environmental issues. And they also said that when they look at the
option of either, one, building a pipeline, or, two, not building a
pipeline, that the preferable option was to build the pipeline. And of
course the rationale for that is that if you don't build the pipeline
and you bring oil in from other countries, you either have to do it by
truck or by rail, which certainly emits a lot into the atmosphere.
But despite all of these positive reasons to build this pipeline,
President Obama made a blatantly political decision when he said: I
don't want to decide until after the Presidential election. And that's
when Congress got involved and said we'd like a decision by February of
2012. And the President said: Well, I don't have enough time to study
it, so I'm not going to allow it--even though it has been studied for
40 months. This is a 1,700-mile pipeline. The only issue left relates
to about 60 miles in the State of Nebraska, and the Governor of
Nebraska supports building this pipeline.
So this is a win-win-win situation for the American people, and I
would urge my fellow Members to support this legislation to require
FERC to make a decision on this pipeline.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to this
legislation.
Last week, the Republicans filed this bill, this transportation bill
that the Secretary of Transportation called the worst transportation
bill he had ever seen. The Republican leadership realized that not even
Republican Members would vote for this monstrosity of bad policy, so
they've chopped the bill up into three parts and hope to get a separate
majority on each part. This way, House Republicans hope they can pass
the bill and give their Members deniability at the same time. Now,
that's not a transparent process or a fair one. It's a way to hide
what's really going on from the American people.
Some Republicans don't want to vote for drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge; others don't want to vote for the money for
the highways because some of the right-wing groups in this country are
against it. So we've got this shell game going on.
The bill before us, H.R. 3408, contains the text of a very bad bill
that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We considered that
bill earlier this month. The bill provides a legislative earmark that
would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to
issue a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline within
30 days of receipt of an application.
{time} 1530
Now, existing law requires the President to make a determination
whether this pipeline is in the national interest. Serious questions
have been raised about whether this pipeline is in our national
interest. It is being built with steel imported from South Korea and
pipes from India. The oil it transports, I believe, will be exported to
China. Meanwhile, the risks of spills from that pipeline that could
contaminate drinking water will be borne by American families.
These are factors the President should take into account. But this
law ties his hands. It mandates that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission approve the pipeline without addressing any of these issues.
In fact, it requires approval before we even know the route that the
pipeline will take.
Now this follows some Keystone Kops activities on the Republican side
of the aisle. They've worked themselves up about this pipeline. So in
order to get unemployment insurance or middle class tax breaks, they
put in the extension for 2 months of those areas, a requirement that
the President decide the issue within 2 months. And the President said,
I don't have all the information, I can't make that decision. So he
said, I'm not going to approve it within 2 months. I'll consider it
later, but I'm not going to approve it.
Suddenly, the Republicans realized they were outsmarted, hoisted by
their own petard. They forced the President to make a decision, and he
made a decision against them. They don't want to take that chance
again.
This bill would put in an exemption from all the laws for one pet
project, from the ordinary permitting requirements that apply to every
other oil pipeline crossing our borders.
[[Page H758]]
During the committee process, we asked a simple question: Who
benefits from this unprecedented congressional intervention into the
regulatory process? Many media reports said that a private oil company,
Koch Industries, is one of the ``big winners.'' But the committee
refused, even though the Democrats asked them, to even inquire from the
company, Koch Industries, whether it had a direct and substantial
interest in the pipeline. They wouldn't even ask that question. Could
you imagine? They talk about they're against earmarks, then when there
is an earmark that they want, they won't even tell us who benefits from
it?
Under this bill, the oil industry gets a conduit for exporting tar
sands products from Canada to China. India gets the opportunity to
provide pipes to build it. South Korea gets a market for its steel. But
what do we get? Midwestern farmers and ranchers will have their land
seized through eminent domain and may lose their vital water supplies
to a pipeline spill into the Ogallala Aquifer. Oil prices in parts of
the United States will increase as fuel supplies come into their area,
and we are left with a dirtier fuel supply and higher emissions of
carbon pollution, worsening the climate change that is already starting
to afflict our Nation.
I urge all Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, the language that we're discussing at this
current time is allowing the Keystone pipeline a path forward. It's
based on a bill I introduced back in September, which is H.R. 3548.
Keep in mind that the President of the United States killed the
Keystone pipeline. We think that was kowtowing to the environmental
extremists, some of which may be in the House of Representatives, or
represented here today. But the reality is that it was a wrong
decision. It is in the best interests of our Nation to have the
Keystone pipeline bringing oil from Alberta oil sands into the United
States, where it can be refined and used in the United States,
offsetting imported oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Keystone pipeline would take these supplies from Canada and use them
in the United States, creating tens of thousands of jobs over a 2-year
to 2\1/2\ year construction phase with permanent jobs thereafter to
maintain the pipeline and its hubs along the 1,700-mile pipeline.
Now, as far as the environmental objections to the project are
concerned, I wish more people would have read the administration's own
final environmental impact study. It found that not building the
Keystone XL would lead to more oil being transported by riskier means,
such as tankers, trains, and trucks. For this reason, the
administration's folks concluded that the building of the pipeline is
environmentally preferable to not building the pipeline and that its
route was safe. Then the Nebraska Governor requested that, just for a
little bit of Nebraska, that they do a 30- or 40-mile loop. The path
was set, except for this little loop.
Now, it would take a long time to dispel all the myths that have been
perpetuated by the opponents in the environmental community. But it's
worth noting that these are intrastate issues well on their way to
being resolved and, in fact, were carved out in the previous bill
mentioned by the gentleman from California, but the President ignored
the Nebraska exemption giving Nebraska time to work through its change
of route for about 40 or 50 miles of the 1,700. He never mentioned that
and killed the pipeline.
So we give a pathway forward to TransCanada to re-file its permit
with all of the environmental documents that it has gathered over the
last 3 years, presented to the administration last year, and give time
to Nebraska to resolve their issue.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. TERRY. So, politics of the extreme put us in this position. But
let's ask, who benefits from this oil coming into the United States
from our partner, Canada, and being refined and used in the United
States of America? If we have this, everyone benefits in our Nation. If
we don't have this pipeline to displace the oil, who wins? Venezuela,
which continues to send us 900,000 barrels per day, and Saudi Arabia.
Our reliance just grows for these nations' oil supplies. That's who
wins, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the
Energy Subcommittee,
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member for this time, and I
thank him for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I find it remarkable that we are here today debating a
bill that is essentially a regulatory earmark for just one company, and
that company is called TransCanada. And we're here debating whether to
build a pipeline through the heart of our country without even allowing
the appropriate State and Federal agencies to completely conduct their
due diligence and their oversight responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, this legislative gift wrapped in fine gift-wrapping to
TransCanada on behalf of my Republican colleagues will completely
circumvent the State Department and the other State and Federal
agencies, those agencies that have the know-how and the expertise, to
thoroughly examine this process, and Mr. Chairman, they will require
that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, issue a permit for
the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline within 30 days of the
receipt of the application.
{time} 1540
If FERC does not act on the permit application within the meager 30
days, the permit shall be considered approved automatically.
Mr. Chairman, how insane can insanity get? How ridiculous can
ridiculous be when we are telling an agency that if they don't pass
this permit within 30 days, if they don't do all their investigations
within 30 days, then this permit will automatically be approved?
Mr. Chairman, the Keystone XL project is too big, too consequential,
too important to the American people for this Congress to completely
ignore all the established protocols that have existed prior and exist
now and set a precedent of bypassing State and Federal oversight
procedures. The very people whose lives will be most affected by this
pipeline deserve to have the responsible agencies complete their review
process to ensure the American people that this project has been
thoroughly examined and vetted.
Mr. Chairman, even my colleagues who may support the merits of the
Keystone XL pipeline are appalled--and they should be appalled--at the
majority party's attempt to hijack the process and circumvent the
appropriate State and Federal agencies in order to hastily,
irresponsibly green-light this project.
This sentiment can be summed up best by a letter sent to me on
February 9 by a citizen of this Nation, a Nebraskan rancher by the name
of Randy Thomas, who said:
The short circuiting of the process leaves those of us who
live and work along the proposed pathway of this project with
many lingering doubts about its safety, and the impacts it
could have on our livelihoods.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better than this
shoddy attempt to provide TransCanada with a regulatory earmark that
allows them to bypass the established rules and procedures we have in
place. I cannot support this, and I ask my colleagues to join me in not
supporting this particular bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds if
he would yield to me for further comment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California only has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. We heard debate from the other side about refining oil. I
think we ought to refine our debate because, on the other side of the
aisle, a comment was made that extremists are pushing opposition to
this pipeline. From what I heard from Mr. Rush and what I understand
the case to be is that those who ordinarily make this decision should
have all the facts, and I don't think that is an extreme position at
all.
[[Page H759]]
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we're here today because it's time to decide. President
Obama and his administration have made a decision not to decide, even
though his own Secretary of State, in their final economic
environmental impact statement, made the decision that if you looked at
two options--one, build the pipeline, or two, not build the pipeline--
the preferable route was to build the pipeline; 1 million more barrels
of oil a day coming to America, ultimately. We're facing ever-
increasing gasoline prices.
There's only 60 miles at issue at all in this pipeline out of 1,700.
Five major labor unions support this pipeline. There's not one dime of
Federal dollars in this pipeline, unlike the millions and billions that
this administration have given to wind power and solar power and
battery companies--many of which are in bankruptcy, just like Solyndra,
which received $538 million from the taxpayers of America. This is a
private company willing to put in $7 billion to bring 100,000 more
barrels of oil a day, willing to provide 20,000 additional jobs to
construct this pipeline.
So I think the decision here is very easy for the American people,
and that's what Mr. Terry's legislation does. Since the President won't
make a decision, Mr. Terry directs the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to make the decision. We have all of the data necessary.
It's the right decision to make.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the
Rules for H.R. 7, ``The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of
2012.'' I believe the transportation bill should have been an open
rule. This bill is not a comprehensive bill. When Congress spends
taxpayer dollars, we are accountable for how it is spent. As written,
this measure limits federal government oversight and therefore limits
accountability.
I believe, a well-functioning transportation system is critical to
the Nation's prosperity. Whether it is by road, aviation, or rail we
rely on our transportation system to move people and goods safely. A
properly functioning transportation infrastructure will facilitate
commerce, attract and retain businesses, and support jobs.
Public transportation benefits the economy in several ways. It helps
the right people to get to the right jobs, without wasting otherwise
productive hours. It allows employers to tap into various pools of
recipients who have no other means of getting to work and it helps
customers get to the doors of businesses.
For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems
boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million
investment in building public transportation systems creates more than
300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600
more.
Part of the challenge of our transportation system is to ensure that
everyone is able to benefit. The GAO would study ways to increase
access to the underserved and unrepresented communities, as well as,
minority communities. This will help to identify areas that we can work
to improve. The GAO would further study how to increase the mobility of
the disabled.
Public transportation is important to ensure these communities will
not only have access to services, businesses, and the community at
large, but will also improve their quality of life.
Public involvement needs to encompass the full range of community
interests, yet people underserved by transportation often do not
participate. We need to find ways to reach the underserved. They not
only have greater difficulty getting to jobs, schools, recreation, and
shopping than the population at large, but often they are also unaware
of transportation proposals that could dramatically change their lives.
Many lack experience with public involvement, even though they have
important, unspoken issues that should be heard.
Underserved people include those with special cultural, racial, or
ethnic characteristics. Cultural differences sometimes hinder full
participation in transportation planning and project development.
People with disabilities find access to transportation more difficult
and their ability to participate in public involvement efforts more
constrained. People with limited resources often lack both access and
time to participate. In addition individuals who have not been
adequately educated may not be fully aware either of what
transportation services are available or of opportunities to help
improve them.
These groups are a rich source of ideas that can improve
transportation not only for themselves but also for the entire
community. Agencies must assume responsibility for reaching out and
including them in the decision-making process--which requires strategic
thinking and tailoring public involvement efforts to these communities
and their needs. Techniques to reach the underserved are grouped here
under two headings:
A thorough study of how this bill will impact cost and jobs. As well
as a study on how to improve services to the underserved and under-
represented will insure that there is accountability for how we are
using government resources.
There is much left to be done in the areas of Transportation in our
great Nation. I believe this study is a step in the right direction.
Generally, the same transit agencies operate both rail and a bus
system, which improves efficiency by ensuring both Systems complement
each other.
For example, transit agencies can design bus routes that collect
passengers from outlying neighborhoods and deliver them to rail transit
stations.
Congress has always allowed transit systems operating both rail and
bus lines to receive bus and bus facility grants, recognizing that bus
and rail lines work as part of a complete transit network in large
metropolitan areas and that federal policy should support local and
regional efforts to maximize the efficiency of transit service. H.R. 7
would reverse this longstanding federal policy.
In Houston, TX alone, the City operates 1,300 buses and 7 miles of
rail. Denying access to these funds to major metropolitan areas does
not make sense. Public transportation benefits the economy in several
ways. It helps the right people to get to the right jobs, without
wasting otherwise productive hours. It allows employers to tap into
various pools of recipients who have no other means of getting to work
and it helps customers get to the doors of businesses.
In the case of Houston, the light rail system is vital to increase
mobility of Houston, Texas' population which is forecasted to grow by
an additional 9.4 million people by 2035, a 38.9 percent increase over
the projected 2010 levels. The same can be said for many urban areas
across our Nation.
Light rail projects and other transportation investments represent
the potential to create thousands of jobs, enhanced mobility, and
future economic development for the region.
Public transportation is an investment in the truest sense of the
word: An outlay today pays out considerable profit down the road.
Nationwide, government invests $15.4 billion in public transportation a
year. Public transportation generates upwards of $60 billion in
economic benefits. Public transportation boosts state and local tax
revenues by at least 4 percent and as much as 16 percent.
Some 30,000 people work directly for the public transportation
industry, which creates thousands more jobs indirectly through fields
ranging from engineering to construction.
For every dollar we invest in running public transportation systems
boosts business sales by another three dollars. A $10 million
investment in building public transportation systems creates more than
300 jobs, and the same amount spent on running them creates nearly 600
more.
To be sure, public transportation systems are not cheap to build or
run; however, public transportation pays for itself several times over.
And if a stronger economy is the destination we seek, public transit is
the fastest way to get there. These funds could be used to fix buses,
bus shelters, and bus facilities.
With the recent uptick in fuel prices more people are opting to ride
the bus. In addition, the bus system also is vital resource for the
disable and seniors who rely on these services for transportation. The
TE program funds projects that build bus shelters. This would encourage
even more people to opt for public transportation. Shelters safeguard
passengers against the sun, wind, and rain. Texas has heat waves and
many other parts of the country have inclement weather. Funding the
building of bus shelters may not be a priority for some, but to the
people who are standing waiting for the bus it makes a world of
difference.
In addition, bus stops are extremely important for people with
disabilities. The inaccessibility of bus stops often represents the
weak link in the system and can effectively prevent the use of fixed-
route service. This can severely hamper bus ridership by disability
community, and thereby limit their mobility. Increasing the
accessibility of fixed-route service
[[Page H760]]
under the TE program will decrease paratransit costs.
Since 1983, when the Surface Transportation Assistance Act was signed
into law, 2.86 cents in motor fuels taxes has been deposited into the
Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to provide a dedicated
stable source of funding for public transportation programs. H.R. 7
eliminates the Mass Transit Account and dedicates that 2.86 cents to
highway programs.
The bill moves transit and other public transportation programs into
a new ``Alternative Transportation Fund,'' which would be dependent on
appropriations from general revenue. Although the bill makes a one-time
transfer of $40 billion into the Alternative Transportation Fund to
cover funding for those programs through the life of the bill, there is
no guarantee for public transportation funding beyond FY 2016. Such a
reality would make it difficult, if not impossible, for transit
agencies to develop reliable long-term capital plans, and it would
leave the future of the program in doubt.
Public transportation agencies around the country are already
struggling to maintain current levels of service and keep the system in
a state of good repair. Removing federally guaranteed funding could
result in a virtual construction and service freeze, the effects of
which would be felt by riders, businesses, contractors, manufacturers
and suppliers around the country.
Transit agencies may have to take on more debt in order to finance
capital projects, and it could result in increased fares for our
constituents.
There is no reason to make such a drastic change in how we finance
public transportation. Our amendment would restore the Mass Transit
Account of the Highway Trust Fund and the 2.86 cents dedicated funding
stream for public transportation programs. It would eliminate the
Alternative Trust Fund, make the Highway Trust Fund whole, and allow it
to once again fund both highways and mass transit.
Fast Facts
Highway and Transit Bill (Or Surface Transportation Bill) (H.R. 7)--
Impact on Jobs
Cuts 550,000 American Jobs. Cuts investments in highways by $15.8
billion from current levels. We know that every $1 billion invested in
infrastructure creates an estimated 34,800 jobs. Cuts Highway
Investments in 45 states & DC. Reduces highway investments for all but
5 states (Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts Nebraska, Wyoming),
neglecting the need to fix our bridges and roads.
Buy America Loopholes. Continues loopholes that allow surface
transportation jobs to be outsourced overseas, and fails to extend Buy
America protections to all Federal surface transportation programs.
Unstable Funding. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
reported that the GOP bill would bankrupt the Highway trust fund by
2016--creating a $78 billion shortfall over 10 years and jeopardizing
critical transportation projects and American jobs. Boehner argue the
bill doesn't create jobs. Speaker John A. Boehner made the unusual
argument that spending money on highway projects under the bill would
not create jobs. ``We are not making the claim that spending taxpayer
money on transportation projects creates jobs.''
Other Transportation Issues
Undermines Safety. Cuts National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration grants, allows companies with poor safety records to be
exempted from hazardous material safety requirements, delays the
deadline for installing new train systems to automatically prevent
train collisions and derailments for passenger rail from December 31,
2015 to December 31, 2020 and eliminates worker safety for hazmat
workers.
Kills Public Transit. Eliminates all of the dedicated funding for
public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with
service cuts and fare increases out in the cold. The bill stops the
highway user fee revenues for transit, so that transit will compete
with other priorities in the budget. These provisions are opposed by
600 groups--including National League of Cities, National Association
of Counties, American Public Transportation Association, League of
Conservation Voters, U.S. Steelworkers, U.S. PIRG, and Chamber of
Commerce. The bill also fails to provide flexibility to transit systems
to use Federal funds to maintain service and transit worker jobs at
times of economic crisis. Mandates Privatization in Public Transit &
Highways. Incentivizes transit agencies to contract out their bus
services, makes private entities eligible to receive Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) grants, and mandates private sector participation
in local transit planning and for engineering and design services on
Federal-aid highway projects.
Jeopardizes Efforts to Make Streets and Roads Safer for Children,
Pedestrians, and Bikes. Eliminates efforts to help underwrite local
bike paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including the
Safe Routes to School program. Weakens Environmental, Public Health,
and Safety Protections. Includes sweeping changes that undermine local
community involvement and environmental protection in transportation
project development, such as delegating environmental and safety
reviews--including whether they should be conducted--entirely to state
highway agencies, imposing arbitrary deadlines for completing or
challenging reviews regardless of project size, and waiving
environmental reviews for all projects where the Federal share of the
costs is less than $10 million or 15 percent of the total project cost
regardless of the scope of the project.
Hurts Amtrak. Reduces funding for Amtrak by $308 million, abrogates
labor contracts between Amtrak and its food and beverage workers likely
costing 2,000 union jobs, and prevents Amtrak from using Federal funds
to hire outside counsel to file a lawsuit or defend itself against a
passenger rail operator.
Federal Retirement (H.R. 3813)
Cutting Federal Retirement. In an effort to finance the highway bill,
the package includes extraneous provisions that take $44 billion out of
the pockets of the middle-class--who have already suffered through a
pay freeze for 2 years, which contributed approximately $60 billion to
deficit reduction. Raising Worker Contributions. Increases the
retirement contribution from current federal workers by 1.5 percent.
New federal workers would be forced to contribute 3.2 percent more for
an annuity that is 40 percent less than existing benefits--with the
retirement based on the high five years of salary, instead of the high
three years. Changing Benefits Already Earned. Eliminates the annuity
supplement payment for federal employees who retire before age 62,
throwing into chaos the longstanding retirement plans of middle-class
workers who relied on the promise of this benefit and dedicated decades
of service to our country. Even the conservative American Enterprise
Institute has said, ``Benefits already accrued should not be altered.
Those benefits have been promised and earned, and the obligation to pay
them should be honored.''
Role of Federal Workers. Federal workers support our troops in the
battlefield and provide care upon their return, protect our borders,
safeguard our food supply, make sure seniors get their Social Security
checks, and help hunt down Osama Bin Laden.
Opposition. Opposed by American Federation of Government Employees,
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, National
Treasury Employees Union, National Federation of Federal Employees,
National Association of Government Employees, International Federation
of Professional and Technical Engineers, National Association of
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and Federal Managers Association.
Further, I believe that more should be done for small businesses
owned by women and minorities. It is a shame that the numbers of women
and minority owned business competing for these contracts has been
decreasing every year. We must reinforce our commitment to women and
minority owned business.
The Department of Transportation's DBE program aims to increase
participation of small businesses owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals.
Enhanced oversight is critical to ensuring that the objectives of the
DBE program are achieved and federal funds are spent appropriately. But
the current program lacks a mechanism to enforce that committed
spending for DBEs reflects actual spending.
The October 2011 report by GAO highlights both DOT's need for
increased oversight and the lack of clarity in determining whether both
committed and actual spending are meeting the goals of the DBE program.
Two things need to be addressed to help the DBE program: increased
oversight, and the ability to enforce the DBE program requirements.
The program lacks the necessary ``teeth,'' its requirements are often
flaunted to the determent of small business owners.
I believe the Secretary of the Department of Transportation should be
required to issue regulations providing for strengthening oversight,
enforcement, and compliance with DBE spending requirements.
I have offered a bill, H.R. 3710--Deficit Reduction, Job Creation,
and Energy Security Act, that I firmly believe will increase jobs,
decrease our deficit, and will be great for our economy.
H.R. 3710 will direct the Secretary of Interior to increase the total
lease acreage set forth in the proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil &
Gas leasing program for 2012 2017 by an additional 10 percent. This 10
percent increase shall be known as the Deficit Reduction Acreage. As
such, the Secretary shall lease 20 percent of the Deficit Reduction
Acreage each year from 2012 2017. All proceeds from the Deficit
Reduction Acreage shall be deposited into the Deficit Reduction Energy
Security Fund.
[[Page H761]]
For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the
first payment coming from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund,
all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a
period of 2 years. Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds
shall be distributed as follows:
The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the
Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund (COSH); and
The principle from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund shall
be deposited into the US Treasury and applied directly toward Deficit
Reduction.
The COSH fund will establish grants for states (Coastal and Disaster
Grant Program and a National Grant Program) for addressing coastal and
ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal
areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with
state and local agencies.
Additionally, the Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act
establishes an Office of Onshore and Offshore Energy Employment and
Training, and an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. CBO has
estimated that this amendment is outside of the 10 year budgetary
window, so there is no score.
I think we must carefully consider the bill that I propose. And again
I reiterate the importance of having an open rule for the Surface
Transportation Reauthorization to ensure that all Members of this Body
have an opportunity to address their concerns with this bill.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of
Environmental, Energy and Resource Security Act, which is purported to
help finance the transportation bill.
I agree with my colleagues' concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline
provision that forces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
approve the project. The permitting process for Keystone XL has become
a political spin war and I urge my colleagues to oppose my colleague
from Nebraska's proposal. We should allow the original permitting
process to be completed fairly and without interference.
However, I come to the Floor today to talk about another huge problem
with the oil shale provisions: CBO estimates they would have no
significant net impact on the federal budget from 2012 2022.
Oil shale has yet to be produced in commercial quantities despite 100
years of research and development. The oil shale provisions found in
H.R. 3408 are being promoted by the Majority as a funding mechanism for
the surface transportation reauthorization package despite the fact
that the Congressional Budget Office last week concluded that opening
up 2 million acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for oil shale
speculation would generate negligible revenue over the next decade.
Speculators have swept through Colorado throughout our state's
history to try and make a quick buck off oil shale. The last time
around, in the early 1980s, Federal legislation much like H.R. 3408
ushered in a boom-bust cycle that devastated communities on the Western
Slope when it became clear production was not profitable. 85 million
dollars in annual payroll disappeared in Garfield and Mesa counties
over two years.
Oil shale is still not commercially viable--in fact, Shell
Corporation estimates it could be 2020 before a company could be ready
to develop a Federal oil shale lease.
We need real solutions for funding our nation's crumbling
transportation infrastructure. Using H.R. 3408 as a funding source for
the surface transportation reauthorization is not a good faith effort
to create the jobs Americans so desperately need.
Mr. Chair, I hope every member of Congress realizes what an economic
mistake H.R. 3408 is. I urge every member to oppose the PIONEERS Act
and to support the amendment to strike all oil shale provisions.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of titles XIV and
XVII of Rules Committee print 112 14 shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3408
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE XIV--KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
SEC. 14001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``North American Energy
Access Act''.
SEC. 14002. RESTRICTION.
(a) In General.--No person may construct, operate, or
maintain the oil pipeline and related facilities described in
subsection (b) except in accordance with a permit issued
under this title.
(b) Pipeline.--The pipeline and related facilities referred
to in subsection (a) are those described in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline
Project issued by the Department of State on August 26, 2011,
including any modified version of that pipeline and related
facilities.
SEC. 14003. PERMIT.
(a) Issuance.--
(1) By ferc.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
shall, not later than 30 days after receipt of an application
therefor, issue a permit without additional conditions for
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil
pipeline and related facilities described in section
14002(b), to be implemented in accordance with the terms of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement described in section
14002(b). The Commission shall not be required to prepare a
Record of Decision under section 1505.2 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations with respect to issuance of the
permit provided for in this section.
(2) Issuance in absence of ferc action.--If the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has not acted on an application
for a permit described in paragraph (1) within 30 days after
receiving such application, the permit shall be deemed to
have been issued under this title upon the expiration of such
30-day period.
(b) Modification.--
(1) In general.--The applicant for or holder of a permit
described in subsection (a) may make a substantial
modification to the pipeline route or any other term of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement described in section
14002(b) only with the approval of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. The Commission shall expedite
consideration of any such modification proposal.
(2) Nebraska modification.--Within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
with the State of Nebraska for an effective and timely review
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 of any
modification to the proposed pipeline route in Nebraska as
proposed by the applicant for the permit described in
subsection (a). Not later than 30 days after receiving
approval of such proposed modification from the Governor of
Nebraska, the Commission shall complete consideration of and
approve such modification.
(3) Issuance in absence of ferc action.--If the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has not acted on an application
for approval of a modification described in paragraph (2)
within 30 days after receiving such application, such
modification shall be deemed to have been issued under this
title upon expiration of the 30-day period.
(4) Construction during consideration of nebraska
modification.--While any modification of the proposed
pipeline route in Nebraska is under consideration pursuant to
paragraph (2), the holder of the permit issued under
subsection (a) may commence or continue with construction of
any portion of the pipeline and related facilities described
in section 14002(b) that is not within the State of Nebraska.
(c) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--Except for
actions taken under subsection (b)(1), the actions taken
pursuant to this title shall be taken without further action
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
SEC. 14004. RELATION TO OTHER LAW.
(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding Executive Order 13337 (3
U.S.C. 301 note), Executive Order 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note),
section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and any other
Executive Order or provision of law, no presidential permits
shall be required for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the pipeline and related facilities described
in section 14002(b) of this Act.
(b) Applicability.--Nothing in this title shall affect the
application to the pipeline and related facilities described
in section 14002(b) of--
(1) chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code; or
(2) the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to regulate oil pipeline rates and services.
(c) Final Environmental Impact Statement.--The final
environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of
State on August 26, 2011, shall be considered to satisfy all
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
TITLE XVII--NATURAL RESOURCES
Subtitle A--Oil Shale Leasing
SEC. 17001. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Protecting Investment
in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy,
and Resource Security Act'' or the ``PIONEERS Act''.
SEC. 17002. EFFECTIVENESS OF OIL SHALE REGULATIONS,
AMENDMENTS TO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND
RECORD OF DECISION.
(a) Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation to the contrary, the final regulations regarding
oil shale management published by the Bureau of Land
Management on November 18, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 69,414) are
deemed to satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under
any law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
[[Page H762]]
et seq.), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109
58), and the Secretary of the Interior shall implement those
regulations, including the oil shale leasing program
authorized by the regulations, without any other
administrative action necessary.
(b) Amendments to Resource Management Plans and Record of
Decision.--Notwithstanding any other law or regulation to the
contrary, the November 17, 2008 U.S. Bureau of Land
Management Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/
Record of Decision for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to
Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement are
deemed to satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under
any law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109 58), and the Secretary of
the Interior shall implement the oil shale leasing program
authorized by the regulations referred to in subsection (a)
in those areas covered by the resource management plans
amended by such amendments, and covered by such record of
decision, without any other administrative action necessary.
SEC. 17003. OIL SHALE LEASING.
(a) Additional Research and Development Lease Sales.--The
Secretary of the Interior shall hold a lease sale within 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act offering an
additional 10 parcels for lease for research, development,
and demonstration of oil shale resources, under the terms
offered in the solicitation of bids for such leases published
on January 15, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 10).
(b) Commercial Lease Sales.--No later than January 1, 2016,
the Secretary of the Interior shall hold no less than 5
separate commercial lease sales in areas considered to have
the most potential for oil shale development, as determined
by the Secretary, in areas nominated through public comment.
Each lease sale shall be for an area of not less than 25,000
acres, and in multiple lease blocs.
SEC. 17004. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING
FOR AMERICA.
(a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the Congress
that--
(1) this subtitle will support a healthy and growing United
States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to
reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and
service sectors by employing the vast talents of United
States workers to assist in the development of energy from
domestic sources;
(2) to ensure a robust oil shale industry and ensure that
the benefits of development support local communities, under
this subtitle, the Secretary of the Interior shall make every
effort to promote the development of oil shale in a manner
that will support the long-term commercial development of oil
shale, and shall take into consideration the socioeconomic
impacts, infrastructure requirements, and fiscal stability
for local communities located within areas containing oil
shale resources; and
(3) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel
and material onshore to encourage the development of American
technology and manufacturing to enable United States workers
to benefit from this subtitle through good jobs and careers,
as well as the establishment of important industrial
facilities to support expanded access to American resources.
(b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall when
possible, and practicable, encourage the use of United States
workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in
all construction related to mineral resource development
under this subtitle.
Subtitle B--Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing
SEC. 17101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Energy Security and
Transportation Jobs Act''.
PART 1--EXPANDING OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 17201. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM.
Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this
section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and
conduct lease sales including--
``(i) at least 50 percent of the available unleased acreage
within each outer Continental Shelf planning area considered
to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil
and gas resources (on a total btu basis) based upon the most
recent national geologic assessment of the outer Continental
Shelf, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically
prospective parts of the planning area; and
``(ii) any State subdivision of an outer Continental Shelf
planning area that the Governor of the State that represents
that subdivision requests be made available for leasing.
``(B) In this paragraph the term `available unleased
acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf
that is not under lease at the time of a proposed lease sale,
and that has not otherwise been made unavailable for leasing
by law.
``(6)(A) In the 2012 2017 5-year oil and gas leasing
program, the Secretary shall make available for leasing any
outer Continental Shelf planning areas that--
``(i) are estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000
barrels of oil; or
``(ii) are estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000
cubic feet of natural gas.
``(B) To determine the planning areas described in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document
entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of
Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of
the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.
SEC. 17202. DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION GOAL.
Section 18(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production Goal.--
``(1) In general.--In developing a 5-year oil and gas
leasing program, and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall determine a domestic strategic production goal for the
development of oil and natural gas as a result of that
program. Such goal shall be--
``(A) the best estimate of the possible increase in
domestic production of oil and natural gas from the outer
Continental Shelf;
``(B) focused on meeting domestic demand for oil and
natural gas and reducing the dependence of the United States
on foreign energy; and
``(C) focused on the production increases achieved by the
leasing program at the end of the 15-year period beginning on
the effective date of the program.
``(2) 2012 2017 program goal.--For purposes of the 2012
2017 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the production goal
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an increase by 2027,
from the levels of oil and gas produced as of the date of
enactment of this paragraph, of--
``(A) no less than 3,000,000 barrels in the amount of oil
produced per day; and
``(B) no less than 10,000,000,000 cubic feet in the amount
of natural gas produced per day.
``(3) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually,
beginning at the end of the 5-year period for which the
program applies, to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate on the progress of the
program in meeting the production goal. The Secretary shall
identify in the report projections for production and any
problems with leasing, permitting, or production that will
prevent meeting the goal.''.
PART 2--CONDUCTING PROMPT OFFSHORE LEASE SALES
SEC. 17301. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE
SALE 216 IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 216 under section 8
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) as
soon as practicable, but not later than 4 months after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease
sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007 2012 5
Year Outer Continental Shelf Plan and the Multi-Sale
Environmental Impact Statement are deemed to satisfy the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
SEC. 17302. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE
SALE 220 ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
OFFSHORE VIRGINIA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the inclusion of Lease
Sale 220 in the Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas
Leasing Program 2012 2017, the Secretary shall conduct
offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 220 under section 8 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as
practicable, but not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Requirement to Make Replacement Lease Blocks
Available.--
(1) In general.--For each lease block in a proposed lease
sale under this section for which the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, under the
Memorandum of Agreement referred to in subsection (c)(2),
issues a statement proposing deferral from a lease offering
due to defense-related activities that are irreconcilable
with mineral exploration and development, the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,
shall make available in the same lease sale two other lease
blocks in the Virginia lease sale planning area that are
acceptable for oil and gas exploration and production in
order to mitigate conflict.
(2) Virginia lease sale planning area defined.--In this
subsection the term ``Virginia lease sale planning area''
means the area of the outer Continental Shelf (as that term
is defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)) that is bounded by--
(A) a northern boundary consisting of a straight line
extending from the northernmost point of Virginia's seaward
boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United
States exclusive economic zone located at 37 degrees 17
minutes 1 second North latitude, 71 degrees 5 minutes 16
seconds West longitude; and
(B) a southern boundary consisting of a straight line
extending from the southernmost point of Virginia's seaward
boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United
States exclusive economic zone located at 36 degrees 31
minutes 58 seconds North latitude, 71 degrees 30 minutes 1
second West longitude.
(c) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--
(1) Joint goals.--In recognition that the Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas leasing program and the domestic energy
resources produced therefrom are integral to national
security, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Defense shall work jointly in implementing this section in
order to ensure achievement of the following common goals:
(A) Preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the
United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness
through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf.
[[Page H763]]
(B) Allowing effective exploration, development, and
production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy
resources.
(2) Prohibition on conflicts with military operations.--No
person may engage in any exploration, development, or
production of oil or natural gas off the coast of Virginia
that would conflict with any military operation, as
determined in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement
between the Department of Defense and the Department of the
Interior on Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf
signed July 20, 1983, and any revision or replacement for
that agreement that is agreed to by the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of the Interior after that date but before
the date of issuance of the lease under which such
exploration, development, or production is conducted.
SEC. 17303. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 222
IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct offshore oil
and gas Lease Sale 222 under section 8 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) by as soon as
practicable, but not later than September 1, 2012.
(b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease
sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007 2012 5
Year Outer Continental Shelf Plan and the Multi-Sale
Environmental Impact Statement are deemed to satisfy the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
SEC. 17304. LEASE SALE OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA WITH NO NEW
OFFSHORE IMPACT.
(a) Southern California Lease Sale.--The Secretary shall
offer for sale leases of tracts in the Southern California
Planning Area in the Santa Maria and Santa Barbara/Ventura
Basins in accordance with section 8 of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as practicable, but
not later than July 1, 2014.
(b) Use of Existing Structures or Onshore-based Drilling.--
Leases offered for sale under this section shall include such
terms and conditions as are necessary to require that
development and production may occur only from existing
offshore infrastructure or from onshore-based drilling.
(c) Relationship to Leasing Program.--Areas shall be
offered for lease under this section notwithstanding the
omission of the Southern California Planning Area from any
outer Continental Shelf leasing program under section 18 of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).
(d) Relationship to State Coastal Zone Management
Program.--Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)) shall not apply to lease sales
under this section and activities conducted under leases
issued in such sales, including exploration, development, and
production.
(e) Environmental Impact Statement Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Before conducting the first lease sale
under this section, the Secretary shall prepare an
environmental impact statement for the lease sales required
under this section, under section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
(2) Actions to be considered.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332),
in such statement--
(i) the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing
alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental
effects of such alternative courses of action; and
(ii) the Secretary shall only--
(I) identify a preferred action for leasing and not more
than one alternative leasing proposal; and
(II) analyze the environmental effects and potential
mitigation measures for such preferred action and such
alternative leasing proposal.
(B) Deadline.--The identification of the preferred action
and related analysis for the first lease sale under this
subtitle shall be completed within 18 months after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(3) Consideration of public comments.--In preparing such
statement, the Secretary shall only consider public comments
that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action
and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an
environmental analysis.
(4) Compliance.--Compliance with this subsection is deemed
to satisfy all requirements for the analysis and
consideration of the environmental effects of proposed
leasing under this section.
SEC. 17305. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 214
IN THE NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN OFFSHORE ALASKA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct the lease sale formerly known as Lease Sale 214, for
the tracts located in the North Aleutian Basin Outer
Continental Shelf Planning Area, not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Relationship to Leasing Program.--Areas shall be
offered for lease under this section notwithstanding
inclusion of areas referred to in subsection (a) in the
Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program
2012 2017.
SEC. 17306. ADDITIONAL LEASES.
Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Additional Lease Sales.--In addition to lease sales
in accordance with a leasing program in effect under this
section, the Secretary may hold lease sales for areas
identified by the Secretary to have the greatest potential
for new oil and gas development as a result of local support,
new seismic findings, or nomination by interested persons.''.
SEC. 17307. DEFINITIONS.
In this part:
(1) The term ``Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007
2012 5 Year Outer Continental Shelf Plan'' means the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007 2012 (April 2007) prepared
by the Secretary.
(2) The term ``Multi-Sale Environmental Impact Statement''
means the Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Western
Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease
Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218, and Proposed Central Gulf
of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales
205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222 (September 2008) prepared by
the Secretary.
(3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
PART 3--LEASING IN NEW OFFSHORE AREAS
SEC. 17401. LEASING IN THE EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO.
Section 104 of division C of the Tax Relief and Health Care
Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 432; 120 Stat. 3003) is repealed.
SEC. 17402. REFORMING OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE EASTERN GULF
OF MEXICO.
(a) Reforming Administrative Boundaries.--Effective July 1,
2012, for purposes of administering the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) the boundary between
the Central Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning
Area and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf
Planning Area shall be 86 degrees, 41 minutes west longitude.
(b) Extending the Moratorium.--Effective during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending
June 30, 2025, the Secretary of the Interior shall not offer
for leasing, preleasing, or any related activity any area in
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning
Area except as required under subsection (c).
(c) Limited New Leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the Proposed Outer
Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 2012 2017, the
Secretary shall conduct planning and leasing for one lease
sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf
Planning Area in each of 2013, 2014, and 2015. Each lease
sale shall only consist of 50 contiguous Outer Continental
Shelf lease blocks in those areas the Secretary considers to
have the greatest potential for oil and gas after issuing a
request for, receiving, and considering public comment. In
reviewing potential areas for such leasing, the Secretary
shall focus on those areas for which there are known
quantities of hydrocarbons that can be conventionally
produced using existing or reasonably foreseeable technology,
and for which oil and gas exploration, development,
production, and marketing could be carried out in an
expeditious manner.
(2) Lease conditions.--In addition to such requirements as
otherwise apply, each lease sale under this subsection shall
be subject to the following:
(A) The Secretary may include limits on permanent surface
occupancy on any lease block if surface occupancy is
incompatible with military operations.
(B) The Secretary may include limits on drilling schedules
and surface occupancy to accommodate defense activities on a
short-term or seasonal basis. Such limits shall be treated as
administrative suspensions of a lease term.
(C) The Secretary may limit permanent surface
infrastructure on any Outer Continental Shelf lease block
that is closer than 12 nautical miles to the coast of any
State, unless that infrastructure is approved by the State.
(d) Requirement to Make Replacement Lease Blocks
Available.--For each lease block in a proposed lease sale
under this section for which the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, under the
Memorandum of Agreement referred to in subsection (e)(2)
issues a statement proposing deferral from a lease offering
due to defense-related activities that are irreconcilable
with mineral exploration and development, the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,
shall make available in the same lease sale two other lease
blocks in the same Outer Continental Shelf planning area that
are acceptable for oil and gas exploration and production in
order to mitigate conflict.
(e) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--
(1) Joint goals.--In recognition that the Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas leasing program and the domestic energy
resources produced therefrom are integral to national
security, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Defense shall work jointly in implementing this section in
order to ensure achievement of the goals of--
(A) preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the
United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness
through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf;
and
(B) allowing effective exploration, development, and
production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy
resources.
(C) recognizing the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
leasing program is an integral part of the Nation's energy
security program to develop domestic oil and gas resources.
(2) Prohibition on conflicts with military operations.--No
person may engage in any exploration, development, or
production of oil or natural gas in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area that would
conflict with any military operation, as determined in
accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior on
Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf signed
[[Page H764]]
July 20, 1983, and any revision or replacement for that
agreement that is agreed to by the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Interior after that date but before the
date of issuance of the lease under which such exploration,
development, or production is conducted.
SEC. 17403. AREAS ADDED TO CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO PLANNING
AREA.
The Secretary shall conduct an offshore oil and gas lease
sale under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1337) for the areas added to the Central Gulf of
Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area as a result of
the enactment of section 17402(a) as soon as practicable, but
not later than the first lease sale under such section after
the date of the enactment of this Act in which any area in
such planning area is made available for leasing.
SEC. 17404. APPLICATION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT
WITH RESPECT TO TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED
STATES.
Section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (a), by inserting after ``control'' the
following: ``or lying within the United States' exclusive
economic zone and the Continental Shelf adjacent to any
territory of the United States''; and
(2) in paragraph (p), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(3) in paragraph (q), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(r) The term `State' includes each territory of the
United States.''.
PART 4--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUE SHARING
SEC. 17501. DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES
TO COASTAL STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended--
(1) in the existing text--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``All rentals,'' and
inserting the following:
``(c) Disposition of Revenue Under Old Leases.--All
rentals,''; and
(B) in subsection (c) (as designated by the amendment made
by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph), by striking ``for the
period from June 5, 1950, to date, and thereafter'' and
inserting ``in the period beginning June 5, 1950, and ending
on the date of enactment of the Energy Security and
Transportation Jobs Act'';
(2) by adding after subsection (c) (as so designated) the
following:
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' includes a
territory of the United States.
``(2) New leasing revenues.--The term `new leasing
revenues'--
``(A) means amounts received by the United States as
bonuses, rents, and royalties under leases for oil and gas,
wind, tidal, or other energy exploration, development, and
production on areas of the outer Continental Shelf that are
authorized to be made available for leasing as a result of
enactment of the Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act;
and
``(B) does not include amounts received by the United
States under any lease of an area located in the boundaries
of the Central Gulf of Mexico and Western Gulf of Mexico
Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas on the date of the
enactment of the Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act,
including a lease issued before, on, or after such date of
enactment.''; and
(3) by inserting before subsection (c) (as so designated)
the following:
``(a) Payment of New Leasing Revenues to Coastal States.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of
the amount of new leasing revenues received by the United
States each fiscal year, 37.5 percent shall be allocated and
paid in accordance with subsection (b) to coastal States that
are affected States with respect to the leases under which
those revenues are received by the United States.
``(2) Phase-in.--Paragraph (1) shall be applied--
``(A) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases
awarded under the first leasing program under section 18(a)
that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Energy
Security and Transportation Jobs Act, by substituting `12.5
percent' for `37.5 percent'; and
``(B) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases
awarded under the second leasing program under section 18(a)
that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Energy
Security and Transportation Jobs Act, by substituting `25
percent' for `37.5 percent'.
``(b) Allocation of Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of new leasing revenues
received by the United States with respect to a leased tract
that are required to be paid to coastal States in accordance
with this subsection each fiscal year shall be allocated
among and paid to coastal States that are within 200 miles of
the leased tract, in amounts that are inversely proportional
to the respective distances between the point on the
coastline of each such State that is closest to the
geographic center of the lease tract, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(2) Minimum and maximum allocation.--The amount allocated
to a coastal State under paragraph (1) each fiscal year with
respect to a leased tract shall be--
``(A) in the case of a coastal State that is the nearest
State to the geographic center of the leased tract, not less
than 25 percent of the total amounts allocated with respect
to the leased tract;
``(B) in the case of any other coastal State, not less than
10 percent, and not more than 15 percent, of the total
amounts allocated with respect to the leased tract; and
``(C) in the case of a coastal State that is the only
coastal State within 200 miles of a least tract, 100 percent
of the total amounts allocated with respect to the leased
tract.
``(3) Administration.--Amounts allocated to a coastal State
under this subsection--
``(A) shall be available to the coastal State without
further appropriation;
``(B) shall remain available until expended; and
``(C) shall be in addition to any other amounts available
to the coastal State under this Act.
``(4) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a coastal State may use funds allocated and paid to it under
this subsection for any purpose as determined by the laws of
that State.
``(B) Restriction on use for matching.--Funds allocated and
paid to a coastal State under this subsection may not be used
as matching funds for any other Federal program.''.
(b) Limitation on Application.--This section and the
amendment made by this section shall not affect the
application of section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109
432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)), as in effect before the
enactment of this Act, with respect to revenues received by
the United States under oil and gas leases issued for tracts
located in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf Planning Areas, including such leases
issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
PART 5--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 17601. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING
FOR AMERICA.
(a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the Congress
that--
(1) this subtitle will support a healthy and growing United
States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to
reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and
service sectors by employing the vast talents of United
States workers to assist in the development of energy from
domestic sources; and
(2) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel
and material onshore and offshore to encourage the
development of American technology and manufacturing to
enable United States workers to benefit from this subtitle
through good jobs and careers, as well as the establishment
of important industrial facilities to support expanded access
to American resources.
(b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall when
possible, and practicable, encourage the use of United States
workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in
all construction related to mineral and renewable energy
resource development on the Outer Continental Shelf under
this subtitle.
SEC. 17602. REGULATIONS.
Section 30(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356(a)) is amended by striking ``shall issue
regulations which'' and inserting ``shall issue regulations
that shall be supplemental to, complementary with, and under
no circumstances a substitution for the provisions of the
Constitution and laws of the United States extended to the
subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf by section
4(a)(1), except insofar as such laws would otherwise apply to
individuals who have extraordinary ability in the sciences,
arts, education, or business, which has been demonstrated by
sustained national or international acclaim, and that''.
Subtitle C--Alaska Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing
SEC. 17701. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Alaskan Energy for
American Jobs Act''.
SEC. 17702. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Coastal plain.--The term ``Coastal Plain'' means that
area described in appendix I to part 37 of title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(2) Peer reviewed.--The term ``peer reviewed'' means
reviewed--
(A) by individuals chosen by the National Academy of
Sciences with no contractual relationship with, or those who
have no application for a grant or other funding pending
with, the Federal agency with leasing jurisdiction; or
(B) if individuals described in subparagraph (A) are not
available, by the top individuals in the specified biological
fields, as determined by the National Academy of Sciences.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'', except as otherwise
provided, means the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary's designee.
SEC. 17703. LEASING PROGRAM FOR LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL
PLAIN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as
are necessary--
(1) to establish and implement, in accordance with this
subtitle and acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management in consultation with the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a competitive oil
and gas leasing program that will result in the exploration,
development, and production of the oil and gas resources of
the Coastal Plain; and
(2) to administer the provisions of this subtitle through
regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions,
prohibitions, stipulations, and other provisions that ensure
the oil and gas exploration, development, and production
activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no significant
adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat,
subsistence resources, and the environment, including, in
furtherance of this goal, by requiring the application of the
best commercially available technology for oil and gas
exploration, development, and production to all exploration,
development, and production operations under this subtitle in
a manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the
public for the mineral resources to be leased.
[[Page H765]]
(b) Repeal of Existing Restriction.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3143) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in section
1 of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1003.
(c) Compliance With Requirements Under Certain Other
Laws.--
(1) Compatibility.--For purposes of the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et
seq.), the oil and gas leasing program and activities
authorized by this section in the Coastal Plain are deemed to
be compatible with the purposes for which the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge was established, and no further findings or
decisions are required to implement this determination.
(2) Adequacy of the department of the interior's
legislative environmental impact statement.--The ``Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on
the Coastal Plain prepared pursuant to section 1002 of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.
3142) and section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is deemed to
satisfy the requirements under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 that apply with respect to prelease
activities under this subtitle, including actions authorized
to be taken by the Secretary to develop and promulgate the
regulations for the establishment of a leasing program
authorized by this subtitle before the conduct of the first
lease sale.
(3) Compliance with nepa for other actions.--Before
conducting the first lease sale under this subtitle, the
Secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with
respect to the actions authorized by this subtitle that are
not referred to in paragraph (2). Notwithstanding any other
law, the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing
alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental
effects of such courses of action. The Secretary shall only
identify a preferred action for such leasing and a single
leasing alternative, and analyze the environmental effects
and potential mitigation measures for those two alternatives.
The identification of the preferred action and related
analysis for the first lease sale under this subtitle shall
be completed within 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act. The Secretary shall only consider public comments
that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action
and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an
environmental analysis. Notwithstanding any other law,
compliance with this paragraph is deemed to satisfy all
requirements for the analysis and consideration of the
environmental effects of proposed leasing under this
subtitle.
(d) Relationship to State and Local Authority.--Nothing in
this subtitle shall be considered to expand or limit State
and local regulatory authority.
(e) Special Areas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with the
State of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope
Borough, may designate up to a total of 45,000 acres of the
Coastal Plain as a Special Area if the Secretary determines
that the Special Area is of such unique character and
interest so as to require special management and regulatory
protection. The Secretary shall designate as such a Special
Area the Sadlerochit Spring area, comprising approximately
4,000 acres.
(2) Management.--Each such Special Area shall be managed so
as to protect and preserve the area's unique and diverse
character including its fish, wildlife, and subsistence
resource values.
(3) Exclusion from leasing or surface occupancy.--The
Secretary may exclude any Special Area from leasing. If the
Secretary leases a Special Area, or any part thereof, for
purposes of oil and gas exploration, development, production,
and related activities, there shall be no surface occupancy
of the lands comprising the Special Area.
(4) Directional drilling.--Notwithstanding the other
provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may lease all or
a portion of a Special Area under terms that permit the use
of horizontal drilling technology from sites on leases tracts
located outside the Special Area.
(f) Limitation on Closed Areas.--The Secretary's sole
authority to close lands within the Coastal Plain to oil and
gas leasing and to exploration, development, and production
is that set forth in this subtitle.
(g) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subtitle,
including regulations relating to protection of the fish and
wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and
environment of the Coastal Plain, by no later than 15 months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Revision of regulations.--The Secretary shall, through
a rule making conducted in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, periodically review and, if
appropriate, revise the regulations issued under subsection
(a) to reflect a preponderance of the best available
scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and obtained
by following appropriate, documented scientific procedures,
the results of which can be repeated using those same
procedures.
SEC. 17704. LEASE SALES.
(a) In General.--Lands may be leased under this subtitle to
any person qualified to obtain a lease for deposits of oil
and gas under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et
seq.).
(b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall, by regulation and no
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
establish procedures for--
(1) receipt and consideration of sealed nominations for any
area of the Coastal Plain for inclusion in, or exclusion (as
provided in subsection (c)) from, a lease sale;
(2) the holding of lease sales after such nomination
process; and
(3) public notice of and comment on designation of areas to
be included in, or excluded from, a lease sale.
(c) Lease Sale Bids.--Lease sales under this subtitle may
be conducted through an Internet leasing program, if the
Secretary determines that such a system will result in
savings to the taxpayer, an increase in the number of bidders
participating, and higher returns than oral bidding or a
sealed bidding system.
(d) Sale Acreages and Schedule.--
(1) The Secretary shall offer for lease under this subtitle
those tracts the Secretary considers to have the greatest
potential for the discovery of hydrocarbons, taking into
consideration nominations received pursuant to subsection
(b)(1).
(2) The Secretary shall offer for lease under this subtitle
no less than 50,000 acres for lease within 22 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) The Secretary shall offer for lease under this subtitle
no less than an additional 50,000 acres at 6-, 12-, and 18-
month intervals following offering under paragraph (2).
(4) The Secretary shall conduct four additional sales under
the same terms and schedule no later than two years after the
date of the last sale under paragraph (3), if sufficient
interest in leasing exists to warrant, in the Secretary's
judgment, the conduct of such sales.
(5) The Secretary shall evaluate the bids in each sale and
issue leases resulting from such sales, within 90 days after
the date of the completion of such sale.
SEC. 17705. GRANT OF LEASES BY THE SECRETARY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may grant to the highest
responsible qualified bidder in a lease sale conducted under
section 17704 any lands to be leased on the Coastal Plain
upon payment by the such bidder of such bonus as may be
accepted by the Secretary.
(b) Subsequent Transfers.--No lease issued under this
subtitle may be sold, exchanged, assigned, sublet, or
otherwise transferred except with the approval of the
Secretary. Prior to any such approval the Secretary shall
consult with, and give due consideration to the views of, the
Attorney General.
SEC. 17706. LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(a) In General.--An oil or gas lease issued under this
subtitle shall--
(1) provide for the payment of a royalty of not less than
12\1/2\ percent in amount or value of the production removed
or sold under the lease, as determined by the Secretary under
the regulations applicable to other Federal oil and gas
leases;
(2) provide that the Secretary may close, on a seasonal
basis, portions of the Coastal Plain to exploratory drilling
activities as necessary to protect caribou calving areas and
other species of fish and wildlife based on a preponderance
of the best available scientific evidence that has been peer
reviewed and obtained by following appropriate, documented
scientific procedures, the results of which can be repeated
using those same procedures;
(3) require that the lessee of lands within the Coastal
Plain shall be fully responsible and liable for the
reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain and any other
Federal lands that are adversely affected in connection with
exploration, development, production, or transportation
activities conducted under the lease and within the Coastal
Plain by the lessee or by any of the subcontractors or agents
of the lessee;
(4) provide that the lessee may not delegate or convey, by
contract or otherwise, the reclamation responsibility and
liability to another person without the express written
approval of the Secretary;
(5) provide that the standard of reclamation for lands
required to be reclaimed under this subtitle shall be, as
nearly as practicable, a condition capable of supporting the
uses which the lands were capable of supporting prior to any
exploration, development, or production activities, or upon
application by the lessee, to a higher or better use as
certified by the Secretary;
(6) contain terms and conditions relating to protection of
fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and
the environment as required pursuant to section 17703(a)(2);
(7) provide that the lessee, its agents, and its
contractors use best efforts to provide a fair share, as
determined by the level of obligation previously agreed to in
the 1974 agreement implementing section 29 of the Federal
Agreement and Grant of Right of Way for the Operation of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, of employment and contracting for
Alaska Natives and Alaska Native corporations from throughout
the State;
(8) prohibit the export of oil produced under the lease;
and
(9) contain such other provisions as the Secretary
determines necessary to ensure compliance with this subtitle
and the regulations issued under this subtitle.
(b) Negotiated Labor Agreements.--The Secretary, as a term
and condition of each lease under this subtitle, shall
require that the lessee and its agents and contractors
negotiate to obtain an agreement for the employment of
laborers and mechanics on production, maintenance, and
construction under the lease.
SEC. 17707. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING
FOR AMERICA.
(a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the Congress
that--
(1) this subtitle will support a healthy and growing United
States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to
reinvigorate American
[[Page H766]]
manufacturing, transportation, and service sectors by
employing the vast talents of United States workers to assist
in the development of energy from domestic sources; and
(2) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel
and material onshore and offshore to encourage the
development of American technology and manufacturing to
enable United States workers to benefit from this subtitle
through good jobs and careers, as well as the establishment
of important industrial facilities to support expanded access
to American resources.
(b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall when
possible, and practicable, encourage the use of United States
workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in
all construction related to mineral development on the
Coastal Plain.
SEC. 17708. COASTAL PLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
(a) No Significant Adverse Effect Standard To Govern
Authorized Coastal Plain Activities.--The Secretary shall,
consistent with the requirements of section 17703, administer
this subtitle through regulations, lease terms, conditions,
restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, and other
provisions that--
(1) ensure the oil and gas exploration, development, and
production activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no
significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment;
(2) require the application of the best commercially
available technology for oil and gas exploration,
development, and production on all new exploration,
development, and production operations; and
(3) ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage
covered by production and support facilities, including
airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for
support of pipelines, does not exceed 10,000 acres on the
Coastal Plain for each 100,000 acres of area leased.
(b) Site-Specific Assessment and Mitigation.--The Secretary
shall also require, with respect to any proposed drilling and
related activities, that--
(1) a site-specific analysis be made of the probable
effects, if any, that the drilling or related activities will
have on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence
resources, and the environment;
(2) a plan be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
(in that order and to the extent practicable) any significant
adverse effect identified under paragraph (1); and
(3) the development of the plan shall occur after
consultation with the agency or agencies having jurisdiction
over matters mitigated by the plan.
(c) Regulations To Protect Coastal Plain Fish and Wildlife
Resources, Subsistence Users, and the Environment.--Before
implementing the leasing program authorized by this subtitle,
the Secretary shall prepare and promulgate regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations,
and other measures designed to ensure that the activities
undertaken on the Coastal Plain under this subtitle are
conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes and
environmental requirements of this subtitle.
(d) Compliance With Federal and State Environmental Laws
and Other Requirements.--The proposed regulations, lease
terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, and
stipulations for the leasing program under this subtitle
shall require compliance with all applicable provisions of
Federal and State environmental law, and shall also require
the following:
(1) Standards at least as effective as the safety and
environmental mitigation measures set forth in items 1
through 29 at pages 167 through 169 of the ``Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on
the Coastal Plain.
(2) Seasonal limitations on exploration, development, and
related activities, where necessary, to avoid significant
adverse effects during periods of concentrated fish and
wildlife breeding, denning, nesting, spawning, and migration
based on a preponderance of the best available scientific
evidence that has been peer reviewed and obtained by
following appropriate, documented scientific procedures, the
results of which can be repeated using those same procedures.
(3) That exploration activities, except for surface
geological studies, be limited to the period between
approximately November 1 and May 1 each year and that
exploration activities shall be supported, if necessary, by
ice roads, winter trails with adequate snow cover, ice pads,
ice airstrips, and air transport methods, except that such
exploration activities may occur at other times if the
Secretary finds that such exploration will have no
significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain.
(4) Design safety and construction standards for all
pipelines and any access and service roads, that--
(A) minimize, to the maximum extent possible, adverse
effects upon the passage of migratory species such as
caribou; and
(B) minimize adverse effects upon the flow of surface water
by requiring the use of culverts, bridges, and other
structural devices.
(5) Prohibitions on general public access and use on all
pipeline access and service roads.
(6) Stringent reclamation and rehabilitation requirements,
consistent with the standards set forth in this subtitle,
requiring the removal from the Coastal Plain of all oil and
gas development and production facilities, structures, and
equipment upon completion of oil and gas production
operations, except that the Secretary may exempt from the
requirements of this paragraph those facilities, structures,
or equipment that the Secretary determines would assist in
the management of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
that are donated to the United States for that purpose.
(7) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on access by
all modes of transportation.
(8) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on sand and
gravel extraction.
(9) Consolidation of facility siting.
(10) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on use of
explosives.
(11) Avoidance, to the extent practicable, of springs,
streams, and river systems; the protection of natural surface
drainage patterns, wetlands, and riparian habitats; and the
regulation of methods or techniques for developing or
transporting adequate supplies of water for exploratory
drilling.
(12) Avoidance or minimization of air traffic-related
disturbance to fish and wildlife.
(13) Treatment and disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes,
solid wastes, reserve pit fluids, drilling muds and cuttings,
and domestic wastewater, including an annual waste management
report, a hazardous materials tracking system, and a
prohibition on chlorinated solvents, in accordance with
applicable Federal and State environmental law.
(14) Fuel storage and oil spill contingency planning.
(15) Research, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
(16) Field crew environmental briefings.
(17) Avoidance of significant adverse effects upon
subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping by subsistence
users.
(18) Compliance with applicable air and water quality
standards.
(19) Appropriate seasonal and safety zone designations
around well sites, within which subsistence hunting and
trapping shall be limited.
(20) Reasonable stipulations for protection of cultural and
archeological resources.
(21) All other protective environmental stipulations,
restrictions, terms, and conditions deemed necessary by the
Secretary.
(e) Considerations.--In preparing and promulgating
regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions,
prohibitions, and stipulations under this section, the
Secretary shall consider the following:
(1) The stipulations and conditions that govern the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leasing program, as set
forth in the 1999 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement.
(2) The environmental protection standards that governed
the initial Coastal Plain seismic exploration program under
parts 37.31 to 37.33 of title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) The land use stipulations for exploratory drilling on
the KIC ASRC private lands that are set forth in appendix 2
of the August 9, 1983, agreement between Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation and the United States.
(f) Facility Consolidation Planning.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, after providing for
public notice and comment, prepare and update periodically a
plan to govern, guide, and direct the siting and construction
of facilities for the exploration, development, production,
and transportation of Coastal Plain oil and gas resources.
(2) Objectives.--The plan shall have the following
objectives:
(A) Avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities and
activities.
(B) Encouraging consolidation of common facilities and
activities.
(C) Locating or confining facilities and activities to
areas that will minimize impact on fish and wildlife, their
habitat, and the environment.
(D) Utilizing existing facilities wherever practicable.
(E) Enhancing compatibility between wildlife values and
development activities.
(g) Access to Public Lands.--The Secretary shall--
(1) manage public lands in the Coastal Plain subject to
section 811 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3121); and
(2) ensure that local residents shall have reasonable
access to public lands in the Coastal Plain for traditional
uses.
SEC. 17709. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Filing of Complaint.--
(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), any complaint
seeking judicial review--
(A) of any provision of this subtitle shall be filed by not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) of any action of the Secretary under this subtitle
shall be filed--
(i) except as provided in clause (ii), within the 90-day
period beginning on the date of the action being challenged;
or
(ii) in the case of a complaint based solely on grounds
arising after such period, within 90 days after the
complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the
grounds for the complaint.
(2) Venue.--Any complaint seeking judicial review of any
provision of this subtitle or any action of the Secretary
under this subtitle may be filed only in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
(3) Limitation on scope of certain review.--Judicial review
of a Secretarial decision to conduct a lease sale under this
subtitle, including the environmental analysis thereof, shall
be limited to whether the Secretary has complied with this
subtitle and shall be based upon the administrative record of
that decision. The Secretary's identification of a preferred
course of action to enable leasing to proceed and the
Secretary's analysis of environmental effects under this
subtitle shall be presumed to be correct unless shown
otherwise by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(b) Limitation on Other Review.--Actions of the Secretary
with respect to which review could have been obtained under
this section shall not
[[Page H767]]
be subject to judicial review in any civil or criminal
proceeding for enforcement.
(c) Limitation on Attorneys' Fees and Court Costs.--No
person seeking judicial review of any action under this
subtitle shall receive payment from the Federal Government
for their attorneys' fees and other court costs, including
under any provision of law enacted by the Equal Access to
Justice Act (5 U.S.C. 504 note).
SEC. 17710. TREATMENT OF REVENUES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 50 percent of
the amount of bonus, rental, and royalty revenues from
Federal oil and gas leasing and operations authorized under
this subtitle shall be deposited in the Treasury.
SEC. 17711. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAIN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall issue rights-of-way
and easements across the Coastal Plain for the transportation
of oil and gas produced under leases under this subtitle--
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), under section 28
of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185), without regard to
title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.); and
(2) under title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (30 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.), for access
authorized by sections 1110 and 1111 of that Act (16 U.S.C.
3170 and 3171).
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in
any right-of-way or easement issued under subsection (a) such
terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure that
transportation of oil and gas does not result in a
significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife,
subsistence resources, their habitat, and the environment of
the Coastal Plain, including requirements that facilities be
sited or designed so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of
roads and pipelines.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall include in
regulations under section 17703(g) provisions granting
rights-of-way and easements described in subsection (a) of
this section.
SEC. 17712. CONVEYANCE.
In order to maximize Federal revenues by removing clouds on
title to lands and clarifying land ownership patterns within
the Coastal Plain, the Secretary, notwithstanding section
1302(h)(2) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 3192(h)(2)), shall convey--
(1) to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation the surface estate
of the lands described in paragraph 1 of Public Land Order
6959, to the extent necessary to fulfill the Corporation's
entitlement under sections 12 and 14 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611 and 1613) in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Agreement between the
Department of the Interior, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation dated January 22, 1993; and
(2) to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation the remaining
subsurface estate to which it is entitled pursuant to the
August 9, 1983, agreement between the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation and the United States of America.
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in part A of House Report 112 398. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Eshoo
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part A of House Report 112 398.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 14003(a), add at the end the following:
(3) Ensuring public safety.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1)
and (2), a permit shall not be issued or deemed to have been
issued under this subsection until the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission examines and determines the relevance
to the Keystone XL pipeline of the report issued by the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
pursuant to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and
Job Creation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112 90), describing the
results of its review of hazardous liquid pipeline
regulations and whether such regulations are sufficient to
ensure the safety of pipelines used for the transportation of
diluted bitumen.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. Last year, in the bipartisan pipeline safety bill that was
signed into law, I worked with Chairman Upton to include language which
requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
which is called PHMSA, to complete a comprehensive review of hazardous
liquid pipeline regulations. This review will determine whether the
current regulations are sufficient to ensure the safety of pipelines
used for the transportation of diluted bitumen or tar sands oil.
Everyone agrees that this review makes sense. The House and the Senate
both passed the pipeline safety bill without a single Member of
Congress voting against it. What doesn't make sense is directing the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a permit for the Keystone
XL pipeline before we know whether our safety standards are adequate.
Last year, Cynthia Quarterman, the Administrator of PHMSA, testified
before the Energy and Commerce Committee, stating the agency had not
done a study to analyze the risks associated with transporting diluted
bitumen. We've heard concerns that pipelines carrying tar sands oil may
pose greater safety risks and may be more corrosive than pipelines
carrying conventional crude. According to a recent whistleblower who
worked as a safety inspector for the first Keystone pipeline, he said:
This oil has the consistency of peanut butter and is
similar to sending heavy grit sandpaper down the steel pipe.
{time} 1550
So we're not talking about a theoretical risk. In July 2010, a
pipeline carrying tar sands oil ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. Over
800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Talmadge Creek and then flowed
into the Kalamazoo River. A year and a half after the spill, the
cleanup continues and is expected to cost hundreds of millions of
dollars. Oil tar sands, unlike conventional crude oil, sinks to the
bottom of a river, making it especially difficult to clean up.
TransCanada's first Keystone pipeline doesn't really inspire
confidence either. This is a brand-new, supposedly state-of-the-art
pipeline. It was predicted to spill no more than once every 7 years;
but in just a year and a half of operation, it's reported 14 separate
oil spills. In North Dakota, over 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil have
been spilled, and these spills are a warning to all of us that we need
to get this right.
This is not a subject to be taken lightly. We've seen in my neck of
the woods, in the northern part of the county where I live, in San
Bruno, California, an explosion, natural-gas pipeline explosion that
killed eight people. It injured dozens, and it destroyed 38 homes.
The Federal Government has been regulating pipelines since 1968, and
we're still seeing explosions like the one in San Bruno, California. I
think it's dangerous, Mr. Chairman, to move forward with a tar sands
pipeline before we have the proper safety knowledge and procedures in
place.
So my amendment is really quite simple. It requires the FERC, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to review the results of the
PHMSA study before issuing a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. I
think this review is important for the safety of Americans who will be
living near this pipeline for decades to come and who rely on the
rivers and the streams and the aquifers it will cross.
This approach makes sense. It's also far less costly to build
pipelines correctly than to try to fix or replace a line that's already
built.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I do so reluctantly because we all have such great
respect for Ms. Eshoo of California. She is a hardworking member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership.
But we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. Number
one, this study by the Department of Transportation is going to be made
anyway. We're not stopping that at all.
Number two, Keystone will transport a grade of crude oil that has
been in our Nation's pipelines for decades. There's nothing really new
about this substance. Venezuelan oil has about the same density.
Certain Saudi Arabian oils have basically the same density.
[[Page H768]]
Studies by the Canadian Government and private sector engineers in
this country have demonstrated that heavy oils and diluted bitumen are
not more dangerous or corrosive than regular grades of oil. We have not
found any evidence to the contrary of those studies.
The reason that we're opposing this amendment is because this
amendment would say you cannot begin this pipeline until this study is
completed, and our position is we want this study to go forward. We've
waited over 40 months to get the approval to build this pipeline. The
American people need this pipeline. America needs this additional oil.
If the study comes back and comes up with significant, or any, safety
issues, I can assure you that Congress is ready to act to address
those. But there's no indication that there will be a problem.
So for that reason, we feel quite confident that this pipeline should
be built. We want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be
issued to build it now, as the Department of State recognized in their
final environmental statement back in August of 2011.
I would urge the defeat of the Eshoo amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, 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. Markey
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. MARKEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 903, after line 22, insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) Energy security.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall require every
permit issued under this Act to include provisions that
ensure that any crude oil and bitumen transported by the
Keystone XL pipeline, and all refined petroleum fuel products
whose origin was via importation of crude oil or bitumen by
the Keystone XL pipeline, will be entered into domestic
commerce for use as a fuel, or for the manufacture of another
product, in the United States. The President may provide for
waivers of such requirement in the following situations:
(A) Where the President determines that such a waiver is in
the national interest because it--
(i) will not lead to an increase in domestic consumption of
crude oil or refined petroleum products obtained from
countries hostile to United States interests or with
political and economic instability that compromises energy
supply security;
(ii) will not lead to higher costs to refiners who purchase
the crude oil than such refiners would have to pay for crude
oil in the absence of such a waiver; and
(iii) will not lead to higher gasoline costs to consumers
than consumers would have to pay in the absence of such a
waiver.
(B) Where an exchange of crude oil or refined product
provides for no net loss of crude oil or refined product
consumed domestically.
(C) Where a waiver is necessary under the Constitution, a
law, or an international agreement.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the purported benefits of the Keystone pipeline have
achieved mythic status. We have been told that this pipeline will lower
gas prices, even though TransCanada says gas prices will go up. We've
been told tens of thousands will be hired to build it, even though only
about 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created.
And in a particularly egregious descent into Fairyland, we have been
told that the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to
reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly Middle Eastern or
Latin American nations.
Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper even said, when
you look at the Iranians threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, I
think this just illustrates how critical it is that supply for the
United States be North American.
But under this bill, the Republican bill, there is no guarantee that
even a drop of the tar sands oil and fuels will stay here in this
country. They keep saying how great it would be if we had a million
barrels of oil coming into the United States from Canada. There's no
guarantee in this bill, and that's because many of the refineries where
the Keystone crude will be sent plan to re-export the refined fuels.
This is the map of what the oil industry plans on doing with this
oil. It comes right through the United States, and then it heads off to
Asia, South America, over to Europe. And Valero, one of these
refineries, says in its investor presentation that it plans to refine
the Canadian crude at the same facility it is building in Port Arthur,
Texas, an export zone, because doing so leverages its export logistics.
Our amendment will say this oil coming through this pipeline from
Canada stays here in the United States and doesn't head off to China.
That's what the amendment is all about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is one of those myths that we must try to dispel. I guess if you
say it enough times, some people will start believing it. But the
reality is, why would you build a pipeline 1,700 miles, branching off
to several refineries along the way, to our main refineries in Texas
and Louisiana, simply to put it on a boat, send it through South
America over to China, when they're already discussing, because the
President denied this permit and set off a little bit of an
international fury, sending a message to the rest of the world that
we're going to kowtow to the environmental extremists as our energy
policy in the United States, they are now talking about, or have been
for some time, of just building a pipeline straight from the Alberta
tar sands up here, all the way to Vancouver coast.
Now, let me just read some of the article, since Prime Minister
Stephen Harper went to China last week to court them to buy the oil
that the United States just rejected when the President denied the
Keystone XL permit.
{time} 1600
This is from an article from Ottawa.ctv, referring to the Prime
Minister:
He also made a subtle dig at environmentalists who helped
block TransCanada's planned Keystone XL pipeline, which would
have carried Canada's oil to refineries in the United States.
``We uphold our responsibility to put the interests of
Canadians ahead of foreign money and influence that seek to
obstruct development in Canada in favor of energy imported
from other, less stable parts of the world,'' he told the
dinner.
By the way, he was referring to Saudi Arabia, Middle East, and
Venezuela where we're getting our oil now and will continue to do so
unless this Keystone pipeline is built offsetting up to a million
barrels per day.
In Bloomberg on February 10, Harper said he is committed to
``profoundly'' diversifying the country's energy exports that will
facilitate construction of new infrastructure needed to ship the
country's oil to China.
He's not talking about Keystone pipeline. He's talking about the new
one along the west to Vancouver.
The article continues:
Canada, which holds the third largest oil reserves, is
seeking to reduce its reliance on the United States after
President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.'s $7
billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf
Coast.
``We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our
energy.''
That's why he went to China because obviously it's not the United
States.
Oil and Gas Journal states:
Harper's visit was described as an open warning to
Washington after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone
pipeline.
``It's not a subtle warning. It's an open warning. Harper
has said Keystone was a
[[Page H769]]
wake-up call,'' said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert at the
University of Alberta.
Now, next, Washington Post:
Chinese state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in a proposed
Canadian pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would
substantially boost Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands.
From today, February 15, Kinder Morgan pipeline--this is from the
Houston Business Journal--the chief of Port Metro Vancouver, the city's
port authority, said the port would be willing to undertake the
dredging and infrastructure work necessary to allow the bigger ships
into the port that could carry crude shipped to the coast from Alberta
oil sands.
The reality is if you want this oil to go to China, kill the XL
pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, and let this one be built in Canada,
which Canada is already preparing to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Keystone is not the energy future that advocates claim it is. But if
in fact the Keystone pipeline is built, then this amendment says that
that oil in fact should be used in the United States to reduce our
dependence on oil. It appears right now that if this pipeline is built,
it will be for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil from Canada
down to Houston for refining and then export to Latin America and
China. That's very much what is on the mind of many people.
You can't have both--have that pipeline be essentially a conduit for
export and claim that it's going to reduce American dependence on
overseas oil. This amendment speaks directly to that it and it allows
those who claim that Keystone will allow us energy independence to
guarantee in law that that will happen.
Mr. MARKEY. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either
side?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, oil companies are running a multi-million dollar
lobbying campaign to approve the Keystone pipeline, a pipeline the
owner itself says the price of oil in middle America to go up, not
down.
Here's what the oil company, TransCanada, said in its own
application:
Additional producer revenues are possible if the Keystone
pipeline also relieves the oversupply situation in the
Midwest.
It goes on to say:
The market prices of Canadian heavy crudes should rise in
the Midwest.
This gives new meaning to the phrase ``voodoo economics.''
Only in a party bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers would
politicians have the audacity to claim that raising oil prices in
America will lower gas prices help consumers or improve national
security.
Our amendment prevents oil companies from gouging American consumers
by requiring that any oil pumped through the Keystone pipeline stay in
America which is, ostensibly, the avowed purpose of the pipeline.
Mr. TERRY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Again, could we get a review of the time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute. The
gentleman from Nebraska has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Could you inform me as to who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska has the right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.
The gentleman from Nebraska says, What's the problem? All the oil's
going to stay in the United States. It's not going to China.
That's what will happen if we don't build the pipeline. So they
should vote for the Markey amendment because the Markey amendment could
only be guilty of redundancy saying all the oil stays here in America.
So if that's your purpose, that's what the Markey amendment says.
We'll hold you to your word when we have the vote.
But here's the real plan. TransCanada puts the dirtiest oil on the
planet into the brand new pipeline Republicans are giving it; two,
TransCanada sends that oil to the gulf coast where it can make billions
more than where it currently sells it in the Midwest; three, refineries
in the gulf coast re-export it to other countries at world oil prices
and don't pay any taxes to the U.S. for doing so; four, Americans get
higher gas prices and no increased energy security; five, TransCanada,
Hugo Chavez, and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia laugh all the way to the
bank.
Please vote ``yes'' for the Markey-Connolly-Cohen-Welch amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This amendment just defies logic in the sense that the refined
product of gasoline is going to be used in the United States. Now, the
fallacy of this amendment here is it says all of the refined products.
Well, there's stuff that's left over after the process that we can't
even use in the United States that's commonly exported today for
decades.
We actually don't use all of the diesel, and we trade with Europe to
bring in more gasoline.
So what this amendment is trying to do is, A, start a trade war
because it violates all trade rules and regulations. But the reality is
it's a misnomer. If you really want this oil to go to China and us to
have to continue to import from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, then vote
``yes'' on this amendment because evidently you're more concerned about
jobs in China than you are 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Rush
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
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 903, after line 22, insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) Restriction on use of eminent domain.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) and (2), a permit shall not be issued or
deemed to have been issued under this subsection absent a
condition that prohibits the permit recipient from initiating
or threatening to initiate proceedings to invoke the power of
eminent domain for the purpose of taking ownership, rights-
of-way, easements, or other access or use of private property
in the United States, for purposes of constructing or
operating the Keystone XL pipeline, against the will of the
property's owner.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 1610
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, why is it that the proponents of this bill
are smiling and smirking while walking around this Capitol?
It's because this bill requires the hasty approval of an
unprecedented permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. They're smiling and
smirking because their friends, the Big Oil companies, are big winners
with this bill while the little people, the private property owners
along the path of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, will be the big
losers.
Mr. Chairman, people might be surprised to learn that TransCanada has
been bullying the American people--American landowners--and has been
pressuring them to allow the company to build a pipeline through their
land. In fact, during the subcommittee hearing, we heard testimony from
witnesses who live along the path near the proposed route of this
pipeline that TransCanada is doing just that--bullying them. They don't
even have a permit to build the pipeline, yet we are told that
[[Page H770]]
they are threatening American citizens with eminent domain, basically
telling people, If you don't give us access to your land, if you don't
give us your land, then we're going to take it.
Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Why are we
rewarding a private foreign company that is trying to intimidate and
coerce American citizens with this regulatory earmark?
In order to protect private property owners along the path of this
pipeline, I am offering an amendment that will restrict the use of
eminent domain. My amendment requires that a permit for this pipeline
would only be issued if it prohibits the use of eminent domain to take
someone's private property against his will.
Mr. Chairman, my office was in contact with a Nebraska rancher by the
name of Randy Thompson, who wrote me a letter dated February 9, and I
want to read an excerpt of it for my colleagues.
He wrote:
Dear Congressman Rush, I would like to express to you, sir,
my concerns about the bill introduced by Representative Terry
to fast-forward the permitting process for the Keystone XL
pipeline. It seems inherently wrong to me that a foreign
corporation can actually force American citizens to
forfeit their individual property rights through the use
of eminent domain. With the denial of a permit,
TransCanada has, for the time being, suspended their land
acquisition process in the State of Nebraska. I can assure
you, however, that they will be back on our doorsteps with
a vengeance once a new route has been determined and a
permit has been granted. It appears to me that some
Members of Congress are all too eager to subsidize the Big
Oil companies, not only with our tax dollars, but now with
land that belongs to American citizens.
Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to protect our citizens from being
bullied into giving up their land against their will for the gain of
private foreign companies. Let us wipe the smiles and the smirks off
the faces of the proponents of this bill. Pass this amendment. Protect
the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TERRY. None of us are smiling over the fact that the President
killed the pipeline that would have created 20,000 jobs and that would
have provided us a newer level of energy security. This amendment, in
essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. Let's be clear about this.
The pipeline is 1,700 miles, and through each State this proposed
pipeline would pass, the pipeline company would negotiate with the
landowners on the proposed routes. So, if you have one person who
objects, then he can ostensibly kill the pipeline. In every State,
there is a mechanism in its own State laws that resolves any disputes
for a right-of-way. We've heard some language here about taking
people's property. This is for use of a property and a right-of-way, a
small strip of land, okay? So their rights are protected. The States'
rights are protected.
What this amendment would do is to strip the States of their rights
here, and it would send them off to an unknown area that has no rights
to resolve any disputes. They only need one landowner to kill a 1,700-
mile project. The gentleman that the gentleman from Chicago mentioned
is one of those people. He belongs to BOLD Nebraska, an organization of
environmentalists that wants to kill the pipeline.
At this point, I yield my remaining time to 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. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for
yielding.
I am actually here to speak on Mr. Markey's amendment, the previous
amendment. I do want to oppose the amendment of my good friend from
Chicago, Mr. Rush, but I think Mr. Terry eloquently made the case as to
why it is not in order at this point in time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the previous amendment that Mr.
Markey offered, which would restrict the use of both crude oil and
refined products that come in from the Keystone pipeline to have to be
sold in the United States. It goes without saying that if it's crude
oil it would make absolutely no sense to transship it through the
Keystone pipeline to the gulf coast and then put it in a tanker to go
overseas. If you're going to export crude oil, it makes much more sense
to export it directly from Canada.
On the refined product end of it, you have to know one thing, which
is that this crude oil that we would be importing from Canada is a
heavy crude oil. We have some of the best refineries in the country
that have been upgraded by billions and billions of dollars so that we
can handle not just the light sweet crudes, like West Texas
Intermediate or Saudi Light, but so we can handle these heavy crudes,
like the Canadian crude oil, that would come down.
When you have a barrel of crude oil, you can't just say, I want to
make it all gasoline. You can make a lot of gasoline, but you're going
to end up having to make diesel oil and asphalt and a lot of other
products. Our refineries are the best in the world at cracking these
heavy crudes. As they come down through the Midwest to the Louisiana
and Texas refineries, most of the refined products would be sold in the
United States, but the United States is primarily a gasoline market.
The European market, on the other hand, is primarily a diesel market.
So, as our refineries have become better and more competitive, it makes
sense not to put a restriction on the refined products but to let the
market allocate it. It would actually create jobs in the United States.
We could ship some of these refined--primarily diesel, but some of the
distillates could go to the European market. You'd get a better margin,
create jobs, and protect jobs here in the United States. The primary
market will always be the United States. Currently, about 75 percent of
the crude oil that's refined on the gulf coast is used in refined
products that are sold in the United States, but somewhere around 20 to
25 percent has been going to Europe, primarily the distillates and the
diesel.
The Markey amendment would turn that market on its head. It would be
counterproductive to our economy, counterproductive to our consumers,
and counterproductive to the general oil markets in the world.
I know Mr. Markey is trying to do what he thinks is the right thing,
but in actuality, we defeated his amendment in the committee, I think,
34 14 or something like this. We got eight Democrats--about 40 percent
of the Democrats--to vote with us against the Markey amendment in
committee. We ought to defeat it by that same margin here on the floor
of the House of Representatives.
At this point, I also want to thank Mr. Whitfield for his excellent
leadership on this issue.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time I
have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1620
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that as Members of this Congress, we
were elected to this body to protect the American people, to protect
our citizens, to protect their property.
And, Mr. Chairman, the action that's occurring by the Republican
majority is going to pass. But it's also going to turn that
responsibility, that obligation, the reason for our existence here in
this Congress upside down. It's going to make it just meaningless for
the protection of the American people.
Why don't you protect the landowners, the private landowners?
Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield so I can answer the question?
The answer to that question would be that each State has set up a due
process law----
Mr. RUSH. Why don't we protect the landowners, the property holders
in our Nation? We are elected here to protect them and not let a big
oil company, TransCanada, a foreign company, come in and just take----
Mr. TERRY. They don't take. * * *
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska will suspend.
The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
[[Page H771]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Members should not interject remarks after the
Member under recognition has declined to yield.
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. 4 Offered by Mr. Doyle
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. DOYLE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 906, after line 10, insert the following new section:
SEC. 14005. USE OF AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL.
Notwithstanding section 14003(a)(1) and (2), a permit shall
not be issued or deemed to have been issued under this title
unless the permit applicant certifies and provides adequate
documentation to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
that at least 75 percent of iron and steel to be used in the
construction of the domestic portion of the pipeline and
related facilities described in section 14002(b) is produced
in North America.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, despite all the controversy surrounding this pipeline,
I think this is a good opportunity for us to examine some of the claims
that the applicant for the Keystone XL pipeline has made.
Now let me say at the onset, I support building this pipeline in a
way that protects the environment and helps create American jobs. I
don't support the rushed 30-day manner that this bill would have us do,
but I do support the pipeline.
When I started reading about the 800,000 tons of steel to be used in
the Keystone XL pipeline, like everyone else, I was pretty excited
about the prospects for our U.S. manufacturers, and especially coming
from Pittsburgh, our steel manufacturers. So I have to tell you, I was
a little confused when I talked to my friends in the U.S. steel
industry and they told me they weren't making any of the steel for this
project. Now, I knew this had to be a mistake because TransCanada had
told us that there would be 7,000 direct manufacturing jobs created by
this project, so surely someone somewhere in the United States has to
know what these jobs are.
I've also heard folks talking about the wonderful jobs being created
at steel mills in southwestern Pennsylvania. The trouble is I can't
find a steel mill in southwestern Pennsylvania that's making steel for
the Keystone XL pipeline. In fact, I'm having trouble finding a single
U.S. steelmaker that has any orders for any of this pipe.
Now, I've reached out to the permit applicant, TransCanada, and
several other sources for some clarifying information regarding their
claim that 75 percent of the steel used in the Keystone XL pipeline
will be sourced from North America. Unfortunately, the best I seem to
get is that there's a single pipe manufacturer in Little Rock,
Arkansas, that is providing much of the steel pipe for the pipeline.
The trouble is that manufacturer doesn't actually use U.S. or North
American steel to make the pipe. In fact, the Little Rock plant very
clearly told me that they make their pipe out of foreign steel imports.
They also told me they have imported and are housing on their site 140
miles of ready-made pipe that they got from India to be used in the
Keystone pipeline.
So all my amendment does is ask for some truth in advertising.
TransCanada has told us that they make every effort to source as much
steel from U.S. mills as they can. I'm simply asking the applicant to
certify their claims.
Along with other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have
sent a letter to TransCanada asking for this information, but I have
yet to receive a response. I think Members deserve this information. If
there is, in fact, a U.S. steelmaker out there that is making all or
some of the steel for the Keystone XL pipeline, I think we have a right
to know about it.
Mr. Chairman, 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. I yield myself 3 minutes.
First of all, I would like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
who is a very hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
and provides great leadership, that we reluctantly oppose his
amendment.
His amendment is very simple, and it is very direct. It simply says
the permit will not be issued until the permit applicant certifies and
provides adequate documentation that at least 75 percent of the iron
and steel used in the construction of the pipeline is produced in North
America, which is a goal that many of us have.
I would like to point out a couple of facts here:
Number one, this is a private company that's putting up $7 billion of
its own money;
Number two, in order to keep costs down, it has already acquired all
of the steel and iron that it is going to use in this pipeline.
Now, some people will say, well, why in the world would it spend over
$2 billion buying this material when they didn't have a permit? Well,
they filed this permit 40 months ago, and all of the information coming
out from the Secretary of State, the Department of State in their final
environmental impact statement would indicate that the pipeline was
going to be approved. So they bought this material many months ago to
try to keep costs down.
And I will tell you, from the information that we have, 74 percent of
the pipe was milled here in North America. In fact, it's milled in four
different locations. Not all of them are in North America. The steel
comes from seven different sources. Some of it from America and some of
it not from America. But the reality is that, if we adopted this
amendment, the permit would not be issued because the applicant cannot
certify that 75 percent comes from America because it bought this
material a long time ago. And, I might add, there's not one dime of
taxpayer money in this project.
So our feeling is that, the practical aspect is that, if you would
basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those
jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting,
and we believe that there would be more negatives from it than there
would be positives.
And one other comment that I would make is that the American Iron and
Steel Institute, which represents many of the companies that Mr. Doyle
is concerned about, is supporting our legislation. We have the letter
that they support this legislation, and they support building the
pipeline.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1630
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Five of the major labor unions in America support this legislation
because they recognize the additional jobs that will be available to
them in the construction of the pipeline. So for that reason,
reluctantly, I oppose Mr. Doyle's amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute
to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Doyle, for your leadership. This is a
great amendment. It's a commonsense amendment. Now we don't know if the
XL pipeline will be built. Many have strong opinions on whether or not
it should be built at all. But one thing that we should all agree on
is, if it is built, it should be built with materials made right here
in America.
You see, when we talk about producing energy in America, that doesn't
just mean oil, gas, wind, nuclear, and
[[Page H772]]
other sources that power our homes and businesses. It means materials
used to extract, refine, and transport that energy. And why does it
have to happen that it needs to be American-made materials? Because it
means jobs, good-paying jobs that can help to strengthen our middle
class. It means stronger communities and a stronger economy at a time
when we need that now more than ever. And it means a future with more
security and more certainty for the next generation.
This pipeline is going to run through America; it should be made of
American iron, steel, and manufactured goods. I ask all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment and
supporting the American middle class and in supporting American jobs.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. DOYLE. I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the Keystone
pipeline, but I found out this last Monday, and I've asked, and I know
the chair of our Energy Committee has heard me ask about a project
labor agreement that's for the whole pipeline but it doesn't cover
Texas. The largest State along the route does not have a project labor
agreement with TransCanada. TransCanada maybe didn't deceive me, but
they sure didn't answer the questions when I asked them in our
committee. I've talked to them about that. I know our labor support
nationwide, they have a project labor agreement from the Canadian
border to the Oklahoma border, but not for the biggest part of it, in
the State of Texas, and I'm going to work with them because it's
important to see that the job be done safely.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My good friend from Kentucky, and he is my good friend, more or less
has just said that the amendment can't go through because it's
impossible for TransCanada to certify what they said was true. They've
misled us. I think we just ought to be honest with the American people.
It's obvious from the discussion today and from past discussion that
this steel is not being manufactured in North America. It may be
finished in North America at some of these plants, but no steel was
made in North America. Congress has been misled. This is not a way for
a company to do business. They're a private company. They can use
anybody they want. What they can't do is lie to Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I might reiterate once again, this is a private
company spending $7 billion of their own money. Before any of this ever
became an issue, they acquired this material. They spent over $2
billion acquiring this material. Everybody is talking about jobs. One
of the reasons they're offering this amendment is because of jobs.
Well, there's nothing we can do about the material that's already been
acquired. It's already purchased. So all we would do if we pass this
amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would
not be issued. This material, all this $2 billion worth of steel, would
be moved to Canada. They would build the pipeline to the west coast and
move all of the oil to China, and they would get the construction jobs.
So we would end up with no jobs.
I know the gentleman's intentions are the very best, and we all are
concerned about the issue, but there are no taxpayer dollars involved
in this. It is a private company. They have already acquired this
material. This never became an issue until, I suppose, about a month
ago, and the material was even acquired at that point.
So I would respectfully request that Members oppose this amendment.
Let's build this pipeline and let's help America be less dependent on
foreign oil, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DOYLE. 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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning at page 926, line 3, strike subtitle A of title
XVII.
Page 976, line 20, strike ``50'' '' and insert ``51''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets to the heart of what
sustains our western communities from Colorado to California to New
Mexico to Montana--our water and our land.
My amendment is the answer to concerns from my constituents in
Colorado, outcries from farmers, from ranchers, local communities, from
sportsmen, from recreationists, and from many others who know this bill
threatens their livelihoods, and my amendment corrects that component.
This bill contains a troubling oil shale provision. Now, it was
originally included to help pay for the bill's overall cost, but it was
found to provide no revenue. So how can something help pay for a bill
when it provides no revenue? With the CBO score confirming it receives
no revenue, there is, therefore, no reason to include it. We might as
well simply take up any random natural resources bill. And, in fact,
the whole discussion of oil shale certainly deserves its own
discussion. And since it is not going to help pay for our highways, I
would urge my colleagues, even if they are supportive of this end
product, to remove this from this bill.
Let me be clear, my amendment has nothing to do with one form of
energy over another. You'll probably hear people from both sides of
this argument talk about the potential for oil shale in the future.
It's not about dirty or clean forms of energy; it's simply about common
sense. If the technology doesn't exist and it won't bring in revenue,
why is it being considered as a revenue provision for an unrelated
infrastructure bill?
We've all heard of former Presidential candidate Herman Cain's 9 9-9
plan, but the oil shale section of this bill is a zero-zero-zero plan--
no revenue, no jobs, and no energy. It mandates we lock up land at
fire-sale prices to those who are connected enough to make bids for a
technology that doesn't even exist and would threaten jobs, would
threaten water in western Colorado, and threaten our western way of
life.
My amendment simply strikes that section, leaving revenue for the
overall bill unaffected, and keeps our western lands and waters as they
currently are, outside of what's supposed to be an infrastructure and
transportation bill.
Now, you might hear some hold up Estonia as an example of oil shale
development, but by all accounts, Estonia oil shale has been an
economic disaster. Even Jim Bartis with the RAND Corporation said: ``To
our knowledge, oil shale in Estonia is not even used to produce
transportation fuels.''
You'll also hear that we're the Saudi Arabia of various energy
resources. Now, I continue to question the wisdom in looking to Estonia
and Saudi Arabia for leadership in energy independence for our country.
Even industry insiders know that a provision like the one contained in
this bill is simply the wrong thing to do.
Jeremy Boak, a professor who heads the industry-sponsored Center for
Oil Shale Technology at the Colorado School of Mines, said that he's
doubtful
[[Page H773]]
that any firm would even bid on commercial leases, leaving them to
speculators. He also said: ``It isn't obvious to me yet that we need to
be putting a bunch of commercial leases out there because no one has a
commercial process yet.''
That's something that industry admits. There's no feasible, cost-
effective commercial process for extracting oil from shale. We're
talking about a potential technology, one that will have profound
implications on water, profound implications on land use, and, yes,
profound implications on national energy policy, but it's a technology
that doesn't exist.
This component of the bill, if we don't remove it, will simply remove
speculators rather than those who can actually play a meaningful role
in providing for our energy independent future. I strongly encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It would
strike a key provision of the bill that would provide American jobs and
tap into a potential natural resource, American oil shale.
This amendment also increases the Federal take from drilling in ANWR
from 50 to 51 percent, leaving the State of Alaska with that much less.
Now, proponents of this amendment will argue that we should get rid
of the oil shale provisions because the technology is not proven.
Estonia does get a sizable amount of energy from oil shale currently. I
would like to ask why is the proponent of this amendment so concerned
that this is going to be a big thing in the future and affect the
western way of life if he thinks it's never going to take off and
amount to anything. You know, he can't have it both ways.
So why don't we let the companies experiment at their own expense, on
their own dime, and see if they can find a commercial, viable process
that works to extract this hugely potential source of energy.
{time} 1640
The USGS has estimated that there are 1.5 trillion--with a ``T''--
barrels of oil equivalent in these oil shale formations. I think it's
worth at least experimenting to see if it can be commercially extracted
because that would be a huge relief from having to get foreign oil, and
it would create money for the treasuries of States and the Federal
Government and create American jobs as well as the security aspect.
So I just don't see why there's such opposition to this when they say
it's not going to work. That just doesn't make sense. They can't have
it both ways. I say, let the companies experiment at their own expense
and at no cost to the taxpayer.
So, I strongly urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Perhaps my friend and colleague from Colorado isn't aware that there
already is extensive experimentation about the potential of oil shale
to meet our energy needs. In fact, there are millions of dollars spent
every year in research that industry itself has invested in this
technology.
Furthermore, there are 3 million acres of oil shale lands in
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that are under State, private, or tribal
leadership and have been for decades. In fact, several large companies
alone already control 200,000 acres of oil shale lands. There are a
couple of sites in Colorado where they're looking to try to develop
cost-effective methods. In fact, by the end of 2012, there will be nine
active Federal research and development leases. No one has figured out
a cost-effective way to develop these areas.
Again, this is not about the research. In fact, after the second
round of bids in early 2009, when the Obama administration affirmed the
Bush administration's decision regarding a second round of R&D leasing,
there was a significant reduction in industry bids. Industry itself was
even less interested in trying to figure out this because it's been a
nut that they've been unable to crack for nearly 100 years.
This amendment is not about the environment. It's about common sense.
Mr. Chairman, I inquire how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Well, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
strongly support this commonsense amendment to preserve our land, our
jobs, and our water in the West.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this
is one more example of the Obama administration stifling the production
of domestic energy in this country. They put out restrictive
regulations that made it so untenable for commercial companies to even
go into the research and development leases after President Obama took
office that there was little interest in pursuing under the new format.
So we need to go back to the previous way of offering these leases so
there is at least interest on the part of industry, at their own
expense, to see if this technology is commercially viable.
So, once again, I would just ask the question, why is there
opposition to something that they say is not going to work? We don't
know if it's going to work or not. And with the possibility of 1.5
trillion barrels' equivalent of oil, let's at least let that happen to
see if that can be feasibly explored, developed, and produced.
We have nothing to lose. This is a great win for the American
consumer, especially should a commercial application and scalable
venture be produced. It would create energy, jobs, and money for the
Treasury.
I urge strong opposition to this amendment. I have to disagree with
my friend and colleague from Colorado on this particular issue, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 935, line 7, strike ``two other lease blocks'' and
insert ``1 other lease block''.
Page 937, after line 13, insert the following:
(3) National defense areas.--The United States reserves the
right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense,
with the approval of the President, national defense areas on
the Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).
Page 941, beginning at line 1, strike ``1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act'' and insert ``December 31,
2015''.
Page 945, line 8, strike ``two other lease blocks'' and
insert ``1 other lease block''.
Page 946, after line 22, insert the following:
(3) National defense areas.--The United States reserves the
right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense,
with the approval of the President, national defense areas on
the outer Continental Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a technical manager's amendment
making changes agreed to with the Armed Services Committee in order to
ensure that we are fully respecting the needs of our Nation's military.
It adds further protections to those already included through the
bill to ensure any production and our Nation's national defense
cooperatively coexist in our Nation's offshore areas.
[[Page H774]]
This amendment also includes a slight adjustment to the timing of the
leasing of one offshore area off the coast of Alaska. In fact, it moves
it back to 2015.
So these have been talked over with the minority. I encourage my
colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman claim time in opposition?
Mr. MARKEY. I claim the time of the minority.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chairman.
I will say that this amendment marginally improves the bill, but it
does not change our fundamental opposition to it. But progress on any
front is welcomed, even if we cannot make progress on every front.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would totally agree with you. Progress
in any way is beneficial. So I appreciate the gentleman's accepting the
amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. We do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mrs. CAPPS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 938, line 3, strike section 17304.
Beginning on page 948, line 3, strike part 4.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, 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 is a straightforward amendment, and it is
overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, so I hope we can all agree
to it.
The amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision in the
underlying bill that mandates new drilling--mandates new drilling--in
the sensitive waters off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in
California.
The majority says this new drilling is necessary to help fund the
transportation bill. But according to CBO, any new drilling off
southern California would, at best, generate tens of millions of
dollars in revenue, while the gap in transportation funding is measured
in the tens of billions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, leaving aside the specious funding arguments that the
authors of the bill have made, the people most affected, my
constituents, don't want new drilling. My colleagues have heard me
invoke Santa Barbara's devastating 1969 oil spill before. And that's
because it galvanized central coast residents and virtually the whole
State of California against more offshore drilling. We were outraged by
the damage to the environment, the wildlife, and to our economy. And we
understood the havoc that similar blowouts would wreak upon our
economy, especially tourism and fishing industries.
It's why California permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in
State waters in 1994. It's why Californians fought to pass
groundbreaking environmental laws like the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It's why some 24 city
and county governments, including both Santa Barbara and Ventura
counties, have passed measures requiring voter approval before any new
onshore facilities to support offshore drilling could be built. And
it's why in 2008 then Republican Governor Schwarzenegger told President
Bush and Congress to oppose new drilling off the west coast.
More recently, an oil company in Santa Barbara thought it could
capitalize on the high gasoline prices by placing a measure on the
ballot to allow slant drilling from the shore.
{time} 1650
That plan was rejected by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of
the voters in the community that was affected by it, Carpinteria,
California. That was just in 2010.
We're also aware of the Pentagon's concerns with new drilling in our
area so close to Vandenberg Air Force Base. In a 2008 letter to an oil
company proposing to slant drill from the shore, the Air Force
replied--and I have a copy of the letter to submit with my statement:
A drilling and production facility would present a wide
range of significant operational constraints, inconsistent
with Vandenberg Air Force Base's national space launch
mission.
Mr. Chairman, Californians have spoken loud and clear: we do not want
more drilling off our shores. We want to protect our coastline from the
devastation that the 1969 oil spill brought to Santa Barbara. Now,
because of this legislation, these communities are at risk again. It's
not just the new drilling mandate in this bill, but also because the
bill would gut critical environmental laws like CZMA and NEPA, the very
laws passed in response to the 1969 spill off the Santa Barbara coast.
It's outrageous. This bill specifically denies California--and only
California--any role in new offshore drilling decisions under the
Coastal Zone Management Act. It also removes California citizens'
ability to voice their concerns about new drilling during the
environmental review process.
I find it ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry
an overarching Federal Government seem to have no qualms about forcing
new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its
wishes. This heavy-handed, know-it-all approach rubber-stamps
destructive drilling, cuts out environmental reviews, and closes down
the public input. Might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad
policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our Nation.
So, Mr. Chairman, American families want us to pass a balanced
transportation bill that creates jobs, fixes our roads and bridges, and
ensures that they have a safe way to get to work and back home again.
They don't want more politics, especially the kind that puts our
coasts, our communities, and our very way of life at risk. So I urge my
colleagues to join me in striking these harmful, unnecessary provisions
from this bill.
Department of the Air Force,
Office of the Assistant Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.
Mr. Ray G. Charles,
ExxonMobil Exploration Company,
Houston, TX.
Mr. Robert E. Nunn,
Sunset Exploration, Inc.,
Brentwood, CA.
Dear Messrs Charles and Nunn: We have evaluated your
proposal to leverage your option to lease on-shore, sub-
surface mineral rights beneath 7,780-acres of South
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) to establish oil and gas
drilling and production facilities on 25-acres near Space
Launch Complex (SLC) 5 for directional drilling into off-
shore reserves.
I believe it would be premature to proceed with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) evaluation of your desired location for the
reasons stated below. A drilling and production facility at
your proposed location would present a wide range of
significant operational constraints, inconsistent with VAFB's
national space launch mission. Most significantly, your
proposed location is within the Impact Limit Lines of all of
our active SLCs; it is within the SLC 5 explosives safety
clear zone, eliminating SLC 5 as an optional platform for the
approximate 40 year life of the Vahevala project; and in the
event of a natural disaster or catastrophic mission failure
at any of the SLCs, the presence of the facility would
severely complicate emergency response. Consistent with these
concerns, the Air Force cannot provide you access to your
desired 25-acre location on South VAFB.
We do understand that if you exercise the option to lease,
you will be entitled to reasonable access to onshore,
subsurface minerals. Any drilling and oil or gas production
on South VAFB would still hamper execution of space launches
and create operational impacts. However, there are areas
which may present less operational impact than your proposed
25-acre site west of SLC 5. They are generally in the
northern and eastern portions of South VAFB, within the
7,780-acre option to lease.
We recognize the Air Force's discussions with you regarding
the Vahevala project
[[Page H775]]
have been protracted. Please accept my personal assurance
that this has been due to diligent examination of the
proposal at the several levels of command that support the
space launch mission at VAFB. As a result of this diligent
examination, our military commanders have decided it is
simply not consistent with their most fundamental mission
responsibilities.
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Energy and the Environment, I am keenly aware of the crucial
contributions of your industry to our nation, and to the
national defense. I salute you for your initiatives to
enhance the energy security of America, and look forward to
the possibility of collaborating with you on projects that
might be synergistic with the Air Force mission.
Sincerely,
Kevin W. Billings,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, according to the U.S. Census, the State of California's
largest import is petroleum. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of California's largest
import is petroleum. So I guess it's a good thing that private
geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of American-made
energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing
infrastructure in southern California.
What does existing infrastructure mean? Well, there are currently
about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore in southern California
which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic
feet of gas annually. The lease sale proposed in this legislation
allows drilling from existing platforms or, to put it in another
vernacular, those that are already in place. If we are going to have a
serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to
drill not only where there is already drilling going on, but from where
the platforms already exist, which is why this bill specifically
states: ``no new infrastructure.''
We need to drill where there are known resources, and this California
lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while
accessing our resources that are known in southern California. In fact,
Mr. Chairman, the State of California is already working with the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on a permit to allow a company to
drill from an existing platform in Federal waters into State waters for
State resources.
Let me say this: the State of California has entered into the same
concept that's embodied in this bill. So let me repeat here one more
time. It's Governor Brown's administration that is pursuing drilling
off these same platforms closer to the coast.
Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States
and U.S. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for
drilling that would occur potentially off their shores. This means
States like Florida and Virginia will not receive any portion of any
revenues for drilling that will occur off their coasts under this bill
if this amendment were to be adopted.
The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on
those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the
vast resources of southern California. This amendment would lock away
significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep
our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil
and gas imports. It would also hinder our Nation's energy security.
This amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that American
families are facing at the pump right now. Many of those families don't
have room in their budget to pay hundreds more dollars just to drive to
work or drive their kids to school. And by the way, I might add, Mr.
Chairman, I think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that
does a lot of driving, it's in California.
We need to get America producing energy again. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. I would just comment to remark that the very project that
my colleague from Washington, my friend, described is the project that
the local constituents rejected by 70 percent, the project that was
mentioned. We are interested, in California, in ending drilling, not
just stopping leasing.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation should be investing our time, our energy and
creativity into real solutions that put us toward the path for clean-
energy solutions for our future. We've seen time and time again that
our congressional district doesn't want to be known for chasing after
yesterday's energy solutions, but for leadership towards the renewable
energy solutions of today and tomorrow.
I urge an ``aye'' vote for my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have left, Mr.
Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate once again--and this is
understanding that people in our great country have different views--I
certainly understand what happened in southern California some 40 years
ago. Listen, that picture is indelibly in everybody's mind. But nobody
can argue there have not been advances in oil exploration in this
country, and certainly in the OCS. But as a recognition of that, in
this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern
California. We said go to the existing platforms where you're drilling
and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling.
Now, that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the
resources that we have--by the way, in Federal waters, not in State
waters, in Federal waters--so that we can make ourselves less dependent
on foreign energy.
The last thing I would say is the State of California is pursuing
precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only
in State waters.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from
southern California.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
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. 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 Mr. Bilirakis
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. 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 944, after line 22, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(D) The Secretary shall conduct, and take into
consideration the results of, an economic impact survey to
determine any adverse economic effects that such lease sales
within 100 miles of the western coast of Florida may have on
the Florida Gulf coast fishing industry and tourism industry.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With the national unemployment rate hovering around 8 percent--in my
home State of Florida, its rate is close to 10 percent--there is no
question that our Nation is hurting for economic
[[Page H776]]
growth. This year, the focus of efforts here in the House of
Representatives has centered on creating a framework for the private
sector to innovate and grow, to create the jobs we desperately need. To
that end, Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to take all prudent steps to
ensure that jobs and the economy are the focus.
{time} 1700
My amendment simply requires the Secretary to conduct an economic
impact survey to assess any effect lease sales would have on the
Florida tourism and fishing industries.
People from all over the world flock to the gulf coast of Florida
specifically to visit our spectacular beaches, our parks, our
waterways, and other recreational opportunities. More than 80 million
tourists, Mr. Chairman, per year stay in our hotels, eat at our
restaurants, and create many economic opportunities for Floridians.
The tourism industry is a multibillion-dollar industry for Florida
and the national economy, Mr. Chairman. Florida's seafood and
recreational fishing industries also contribute thousands of jobs and
billions of dollars to the local economy.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge this House to adopt a commonsense
measure to ensure that the Federal Government consider all
ramifications of lease sales, and to ensure that the promotion of jobs
and the economy remain the focus of any actions of our Federal
Government.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I rise to claim the time in the minority.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair very much.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, just a point. The issue is
not claiming time in the minority or majority. The time is in
opposition, and with that in mind, I would rise to claim time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to the amendment?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there's no question that the gentleman from
Washington State is correct, and a master of parliamentary rules,
having stood up there or sat up there hundreds of hours, so he is an
absolute correct dissector of language used here of seeking recognition
from the Chair.
So I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, if those
are the technical words of art that the gentleman would prefer for me
to use.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts, a true opponent
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank you.
This amendment would require a study to investigate potential
economic impacts from a variety of risks that oil development in the
Outer Continental Shelf poses to local tourism and fishing economies in
Florida.
Well, we actually had a real-world study for 87 days during the BP
spill. As we saw in 2010, with the BP oil spill, oil can wreak havoc on
a coastal community, meaning a disaster for tourism and fishing,
seafood industries. These disasters can and do happen, putting hundreds
of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at stake.
It is important for the public to know the risks associated with
allowing oil companies to drill off of our coast. But we should be
protecting our beaches in Florida and California and New Jersey and
Massachusetts, not just requiring a study of how huge a disaster a
spill would be for these States.
We should be protecting the lives and the livelihoods of the people
of the gulf by taking the lessons of the BP spill and turning them into
new laws. But nearly 2 years after the BP spill began, this Congress
has not enacted a single new law to improve the safety of offshore
drilling. That is indefensible when the BP Commission found that we
have a fatally flawed rate of accidents and fatalities in our country.
Compared to the rest of the world, ours is four times higher than that
in Europe, that is, the fatalities on our oil rigs. So that's the
issue.
We have yet to increase the fines because only we can do that here in
Congress. Right now, a lot of these oil companies think it's just the
equivalent of a parking ticket. You know, if you could pay a parking
ticket for a whole day on the main street of any one of the cities in
the United States, you'd pay that $1 parking ticket because it would be
cheaper than paying 20 bucks to put it in a garage. And that's what we
have right now. We have the equivalent of $1 parking tickets that are
assessed against oil companies that despoil the ocean, that result in,
because of their faulty safety rules, the highest fatality rate in the
world in terms of people who work on oil rigs.
At this point, I have completed my statement, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings), our distinguished chairman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study
only for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Planning Area, as defined in
the bill. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in
protecting the multiple use of the OCS, and I join him in that
interest. For decades, tourism, fishing, and oil and gas drilling have
been compatible in the Gulf of Mexico, and there's no reason that the
new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way.
While I understand the interests of the gentleman to have this study
for those areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, I wish that he could
have expanded the study to jobs that could have been created by new
drilling and the support that comes with that activity.
While that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, I would only
have to think that because you're having the study on that, there may
be some residual, and I would look forward to that residual potentially
also.
So I thank the gentleman and congratulate him for offering this
amendment.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I'd like to close briefly. Of course I urge passage of
this reasonable, commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. 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 948, beginning on line 3, strike part 4.
Page 954, after line 19, insert the following new section:
SEC. 176__. PROHIBITION ON LEASE SALES IN CERTAIN AREAS.
No oil and gas lease sale may be conducted for any area of
the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.))
for which any of the States of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or
Maine is an affected State under section 2(f)(1) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1331(f)(1)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits oil and
natural gas lease sales off the coast of Northeast States, including
New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Maine. Furthermore, my amendment is paid for by striking
language in the bill related to Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing
in Section 17501.
I appreciate the Rules Committee making my amendment in order because
this amendment will protect the coastline of New York and other
Northeast States. I also thank my cosponsors, including Mr. Crowley,
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Capuano, and Ms. Pingree.
Mr. Chairman, I represent the last 70 miles of eastern Long Island,
where the primary industries are travel and tourism, everything to do
with the second
[[Page H777]]
home market, agriculture, and the fishing industry. Thus, in my
district, the environment is the economy in many respects. It can ill-
afford a disaster like Gulf Coast States endured during the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in 2010. Oil-soaked beaches would devastate Long
Island's economy, let alone the environment, and there is no reasonable
person who can disagree with me on this point.
The Republican drilling proposals to offset the highway bill would
raise less than $4.3 billion over 10 years, according to CBO, or less
than one-tenth of the revenue actually needed.
Combine this with the other funding mechanisms for the highway bill,
and Republicans are paying for their reckless legislation on the backs
of middle class families. For example, the Republican spending package
will require Federal employees to increase their pension contributions
while reducing their benefits.
Worse, as of this moment, they are using Federal employees' pension
contributions to offset costs in two completely separate proposals: the
highway bill and the payroll tax cut package for unemployment benefits
and the doc fix.
This isn't being honest with the American people. I would ask the
Republican leadership to check their numbers again.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1710
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it
contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and
therefore it belongs to all of the people of the United States as a
whole. These Federal offshore resources are unlike Federal lands and
onshore resources outside the borders of the States. Each individual
State controls several miles offshore of their coasts, and that varies
State by State. But beyond that point, the Federal lands are owned by
the Federal Government and its resources.
This bill, underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that
directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known
resources. Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic
contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic
feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find
could be even more than what is estimated.
This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the
American people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, own them.
Not too long ago, the entire OCS was under moratoria. Offshore
drilling in this country was prohibited. When the gas skyrocketed past
$4 a gallon in 2008, the American people collectively said, No more.
The American people cried out and demanded that Congress act, and we
did by lifting the moratoria.
In fact, what the American people found out, Mr. Chairman, at that
time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't
utilizing. That's why they cried out and said, Okay. Let's end the
several moratoria.
Now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the American
people, to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that
prices are again climbing towards $4 a gallon, and to ignore that our
Nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in
this Nation and not from hostile foreign nations.
The American people want to increase American energy production and
jobs, not stifle American energy production. Let's not forget that we
are creating American oil and gas that can be refined and used here.
Some of the States that want to shut down production off their coasts
are the highest consumers of these fuels that they would have shut
down.
Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States
and U.S. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for
drilling that would occur off their shores. That means States like
Florida and Virginia and others that would like to participate could
not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off
their States under this bill.
Finally, I would like to say this because we have had a long
discussion today in debate, and I've heard my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle say, We love natural gas. I'm not sure if it was said
with that same cadence, but the message was there.
Listen, Mr. Chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
lies off the Atlantic Coast. Can you imagine how much easier it is to
get that to market than shipping it from someplace else?
So I would urge rejection of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much
time I have left.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maine
(Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Bishop, thank you for allowing me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any oil and gas drilling
on the Outer Continental Shelf in the northeast, including my home
State of Maine. An accident or a spill off our coast would be
devastating to our working waterfronts. We don't have to look any
further than the Deepwater Horizon disaster to see the damage an
accident can do to a coastal economy. Not only that, but it would be
decades before any oil that is discovered would ever make it to market,
decades that should be spent researching and investing in new sources
of clean energy and breaking our dependence on oil.
The Republican proposals of this bill would not only carelessly
expand the permitting for current gas and oil leases but also encourage
expanded drilling.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense
amendment and voting against this ill-conceived bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve
the balance of my time since I have the right to close.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close as well,
so I will yield myself the balance of my time.
I would say to my friend from Washington that I would find his
argument and I would find the statistics that he cited somewhat more
persuasive if this Congress had enacted any reforms, any safeguards to
protect our coastline from the kind of disaster that affected the
Louisiana and the Florida coast in the wake of the BP oil spill.
We have not put in place a single piece of legislation that would
make offshore drilling safer. We have not put in place a single piece
of legislation designed to prevent the kind of disaster that took place
in the gulf. We are continuing to rely on the sort of slipshod
environmental reviews that preceded the granting of leases in the gulf,
and I think to expose certainly my region, Ms. Pingree's region, to the
kind of disaster that the gulf was exposed to without putting in place
those safeguards is simply unwise, not worth $4.3 billion to fund a
bill that most of us feel is a very flawed bill to begin with.
So I would urge adoption of my amendment. As I say, I would urge
defeat of the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Two points, Mr. Chairman: first of all, the gentleman suggests that
this Congress and this House, led by Republicans, have not done
anything as far as safety offshore. I would just remind the gentleman
that through the appropriations process there has been a tremendous
increase in precisely what the Obama administration was asking for
safety. The Obama administration has said essentially that it is safe,
although I would argue they should be more aggressive; but they say
it's safe to drill. So that argument I don't think really has a great
deal of bearing.
But more importantly, I would say this: the port of Boston has a
liquid natural gas terminal, and they are importing natural gas from
Trinidad and
[[Page H778]]
Yemen, hardly a stable community or country in the Middle East. Right
now, right off the coast of Nova Scotia, just north of this area that
we're talking about, there is natural gas drilling going on.
So certainly, if we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and
foreign energy and we like natural gas, like a lot of my friends on the
other side of the aisle have talked about, then we should reject this
amendment and adopt the underlying bill.
With that, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Mr. Bishop's
amendment, of the Bishop/Crowley/Rangel/Pascrell/Pingree Amendment
(#43) to strike sections of this bill that would open parts of the
Atlantic coast, including the shores of my home state of New Jersey, to
offshore drilling.
Setting aside the precedent we are setting here by funding a
transportation authorization with revenues from energy development
instead of user fees, House Republicans have clearly failed to learn
the lesson from the catastrophic economic and environmental
consequences of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. For one, this bill fails to introduce any comprehensive new
safety standards, such as the commonsense steps recommended by the
President's bipartisan Oil Spill Commission in the wake of the
Deepwater Horizon spill.
In light of that, I am especially concerned that this bill could
result in new drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, including off of the
shore of my home state of New Jersey. The people of New Jersey strongly
oppose opening our shores to offshore drilling. A whopping 63% of New
Jersey residents oppose oil and gas drilling off the coast of our state
according to a 2010 Monmouth University poll, and through this
legislation, the Tea Party wants to force the people of New Jersey to
hand over our beaches to the oil companies.
New Jerseyans oppose offshore drilling because they understand the
potentially devastating effects it could have on our economy in the
event of a spill. The tourism and fishing industries support hundreds
of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity
across the state and region. In fact, tourism is New Jersey's second
largest industry, supporting jobs for over 500,000 people and
generating over $50 billion in economic activity for the state each and
every year. The people who make their livings in this industry depend
on the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts for their
livelihoods. Risky new drilling could put these jobs in jeopardy,
potentially destroying more jobs than it would create.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is
fully paid for, and reject opening the northeast to new offshore
drilling. Instead, we should be supporting and encouraging alternative
energy development off our shores, as I have tried to do by introducing
H.R. 3238, the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act. New Jersey is
primed to be a leader in the offshore wind industry, and this bill will
create jobs and increase renewable domestic energy production in the
Garden State.
Instead, by continuing to invest in further digging and drilling for
oil rather than searching for new sources of energy, as the bill in
front of us proposes we do, we will only end up digging ourselves a
deeper hole.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Richmond
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. RICHMOND. 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 952, beginning on line 17, strike ``Federal program''
and insert ``Federal program, except in the case of a project
for coastal wetlands conservation, coastal restoration, or
hurricane protection, or an infrastructure project directly
impacted by coastal wetland losses''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment simply does is it
allows those Gulf Coast States to invest their oil and gas into their
States in terms of coastal restoration.
I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Louisiana, since 1950, has
contributed over $160 billion to the Federal Treasury; and, in return,
Louisiana has received some of the same benefits as other States have
received. However, one unique thing that we've received is a tattered
coast line.
Louisiana loses almost a football field an hour in terms of our
wetland laws. What this amendment would do is allow us to take some of
those revenues that we receive and invest that back into restoring our
coast.
I will tell you also, Mr. Chairman, that restoring Louisiana's coast
is a very monumental task; and the people of Louisiana, the people of
all of the gulf coast communities are willing to step up and take not
only their own resources but resources they receive from the Federal
Government in terms of any revenues or royalties they will receive and
put those back into coastal restoration, making sure that we have
wetlands.
{time} 1720
Because when we talk about the damage that has been done to Louisiana
by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that event cost us 11 Louisiana
citizens. Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike cost the gulf coast community
the lives of almost 1,600 of its citizens. When we talk about our
wetlands, that's our first line of defense in preventing the damage of
a hurricane. So, while we are willing to sacrifice our coast and those
things so that we can have a stable energy sector in this country, we
also recognize that we should invest back in it to make sure the
citizens are safe.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I claim time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The proposal of the gentleman from Louisiana has merit. I commend him
for proposing it, and I do urge its adoption.
The goal of revenue sharing in the bill is to allow States the
flexibility to use the money they want with their local States. If this
is what the gentleman's State wants to use its money for, I have no
problem, and I certainly agree with him. In fact, I would emphasize one
other point:
Since I've had an opportunity to visit the gentleman's State and to
see firsthand what it has done with the initiative, I think that it is
a tremendous template for other States, which is precisely why, in the
underlying bill, we have the component of revenue sharing. It is for
other States to, maybe, emulate what Louisiana has always done.
So I think the gentleman's amendment is certainly compatible with
what we're trying to do. It is a good amendment, and I commend the
gentleman for that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply close by thanking the
gentleman and by saying that what the amendment does is really allow
the gulf coast communities to invest in their own futures while
continuing to invest in the energy future of America.
Mr. Chair, Louisiana has contributed over $160 Billion to the Federal
Government through offshore oil and gas revenues--primarily from oil
and gas exploration off of Louisiana's coast. From the 1950s until
2006, Louisiana didn't receive any royalties. We have received funding
from the Federal government like other states, but our royalty over
those 56 years was a tattered coastline.
Louisiana loses 25 square miles of coastal wetlands every year or 1
football field every hour. Our state has 40 percent of the nation's
wetlands, but experiences 80 percent of all wetland loss. Part of the
reason is nature, but besides blocking off the natural flow of the
Mississippi River, oil and gas canals are big culprits.
The bill before us creates a revenue sharing scheme for east and west
coast states but does not allow the states to use these royalties as
matching funds for federal programs.
[[Page H779]]
I can tell you that right now, because gulf coast states are
receiving a very small amount of money from oil and gas production off
their shores, much of the time, the Gulf states use these funds as
their required cost share of Corps of Engineers and Department of
Interior projects for coastal restoration, hurricane protection,
wildlife restoration, and other disaster mitigation projects.
My amendment would give states the option to use oil and gas revenues
as their state cost share of federal projects for ``coastal wetlands
conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, or
infrastructure projects directly impacted by coastal wetland losses.''
I think that coastal states like California, Alaska and Virginia
which are embarking on offshore energy production will want the
flexibility to spend their revenues on projects that strengthen and
protect their coastline. Without this amendment, revenues derived from
offshore oil, gas and renewable energy could not be used for these
critical projects.
This amendment would help the coastal states help themselves without
tapping into the Federal Treasury. We don't want to be dependent on
Federal Fund. We want to invest in our own future while we protect
America's energy future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Landry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. LANDRY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 952, line 19, strike section 17501(b) and
insert the following:
(b) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a) and the
amendment made by subsection (a) shall not affect the
application of section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109
432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)), as in effect before the
enactment of this Act, with respect to revenues received by
the United States under oil and gas leases issued for tracts
located in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf Planning Areas, including such leases
issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer Continental Shelf
Revenues.--Section 105(f)(1) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109
432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)) is amended by striking ``2055''
and inserting ``2022, and shall not exceed $750,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2023 through 2055''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Landry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment offered in
cooperation with my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Cedric Richmond.
As the gentleman said earlier, Louisianians invented offshore oil
exploration, and it has been drilling off its coast ever since the mid-
1940s. Yet, for the first 60 years of drilling off the coast of
Louisiana, our State and other Gulf Coast States had received no
money--not a dime--from the revenue derived from these wells.
Starting in 2007, Congress passed an act called the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act. This act provided that a small portion of offshore
revenues would finally start to trickle in to our Gulf Coast States.
Those of us in the Gulf Coast States will continue to receive a small
portion of those revenues through 2017 when, at that time, we will
start to receive the 37.5 percent of the offshore revenue of each of
those wells producing at that time. However, in GOMESA, it included a
cap so that, collectively, those four Gulf Coast States could never
receive more than a collective amount of $500 million.
As the current bill is now going to provide revenue sharing without a
cap for additional States, we are simply asking for fundamental
fairness here in that the cap of $500 million be raised to $750
million. That's what this amendment does. This amendment simply raises
the collective cap amongst those four States from $500 million to $750
million, reminding everyone that there will be no cap on the additional
States.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. If this amendment passes, Mardi Gras will come on the
Wednesday before Fat Tuesday this year. That's because the Landry
amendment delivers up to $6 billion in a financial King Cake to
Louisiana and to the other Gulf States at the expense of the other 46
States in the Union.
In 2006, the Republican Congress passed legislation that will divert
$150 billion over the next 60 years from offshore drilling on public
lands to the four Gulf Coast States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
and Texas. That bill set up what amounts to a new entitlement program
for these four States, which will result in a massive transfer of
wealth from the Federal Government. This amendment would send $6
billion to these four States on top of that $150 billion they will
already be getting.
These oil and gas resources on public lands belong to all of the
American people, not just to those of the adjacent States. They are
public resources that belong as much to someone living in Kansas,
Massachusetts, or Hawaii as they do to someone living in Louisiana or
Texas. These are resources that should help every American, not just a
select few. The revenue generated from these public resources goes to
the Federal Treasury to help pay for Medicare and Medicaid. It helps to
pay for our national defense. We can no longer afford to continue this
diversion of taxpayer funds to these four States. We need this revenue
to reduce our deficit and to get our fiscal house in order.
I had offered an amendment that would have recovered the $150 billion
we are going to be sending to these four States, which the majority did
not make in order, and now this amendment would take us in the complete
opposite direction.
So I commend the gentleman from Louisiana. I can't blame him for
trying to get even more Federal money directed to his home State under
this program. Yet, if you come from one of the 46 States that is not--
and let me enumerate them again--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or
Texas, you would have to be crazy to vote for this amendment, because
they're going to take money away from your States, away from your
Medicare beneficiaries, away from your contributions to the defense
budget. It will be higher in all of those other States because this
money is going to be sucked out of the Federal Treasury, as though
through a straw, right into the States of Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Texas. If you vote for this amendment, you are voting
to send that money--$6 billion--directly from your State to the
gentleman from Louisiana's State.
I urge all members of the Louisiana delegation to vote against the
Markey amendment, and I would give a similar recommendation to the
other Members from the other three States. But if you don't come from
one of those four States, why would you send $6 billion to those
States, money which should be in the Federal Treasury, when it should
be used for all of the citizens of our country?
At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANDRY. How much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LANDRY. I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Natural Resources
Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
{time} 1730
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, the
underlying bill vastly expands the number of States that would be
eligible for revenue sharing to far beyond those four States that the
ranking member mentioned.
But when our committee held a markup on this legislation 2 weeks ago,
I pledged to work with the gentleman from Louisiana and Gulf Members to
help bring parity to the differences between the existing revenue
sharing currently enjoyed in the four Gulf States and all the other
coastal States, which, up until this legislation today, as I mentioned,
were not entitled to a share of the revenues from oil and gas
production off their shores. Let me repeat that again. Under this
legislation,
[[Page H780]]
more States will have an opportunity to share this.
But this amendment seeks to bring existing revenue sharing in the
Gulf more in line with the plan that was included in the underlying
bill. And I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this amendment to
the floor. I support it.
Mr. LANDRY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Richmond).
Mr. RICHMOND. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, I have an understanding different from my good friend
and colleague from Massachusetts. He is absolutely right when he says
the resources are everyone's. The resources are everyone's. But the
sacrifices that you make to get those resources come from those Gulf
States. We lost 1,836 lives in Katrina. We lost 11 lives in the BP oil
spill. We've lost 328 square miles of marsh. And in this bill, we give
royalties to all the other States immediately.
What we're asking from Louisiana is that, without a cap, is that in
2023 when we start to give us the 37.5 percent. However, we're willing
to cap it at $750 million as opposed to the unlimited amount that all
the other States under this bill would do.
And then I think in 2006, Congress recognized that the Gulf Coast
States were bearing the brunt of our energy production in this country,
the lands that we lose. We produce 90 percent of the Nation's offshore
oil and gas. So that's a sacrifice that we make for people in Kansas,
people in California to be able to turn on their lights in the
afternoon or at nighttime.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to vote for the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I will just close with this: As the
gentleman from Louisiana just indicated, 30 percent of all oil and gas
produced in this country comes from Louisiana shores. A quarter of all
the seafood is caught in Louisiana. In Louisiana, we have made it a
constitutional amendment that any revenue we receive from the Federal
Government or offshore royalties goes to coastal protection and the
building of the coast that we are so rapidly losing. And again, this is
not an amendment whereby we're asking for more of our share. We are
simply asking to raise a cap when other States will have no cap. This
is only fundamental fairness here, and I certainly would urge all
Members to consider that and to please support this amendment when it
comes to the floor.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Deutch
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
Mr. DEUTCH. 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 954, after line 19, insert the following:
SEC. 17603. ESTIMATE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WORST-CASE
DISCHARGE OF OIL.
A person shall not be eligible for a lease issued under
this subtitle (including the amendments made by this
subtitle) unless the person includes in the application for
the lease an estimate of the economic impact, including job
losses, resulting from a worst-case discharge of oil from
facilities operated under the lease.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, nearly 2 years ago, an explosion on the BP
Deepwater Horizon drilling vessel unleashed a steady gush of crude oil
into the Gulf of Mexico that went unstopped for 3 full months. The 4.9
million barrels of crude oil spewed into the gulf and jeopardized an
ecosystem that is home to over 15,000 species and claimed the mantle as
the worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history.
Yet the BP Deepwater Horizon spill was also an economic disaster.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is the issue addressed in the amendment I
present to this body today. My amendment simply provides that no one
shall be eligible for a lease issued unless there is, first, an
estimate of the economic impact, including job losses resulting from a
worst-case discharge of oil from facilities operated under that lease.
Right now under current law and under this legislation, as drafted,
companies applying for new oil drilling leases are not required to
project the toll on local economies resulting from a worst-case
scenario spill.
In my home State of Florida and in other Gulf Coast States, like
Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, the economic consequences were
enormous. Forced closures of fishing areas led to shuttered businesses.
Fewer tourists led to job losses. The powerful economic ripple effect
was felt by millions of Americans in States whose coastal towns,
cities, and businesses depend on the livelihood of tourism, fishing,
restaurants, shrimping, and other industries.
The bill before us today would open large areas of the Gulf of
Mexico, the east and west coasts of the United States, and areas in
Alaska to oil drilling. Opening these areas to drilling exposes the
coastal communities and coastal States to significant economic impact
and job losses should a large-scale oil spill like BP Deepwater Horizon
occur.
And while BP created a $20 billion recovery fund to assist
communities devastated by this bill, litigation over the total cost of
the disaster continues today. As BP seeks financial contributions from
Deepwater Horizon contractors for payout of claims, estimates of the
spill's total economic impact are upwards of $40 billion and more. The
Federal Government has a real interest in ensuring that companies
applying for new oil drilling leases are aware of and are prepared for
the potential economic impact and job losses resulting from a worst-
case scenario spill. It only makes sense that these applications
require an economic, in addition to the environmental, estimate of such
disasters.
My amendment, therefore, would require the person to include in their
application this estimate of economic impact arising from a worst-case
discharge of oil from the facilities.
I urge my colleagues to join me in safeguarding our economy from
tragedies like the Deepwater Horizon spill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement have put forward significant regulatory measures governing
offshore drilling. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because
existing Federal regulations--specifically, 30 CFR 254.26--already
require a worst-case discharge scenario in all lease applications,
which includes an evaluation of economic resources that may be
impacted. So that's in the law already, Mr. Chairman.
So I find it interesting that we have an amendment before us that we
are debating on essentially legislation and regulatory issues that are
already currently in place.
Let me make another point to hopefully point out the disconnect of
what we are talking about because one of the issues that we are talking
about here is the creation of American energy, American jobs, American
security, less dependence on foreign sources of our energy.
This last January, for example, the State Department expelled the
consul general of Venezuela in Miami for plotting a cyberattack on the
U.S. Government. And yet here we are, debating an issue that could
affect our getting to
[[Page H781]]
be less dependent on foreign energy sources and ignoring what is the
obvious. We, obviously, ought to be trying to be less dependent on
foreign oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. We are talking
about a debate on an amendment that is simply redundant of current law.
I don't know why we are having this debate, but I think that the
redundancy of it here--we always have a worst-case discharge scenario
in current law. We simply don't need this.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1740
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington I respect a
great deal, but to say this is redundant of current law is just
incorrect. The gentleman knows, and in fact told us, that the
requirement he referred to is in regulations.
Mr. Chairman, for anyone who has watched what's gone on in this body,
in this Congress, it has been this House of Representatives that has
brought to the floor bill after bill after bill to give this Congress
the ability to repeal regulations and to block regulations. I don't
want to have to rely on what's in regulations. If we believe in
American jobs, and the suggestion that somehow the American jobs in the
energy industry are more important than the American jobs in the
tourism industry and the shrimpers and the people in tourism who
realize every day the opportunity to provide for their families because
of the beautiful, pristine coastline that we have in Florida and
because of all that surrounds the environment in the other States in
the gulf, to suggest that those are somehow less important than energy
jobs is inappropriate.
But more than that, I don't want to have to rely on regulations, Mr.
Chairman. If we are committed to ensuring that there is an analysis of
what would happen in the worst case, then let's put it in the law.
Let's put it in the statute. Let's not rely on the regulations that my
friends so often blame on these bureaucrats for writing. Let's not rely
on them. Here's an opportunity for us to stand together and not want to
rely on regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join with me, as they've already
acknowledged that this is an important issue, to not have to rely on
regulations any longer. Let's make this a part of the law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, since I have the right to
close, I will reserve.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, there are lots of amendments that are
controversial. Simply requiring that companies do what the regulations
require them to do, which my colleague from Washington acknowledges
that they are already required to do, but making it a part of the law
instead of requiring regulations that may change from time to time is
the appropriate step. I think we should all be in agreement on that,
and I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, from time to time there shows, really, progress in the
course of debate. The gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out that
my side of the aisle has some real heartburn on a lot of regulations.
I'll be the first to admit that. Apparently he does, too, by his
acknowledgement that we have that acknowledgement, and he doesn't want
to be governed by regulations. So I think we're making progress, at
least in that way, and I congratulate him.
But here's the point. On this specific issue, this Congress has
responded, and to their credit, this administration has responded, not
probably to the extent that I would like, seeing that the regulatory
oversight on potential spills in the gulf or any place in the OCS will
be responded to in a timely manner. That was done through the
appropriation process by a Republican-led Congress. I congratulate the
chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations for doing
precisely that.
But I will repeat again, in my view, in this particular case this
amendment is redundant to what the law, through regulations, already
is; and I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEUTCH. 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.
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
112 398 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Eshoo of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment No. 7 by Mrs. Capps of California.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Landry of Louisiana.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 249, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 55]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
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)
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)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
[[Page H782]]
NOES--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
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
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
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
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
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
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Bonner
Campbell
Flores
Fortenberry
Lewis (CA)
Palazzo
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Sullivan
{time} 1812
Messrs. YOUNG of Indiana, GOHMERT, and GRIMM changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BLUMENAUER and OLVER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 55, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Markey
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 254, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 56]
AYES--173
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kissell
Kucinich
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)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--254
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
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 (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Campbell
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
[[Page H783]]
{time} 1817
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DICKS and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149,
noes 276, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 57]
AYES--149
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Boswell
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fortenberry
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
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
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
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
Yarmuth
NOES--276
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
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
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
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
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Campbell
Doggett
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1821
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Doyle
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 234, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 58]
AYES--193
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
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
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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 (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Renacci
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
[[Page H784]]
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--234
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
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 (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Campbell
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1825
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 265, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
AYES--160
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--265
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
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
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
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
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--8
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Shuster
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1829
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 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
[[Page H785]]
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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 267, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
AYES--160
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
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
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reichert
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
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
NOES--267
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
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
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
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
Hochul
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Campbell
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1833
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 257, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 61]
AYES--169
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
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)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Garamendi
Graves (GA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
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.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
NOES--257
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
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)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
[[Page H786]]
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)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
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
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Cleaver
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1837
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Landry
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Landry) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266,
noes 159, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 62]
AYES--266
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--159
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gibson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Campbell
Cleaver
Gingrey (GA)
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1841
Ms. EDWARDS and Mr. CARNEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Deutch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Deutch) 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.
[[Page H787]]
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 63]
AYES--188
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
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
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
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)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
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
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Cleaver
Himes
Maloney
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.
{time} 1845
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote numbers 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, and 63. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote
number 62.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Cassidy) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, 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. 3408) to
set clear rules for the development of United States oil shale
resources, to promote shale technology research and development, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________