[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 94 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4096-H4108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENTS 
                           AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
consideration of H.R. 1613 and H.R. 2231 pursuant to House Resolution 
274, amendment numbered 1 printed in part A of House Report 113-131 and 
amendments numbered 5 and 10 printed in part B of that report be 
modified by the form I have placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modifications.

[[Page H4097]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       In the amendment numbered 1 printed in part A of the 
     report, strike ``Noting'' and insert ``Nothing''.
       In the amendment numbered 5 printed in part B of the 
     report, strike ``$1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$999,999,999''.
       In the amendment numbered 10 printed in part B of the 
     report, strike ``Noting'' and insert ``Nothing''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, I'd like to understand 
the reasons--I understand the typographical errors and appreciate that 
the chair wishes to revise those, but I'm curious about one provision.
  As the chair would remember, I came to the committee and asked that 
they not waive the rule for the Cassidy amendment because the Cassidy 
amendment will increase the deficit by $15 billion over 30 years. And 
of course the rules of the House don't allow us to engage in additional 
spending without an offset, and there is no offset. But the chair did 
waive all points of order, so the rules of the House don't apply to 
this additional $15 billion of deficit spending.
  But now my understanding is that they want to substitute a different 
amendment, which, instead of $15 billion of additional deficit over 30 
years, would only create $14,999,999,970 of new deficit.

                              {time}  1250

  I would like to understand why we're bothering to do this. I think 
over the span of 30 years, increasing the deficit by $14,999,999,970 
versus $15 billion, which is easier to say because it has got a lot of 
zeros in it, what's the rationale? Why would we do this? Why do we need 
UC for this? I'm just curious.
  Could the gentleman respond.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the gentleman will yield under his reservation, with 
the adoption of this modification of the explanation of waivers, I 
would say to him that what is contained in the report is going to be 
accurate.
  What was printed the other day as the final report from the Rules 
Committee before it came to the floor was, in fact, not accurate. The 
gentleman knows and does understand that there were several 
modifications that were made as a result of the final approval of the 
Rules Committee print.
  Then we discovered there were some typos and some inaccurate figures 
that were presented. The gentleman knows that there have been previous 
times when the gentleman's amendment from Louisiana has been offered in 
reports and has been voted on and we made that consistent.
  I appreciate the gentleman asking me.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Continuing to reserve the right to object, so the bottom 
line here, if I can define it for our colleagues in simple language, is 
the net difference in waiving the rules of the House of $30, apparently 
the total waiving of the rules of the House to allow additional deficit 
spending. In contradiction of what the other side of the aisle normally 
proposes, there is somehow a dramatic difference between 
$14,999,999,970 of new debt and deficit and $15 billion, which requires 
a substitution of this amendment, because it's my understanding it 
would somehow then violate the Budget Act twice. Is that accurate? Even 
though you've waived the rule and we can go ahead with the amendment, 
you would be violating the Budget Act twice. So we just want to say 
we're only violating the Budget Act once; is that the difference?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Once again, yielding to the gentleman's question, I 
appreciate the gentleman not only coming to the floor, but making sure 
that we work together on an understanding of what the final package 
will look like.
  I will state once again, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
clarification, what the Rules Committee did is made an agreement of 
what would be made in order and there was a mistake therein. We are 
simply, Mr. Speaker, asking for unanimous consent on a bipartisan 
basis, we believe with the gentleman who will consent, to modify the 
report to where it accurately denotes the amendments that were made in 
order and any wording, including grammatical misspellings. That's what 
we're trying to do here.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Further reserving the right to object, if you're going 
to waive the rules of the House to create $15 billion in new deficit, I 
don't know why we need unanimous consent to waive the rules yet again 
to create $14,999,999,970 in deficit. I guess that makes a difference 
somewhere to someone, so I would not object.
  I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendments are modified.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
274, I call up the bill (H.R. 1613) to amend the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and 
oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1613

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Outer Continental Shelf 
     Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act''.

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

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

       The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 32. TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENTS.

       ``(a) Authorization.--After the date of enactment of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements 
     Authorization Act, the Secretary may implement the terms of 
     any transboundary hydrocarbon agreement for the management of 
     transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs entered into by the 
     President and approved by Congress. In implementing such an 
     agreement, the Secretary shall protect the interests of the 
     United States to promote domestic job creation and ensure the 
     expeditious and orderly development and conservation of 
     domestic mineral resources in accordance with all applicable 
     United States laws governing the exploration, development, 
     and production of hydrocarbon resources on the outer 
     Continental Shelf.
       ``(b) Submission to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--No later than 180 days after all parties 
     to a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement have agreed to its 
     terms, a transboundary hydrocarbon agreement that does not 
     constitute a treaty in the judgment of the President shall be 
     submitted by the Secretary to--
       ``(A) the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
       ``(B) the Majority Leader of the Senate;
       ``(C) the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       ``(D) the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate.
       ``(2) Contents of submission.--The submission shall 
     include--
       ``(A) any amendments to this Act or other Federal law 
     necessary to implement the agreement;
       ``(B) an analysis of the economic impacts such an agreement 
     and any amendments necessitated by the agreement will have on 
     domestic exploration, development, and production of 
     hydrocarbon resources on the outer Continental Shelf; and
       ``(C) a detailed description of any regulations expected to 
     be issued by the Secretary to implement the agreement.
       ``(c) Implementation of Specific Transboundary Agreement 
     With Mexico.--The Secretary may take actions as necessary to 
     implement the terms of the Agreement between the United 
     States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning 
     Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, 
     signed at Los Cabos, February 20, 2012, including--
       ``(1) approving unitization agreements and related 
     arrangements for the exploration, development, or production 
     of oil and natural gas from transboundary reservoirs or 
     geological structures;
       ``(2) making available, in the limited manner necessary 
     under the agreement and subject to the protections of 
     confidentiality provided by the agreement, information 
     relating to the exploration, development, and production of 
     oil and natural gas from a transboundary reservoir or 
     geological structure that may be considered confidential, 
     privileged, or proprietary information under law;
       ``(3) taking actions consistent with an expert 
     determination under the agreement; and
       ``(4) ensuring only appropriate inspection staff at the 
     Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement or other 
     Federal agency personnel designated by the Bureau, the 
     operator, or the lessee have authority to stop work on any 
     installation or other device or vessel permanently or 
     temporarily attached to the seabed of the United States, 
     which may be erected thereon for the purpose of resource 
     exploration, development or production activities as approved 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Exemption From Resources Extraction Reporting 
     Requirement.--Actions taken by a public company in accordance 
     with any transboundary hydrocarbon agreement shall not 
     constitute the commercial development of oil,

[[Page H4098]]

     natural gas, or minerals for purposes of section 13(q) of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (157 U.S.C. 78m(q)).
       ``(e) Savings Provisions.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(1) to authorize the Secretary to participate in any 
     negotiations, conferences, or consultations with Cuba 
     regarding exploration, development, or production of 
     hydrocarbon resources in the Gulf of Mexico along the United 
     States maritime border with Cuba or the area known by the 
     Department of the Interior as the `Eastern Gap'; or
       ``(2) as affecting the sovereign rights and the 
     jurisdiction that the United States has under international 
     law over the outer Continental Shelf which appertains to 
     it.''.

       TITLE II--APPROVAL OF TRANSBOUNDARY HYDROCARBON AGREEMENT

     SEC. 201. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH MEXICO.

       The Agreement between the United States of America and the 
     United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon 
     Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico, signed at Los Cabos, 
     February 20, 2012, is hereby approved.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted. The bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order 
to consider the further amendment printed in part A of House Report 
113-131, as modified by the order of the House of today, if offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) or his designee, which shall 
be considered read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  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. 1613.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salmon). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental 
Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act.
  This bill was introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. 
Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and will provide 
the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development 
in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico along our Nation's maritime 
boundary with Mexico.
  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign 
Secretary Espinosa signed this long-awaited agreement February 2012. 
Since that time, the House Committee on Natural Resources has 
repeatedly requested draft-implementing legislation from the Obama 
administration. But it was not until March 19, 2013, when the committee 
finally received just that--several short sentences to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to promote development of energy resources 
that lie along the boundary with Mexico.
  Despite the Obama administration sitting on this agreement for over a 
year, that should not in any way downplay the importance of getting 
this agreement approved. This agreement is good for our economy, and 
it's good for our American workers.
  Opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates 
jobs, it creates more American-made energy, and it helps reduce our 
dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs.
  According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State 
Department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in 
the Gulf of Mexico. These areas are estimated to contain as much as 172 
million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
  These areas are ready to be explored and developed, and this bill 
will give the U.S. job creators the certainty they need to move 
forward. Activity can begin once this agreement is enacted.
  This bill executes the implementation of the U.S.-Mexico agreement, 
but it also looks to the future--providing a clear and transparent path 
for how future administrations should go about submitting future 
agreements with other countries with which we share international 
boundaries. Given the fact that this implementing legislation was 
bogged down within several agencies for over a year, I believe that Mr. 
Duncan's solution is a necessary step to ensure a smoother and more 
expedient process in the future.
  H.R. 1613 also includes language to protect American workers by 
removing uncertainty surrounding the application of Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act disclosure requirements.
  The agreement signed by the Obama administration and Mexico 
specifically provides what royalty payments Mexico would receive from 
energy developers. However, under current U.S. law, companies that 
commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to 
disclose payments made to a foreign government. This could create a 
potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will 
collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that 
prohibit disclosure of payments.

                              {time}  1300

  This would then block American workers from being able to develop 
these resources.
  Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help 
protect American jobs and American-made energy in this instance. 
Without it, foreign-controlled energy companies could develop this 
American energy resource. The royalty payments to Mexico would still be 
undisclosed and kept private, but the net result would be that 
Americans would lose out on this energy potential.
  The Natural Resources Committee and Mr. Duncan have worked hard to 
advance this bill and get it signed into law. It's important to 
American energy, to American jobs, to American energy security, and it 
is important in order to support a positive relationship with our 
neighbor to the south, Mexico. So I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We could have done this bill as a suspension bill 2 days ago. That 
is, it probably could have passed the House by unanimous consent, which 
is very rare, if this provision had not been added.
  There is consensus on both sides of the aisle that it's critical that 
we move forward with this agreement with Mexico to deal with shared 
resources in the western Gulf of Mexico. However, the Republicans have 
chosen to use this as a vehicle to launch yet another attack on Wall 
Street reform, on the Dodd-Frank reforms, which is totally unnecessary. 
Obviously, it was presented as: it's potentially, possibly, maybe a 
future problem for American oil companies if the Mexicans change their 
law. Under their existing law, there is no problem. We're going to see 
disclosure, and it will be disclosure by Mexican companies that are 
bidding or by American companies that are bidding or by any other 
foreign company that is bidding in the gulf. You will see full 
disclosure, so no one would be at a commercial or at an economic 
disadvantage.
  But the premise here is that, someday, Mexico might change their law, 
and therefore our companies would have to disclose and theirs wouldn't. 
If that did happen at some potential possible future date by some 
potential possible future Mexican Government, then the Securities and 
Exchange Commission has adequate authority, even under the Dodd-Frank 
reforms, to waive that requirement because it would be in the public 
interest and commercial interest of the United States of America to 
waive that provision in this instance. Now, that's dealing with Mexico.
  The second problem with what they're proposing here is that they 
actually want to totally repeal this section of Dodd-Frank for any 
future agreements with any other nations on a transboundary basis, 
which could certainly include Canada and, likely, with the conflicts 
that are looming over the Arctic Ocean and the resources up there, with 
Russia. Now, I get pretty

[[Page H4099]]

nervous when I start thinking that U.S. companies are going to be 
negotiating secret agreements with Russia and that somehow these are 
going to protect our taxpayers, that they're going to protect our 
shareholders, that they're going to protect our public interest. That, 
I think, is really a very, very, very disturbing trend with this bill.
  So the issue is: do we want to get this done? If we want to get it 
done, this is not the way to do it, because this bill, as amended by 
the Republicans to change the agreement and waive the rules for oil 
companies so they can make secret payments to the Government of Mexico, 
that will not pass the Senate. So we'll have yet another one-House 
bill, and we will further delay what the Republican side wants to 
expedite, which is offshore oil and gas development.
  I would suggest that, rather than expediting things here, we're 
messing them up, and I would suggest to my colleagues that we oppose 
this bill in this form, that we bring it back as a clean authorization 
with the existing agreement with Mexico, and that we move forward and 
get it done. I expect, if we got it done here, we could bring it up 
again and get it done in a day or under suspension or perhaps, I think, 
with unanimous consent, even between today and tomorrow. Then the 
Senate would pass it with unanimous consent, and we'd be done with it.
  Instead, we're going to have yet another example of the dysfunction 
of the Congress because we're going to pass a version here that cannot 
pass in the United States Senate, and then, I guess, the Republicans 
will try and blame the Senate for not wanting to waive the rules and 
allow oil companies to make secret payments to the Government of Mexico 
in order to garner commercial deals.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the author of this legislation, a member of the Natural Resources 
Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the chairman of the 
Natural Resources Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as 
to thank my friend, Mr. Salmon from Arizona, for his leadership in the 
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on this issue because he understands 
what is at stake.
  One thing this bill will do is attract jobs. It will help the United 
States Government create energy sector jobs. The second thing it will 
do is help meet our energy needs, and it will help lessen our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing those energy 
resources here at home. That's a national security issue. By being less 
dependent on foreign sources of oil, we are less dependent on what goes 
on in that part of the world. There can be no national security without 
energy security, and this is a step in the right direction.
  We are willing to say that the Obama administration got something 
right in forming this agreement and signing it. In February of 2012, 
Secretary Clinton signed this agreement with the Foreign Secretary from 
Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, to open up this area known as the ``western 
gap'' in the Gulf of Mexico so that both countries--Mexico and the 
United States--could explore and start producing oil and natural gas 
from this area.
  What it does is to create a broader legal certainty along that U.S.-
Mexico boundary area in order to foster more American energy 
development and job creation. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation and Enforcement estimates that this area contains as much as 
172 million barrels of oil and 34 billion cubic feet of natural gas--
shared resources. Yet they're shared under a common border, a border 
between the United States Government and Mexico. If you think of a 
border, think about it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a 
maritime boundary, and these resources lie underneath the Earth's Outer 
Continental Shelf. Underneath that border, who do they belong do? This 
agreement addresses that they are shared resources. They belong to both 
countries, and we ought to utilize this agreement in order to start 
harvesting those resources.
  The gentleman talks about changes to Dodd-Frank and other things, but 
why is that necessary? Who will benefit? I'll tell you who won't 
benefit if we don't put this language in there. The people who won't 
benefit are the American consumers. They are paying almost $4 a gallon 
for gasoline. They won't benefit because we won't be producing American 
resources to meet their energy needs.
  So why is this necessary? Without the changes to this agreement, the 
language in the agreement can create an impossible situation for 
American companies operating on transboundary hydrocarbon resources.
  For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the 
disclosure of the very information that the Dodd-Frank rule requires of 
American companies. This would lead to a situation in which companies 
that are regulated by the SEC have at the very least uncertainty about 
compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This 
uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign 
state-owned oil companies, which are not regulated under Dodd-Frank or 
by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate 
under the United States' agreement and are regulated.
  The change in this language will open up competition and allow 
American companies to actually go to work without the uncertainty as to 
which laws they need to comply with and which they don't. This is the 
right thing. The changes to this language will ensure that American 
energy development will go forward in the transboundary area and that 
those resources in that area will be harvested to provide the necessary 
energy for America, which drives our economy.
  This is the right thing for America. We are willing to enact this 
agreement because we want to harvest those resources, and we want 
America to move toward American energy independence. Ultimately, we 
want to put Americans to work. We want to create jobs--good paying, 
long-term, energy sector jobs. We do that by moving toward American 
energy independence. We do that by enacting this agreement and by 
opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for energy 
exploration and development. It's the right thing for America. It's a 
movement toward an all-American energy policy, utilizing American 
resources to meet American energy needs and putting Americans to work.

                              {time}  1310

  I can only see a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans and for 
all Americans by moving this agreement forward. We asked, from February 
2012 until now, for the United States Department of the Interior to 
send us the enacting legislation, to send us the enacting ability so 
that we could vote on something in the last Congress, and they failed 
to do that. So understanding that we need to do that, the Natural 
Resources Committee took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to 
do it. We're going to pass the implementing language to enact that 
agreement and put Americans to work and provide those resources that 
are so vital to moving this economy along.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. That was very impassioned, and we can agree with the 
necessity of moving forward with the agreement. The problem is that the 
gentleman ignored the fact that the United States Senate will not pass 
this bill as written. They will not waive the Dodd-Frank disclosure 
rules to allow big oil companies to make secret deals with the 
Government of Mexico. They're not going to do that. So you're slowing 
things down by insisting on repealing part of these vital Wall Street 
reforms.
  With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady 
from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee, who is an expert on this provision of law.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Financial Services 
Committee and a member of the conference committee that passed the 
Dodd-Frank reform legislation, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1613. I 
oppose the bill because of the exemption it includes for companies from 
the transparency requirements under section 1504 of Dodd-Frank Act.
  Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to disclose payments 
they

[[Page H4100]]

make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources. It covers 
companies listed on U.S. exchanges, including the U.S., Chinese, 
Brazilian, Canadian, European, Australian and other companies.
  Section 1504 has a long legislative history. The Financial Services 
Committee held its first hearing on extracted industry transparency in 
2007. In 2008, our committee held a legislative hearing where we 
debated the specific provisions that eventually became law. The Senate 
introduced similar legislation, and they held hearings.
  The provision was adopted into the Dodd-Frank Act through a 
bipartisan amendment. Then, before issuing a rule to implement the law, 
the Securities and Exchange Commission solicited input, held meetings, 
and considered hundreds of comments from industry, trade groups, 
Members of Congress, and civil society. Section 1504 was very carefully 
considered by Congress over the course of several years, with input 
from all quarters. It is now the law of the land.
  Let me tell you why it's important.
  Public disclosure of extractive industry payments help diminish the 
political instability caused by OPEC governance, which is not only a 
threat to investment, but also to our own national security. Resource 
revenue transparency also allows shareholders to make better informed 
assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate reputation, and 
the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest.
  Countries rich in natural resources are often developing countries 
that are politically unstable, many rife with corruption, with a 
history of civil conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.
  Opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key 
to increasing civil society participation in these countries. This is 
crucial in order for citizens in resource-rich countries to be able to 
demand greater accountability from their governments for spending that 
serves the public interest. This in turn can help reduce poverty and 
create more stable, democratic governments. It can also help create 
more stable business environments.
  The provision in H.R. 1613 that exempts companies from the disclosure 
requirements under section 1504 is entirely unnecessary. The bipartisan 
Senate version of this bill includes no such exemption.
  Also, the U.S.-Mexico agreement explicitly respects the domestic laws 
of both countries, so it already accommodates the Dodd-Frank disclosure 
requirement. Moreover, there are no laws in Mexico that would prohibit 
the disclosure of company payments.
  Let's also listen to what the administration has to say about this. 
After all, this administration negotiated the terms of the agreement 
with Mexico. The administration very much wants legislation to 
implement the agreement, and they know what they need to do this. And 
they don't want this bill.
  The White House issued a statement strongly opposing H.R. 1613 
precisely because of the provision waiving the requirements for the 
public disclosure of extractive payments to governments. The exemption 
in this bill is nothing more than an effort to undermine transparency 
and to undo good public policy that has become an international 
standard.

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form. Members 
deserve the opportunity to vote on a clean bill that they can support, 
and I urge the leadership to give the House that opportunity.
  Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard talk from both sides of the 
aisle about how important this bill could be without this exemption. 
Why would you undo the work of both sides of the aisle, the conference 
committee, the Senate, and all in working out this agreement by putting 
this exemption in?
  I want you to know that those of us who are working very hard to make 
sure that we implement reform, those of us who are very much involved 
with Dodd-Frank, we not only understand all of the ways that people are 
trying to get around Dodd-Frank, to get under Dodd-Frank, to undo the 
reforms of Dodd-Frank, why does this exemption show up in this bill? It 
has no place in this bill. This is another attempt to get around Dodd-
Frank and not to comply with the law, and you're messing up a good 
agreement. It does not make good sense.
  I oppose this bill in this form. The administration opposes this bill 
in this form. And if you want the kind of agreement that you say you 
want with Mexico, if you're interested in sharing those resources, if 
you're interested in what you claim can be done creating jobs, you 
would not move forward with this bill. You would not try to force this 
exemption on this agreement.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who worked very 
hard on this agreement.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to address 
Congress today.
  I'm very pleased, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western 
Hemisphere for the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we held a hearing on 
this issue. Afterwards, we decided--after some extensive consultation 
with folks from the Obama State Department, we worked with the chairman 
of the Resources Committee and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Duncan) to develop this language.
  There is an old axiom that says ``let no good deed go unpunished.'' 
Nowhere in America could that be more true. Actually, nowhere on Earth 
could that be more true than here in Washington, D.C.
  The fact is that this language reflects the agreement that the Obama 
administration signed almost a couple of years ago. Maybe there's some 
buyer's remorse and maybe there's an idea now that we don't like the 
fact that we agreed to this language a couple of years ago, but this 
reflects the agreement that was signed.
  One other thing I'd like to mention is another great axiom, and that 
is that ``the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'' 
Unfortunately, I didn't know that that road went smack-dab in the 
middle of Washington, D.C.
  The fact is, this is a good bill, and every American out there who is 
paying too much for their energy costs, paying too much every time you 
go to the pump and you fill up your car with gasoline or you go on a 
vacation and you curse those gasoline pumps, knows full well that we 
are trying to do everything we can on the Republican side of the aisle 
to lower your gas prices.

                              {time}  1320

  We're trying to do that by forming this agreement with Mexico. A win-
win. You've heard that term a lot today, because it is. It will create 
jobs both in Mexico and the United States.
  Pemex, the Mexican oil company, does not have the deepwater drilling 
capabilities that our oil companies do, and so Mexico reached out to us 
and asked us if we would agree to a treaty to work together with them 
so that we could jointly drill.
  And isn't it about time that America looks to its neighbors, its 
friends, its allies in the region, like Mexico, instead of having to 
rely on the thugs in the Middle East for our oil.
  I think it is about time that America and the Western Hemisphere 
become energy independent, that we produce our own oil in this country 
and in this continent. And when we do so, what's going to happen? We 
will reduce the likelihood that we will have to get into a war because 
of some oil issue. We reduce the likelihood that some of these despots 
from other countries, like Venezuela or other countries in the Middle 
East, literally hold us--excuse the pun--but hold us over the barrel, 
and ask us to commit to things that maybe we would rather not commit 
to, or play their silly games.
  Wouldn't you much rather rely on a country and a friend and a 
neighbor like Mexico to be able to jointly drill, develop that oil, 
lower gas prices, and create jobs for American and Mexican citizens. 
This is truly a win/win. Let's not let, in some minds, the perfect be 
the enemy of the good. The fact is this is the language that Mexico had 
asked us to agree to, and we're simply trying to move the ball ahead. 
We can do a lot of gamesmanship today and spout off about this or that, 
but this is the agreement that was signed almost a couple of years ago. 
And again, the administration dragged their feet for the last couple of 
years to get this ultimately to the floor. Thank goodness we

[[Page H4101]]

have a chairman over here that took the bull by the horns and said, 
We're going to do this. We're going to do this for the American people 
because it's a no-brainer. So it's basically time, I agree, for us to 
do this in a bipartisan fashion, get off our dead derrieres, and get 
the job done.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If the gentleman would go to the microphone, I would like to ask the 
gentleman a question, and I will yield to him.
  Your assertion is that Mexico asked the Government of the United 
States to include a waiver of our financial services reform provisions 
in section 105 in this agreement, and the Obama administration didn't 
agree to that but Mexico signed the agreement anyway, and now you're 
trying to help out the government of Mexico to get something that you 
claim they wanted but didn't get from this administration; is that 
correct?
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Actually, that is not correct.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, that's what you just said.
  Mr. SALMON. No, that's not what I just said. I don't appreciate 
having words put in my mouth. That's not what I said.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, please clarify.
  Mr. SALMON. What I said was that the language that we've agreed to 
here is the language that I believe embodies the spirit of the 
agreement between us and Mexico. I believe it's exactly what the 
President has been asking for.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Okay. With that, I would reclaim my time. I could ask to 
have the record read back, but I won't because it would delay things. 
But you said this is what Mexico wanted. You did say that just before 
as you spoke. Now you're saying that you believe that this is 
reflecting the spirit of the agreement. Now I will accept that. You 
believe that changing the agreement by waiving our financial services 
law is in the spirit of the agreement. I don't believe that. Maxine 
Waters, who serves on the Committee on Financial Services, doesn't 
agree with that. And, unfortunately, the President of the United States 
doesn't agree with that, so this bill is going nowhere. It's not going 
to get out of the Senate. They have a bipartisan bill over there that 
doesn't waive Dodd-Frank that they could pass by unanimous consent. We 
could be done with this. But no, we're not going to do that; we're 
going to play games.
  So here's what the President said. He's got something to say about 
this in the end, he really does:

       The administration cannot support H.R. 1613, as reported by 
     the House Committee on Natural Resources because of the 
     unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract 
     from the bill. Most significantly, the administration 
     strongly objects to exempting actions taken by public 
     companies in accordance with the transboundary hydrocarbon 
     agreements from requirements section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank 
     Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's natural 
     resource extraction disclosure rule. As a practical matter, 
     this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure 
     of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the 
     United States or foreign governments in accordance with a 
     transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly 
     and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency 
     and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and 
     minerals sectors.

  So if we proceed with this bill in this form, the President will veto 
the bill, and we'll be back again. And how many months that'll take, I 
don't know. But to assert that somehow Mexico wanted this, or the 
administration wanted it, and they just kind of forgot to put it in the 
agreement, and now we're helping them out, even though the 
administration says they don't want it, and I don't know what the 
government of Mexico says--and then there was another issue raised 
about confidentiality provisions.
  In fact, the SEC has more than adequate capabilities to do general 
exemptions in sections 12(h) and 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act. 
They could issue exemptions from this disclosure requirement under this 
authority, should it be warranted. In fact, the SEC today confirmed 
with us that there is nothing that would prevent the SEC from issuing 
exemptions should they be warranted. Now, the objection here is to 
waiving any and all future agreements from any public disclosure of 
payments to foreign governments. That's what you're doing here today. 
It's not about this one agreement or problems that might crop up with 
Mexico. That could be accommodated by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission. It's about doing away with a critical section of Dodd-
Frank. And if you want to do that, why not bring it up in the Financial 
Services Committee, have a hearing, have a debate, send us a bill and 
repeal it. But don't try and do it in the dark of night in the hope 
that if you attach it to this agreement, which we all agree should be 
entered into, Mexico wants, U.S. wants, that you're doing anybody a 
favor.

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).
  Mr. RADEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  Ultimately, we would hope that the Senate can agree on this, and the 
administration, regardless of what we hear. We would love to have some 
compromise, although it is important to debate this here today.
  Here's what I know, and it's important to you--how much you're paying 
at the pump every single time you go and fill up. What you're paying at 
the pump is eating into what you pay for groceries, your rent, your 
mortgage. But House Republicans, right here, right now, have a plan to 
help you put more money in your pocket and save on the important stuff 
like your gas and your grocery bill.
  We started by approving the Keystone pipeline, and what we're 
debating here today is an energy agreement with Mexico. The agreement 
encourages development of energy resources in both countries--
development in the U.S. and in Mexico. You know, it strikes me, right 
now we have all of this talk about illegal immigration and how we're 
going to prevent it here in the United States. The best way is to make 
sure that we have a strong economy south of the border. Not only do I 
know that as the vice chair on the Subcommittee on the Western 
Hemisphere, but I've lived in Mexico.
  (English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows.)
  There are mothers and fathers today looking for opportunities for 
their children.
  Hay madres y padres buscando opportunidad para sus hijos.
  Because at the end of the day, this is about jobs, jobs, jobs, and 
it's about improving our national security. Think about it: In terms of 
national security, do you really want to send your money to countries 
who really may not have our best intentions in mind? Or do you want to 
partner with our energy allies to the north and south of us, making us 
energy independent for generations to come, working with our neighbors 
and our friends.
  Now Mexico ratified this agreement over a year ago. They sent it to 
the President. Now we are calling on the President to help us lower 
your price at the pump. This is as bipartisan as it gets. What we're 
trying to do here in Washington is just help make everyday life a 
little easier for you. Our goal is to save you money so you can spend 
less time worrying about your budget and enjoying more time with your 
family.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messer). The gentleman from Florida will 
provide the Clerk a translation of his remarks, and Members are 
reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I hear my friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle keep talking about this is as bipartisan as 
you can get. It was bipartisan before you sneaked in the exemption that 
would allow companies to bribe governments and pay under the table and 
create chaos in other countries. It was a bipartisan agreement.
  I keep hearing reference to this having the support of the 
administration. Let me be clear. This bill, in this form, does not have 
the support of the administration. It did have before you sneaked in 
the exemption.
  Dodd-Frank made it very clear. It is the law. We worked very hard. 
Both

[[Page H4102]]

sides of the aisle, in the conference committee, worked on this part of 
the bill. And now we have you coming in the dark of the night, one more 
time trying to undo Dodd-Frank. And this is awful. It is really, really 
awful because we have the opportunity to have an agreement with Mexico 
where we could both benefit from the drilling, and we all support that.
  But, no, you have decided to undermine the work of both sides of the 
aisle by putting this exemption in this bill, and so it does not have 
the support of the administration. It is no longer bipartisan. We no 
longer support it. And you have the possibility of a veto on your 
hands.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. May I ask the Chair, how much time remains on either 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 13\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Okay. Does the gentleman have more speakers or would he 
be closing?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close if the gentleman 
is prepared to close.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, what we've heard here today is that by 
modifying this agreement, by preventing disclosure of payments by big 
oil companies to foreign governments which could essentially constitute 
under-the-table agreements, bribes, however you have it, will somehow 
lower gas prices for the American people.
  Now, I think if you went out and asked the American people, ``Do you 
think allowing ExxonMobil or any of the other big companies to enter 
into secret agreements with foreign governments to exploit jointly held 
resources is going to benefit you at the pump?'' I think they'd kind of 
laugh at you. I mean, no offense, but they would.
  The bottom line is there's also a further assertion that somehow this 
possible future development of this area will lower the price at the 
pump. It won't and it hasn't, and today the prices are excessive.
  Why are they excessive?
  Well, there's this funny little thing that happens just around 
Memorial Day every year. The refiners--and the refinery industry has 
been dramatically consolidated over the last few years because there's 
been buyouts and closures and everything else--they decide that they've 
got to do periodic maintenance.
  It's got to happen at the beginning of the driving season; and, of 
course, they all schedule it at the same time and they limit refinery 
capacity, and then they say there's a shortage and the price jumps up 
50 cents a gallon, like it did in Oregon just a month ago--50 cents a 
gallon in a week.
  Whoa, what happened? Did you see anybody waving red flags saying, We 
don't have any gas, or yellow flags?
  Anybody remember the seventies? No. Everybody had gas. They just 
jacked up the price, because that's the way that the oil companies 
celebrate the beginning of the summer vacation season for the American 
people, by increasing their profits with extraordinary and unwarranted 
increases in the price claiming there's somehow a shortage because 
somehow they're cleaning their refineries, or one of them had a 
problem. They are actually exporting gasoline from the west coast.
  What does that mean?
  There's actually a glut of oil in the gulf region right now that they 
can't refine. We've got refineries closed in California with oil 
sitting in storage tanks that can't be refined. And somehow, if we just 
had more oil to add to the glut, to add to the full storage tanks 
because the refineries are shut down to drive up the price--or maybe 
they're not shut down. There was actually an investigation last year. 
When they claimed they were shut down, they weren't. So we don't really 
know.
  But to say, well, gee, we trust the oil companies. Let's let them 
negotiate secret agreements with the Government of Mexico, with Canada, 
with--ultimately, perhaps with Russia and that will benefit the 
consumers at the pump, it does not meet the laugh test.
  Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to, if I can, engage you in a little 
colloquy here.
  What reason would the Members of Congress try and protect the oil 
companies from simply sharing how much they're paying to governments? 
What reason would they have for doing that?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, we heard earlier the assertion that 
that would protect American workers. I'm not quite certain how that's 
going to work out. And probably it doesn't even help stockholders, 
because they might really want to know what's going on. I'm not sure.
  Ms. WATERS. Well, I just want to make clear what this exemption is 
they're trying to do. It's a very simple request that's in law that 
says just tell us what you're paying. And we have now included in this 
bill, where there is an agreement, an exemption that will not allow 
them or keep them from being able to share that information.
  As you said, they would now, if this passed, they would be able to 
make payments in secret. They would be able to make bribes. They would 
be able to maybe even be disruptive to countries that they are paying 
bribes to when they get into these conflicts in other countries.
  So why would they want to do this? I don't understand it. I thought 
maybe you may have some additional information that I don't have. But 
to mess up an agreement simply because you want to protect the oil 
companies from saying how much they're paying is beyond my 
comprehension.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady.
  The bottom line here is it's simple. If we pass this bill in this 
form, the President would veto it if it came out of the Senate. It will 
not come out of the Senate.
  They are actually acting in a true bipartisan way in the Senate, and 
they have a bill which could receive probably unanimous consent that 
does not contain this provision, that does not provide this waiver of 
the Dodd-Frank Act in favor of the big oil companies.
  It's simple. I can see, you know, and I can count, and in all 
probability the Republican side will prevail here, but they are not 
furthering the cause of expediting the signing of this agreement and 
the execution of this agreement between Mexico and the United States by 
sending a bill to the Senate that the Senate will not pass.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Let me clarify just a few major points here. First of all, the 
President did not say he would veto it. He said he had a concern. I 
accept that. But the President did not say he would veto this 
legislation. After all, it was his Secretary of State that negotiated 
the agreement. Why would he veto an agreement negotiated by his 
Secretary of State?
  Secondly, if this could pass so easily out of the Senate, as my 
friend from Oregon asserts, why hasn't the Senate passed it?
  We always ask that question over here. In fact, sometimes we get 
ourselves in a gridlock because we're so, maybe, frightened of what the 
Senate may or may not do.
  Listen, if the Senate wants to pass this agreement without this 
provision, do it. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. Nobody.
  Now, let me make another observation here that I think is probably 
more important in this debate than anything else that has been said, 
and that is, as was pointed out several times--I mentioned it in my 
opening remarks; Mr. Duncan mentioned it; Mr. Salmon mentioned it--in 
2012, this agreement was signed. None of the information was given to 
us because we had to implement it. Now, I wonder why. Could it possibly 
be that the mindset of this administration, which, by the way, has 
consistently been nonresponsive to more exploration on the Outer 
Continental Shelf offshore--if I may, Mr. Speaker, go back just a bit.
  When this administration took office, there was no moratoria on the 
Pacific or Atlantic coasts. One of the first actions of this President 
was to lock up 85 percent of those potential resources. So maybe they 
do have a bit of a bias against offshore drilling.
  So here's an amendment, here's an agreement that was signed over a 
year

[[Page H4103]]

ago. It took over a year for it to come here. Because of no action on 
their part, it was going nowhere legislatively until Mr. Duncan said, 
Listen, this is something we ought to do.
  So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, is the reason why they're taking 
this one element--and I'll talk about that in a moment--as a reason to 
oppose this legislation really because they're trying to cover up the 
fact they don't like any offshore drilling?

                              {time}  1340

  I'll let somebody draw whatever conclusions they want. I simply ask 
the rhetorical question.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be more than happy to yield to my 
friend on that point. I assume he wants to talk about that, and I'm 
more than happy to engage in that debate.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.
  I believe Ms. Waters stated very clearly that there is substantial, 
if not unanimous, support on this side for this agreement without this 
provision, which would ultimately lead to the development of these 
resources.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I think if you go 
back and look at the bills that have come in front of this body before 
in the last Congress--in fact, later on today--you will find that the 
overwhelming opposition to that legislation, if it's going to mirror 
what happened in the last Congress, was to oppose offshore development. 
So I'll just make that observation. Others can draw the conclusion.
  But here is something that is very curious about this debate on why 
we should defeat this legislation because of this provision dealing in 
disclosure.
  Anybody could have offered an amendment to take that provision out of 
the bill. It would have been perfectly in order. There's no 
parliamentary problem with striking from a bill. And there was an 
amendment, by the way, that was offered by a Member from the other body 
but was withdrawn. Both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that are arguing against this because of this provision, they could 
have offered the amendment. It would have been made in order, and we 
could have debated it. But the amendment wasn't offered. I don't know 
why.
  Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will be more than happy to yield to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Just as you have come to some conclusion that maybe we 
are opposing this bill because we're opposed to offshore drilling, 
which is not true----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I simply said that 
there is a pattern in this administration and with my friends on the 
other side that they oppose that. I'll let others draw that conclusion.
  I will be glad to yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
  When you raised the question about why didn't we offer an amendment 
and the Senate can offer an amendment, I have drawn a conclusion. Why 
are you trying to get credit for putting this in the bill with the oil 
companies?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, we believe that this 
provision in Dodd-Frank is contrary to the agreement because the only 
moneys--and I'll get to this point. I was going to get to it later, but 
I'll get to it right now. The only moneys that go to Mexico are what 
the Obama administration agreed to for these royalties or leases. That 
is the only money that goes to Mexico. So we believe that there's no 
reason to have this particular requirement in the bill, and that's why 
we did it.
  Now you can disagree with that, of course. You have every right to do 
it. But if you really believe that this bill should be defeated because 
of that provision, why didn't you offer an amendment? Wait, there was 
an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn. Curious? I don't know 
what their reasons are.
  So all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a good piece of 
legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And if the Senate, to 
conclude, has a different view, let them pass their different view and 
we'll work it out. Isn't that the reason our Founding Fathers had two 
bodies? So we can work out the differences?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hastings: On May 15, 2013, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, 
     as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a 
     result of your having consulted with the Committee on 
     Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that 
     fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our 
     committee from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor.
       The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with 
     our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of 
     H.R. 1613, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and that our committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that we may address any 
     remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. 
     Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of 
     an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1613, as 
     amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be included in your committee's report to 
     accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration thereof.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.
     Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
     Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon 
     Agreements Authorization Act. As you know, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered reported the bill, as amended, on 
     May 15, 2013. I appreciate your support in bringing this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives, and 
     accordingly, understand that the Committee on Financial 
     Services will forego action on the bill.
       The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1613 at 
     this time, the Committee on Financial Services does not waive 
     any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the 
     bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the 
     Committee on Financial Services represented on the conference 
     committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter 
     and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
       Thank you for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2013.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hastings: Thank you for sharing the amended 
     text of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary 
     Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, as marked up by 
     your Committee.
       Based on the portions of that text within Foreign Affairs 
     jurisdiction, I am writing to confirm the agreement of the 
     Foreign Affairs Committee to be discharged from consideration 
     of H.R. 1613 in order to expedite its consideration on the 
     House floor. In agreeing to waive consideration of that bill, 
     this Committee does not waive any jurisdiction that it has 
     over provisions in that bill or any other matter. This also 
     does not constitute a waiver of the participation of the 
     Committee of Foreign Affairs in any conference on this bill. 
     I ask that you include a copy of this letter and your 
     response in any Committee report on H.R. 1613, and in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill.
       Thank you again for your consideration and collegiality in 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2013.
     Hon. Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
     Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon

[[Page H4104]]

     Agreements Authorization Act. As you know, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered reported the bill, as amended, on 
     May 15, 2013. I appreciate your support in bringing this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives, and 
     accordingly, understand that the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
     will forego action on the bill.
       The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1613 at 
     this time, the Committee on Foreign Affairs does not waive 
     any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the 
     bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs represented on the conference 
     committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter 
     and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee 
     on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record 
     during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
       Thank you for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
                                                         Chairman.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.


          Amendment No. 1, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                  TITLE __-- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __. STATE RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED.

       Nothing in this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     affects the right and power of each State to prohibit 
     management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath 
     navigable waters, and the natural resources within such 
     lands, within its boundaries.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I want to thank the Rules Committee for ruling that this 
amendment is in order. I want to also thank the committee chair for 
giving me the opportunity to discuss this with him briefly before this 
matter came up before the House.
  This amendment should not be controversial. It reads as follows:

       Nothing in this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     affects the right and power of each State to prohibit 
     management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath 
     navigable waters, and the natural resources within such 
     lands, within its boundaries.

  This language may sound familiar to those who are familiar with the 
current division of authority between, on the one hand, the Federal 
Government and, on the other hand, the States. It's a reaffirmation of 
434 U.S.C. 1311(a), and 43 U.S.C. 1311 has a very notable title. It's 
called, ``The Rights of the States.'' That is the guarantee and purpose 
of the amendment before us today: to make sure and to reaffirm the 
rights of the States.
  The concept is simple. If land, or resources within those lands, 
falls within a State's boundaries, that State should have the right to 
manage that land and those resources in a manner that it sees fit. This 
is a principle that we in Florida hold dear, and it's an important 
principle in every State, and, in fact, an important principle to 
federalism itself.
  This principle has been enshrined in law since 1953, when the House 
passed H.R. 5134 to amend the Submerged Lands Act. A majority of 
Democrats supported that bill, as did an overwhelming majority of the 
Republicans. The final vote within the Republican caucus that year was 
191 in favor and only 12 opposed. It's my hope that we'll see similar 
bipartisan support--in fact, overwhelming support--today for this 
amendment to simply reaffirm that principle.
  As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I support transboundary 
agreements in general, and I hope that any dispute between the United 
States and any adjoining neighboring nation can be settled peacefully.
  This bill could be misconstrued without our amendment as potentially 
disturbing states' rights under the status quo. It calls for the 
``expeditious . . . development . . . of domestic mineral resources,'' 
on page 3, and limiting the ``authority to stop work on any 
installation . . . attached to the seabed of the United States,'' 
including those erected ``for the purpose of resource exploration, 
development, or production activities'' to ``inspection staff'' at the 
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which is on page 6 of 
the bill. Without our amendment, a future court that is unfamiliar with 
this subject might wrongly conclude that this statute has, in fact, 
curtailed State prerogatives.
  I don't believe that it was ever the intention of the Natural 
Resources Committee to make such a dramatic change to the status quo, 
to the detriment of the States and to states' rights. Therefore, this 
amendment today should not be controversial. It's merely a 
reaffirmation of existing law--a section of the United States law 
entitled, ``Rights of States''--and it's an effort to ensure that the 
States can choose to do within their own boundaries, and that that 
which they choose to do is that which will happen.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I find this amendment 
offered on this bill to be rather strange because the amendment usurps 
itself as an effort to protect states' rights. Well, the underlying 
bill is about an international agreement between the United States and 
Mexico, and that boundary is about 200 miles from the nearest 
shoreline. There is no jurisdiction of any State that goes that far 
out, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can assure the gentleman 
that there is nothing in this bill that would change any existing laws 
as it relates to states' rights and their waters.
  But this amendment isn't necessary. It's simply restating the status 
quo. The sponsor of the amendment and all those concerned with 
upholding states' rights can be assured that the existing rights of the 
individual 50 States are fully respected and in no way undermined by 
this bill, as I just mentioned. However, adopting this amendment could 
impact international relations with foreign states. And the reason why 
is because in foreign law, as I understand it, the term ``state'' means 
foreign government. There's no explanation in the amendment about 
states, so that raises a concern.

                              {time}  1350

  So by adopting this amendment, you could potentially destroy the 
agreement that we have in place. And what will that do? Well, it would 
delay American energy production, and it would delay the creation of 
American jobs.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I appreciate the comments of the committee chair, but I 
must respectfully disagree with him on the merits.
  First, with regard to the Gulf of Mexico, the restrictions on current 
development stretch 100 miles off the shores of Florida, a matter that 
is of great import in my State. Furthermore, the fact is that we cannot 
specifically restrain a future court from deciding contrary to the 
gentleman's opinion unless we do so in this bill.
  Now, we've already had the experience this week that, on Tuesday, a 
certain number of Members of this body were disappointed by a Supreme 
Court decision; and on Wednesday, other Members were disappointed by a 
Supreme Court decision. Both of those decisions had to do with 
federalism; both those decisions had to do with the construction of 
legislation. If we want to ascertain and commit to the fact that we're 
not changing current law, the only way to do that is to say that we are 
not changing current law. By not doing so, we would be giving, in 
effect, a hostage to future courts for the end of time.
  It's in the nature of the supremacy clause that unless we say we are 
not taking away states' rights, we might do so inadvertently. And 
that's exactly what this amendment would prevent.
  Now, with regard to the second point, I don't know what foreign law 
may provide with regard to States, but I do know what American law 
provides. In fact, not only in this title, not only in this chapter, 
but in this subchapter there's a definition of ``state,'' and that

[[Page H4105]]

definition is as following--this is 43 U.S.C. 1301, under the heading 
Definitions, and that says, G: ``The term 'state' means any state of 
the union.''
  Now, while I respect the gentleman's opinion, it's clear--from a 
clear and plain reading of the statute that we are amending--that in 
fact his position has no merit. Therefore, I urge the adoption of this 
amendment so that we can protect states' right, and in particular the 
rights of coastal States.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this 
legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Let's just be clear, America, what 
we're talking about and where we're talking about.
  This chart shows the Western Gap, the only area covered under the 
transboundary hydrocarbons agreement--the agreement negotiated by the 
Obama administration--to open up this area; 1.5 million acres in the 
Gulf of Mexico that's so far away from the shore of Florida that really 
makes this amendment not applicable.
  This is the area we're talking about, this 1.5 million acres that 
would produce American jobs and American energy resources.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just simply to close, I 
yield myself the balance of my time.
  This amendment is really unnecessary, and I think that chart points 
that out. You're talking hundreds of miles offshore, and yet the 
amendment asserts itself to protect states' rights. I'm sorry, Mr. 
Speaker, I cannot connect the dots on that.
  I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson), as modified.
  The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Grayson), as modified.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 1613 is postponed.


                                 Recess

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair for 
a period of less than 15 minutes.
  Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                              {time}  1409


                              After Recess

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Marchant) at 2 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 1613 will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When the House recessed, the Chair had 
declared that the noes prevailed on the Grayson amendment, as modified.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed 
by 5-minute votes on adoption of a motion to recommit H.R. 1613, if 
ordered; passage of H.R. 1613, if ordered; and the motion to suspend 
the rules on H.R. 1864.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, 
nays 213, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 291]

                               YEAS--213

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                               NAYS--213

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Fincher
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Payne
     Smith (WA)
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1438

  Messrs. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, KINGSTON, FORTENBERRY, CONAWAY, COLLINS 
of Georgia, and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. CHU, Messrs. NUGENT, CROWLEY, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, 
and Mr. LOEBSACK changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.

[[Page H4106]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker. During rollcall vote No. 291 on Grayson 
Amendment, H.R. 1613, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''

                              {time}  1440

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GARCIA. I am opposed to the bill in the current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                  TITLE __-- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. _01. AVOIDING ANOTHER BP DISASTER.

       (a) Safety Requirements.--In implementing a transboundary 
     agreement implemented or approved under this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall require that drilling 
     operations conducted pursuant to such an agreement meet 
     requirements for--
       (1) third-party certification of safety systems related to 
     well control, such as blowout preventers;
       (2) performance of blowout preventers, including 
     quantitative risk assessment standards, subsea testing, and 
     secondary activation methods;
       (3) independent third-party certification of well casing 
     and cementing programs and procedures;
       (4) mandatory safety and environmental management systems 
     by operators on the outer Continental Shelf;
       (5) procedures and technologies to be used during drilling 
     operations to minimize the risk of ignition and explosion of 
     hydrocarbons; and
       (6) procedures and technologies to protect the health and 
     safety of workers.
       (b) Increased Liability for Spill Clean-up.--As a condition 
     of any lease issued pursuant to any such agreement, the 
     Secretary may require increased liability for any damages 
     related to an oil spill occurring as a result of activities 
     under such a lease, for activities in water depths of 1000 
     feet or deeper.
       (c) Civil Penalties to Ensure Polluters Pay.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Penalty.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any 
     person who fails to comply with any provision of law with 
     respect to any action under any term of such a lease or a 
     license or permit issued under such a lease, or any 
     regulation or order issued under this Act, shall be liable 
     for a civil administrative penalty of not more than $80,000 
     for each day of the continuance of such failure
       (B) Threat of harm or damage.--If a failure described in 
     subparagraph (A) constitutes or constituted a threat of harm 
     or damage to life, property, or the marine, coastal, or human 
     environment, a civil penalty of not more than $150,000 shall 
     be assessed for each day of the continuance of the failure.
       (C)  Assessment and collection.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may assess and collect any such penalty.
       (D) Increase in maximum amount.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may increase the maximum amount of any penalty 
     established pursuant to this subsection.
       (2) Review of maximum penalties.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall review the 
     maximum amount of each penalty established pursuant to this 
     subsection, including any amount increased under paragraph 
     (1)(D), every 5 years and determine if such maximum amount is 
     appropriate.
       (B) Notice of increases.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress notice of the reasons for each increase by not later 
     than 60 days after the increase takes effect.

  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill. This 
will not delay or kill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the 
bill will proceed immediately to final passage, as amended.
  Just over 3 years ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, 
killing 11 workers and spilling 200 million gallons of oil into the 
Gulf of Mexico. Our Nation was gripped with images like this and this, 
of oil gushing into the gulf, washing up on to our shores.
  Mr. Speaker, this was the worst environmental disaster in our 
Nation's history, with economic costs of over $40 billion.
  While other Gulf States suffered more, Florida's tourism and fishing 
were hurt. Mr. Speaker, it could even be worse, more damaging next 
time. That's why my amendment that I am offering today is so important. 
The amendment will prevent another BP oil spill by imposing safety 
standards for drilling based on what we learned from this terrible 
accident. If such a disaster is to occur again, this amendment will 
also make sure that the polluter pays for the cleanup.
  As the BP oil accident shows, something happening hundreds of miles 
away affected Florida's coast and can easily bring oil to our State's 
shores. In south Florida, we know that these spills are not just a 
threat to the environment; they are a threat to our economy.
  An oil disaster off Florida would affect the lives of millions, 
including local fishermen, hotels, restaurant owners, small businesses, 
and families that depend on these businesses for their jobs and 
livelihoods.
  With approximately 90 million visitors per year, Florida is one of 
the top destinations of the world. Our tourism industry generates 
nearly $70 billion annually, supporting over 1 million jobs throughout 
the State. People from all over the country, in fact, all over the 
world, travel to Florida to enjoy our incredible beaches, our 
unparalleled sport fishing, and our State's unique natural treasures.
  Anglers from all over the world come to my district, to the village 
of Islamorada, the sports fishing capital of the world, to enjoy sports 
fishing that cannot be matched anywhere else in the world. My district 
also includes the Florida Everglades, the largest wetland in America 
and a jewel in our National Park System.
  In south Florida, we know our economic future depends on preserving 
our environment. This is why protecting Florida's coast from the 
dangers of offshore drilling has always drawn support from both sides. 
This is not a Democratic issue. This is not a Republican issue. It's a 
Florida issue, and, in fact, it's a national issue.
  At a time when we face so many important issues, we here in Congress 
need to work together to do what's right. While I am new to the ways of 
Washington, I hope and believe that we can put party pressures aside 
and put America's people first.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to ensure that we can protect 
our environment, our economy, our Nation from another disaster like the 
BP oil spill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in 
opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I urge opposition to this motion, Mr. 
Speaker.
  What we have here in this motion to recommit is just the latest 
attempt by a few on the other side of the aisle to cater to special 
interests instead of the needs of the American people.
  Behind me, I have a copy of the transboundary area that we're talking 
about, the Western Gap. You'll notice in that map you don't even see 
the State of Florida.
  This bill enacts an agreement between the United States Government 
and Mexico to open up a million and a half acres to offshore drilling 
in the Gulf of Mexico, an agreement negotiated by and signed by the 
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in February 2012.
  We want to make sure this agreement will help create American jobs. 
We want to make sure that we're developing our resources in a safe and 
responsible way. We want to make sure that this bill puts us on the 
path toward North American energy independence.
  This bill does all of those things, yet the gentleman that offers the 
motion says he is against the bill. Actually, he said he's for it, but 
for a lot of different reasons. But this is an attempt to delay the 
fact that we need to make changes.
  The time for delay is over. The time to come together in a bipartisan 
way to create jobs through energy is at

[[Page H4107]]

hand. We want to develop these resources to achieve North American 
energy independence and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of 
energy, and we want to reduce the cost of fuel for all Americans.

                              {time}  1450

  We want this bill to be part of an all-of-the-above, all-American 
energy strategy. We want to provide the regulatory clarity and the 
certainty that energy producers need to explore the area, create the 
jobs, and produce the energy that we need. And for all of you still on 
the fence about whether or not to support this bill, let us remember 
that this is the administration's agreement, and we actually want to 
get it enacted.
  So let's get to work creating American jobs while producing American 
energy. Let's defeat this motion and let's pass this bill to put 
Americans back to work.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               AYES--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Ellison
     Fincher
     Lamborn
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Smith (WA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1457

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 171, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                               AYES--256

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem

[[Page H4108]]


     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--171

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Fincher
     Gutierrez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Smith (WA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1504

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Neal was allowed to speak out of order.)


      Congratulating the Honorable Ed Markey on Election to Senate

  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, our colleague, Ed Markey, 
was elected to the United States Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, from the Adams family to the Kennedy family, 
Massachusetts has sent great talent to the United States Senate, and 
always a reminder that John Kennedy served in this House and thought it 
was a privilege before he went to the United States Senate.
  I also will just say a couple of personal things about our colleague. 
Nobody ever walked away from Ed Markey and said he didn't know what he 
was talking about or that he was uninformed. He engages the debate 
fully. And I must tell you, having known him for more than three 
decades, he is fulfilling a personal ambition--in addition to which he 
has promised me that he will take the humility of this institution and 
bring it to the United States Senate.
  The last point that I think is very important and a reminder to all 
of us, in the polling data that led up to Ed's victory, by 15 points 
the people said they thought it was his experience that would serve him 
well. That was the deciding factor in why they sent him to the United 
States Senate.
  A round of applause for our friend, Ed Markey.

                          ____________________