[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 94 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4109-H4129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OFFSHORE ENERGY AND JOBS ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2231.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2231.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1518
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to increase
energy exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf,
provide for equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, implement
the reorganization of the functions of the former Minerals Management
Service into distinct and separate agencies, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Gardner in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and
Jobs Act.
Unlike the President's plan that we heard from this week, which is to
impose new energy taxes and Federal red tape that will increase energy
prices and cost American jobs, this Republican plan will expand access
to our own U.S. energy resources in order to lower energy prices and
increase American jobs.
{time} 1520
Gas prices have nearly doubled since President Obama took office. The
national average today remains above $3.50 per gallon compared to the
$1.89 it was when he took office. We shouldn't have to accept
potentially $4-a-gallon gas prices, especially when we have the
resources right here at home. Higher gas prices mean we are making
tough budget choices. For small businesses, it may mean the difference
between hiring more workers or having to let some go. For families, it
may be the difference between replacing the worn-out household
appliance or making due with makeshift repairs. This is why access to
affordable energy is so vital.
For decades, most of our Nation's offshore areas were under a
moratorium, preventing any offshore development. All of that, Mr.
Chairman, changed in the summer of 2008 when outrageously high gas
prices made our Nation's energy struggles a regular topic of
conversation around the dinner table for American families. Later that
year, Congress and then-President Bush lifted those moratoria with the
hopes of fostering an era of increased energy production.
President Obama then came into office with a tremendous opportunity.
For the first time in more than a generation, he had the ability to
open new offshore areas to oil and natural gas production. Sadly,
instead, he went out of his way to shut down this opportunity by
putting forth a new 5-year offshore leasing plan that locks up 85
percent of our offshore areas. The plan includes no new drilling, which
results in no new American jobs. In fact, it includes the lowest number
of lease sales ever offered in an offshore lease plan. Mr. Chairman,
that's the worst record since President Jimmy Carter's.
We must do better. That's why we are here today to consider the
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. This legislation puts us back on the
right path: one that will open new areas to drilling, one that will
create 1.2 million American jobs, one that will lower energy prices,
and one that will generate $1.5 billion in new revenue to the Federal
Government. But it's not only energy jobs that will be created; it's
associated industries like manufacturing, boating, transportation, and
service industries like hotels and restaurants. They, too, will also
benefit.
This legislation requires the administration to implement a new 5-
year leasing plan that includes areas with the most oil and natural
gas, such as the mid-Atlantic and Alaska and off southern California.
It's not a ``drill everywhere'' plan but, rather, a ``drill smart''
plan that focuses on those areas where the greatest potential lies. It
would also require specific lease sales to be held off the coasts of
South Carolina and Virginia, the latter of which was originally
scheduled to take place in 2011 but was cancelled by the Obama
administration. There is bipartisan support in favor of the Virginia
lease sale, but, again, this administration canceled it and punted any
future sales until after 2017.
The bill also establishes a fair and equitable revenue sharing
program with all coastal States that have drilling off their coasts,
much like what the Gulf States currently enjoy. Revenue sharing will
create new incentives for opening offshore areas to drilling. Again,
more American energy production equates to more jobs and a stronger
economy.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes reforms to further enhance
the accountability, efficiency, safety, and ethical standards of
offshore energy operations. These reforms will allow for the robust
production of our Nation's offshore energy resources while ensuring
that all activity is conducted with proper oversight.
Offshore energy production has steadily declined under this
administration, and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's time to reverse that
trend. H.R. 2231 will remove government barriers that are currently
blocking access to our American energy resources. It will safely and
responsibly unlock our energy and allow us to create over a million new
American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Energy and
Jobs Act.
[[Page H4110]]
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we are again. It's kind of a Groundhog Day moment for Congress.
This bill, or individual parts of this bill, passed in the last
Congress five times and never went anywhere in the Senate, and it will
meet the same fate again.
Now, the premise here is that if we had mandatory offshore oil
leasing in the more sensitive areas of the coast--remember, 75 percent
of the known recoverable resources are available currently under lease.
Currently, there are 5,484 leases on the Outer Continental Shelf that
aren't producing. Those leases cover 30 million acres--85 percent of
the total acreage currently under lease. We estimate there are 18
billion barrels of oil under these leases and 50 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. When I asked the gentleman from the American Petroleum
Institute why they needed to put more acreage under lease when they're
sitting on all of this, his answer was, Well, you know, these things
take a long time.
If they take a long time, let's encourage them to develop what
they've already leased, to go after these 18 billion barrels of oil and
50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When they're making progress
there, then they might come back and petition for more, and we'll make
a decision at that point given the needs of the country; but the
premise that somehow by putting more leases out there--with no
requirement for them to perform--the price of gas will drop is
absolutely untrue. We all know that's untrue. The American consumers
know it's untrue.
The principal reason that underlies the 50-cent-a-gallon, one-week
run-up in May, which we're still paying, is refineries. Our refineries
need to be cleaned and maintained and have periodic maintenance, and,
oh, a couple of them have broken down. We have seen incredible
consolidation in the refinery industry, and it's always the excuse for
jacking up the price on Memorial Day and on the July Fourth weekend and
sticking it to the American consumers. Last year, they claimed that all
of the refineries were shut down. An investigative reporter went in and
got the air pollution records--no. Actually, they were operating, and
they were exporting gasoline from the United States to overseas and
were claiming there was a shortage here.
Now, we're in a world market. There's not much we can do about that.
So the world price is what we pay for oil and gas, and it's a
manipulated market; it's a collusive market. If we really wanted to do
something, Members on the other side would join me in getting the
administration to file a complaint against OPEC for manipulating the
markets and for violating the World Trade Organization. You would join
in investigating these suspicious refinery shutdowns, which I've asked
the Obama administration Energy Task Force to do. You would also join
us, instead of giving more latitude to speculators in the oil
companies, in actually reining in the speculators. Hey, the head of
ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for high prices as 75 cents a gallon is
due to excess speculation on Wall Street.
So there are some real things we could do that would bring relief
very quickly to American families, but those are not giving the oil
industry, which is sitting on 5,484 leases, covering 30 million acres
and 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas, more acreage to put under lease, particularly with mandatory
leasing in sensitive areas.
That's what this bill would do. We've passed it before. Well, not
``we.'' Collectively, the House has passed it before. I expect, as I
said, we will see that happen again today, but nothing will happen with
these bills in the United States Senate.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this
legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. While the U.S. is blessed with an abundance of energy
resources, we are also saddled with an administration that is throwing
up barriers to our energy security and economic prosperity.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2231, the
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. It passed out of the subcommittee I chair
on Energy and Mineral Resources.
The bill requires the President to implement a new 5-year plan that
includes the areas offshore containing the greatest known oil and
natural gas resources. This is a targeted approach that focuses on
specific areas in which we know the most energy resources are located.
The bill requires lease sales to be held off of Virginia, which were
originally scheduled to take place in 2011, and South Carolina.
{time} 1530
In both States, there is strong, bipartisan support from the public,
the congressional delegations and the Governors for drilling off their
coasts.
Finally, the bill implements important reforms to strengthen the
safety, accountability and efficiency of the Federal Government's
offshore agencies. It establishes a fair revenue-sharing program for
all coastal States.
Both provisions would further encourage the safe, expanded production
of offshore energy.
Mr. Chairman, high gas prices hurt all of us, and the impacts are
felt every day. Families are forced to make tough decisions in their
budgets, schools run fewer buses and the costs of businesses go up,
forcing companies to hire fewer workers. But the concerns of America's
energy consumers, the Nation's small businesses and families have
largely been ignored by this administration.
When President Obama took office, nearly all of the offshore areas
were open to energy production. The administration had the tremendous
opportunity for the first time in more than a generation to open new
areas of the OCS for oil and gas drilling. Available to them for the
first time since 1982 was the opportunity to access billions of barrels
of oil that have been held closed under lock and key for decades.
Instead of jumping on the opportunity to increase our energy
security, President Obama discarded a plan to develop these new areas,
canceled lease sales and closed off 85 percent of our Outer Continental
Shelf. This crushed the hopes and economic opportunity for the people
in States like Virginia. In fact, the Obama plan put forward the lowest
number of lease sales since the Jimmy Carter administration.
Nearly one year later, we are here again today to attempt to change
the wrong course upon which this administration has set our Nation and
our energy future. Recently, the Energy Information Administration
issued their report for energy production on Federal lands for fiscal
year 2012. It should be no surprise that the sale of crude on Federal
lands decreased 5 percent in 2012, with an 8 percent decrease in
Federal offshore volumes.
While this administration seems content with the status quo, this
legislation is about making the right choices now to foster new access
and new energy for the future. H.R. 2231 makes it clear that waiting
until 2017, 5 more years, is too long for new energy production.
Increased American energy production is one of the best ways to
create new American jobs, strengthen the economy and generate new
revenue to help tackle the national debt. We cannot keep ignoring the
vast resources potential of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. I applaud
Chairman Hastings for his leadership on this issue, and I encourage all
of my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Oregon.
Each summer as Americans rush to our beaches for fun and relaxation,
the majority of the Republicans here in the House rush forward with
ill-conceived legislation to open up those same beaches and coastlines
to unsafe drilling. Today we have a bill that has been accelerated
through the legislative process and has been drafted in a way that
limits the opportunity for Members representing coastal States to
protect shorelines and coastal economies.
The bill we're considering would allow Big Oil to put drilling rigs
off the Atlantic, Pacific and Alaskan coasts
[[Page H4111]]
without enacting key drilling safety reforms that we know should be
there following the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. This is bad policy
through a bad process, all so this bill can enjoy the same fate that so
many irresponsible drilling bills that the majority has rammed through
have experienced.
They put these bills forward in apparent ignorance that a law
requires passage by both houses and signature by the President. The
administration was never given an opportunity to testify on this
legislation, and now the President has suggested that he would veto
this bill if it ever made it to his desk.
In committee markup, I offered an amendment to protect the Atlantic
coastal communities, including my home State of New Jersey, which is
strongly opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast. The amendment was
rejected on a party-line vote.
Need I remind my colleagues that about 70 million people live in
Atlantic coastal regions. And according to NOAA data, Atlantic
commercial fisheries were valued at $1.8 billion in 2011, and the New
Jersey Travel Industry Association says New Jersey's travel and tourism
is worth about $38 billion a year, supporting more than 500,000 jobs.
All this depends on the pristine conditions of our beaches and
shoreline.
But this isn't just about what New Jersey wants. Energy development
of the OCS is a Federal issue. And as we learned during the debate on
my amendment, any oil spill off the coast of, let's say, Virginia, will
drift quickly to the coast of New Jersey and other northeastern States.
I submitted an amendment this week, but it was ruled not in order.
The Rules Committee seems to think it's strange to want to collect
fees--rent on drilling plots that belong to the public. Fees should be
collected on all leases, producing or not. I think it's worth noting
that according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, as of June of
this year, there were more than 30 million acres of non-producing
leases, five times more than the 5.6 million leased acres where oil
production is currently occurring. Oil and gas doesn't need more
acreage to drill on. They need to drill on the leases they currently
hold.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1
minute.
Mr. HOLT. In addition to these leases, we're considering this bill on
the heels of the President's speech announcing his plan to reduce
carbon pollution and to mitigate the threats of global climate change.
I realize the authors of this bill don't put much stock in what the
President had to say the other day. But as elected representatives, we
have a moral obligation to act. As the climate changes, there will be
stronger superstorms, worse floods, more withering droughts, more
intense wildfires. The science is overwhelming, but many of my
colleagues in Congress would prefer to deepen our dependence on fossil
fuels.
We're considering this bill at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and
it's the wrong bill. The crisis is not waning. The crisis of climate
change is real. President Obama is doing all he can administratively
while Congress fiddles. It is no coincidence that as Democrats work to
address climate change, Republicans in the House recklessly pursue a
``drill, baby, drill'' agenda.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of
the committee.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is a jobs bill. It
creates American jobs, producing American energy. So it's an energy
security bill, as well. And there can be no national security without
energy security. So this is a national security bill, as well.
Virginians get it, South Carolinians get it and Americans get it. The
first domino is the jobs that are created on the offshore rigs. But if
you ride on Highway 90 from Lafayette, Louisiana, down toward New
Iberia and Houma, Louisiana, you're going to see on both sides of the
road business after business after business that is supporting the
offshore industries. These are pipe welders, pipefitters, mechanics and
the service industry.
You know what? Those guys contribute to the Chamber of Commerce and
the United Way, and they go to church, they tithe and they eat at the
local restaurants. This is a true job creator, and the first domino is
the domino of putting Americans to work offshore, and that's what this
bill does by opening up more areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. And
with the trickle down, all the other dominos fall that provide money to
the economies that desperately need it in this country in all the
offshore areas.
We want it in South Carolina. They want it in Virginia. And Americans
want us to meet our energy needs with their own resources. That's why I
urge the passage of this legislation, and I thank the chairman for his
leadership.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 4 minutes to an outstanding new member of the
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).
{time} 1540
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a messy conglomeration of
retread ideas that wastes this Chamber's time. The various titles in
this bill have been rejected by the Senate, by many of the affected
States, and have a zero chance of being signed by the President.
Even when some of the ideas in this bill have merit, such as
codifying the reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service,
or addressing the temporary nature of Interior's authority to collect
inspection fees, these ideas are cobbled together with provisions that
are a mess of ``drill-baby-drill'' slogan-over-substance dead ends. So
I get it; this is a message bill.
Well, here's where I think the message is wrong: Americans have a
right to weigh in on government actions in their backyard. This bill
eliminates that opportunity by mandating lease sales and gagging the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Americans should all be able to share in the value of their public
lands. This bill, however, takes the sale of a public asset and sends
much of the revenue to only a few States, instead of either paying down
the deficit or spending it on programs of national benefit to all
Americans.
Again, Americans should be told the truth about the nonexistent
effect on gas prices of expanded U.S. drilling. As my colleague from
Oregon explained so well, the price of crude is set in a global market,
one where the countries with the greatest reserves have formed a
cartel, which decreases supply to the world when we increase production
in order for them to keep the prices propped up. So, unfortunately, we
are actually not keeping gas prices down by increasing U.S. production.
I am also very disappointed that an amendment that I filed was not
made in order. My amendment would have prevented the Interior
Department from doing business with companies that did not have a
formal policy preventing discrimination based upon sexual orientation
and gender identity. This amendment would have required oil companies
that are not in compliance to certify that they would only hire
individuals based on merit and not sexual orientation or gender
identity, and they would prevent other discriminations and harassments
if they want to purchase oil or gas leases.
These policies are not unusual that I'm asking: 88 percent of Fortune
500 companies have formal nondiscrimination policies prohibiting
harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In
fact, all of the major integrated oil companies have sexual orientation
nondiscrimination policies except one, ExxonMobil. In the past,
ExxonMobil has explained that they're not in violation of State and
local nondiscrimination laws because of the Federal Defense of Marriage
Act, and that trumped local statutes. Well, that argument has been
vitiated since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA as unconstitutional.
There is also extensive precedent of the Federal Government requiring
contractors to have nondiscrimination policies based on race, color,
religion, sex, and national origin. Our government dollars and
resources should only be used when we are assured that the most
qualified individuals are all equally considered.
[[Page H4112]]
Now is the time for ExxonMobil to respect the Constitution and enact
a formal policy preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation
and gender identity. We Americans should not accept discrimination in
any form.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), a member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Offshore
Energy and Jobs Act. I applaud Chairman Hastings for his leadership on
this bill that I believe will lower energy prices through the increased
production of offshore resources.
This is not only a jobs bill but a path to energy independence and
relief to the American consumer's pocketbook--a concept this
administration claims they support, but fails to follow through with.
Just this week, the President directed EPA to put more regulations on
the energy sector. These regulations will increase costs, which will be
passed on to all American consumers and stifle domestic energy
production, taking us further off the path to energy independence.
I know my constituents do not believe that this heavy-handed approach
to regulations and increasing costs to millions of families across the
country is the answer to our problem.
Oklahomans want leadership on energy policy, not hollow promises
meant to appease a political party. I believe this bill is just one
step of many that can be taken to get America to energy independence.
Mr. Chairman, I stand with my constituents who believe that this path
to energy independence begins here at home. I encourage my fellow
Members to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just to inject a few facts into the
debate, although we often ignore those around here: oil production from
Federal lands is higher now than it was at the end of the Bush
administration. We have produced 596 million barrels of oil from
Federal lands last year, compared with 565 in 2008; and the Energy
Information Administration found that oil production is higher on
public lands offshore now than it was at the end of the Bush
administration. We have produced 474 million barrels of oil last year,
compared to 462 in 2008, but sometimes facts are inconvenient things.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), an esteemed member of the Ways and Means and
Budget Committees.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for
Chairman Hastings. He's a fair, civil individual. But this bill is off
the charts. At least the last one that we voted on had some redeeming
qualities--some redeeming qualities.
We know there's more oil been produced in the last 3\1/2\ years. The
increase is greater than the previous 20 years. So you're trying to
target the administration, and the administration can speak for itself
and defend itself, but this is not right. This is not right. This is
not right.
So let's talk about this. I am opposed to this legislation. This bill
would completely rewrite the administration's plan for offshore leasing
in a reckless and irresponsible manner. For example, this bill would
force the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sale 220, located
off the shore of Virginia, 70 miles from the beaches of my home State
of New Jersey.
Now, look, a lot of the folks that are going to vote for this bill
voted against even helping those people in New Jersey respond to the
Sandy storm. You know it, and I know it. And here we are on the floor
perpetrating untruths about why this is needed now. Look, it's not the
amount of land that we've set aside on water or on land for oil
exploration and production. We've got plenty of oil coming out of the
ground. We don't have any refineries, and this is the same debate we
had 25 years ago. How dare anybody stand in this astute body and then
claim we don't care if gas prices go up. The fact of the matter is this
is an oil Congress and this is an oil economy, and you don't want to
bring in--I want to talk about the special interests of the people who
are hurting out there.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. I want to talk about the special interests--not oil
companies--us. Let's talk about us and what we get out of this.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman,
the administration is committed to ensuring that American taxpayers
receive a fair return from the sale of public resources, public land.
As drafted, as this bill is before us right now, the revenue-sharing
provisions of H.R. 2231 would ultimately reduce the net return to the
taxpayers from development of Federal resources directed to be leased
under this bill.
So, with summer upon us, tourism at the Jersey shore is one of our
State's greatest economic drivers. These jobs that are committed, these
jobs depend upon the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts,
and the legislation before us now puts those jobs at risk. For
communities across the State still working to rebuild from Sandy, this
is not a risk they are willing to take.
Instead of bending over backwards for Big Oil, we need to bend over
and help as best we can the average citizen. I ask for a ``no'' vote on
this.
{time} 1550
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my
colleague from Virginia, I'd just point out that the CBO estimates that
there will be revenue coming into the Federal Government of
approximately $1.5 billion.
At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Offshore
Energy and Jobs Act, a bill that will create thousands of new jobs in
Virginia while lowering the cost of energy for all Americans.
Last month I traveled throughout my district, visiting local
communities to discuss the impact of high energy prices. At each stop
the same message rang clear: the cost of energy continues to have a
significant negative impact on our small businesses, our farmers and
our families.
Not only do we see higher prices at the gas pump, but high fuel
prices have triggered higher prices across the board. People are paying
more for groceries and are witnessing their utility costs rise at a
time when they can least afford it. There is no question Americans
continue to suffer from Washington's failure to adopt a sensible energy
policy.
The President's consistently failed to lead on this issue. The
administration continues to restrict leasing permits for oil and gas
exploration off the coast of the Commonwealth, preventing Virginians
from utilizing our natural resources.
Reopening the lease sales off our coast enjoys broad bipartisan
support in Virginia, yet Washington continues to insist that it knows
best what is best for the Commonwealth.
At a time when too many people in my district and across the country
are out of work, it is critical that we, in the House, do everything we
can to encourage creation of new jobs and reduce the burden on our
hardworking families, our farmers and our small businesses.
If adopted, this act will lead to the creation of over a million new
American jobs. In addition, this legislation will lead to lower energy
prices, economic growth and strengthened national security.
As the House continues to lead on creating a sensible domestic energy
policy, it is my hope that the Senate and the President will join us.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. And I
thank Chairman Hastings for his leadership and his committee for its
leadership on this important issue.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire
(Ms. Shea-Porter), another esteemed member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this poorly
conceived and deeply irresponsible legislation. This bill is a clear
giveaway to oil companies that are already posting record profits, and
it's a dramatic departure from the regionally-targeted offshore
drilling strategy that has led to domestic oil production rising to an
[[Page H4113]]
all-time high. In fact, it's even possible that America will be the
world's largest oil exporter within the next 7 years.
To most people, this would indicate that our current policies are
working, but apparently, not to the supporters of this bill. Instead,
they think taxpayers should give giant subsidies to Big Oil at the
likely expense of the economically critical tourism and fishing
industries in many States, including my own.
What we should be doing, 3 years after the awful BP spill in the
Gulf, is passing legislation that would protect workers, coastal
communities, and the environment from devastating spills. In the 3
years since that tragedy, Congress has yet to pass legislative reform
to improve the safety of offshore drilling.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will vote down this unnecessary
giveaway to oil companies and, instead, take up legislation to respond
to the BP oil spill and protect our coastal communities and workers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a leader in
the House here on energy development.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Let me make this simple. We need 20
million barrels of oil each day. We need this for oil and natural gas
to make plastics, fertilizer, for transportation, and other feedstock.
Almost 20 percent of our oil comes from OPEC. Our 10-year trade
deficit with OPEC is over $1 trillion. We can buy their oil or we
develop our own. Ours or theirs.
OPEC money funds the Taliban, al Qaeda, and terrorism, and thousands
of servicemen have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded
by them.
We have vast supplies, more than 86 billion barrels offshore. We can
develop our own safely and responsibly, or we can rely on OPEC.
So the real question is this: Where do you want our men and women to
work?
Do you want them to wear helmets or hard hats?
Do we want them carrying rifles or wrenches, driving tanks or trucks?
Do you want them to be protecting foreign wells and fighting
terrorists paid off with OPEC oil money?
Or do we want our men and women working here in America for American
energy?
In my work in the Navy, I have seen too many of our American
servicemen and -women wounded. And so now the choice is simple. What do
you choose?
I choose American energy.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'd just like to respond to the gentleman who preceded me.
The statistic he used was accurate in 2005, the 20 million barrels a
day imported. And that was, of course, when George Bush was President
of the United States with the Bush-Cheney energy policy. And that was
57 percent, you know, of the oil we consumed.
Now, due to changes with fleet fuel economy standards and biofuels
and other steps taken by the Obama administration, actually, our daily
consumption is down to 18.5 million barrels. That's not bad. That's
almost an 8 percent decrease in a mere 7 years, with the President only
in office for 4\1/2\. And we are now only 36 percent dependent on
foreign oil.
That trend continues, of course, as I spoke earlier, about the
increase in production on Federal lands and Federal offshore lands
between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. So
actually, we are making significant progress with the new policies that
are designed to create less oil dependence, as opposed to the Bush-
Cheney energy policy, which was actually designed to increase our
dependence on fossil fuels.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership
on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Offshore Energy and Jobs
Act. For too long, our economy has remained stagnant and the
unemployment rate high. And for too long, hardworking American families
have been suffering the consequences. These tough economic times are,
in part, a direct result of our current energy policies.
Over the past several years, the Obama administration has been
leading this country in the wrong direction with regard to our domestic
energy production by enacting a plan that keeps 85 percent of America's
coastal areas off limits to energy exploration. These Federal barriers
have cost Americans jobs, surrendered much-needed revenue streams that
would benefit the States, and decreased access to drilling areas that
would allow us to become less dependent on foreign oil.
This administration has consistently been hostile to affordable
domestic energy. Just this week, a senior advisor to the President
said:
The one thing the President really needs to do now is to
begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal
plants. A war on coal is exactly what's needed.
This should not come as a surprise, since President Obama also has
said in the past, ``Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity
rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
So, Mr. Chairman, we must harness our resources, contrary to these
statements, not close them off. This bill reforms our current policy by
requiring the administration to submit a 5-year leasing plan by 2015
that contains new offshore areas with the greatest known oil and gas
reserves. Some of these areas have been estimated at 2.5 billion
barrels of oil, or up to 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
There's simply no reason not to explore these areas with so much
potential.
This legislation also establishes a fair revenue-sharing system among
coastal States where energy resources are explored. Whether it's off
the coast of California, along the Gulf of Mexico, or the coast of my
home State of Virginia, each State will share a percentage of revenue
from energy production off their shores.
This bill also ensures environmental protections remain a priority by
reorganizing the Interior Department to include the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, charged with overseeing environmental safety.
Now, studies have indicated that energy production offshore, in my
home State of Virginia, if this legislation is put into law, could
create almost 2,000 new jobs in Virginia alone and produce 750 million
barrels of oil and over 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Mr. Chairman, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act will lower gas prices
for working families. It will strengthen our national security, and
help create up to a million new jobs across America in the long term.
The people of this country deserve a government focused on restoring
the faith in our economy, and this bill is a step in the right
direction.
{time} 1600
Again, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for his hard work on this
measure, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this
legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman is prepared to close, I
am prepared to close.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as
I my consume.
The majority leader just put out some very impressive statistics on
the possible potential off of the east and west coasts if we opened up
these sensitive areas to mandatory leasing; but it's actually smaller
than the known reserves under the leases the Federal Government has
already let to oil companies, which they have thus far refused to
develop: 5,484 leases, 30 million acres, 18 billion barrels of oil--his
number was smaller than that--and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas. His number was smaller than that.
So it's the premise that by mandatory leasing of these sensitive
areas we're going to somehow have some sort of a boon to production as
opposed to somehow incentivizing these oil companies not to sit on
these leases forever. We have offered legislation previously from our
side to require development of leases within a certain period of time,
with escalating costs over time, and with the potential of turning
those back and letting them be re-leased to companies that actually
want to do the work.
[[Page H4114]]
People say, Well, these oil companies won't just sit on it. Yeah,
they'll sit on it. It's worth more every day. And they don't pay hardly
anything to sit on it. Does anybody think the price of oil is going to
be cheaper 5 years from now than it is today? So if they sit on a
Federal lease--and, oh, maybe we can get some more to sit on for the
future--then that resource which they paid for in 1999 when oil was
much cheaper is a phenomenally profitable resource.
So to say we must open up these sensitive areas now is disingenuous
at best as opposed to incentivizing the industry to use those which are
already leased and which have known resources that exceed the
speculative resources under these in sensitive areas off California,
off the east coast of the U.S., and in Bristol Bay, where there's a $2
billion a year totally sustainable fishing industry. It's not worth
those risks.
The majority leader went on to castigate the administration. I know
that many people's speeches are written in advance by their staff and
they may not have been listening to the earlier debate and some of the
facts I put out, or whatever happened. As I pointed out, during the
Bush administration we were importing 20 million barrels of oil a day.
That was 2005. And that was 57 percent of our consumption. Under the
new policies of the Obama administration, which have led to
conservation, more fuel-efficient cars, and biofuels, we are importing
only 18.5 million barrels a day. That is 36 percent.
So we have made progress, and we should continue down that path. To
lease more fossil fuel resources offshore is not a particularly
creative 21st century solution. It may be a grand mid-20th century
solution, which was much reflected in the Bush-Cheney energy policy.
Actually, at the time when it passed, I said it would have been
embarrassing policy for the 1950s, and it was tragic for the 21st
century in terms of the potential we have with conservation, alternate
fuels, and other measures we can take.
To rush this bill forward--and it will be rushed forward--to die in
the Senate is not going to lower the price at the pump for any
American. Again, the majority leader referenced that. And I made a
statement on that earlier.
We're experiencing, not an oil shortage, but an artificial refinery
shortage in the United States of America, which is used as an excuse to
jack up prices and stick it to the American driving public every year
in May and June and July when our families want to go on vacation. It's
stretching their wallets.
If we took steps against the collusive shutdown of refineries, if we
took steps against the collusive behavior of OPEC and other countries
through the World Trade Organization, and if we took steps to crack
down on the speculation on Wall Street, which even the head of
ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for those sky-high prices; blame Wall
Street--75 cents a gallon is due to the Enron loophole created by a
former Republican Congress to allow wild speculation in energy futures
by Wall Street as opposed to producers and consumers coming together in
a regular commodities market. So if we wanted to provide relief today,
we'd crack down on speculation.
If we wanted to provide relief in the slightly longer term, we would
deal with the issues of collusion and OPEC and refineries. And if we
wanted to enhance the oil supply further, even though we're producing
near-record amounts today here in the United States of America, we
would encourage, incentivize, or disincentivize these oil companies who
are sitting on these many, many billion barrels of oil, trillions of
cubic feet of natural gas and refusing to develop their existing leases
while pandering for more.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes remaining
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate and I think
it's a good debate, because what's at stake here in the long-run, not
only for today but maybe potentially for generations ahead, is the
potential energy independence for our country. And I think that's a
worthy thing to have a debate about on the floor of the House.
Let me address a few of the issues that were brought up by my friend
on the other side of the aisle, and let me focus first on leases.
The argument on the other side leaves one to believe that leases are
just given out to anybody that wants them and then they just sit on
them. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lease is given out on
a potential area where there may be oil or natural gas. Those leases
cost money and have certain conditions of a time in which whoever buys
the lease has to develop that lease, and that can range anywhere from 5
to 10 years, depending on the depth of the water.
So the fact of the matter is these lease sales cost whoever purchases
the lease. Now if it costs, where does the money go? It comes to the
Federal Government. This is a source of income for the Federal
Government just on the lease sales.
Now, why would any business want to spend money and not try to get a
return on it? Many times, these leases then are reverted back to the
Federal Government. In fact, the average, depending where you are and
the depth, can be as high as 20 percent. It can be as low as 10
percent. On average, it's around 15 percent. So these lease blocks come
back to the Federal Government. And guess what. They can be relet
again. In fact, in some cases, over 40 percent are relet. What does
that mean? That means the Federal Government gets another chance--and
still without any energy production, I might add--just on the lease
sales.
And then you have a truism, I suppose, and maybe not what is
understood by a lot of people, but I've heard this over and over, that
when you have a lease, you really don't know if there's oil there until
you go through all the technology to find it. But the ultimate last
step is to drill. And if you're lucky, then you'll get something that
you can develop; but if not, all of that money is spent and you get no
return back.
This is a fact from the standpoint of how leases work. Nobody is
going to sit on leases unless they felt that there is a potential
there. If not, the terms of the lease sale means it goes back to the
Federal Government, and that is something that I think we need to
probably understand more than we do now.
And then there's the issue of cartels. I think that was mentioned. I
think history shows that whenever there is a cartel, I don't care what
the commodity is, the very best way to beat the cartel is to outsupply
the cartel. And that's precisely what this bill is about, and it's
precisely because of the new technology that has been developed by the
oil and gas industry to drill smart, which is what this bill does.
The potential resources offshore in this country are huge, enough so,
that some people say we could be the premier supplier of crude in the
next 20 years--and that includes comparing ourselves to the Middle
East.
{time} 1610
Now, it has also been stated that since this administration took
office, oil and gas production is up. That's true, it is up; but it's
not up on Federal lands. And this is precisely what this bill
addresses, oil and gas leasing on Federal lands.
Most of that is on private lands and most of it, frankly, is in North
Dakota and in west Texas. But if you look at what the results are of
this administration as it relates to what their jurisdiction is--which
of course is Federal lands and offshore--the Congressional Research
Service, a part of Congress, has noted that the recent increase in U.S.
oil and natural gas can be attributed to State and private lands, and
not Federal. Now, that's what the CRS said, but I can go a step
further.
There is a Federal agency within the Department of Energy, the Energy
Information Agency. Now, this is an agency within the Obama
administration, I might add, Mr. Chairman. They say that total Federal
offshore production dropped 8 percent last year and natural gas dropped
19 percent last year. This is on Federal offshore. But it goes even
further.
Since the President took office in 2009, Federal offshore production
is down 12 percent and natural gas production is down 40 percent. Now,
Mr.
[[Page H4115]]
Chairman, I'm going to repeat, this is information that comes from the
Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. That is an agency
within the Obama administration. So while we have increased oil and gas
production in this country, it is, in fact, in spite of this
administration, not because of.
The reason why this legislation is so important--again, it's not done
for a day; it's done for future generations--it is in our best
interests. A growing economy needs a certainty of energy. This bill
provides a certainty of energy because we are drilling on Federal
offshore areas.
And it has a national security aspect to it all, Mr. Chairman. You
know, every day we hear news about the Middle East and the volatility
in the Middle East, and yet we talk--OPEC is principally positioned in
the Middle East, not wholly, but principally in the Middle East. Is it
not in our best interest, therefore, when we know we have these
resources, to utilize them from a national security standpoint?
Finally, of course, it's been said over and over--and it's so true--
energy jobs are good jobs; they're good-paying jobs. Why don't we want
to make sure that we can create more American jobs with American energy
for national security purposes? Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what
this legislation does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
2231, The Offshore Energy and Jobs Act and H.R. 1613, The Outer
Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization
Act.
H.R. 2231 directs the Interior Department to develop a new five-year
offshore leasing plan that makes available for oil and gas exploration
and development at least 50% of the unleased coastal areas with the
most potential for energy production, and it creates a nationwide
revenue sharing system so coastal states will receive a share of the
federal royalties. It also requires that drilling be allowed off the
coasts of California, South Carolina and Virginia and statutorily
reorganizes the Interior Department agencies that oversee offshore
leasing and permitting, safety inspections and revenue collection.
While I do not agree with some of the environmental provisions in
this bill, I support it because it is a message bill about the
importance of accessing our offshore resources. While leasing and
permitting has come back some since the Deepwater Horizon accident, it
is not back to the level it was before the spill. Additionally with the
President reneging on certain areas originally contained in his 2012-
2017 Five Year Offshore Leasing Plan, our future access over the next
decade is extremely limited. We need to open new offshore areas up for
production instead of producing on the same lands we have for decades.
H.R. 1613 would approve the February 2012 agreement between the
United States and Mexico concerning transboundary oil and gas
reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. It also provides guidelines that the
administration must follow in implementing all future transboundary
hydrocarbon agreements.
H.R. 1613 is different than H.R. 2231 in that it is not a message
bill. It gives the State Department the authority it needs to move
forward on an important negotiated agreement with Mexico so that our
respective countries can jointly develop in the Gulf of Mexico. I am
hopeful we can get this bill to the President's desk for his signature
soon.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and
Jobs Act. By requiring offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic
Ocean, this bill threatens New Jersey's coastal environment, fishing,
tourism and the associated jobs and economic activity. This bill is the
same old failed attempt by the Republican majority to give away public
resources to wealthy, multi-national corporations at the cost of
American taxpayers and our environment.
In New Jersey, tourism is a top industry, and we rely on our beaches,
fisheries and clean ocean to attract that tourism. In 2011, the
commercial fishing industry in New Jersey generated $6.6 billion in
sales and contributed $2.4 billion to gross state product, while
supporting 44,000 jobs. At the same time, New Jersey's recreational
fisheries generated $1.7 billion in sales and contributed $871 million
to gross state product, while supporting 10,000 jobs.
I made an effort to give a voice to those Americans living on the
Atlantic Coast who want to protect their livelihoods, who want to
preserve a clean ocean and who want to ensure the health of marine
life. I proposed an amendment to the bill which would have given the
House of Representatives an opportunity to vote on whether we should
force drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. However, my amendment was not
allowed to even come to a full vote because of Republican opposition.
At a time when domestic energy production is booming under President
Obama, this rushed expansion of unsafe drilling into environmentally
sensitive areas is completely unwarranted. This legislation
unnecessarily rewards wealthy, multi-national who are sitting on 30
million acres worth of approved leases, waiting to drill until prices
are even higher.
Energy independence is a matter of smart economic progress and
national security and the American people deserve real proposals that
will move our country forward. The American people deserve better than
this same old bill that is sure to go nowhere once again.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee print 113-16. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 2231
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 ``Offshore Energy and Jobs
Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS
Sec. 101. Outer Continental Shelf leasing program reforms.
Sec. 102. Domestic oil and natural gas production goal.
Sec. 103. Development and submittal of new 5-year oil and gas leasing
program.
TITLE II--DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT NEW OCS SALES IN VIRGINIA,
SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CALIFORNIA
Sec. 201. Requirement to conduct proposed oil and gas Lease Sale 220 on
the Outer Continental Shelf offshore Virginia.
Sec. 202. South Carolina lease sale.
Sec. 203. Southern California existing infrastructure lease sale.
Sec. 204. Environmental impact statement requirement.
Sec. 205. National defense.
Sec. 206. Eastern Gulf of Mexico not included.
TITLE III--EQUITABLE SHARING OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES
Sec. 301. Disposition of Outer Continental Shelf revenues to coastal
States.
TITLE IV--REORGANIZATION OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT AGENCIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 401. Establishment of Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and
Minerals and Assistant Secretary of Ocean Energy and
Safety.
Sec. 402. Bureau of Ocean Energy.
Sec. 403. Ocean Energy Safety Service.
Sec. 404. Office of Natural Resources revenue.
Sec. 405. Ethics and drug testing.
Sec. 406. Abolishment of Minerals Management Service.
Sec. 407. Conforming amendments to Executive Schedule pay rates.
Sec. 408. Outer Continental Shelf Energy Safety Advisory Board.
Sec. 409. Outer Continental Shelf inspection fees.
TITLE V--UNITED STATES TERRITORIES
Sec. 501. Application of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act with respect
to territories of the United States.
TITLE I--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS
SEC. 101. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS.
Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this
section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and
conduct lease sales including at least 50 percent of the
available unleased acreage within each outer Continental
Shelf planning area considered to have the largest
undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources
(on a total btu basis) based upon the most recent national
geologic assessment of the outer Continental Shelf, with an
emphasis on offering the most geologically prospective parts
of the planning area.
``(B) The Secretary shall include in each proposed oil and
gas leasing program under this section any State subdivision
of an outer Continental Shelf planning area that the Governor
of the State that represents that subdivision requests be
made available for leasing. The Secretary may not remove such
a subdivision from the program until publication of the final
program.
``(C) In this paragraph the term `available unleased
acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf
that is not under lease at the
[[Page H4116]]
time of a proposed lease sale, and that has not otherwise
been made unavailable for leasing by law.
``(6)(A) In the 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the
Secretary shall make available for leasing any outer
Continental Shelf planning areas that--
``(i) are estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000
barrels of oil; or
``(ii) are estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000
cubic feet of natural gas.
``(B) To determine the planning areas described in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document
entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of
Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of
the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.
SEC. 102. DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION GOAL.
Section 18(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production Goal.---
``(1) In general.--In developing a 5-year oil and gas
leasing program, and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall determine a domestic strategic production goal for the
development of oil and natural gas as a result of that
program. Such goal shall be--
``(A) the best estimate of the possible increase in
domestic production of oil and natural gas from the outer
Continental Shelf;
``(B) focused on meeting domestic demand for oil and
natural gas and reducing the dependence of the United States
on foreign energy; and
``(C) focused on the production increases achieved by the
leasing program at the end of the 15-year period beginning on
the effective date of the program.
``(2) Program goal.--For purposes of the 5-year oil and gas
leasing program, the production goal referred to in paragraph
(1) shall be an increase by 2032 of--
``(A) no less than 3,000,000 barrels in the amount of oil
produced per day; and
``(B) no less than 10,000,000,000 cubic feet in the amount
of natural gas produced per day.
``(3) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually,
beginning at the end of the 5-year period for which the
program applies, to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate on the progress of the
program in meeting the production goal. The Secretary shall
identify in the report projections for production and any
problems with leasing, permitting, or production that will
prevent meeting the goal.''.
SEC. 103. DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMITTAL OF NEW 5-YEAR OIL AND GAS
LEASING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) by not later than July 15, 2014, publish and submit to
Congress a new proposed oil and gas leasing program under
section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1344) for the 5-year period beginning on such date and
ending July 15, 2020; and
(2) by not later than July 15, 2015, approve a final oil
and gas leasing program under such section for such period.
(b) Consideration of All Areas.--In preparing such program
the Secretary shall include consideration of areas of the
Continental Shelf off the coasts of all States (as such term
is defined in section 2 of that Act, as amended by this Act),
that are subject to leasing under this Act.
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 18(d)(3) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344(d)(3)) is amended
by striking ``or after eighteen months following the date of
enactment of this section, whichever first occurs,''.
TITLE II--DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT NEW OCS SALES IN VIRGINIA,
SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CALIFORNIA
SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE
SALE 220 ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
OFFSHORE VIRGINIA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the exclusion of Lease
Sale 220 in the Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas
Leasing Program 2012-2017, the Secretary of the Interior
shall conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 220 under
section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1337) as soon as practicable, but not later than one year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Requirement To Make Replacement Lease Blocks
Available.--For each lease block in a proposed lease sale
under this section for which the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, under the
Memorandum of Agreement referred to in section 205(b), issues
a statement proposing deferral from a lease offering due to
defense-related activities that are irreconcilable with
mineral exploration and development, the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,
shall make available in the same lease sale one other lease
block in the Virginia lease sale planning area that is
acceptable for oil and gas exploration and production in
order to mitigate conflict.
(c) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--In
recognition that the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
leasing program and the domestic energy resources produced
therefrom are integral to national security, the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Defense shall work jointly
in implementing this section in order to ensure achievement
of the following common goals:
(1) Preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the
United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness
through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf.
(2) Allowing effective exploration, development, and
production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy
resources.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Lease sale 220.--The term ``Lease Sale 220'' means such
lease sale referred to in the Request for Comments on the
Draft Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and
Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 and Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Proposed 5-Year Program published January 21, 2009 (74 Fed.
Reg. 3631).
(2) Virginia lease sale planning area.--The term ``Virginia
lease sale planning area'' means the area of the outer
Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)) that is
bounded by--
(A) a northern boundary consisting of a straight line
extending from the northernmost point of Virginia's seaward
boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United
States exclusive economic zone located at 37 degrees 17
minutes 1 second North latitude, 71 degrees 5 minutes 16
seconds West longitude; and
(B) a southern boundary consisting of a straight line
extending from the southernmost point of Virginia's seaward
boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United
States exclusive economic zone located at 36 degrees 31
minutes 58 seconds North latitude, 71 degrees 30 minutes 1
second West longitude.
SEC. 202. SOUTH CAROLINA LEASE SALE.
Notwithstanding inclusion of the South Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf Planning Area in the Final Outer
Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 2012-2017, the
Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a lease sale not
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act for areas off the coast of South Carolina determined by
the Secretary to have the most geologically promising
hydrocarbon resources and constituting not less than 25
percent of the leasable area within the South Carolina
offshore administrative boundaries depicted in the notice
entitled ``Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Administrative Boundaries Extending from the Submerged Lands
Act Boundary seaward to the Limit of the United States Outer
Continental Shelf'', published January 3, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg.
127).
SEC. 203. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE LEASE
SALE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall offer
for sale leases of tracts in the Santa Maria and Santa
Barbara/Ventura Basins of the Southern California OCS
Planning Area as soon as practicable, but not later than
December 31, 2014.
(b) Use of Existing Structures or Onshore-Based Drilling.--
The Secretary of the Interior shall include in leases offered
for sale under this lease sale such terms and conditions as
are necessary to require that development and production may
occur only from offshore infrastructure in existence on the
date of the enactment of this Act or from onshore-based,
extended-reach drilling.
SEC. 204. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a multisale
environmental impact statement under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332)
for all lease sales required under this title.
(b) Actions To Be Considered.--Notwithstanding section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332), in such statement--
(1) the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing
alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental
effects of such alternative courses of action; and
(2) the Secretary shall only--
(A) identify a preferred action for leasing and not more
than one alternative leasing proposal; and
(B) analyze the environmental effects and potential
mitigation measures for such preferred action and such
alternative leasing proposal.
SEC. 205. NATIONAL DEFENSE.
(a) National Defense Areas.--This Act does not affect the
existing authority of the Secretary of Defense, with the
approval of the President, to designate national defense
areas on the Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to section
12(d) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1341(d)).
(b) Prohibition on Conflicts With Military Operations.--No
person may engage in any exploration, development, or
production of oil or natural gas on the Outer Continental
Shelf under a lease issued under this Act that would conflict
with any military operation, as determined in accordance with
the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Defense
and the Department of the Interior on Mutual Concerns on the
Outer Continental Shelf signed July 20, 1983, and any
revision or replacement for that agreement that is agreed to
by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior
after that date but before the date of issuance of the lease
under which such exploration, development, or production is
conducted.
SEC. 206. EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO NOT INCLUDED.
Nothing in this Act affects restrictions on oil and gas
leasing under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
(title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; 43 U.S.C. 1331
note).
TITLE III--EQUITABLE SHARING OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES
SEC. 301. DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES TO
COASTAL STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended--
[[Page H4117]]
(1) in the existing text--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``All rentals,'' and
inserting the following:
``(c) Disposition of Revenue Under Old Leases.--All
rentals,''; and
(B) in subsection (c) (as designated by the amendment made
by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph), by striking ``for the
period from June 5, 1950, to date, and thereafter'' and
inserting ``in the period beginning June 5, 1950, and ending
on the date of enactment of the Offshore Energy and Jobs
Act'';
(2) by adding after subsection (c) (as so designated) the
following:
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' includes a
territory of the United States.
``(2) New leasing revenues.--The term `new leasing
revenues'--
``(A) means amounts received by the United States as
bonuses, rents, and royalties under leases for oil and gas,
wind, tidal, or other energy exploration, development, and
production on new areas of the outer Continental Shelf that
are authorized to be made available for leasing as a result
of enactment of the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act and leasing
under that Act; and
``(B) does not include amounts received by the United
States under any lease of an area located in the boundaries
of the Central Gulf of Mexico and Western Gulf of Mexico
Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas on the date of
enactment of the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, including a
lease issued before, on, or after such date of enactment.'';
and
(3) by inserting before subsection (c) (as so designated)
the following:
``(a) Payment of New Leasing Revenues to Coastal States.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of
the amount of new leasing revenues received by the United
States each fiscal year, 37.5 percent shall be allocated and
paid in accordance with subsection (b) to coastal States that
are affected States with respect to the leases under which
those revenues are received by the United States.
``(2) Phase-in.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
paragraph (1) shall be applied--
``(i) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases
awarded under the first leasing program under section 18(a)
that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Offshore
Energy and Jobs Act, by substituting `12.5 percent' for `37.5
percent'; and
``(ii) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases
awarded under the second leasing program under section 18(a)
that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Offshore
Energy and Jobs Act, by substituting `25 percent' for `37.5
percent'.
``(B) Exempted lease sales.--This paragraph shall not apply
with respect to any lease issued under title II of the
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act.
``(b) Allocation of Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of new leasing revenues
received by the United States with respect to a leased tract
that are required to be paid to coastal States in accordance
with this subsection each fiscal year shall be allocated
among and paid to coastal States that are within 200 miles of
the leased tract, in amounts that are inversely proportional
to the respective distances between the point on the
coastline of each such State that is closest to the
geographic center of the lease tract, as determined by the
Secretary.
``(2) Minimum and maximum allocation.--The amount allocated
to a coastal State under paragraph (1) each fiscal year with
respect to a leased tract shall be--
``(A) in the case of a coastal State that is the nearest
State to the geographic center of the leased tract, not less
than 25 percent of the total amounts allocated with respect
to the leased tract;
``(B) in the case of any other coastal State, not less than
10 percent, and not more than 15 percent, of the total
amounts allocated with respect to the leased tract; and
``(C) in the case of a coastal State that is the only
coastal State within 200 miles of a least tract, 100 percent
of the total amounts allocated with respect to the leased
tract.
``(3) Administration.--Amounts allocated to a coastal State
under this subsection--
``(A) shall be available to the coastal State without
further appropriation;
``(B) shall remain available until expended;
``(C) shall be in addition to any other amounts available
to the coastal State under this Act; and
``(D) shall be distributed in the fiscal year following
receipt.
``(4) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a coastal State may use funds allocated and paid to it under
this subsection for any purpose as determined by the laws of
that State.
``(B) Restriction on use for matching.--Funds allocated and
paid to a coastal State under this subsection may not be used
as matching funds for any other Federal program.''.
(b) Limitation on Application.--This section and the
amendment made by this section shall not affect the
application of section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law
109-432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)), as in effect before the
enactment of this Act, with respect to revenues received by
the United States under oil and gas leases issued for tracts
located in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf Planning Areas, including such leases
issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV--REORGANIZATION OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT AGENCIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENERGY, LANDS,
AND MINERALS AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF OCEAN
ENERGY AND SAFETY.
There shall be in the Department of the Interior--
(1) an Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and Minerals, who
shall--
(A) be appointed by the President, by and with the advise
and consent of the Senate;
(B) report to the Secretary of the Interior or, if directed
by the Secretary, to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior;
(C) be paid at the rate payable for level III of the
Executive Schedule; and
(D) be responsible for--
(i) the safe and responsible development of our energy and
mineral resources on Federal lands in appropriate accordance
with United States energy demands; and
(ii) ensuring multiple-use missions of the Department of
the Interior that promote the safe and sustained development
of energy and minerals resources on public lands (as that
term is defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.));
(2) an Assistant Secretary of Ocean Energy and Safety, who
shall--
(A) be appointed by the President, by and with the advise
and consent of the Senate;
(B) report to the Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and
Minerals;
(C) be paid at the rate payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule; and
(D) be responsible for ensuring safe and efficient
development of energy and minerals on the Outer Continental
Shelf of the United States; and
(3) an Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management,
who shall--
(A) be appointed by the President, by and with the advise
and consent of the Senate;
(B) report to the Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and
Minerals;
(C) be paid at the rate payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule; and
(D) be responsible for ensuring safe and efficient
development of energy and minerals on public lands and other
Federal onshore lands under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Interior, including implementation of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)
and administration of the Office of Surface Mining.
SEC. 402. BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of the Interior a Bureau of Ocean Energy (referred to in this
section as the ``Bureau''), which shall--
(1) be headed by a Director of Ocean Energy (referred to in
this section as the ``Director''); and
(2) be administered under the direction of the Assistant
Secretary of Ocean Energy and Safety.
(b) Director.--
(1) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the
rate provided for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry
out through the Bureau all functions, powers, and duties
vested in the Secretary relating to the administration of a
comprehensive program of offshore mineral and renewable
energy resources management.
(2) Specific authorities.--The Director shall promulgate
and implement regulations--
(A) for the proper issuance of leases for the exploration,
development, and production of nonrenewable and renewable
energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf;
(B) relating to resource identification, access,
evaluation, and utilization;
(C) for development of leasing plans, lease sales, and
issuance of leases for such resources; and
(D) regarding issuance of environmental impact statements
related to leasing and post leasing activities including
exploration, development, and production, and the use of
third party contracting for necessary environmental analysis
for the development of such resources.
(3) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not carry out through
the Bureau any function, power, or duty that is--
(A) required by section 403 to be carried out through the
Ocean Energy Safety Service; or
(B) required by section 404 to be carried out through the
Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
(d) Responsibilities of Land Management Agencies.--Nothing
in this section shall affect the authorities of the Bureau of
Land Management under the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or of the Forest Service
under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law
94-588).
SEC. 403. OCEAN ENERGY SAFETY SERVICE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of the Interior an Ocean Energy Safety Service (referred to
in this section as the ``Service''), which shall--
(1) be headed by a Director of Energy Safety (referred to
in this section as the ``Director''); and
(2) be administered under the direction of the Assistant
Secretary of Ocean Energy and Safety.
(b) Director.--
(1) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the
rate provided for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Duties.--
[[Page H4118]]
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry
out through the Service all functions, powers, and duties
vested in the Secretary relating to the administration of
safety and environmental enforcement activities related to
offshore mineral and renewable energy resources on the Outer
Continental Shelf pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) including the authority to
develop, promulgate, and enforce regulations to ensure the
safe and sound exploration, development, and production of
mineral and renewable energy resources on the Outer
Continental Shelf in a timely fashion.
(2) Specific authorities.--The Director shall be
responsible for all safety activities related to exploration
and development of renewable and mineral resources on the
Outer Continental Shelf, including--
(A) exploration, development, production, and ongoing
inspections of infrastructure;
(B) the suspending or prohibiting, on a temporary basis,
any operation or activity, including production under leases
held on the Outer Continental Shelf, in accordance with
section 5(a)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1334(a)(1));
(C) cancelling any lease, permit, or right-of-way on the
Outer Continental Shelf, in accordance with section 5(a)(2)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(2));
(D) compelling compliance with applicable Federal laws and
regulations relating to worker safety and other matters;
(E) requiring comprehensive safety and environmental
management programs for persons engaged in activities
connected with the exploration, development, and production
of mineral or renewable energy resources;
(F) developing and implementing regulations for Federal
employees to carry out any inspection or investigation to
ascertain compliance with applicable regulations, including
health, safety, or environmental regulations;
(G) implementing the Offshore Technology Research and Risk
Assessment Program under section 21 of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1347);
(H) summoning witnesses and directing the production of
evidence;
(I) levying fines and penalties and disqualifying
operators;
(J) carrying out any safety, response, and removal
preparedness functions; and
(K) the processing of permits, exploration plans,
development plans.
(d) Employees.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
inspection force of the Bureau consists of qualified, trained
employees who meet qualification requirements and adhere to
the highest professional and ethical standards.
(2) Qualifications.--The qualification requirements
referred to in paragraph (1)--
(A) shall be determined by the Secretary, subject to
subparagraph (B); and
(B) shall include--
(i) three years of practical experience in oil and gas
exploration, development, or production; or
(ii) a degree in an appropriate field of engineering from
an accredited institution of higher learning.
(3) Assignment.--In assigning oil and gas inspectors to the
inspection and investigation of individual operations, the
Secretary shall give due consideration to the extent possible
to their previous experience in the particular type of oil
and gas operation in which such inspections are to be made.
(4) Background checks.--The Director shall require that an
individual to be hired as an inspection officer undergo an
employment investigation (including a criminal history record
check).
(5) Language requirements.--Individuals hired as inspectors
must be able to read, speak, and write English well enough
to--
(A) carry out written and oral instructions regarding the
proper performance of inspection duties; and
(B) write inspection reports and statements and log entries
in the English language.
(6) Veterans preference.--The Director shall provide a
preference for the hiring of an individual as a inspection
officer if the individual is a member or former member of the
Armed Forces and is entitled, under statute, to retired,
retirement, or retainer pay on account of service as a member
of the Armed Forces.
(7) Annual proficiency review.--
(A) Annual proficiency review.--The Director shall provide
that an annual evaluation of each individual assigned
inspection duties is conducted and documented.
(B) Continuation of employment.--An individual employed as
an inspector may not continue to be employed in that capacity
unless the evaluation demonstrates that the individual--
(i) continues to meet all qualifications and standards;
(ii) has a satisfactory record of performance and attention
to duty based on the standards and requirements in the
inspection program; and
(iii) demonstrates the current knowledge and skills
necessary to courteously, vigilantly, and effectively perform
inspection functions.
(8) Limitation on right to strike.--Any individual that
conducts permitting or inspections under this section may not
participate in a strike, or assert the right to strike.
(9) Personnel authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Director may employ, appoint,
discipline and terminate for cause, and fix the compensation,
terms, and conditions of employment of Federal service for
individuals as the employees of the Service in order to
restore and maintain the trust of the people of the United
States in the accountability of the management of our
Nation's energy safety program.
(10) Training academy.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and maintain
a National Offshore Energy Safety Academy (referred to in
this paragraph as the ``Academy'') as an agency of the Ocean
Energy Safety Service.
(B) Functions of academy.--The Secretary, through the
Academy, shall be responsible for--
(i) the initial and continued training of both newly hired
and experienced offshore oil and gas inspectors in all
aspects of health, safety, environmental, and operational
inspections;
(ii) the training of technical support personnel of the
Bureau;
(iii) any other training programs for offshore oil and gas
inspectors, Bureau personnel, Department personnel, or other
persons as the Secretary shall designate; and
(iv) certification of the successful completion of training
programs for newly hired and experienced offshore oil and gas
inspectors.
(C) Cooperative agreements.--
(i) In general.--In performing functions under this
paragraph, and subject to clause (ii), the Secretary may
enter into cooperative educational and training agreements
with educational institutions, related Federal academies,
other Federal agencies, State governments, safety training
firms, and oil and gas operators and related industries.
(ii) Training requirement.--Such training shall be
conducted by the Academy in accordance with curriculum needs
and assignment of instructional personnel established by the
Secretary.
(11) Use of department personnel.--In performing functions
under this subsection, the Secretary shall use, to the extent
practicable, the facilities and personnel of the Department
of the Interior. The Secretary may appoint or assign to the
Academy such officers and employees as the Secretary
considers necessary for the performance of the duties and
functions of the Academy.
(12) Additional training programs.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall work with appropriate
educational institutions, operators, and representatives of
oil and gas workers to develop and maintain adequate programs
with educational institutions and oil and gas operators that
are designed--
(i) to enable persons to qualify for positions in the
administration of this Act; and
(ii) to provide for the continuing education of inspectors
or other appropriate Department of the Interior personnel.
(B) Financial and technical assistance.--The Secretary may
provide financial and technical assistance to educational
institutions in carrying out this paragraph.
(e) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not carry out through
the Service any function, power, or duty that is--
(1) required by section 402 to be carried out through
Bureau of Ocean Energy; or
(2) required by section 404 to be carried out through the
Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
SEC. 404. OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES REVENUE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of the Interior an Office of Natural Resources Revenue
(referred to in this section as the ``Office'') to be headed
by a Director of Natural Resources Revenue (referred to in
this section as the ``Director'').
(b) Appointment and Compensation.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior.
(2) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the
rate provided for Level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry
out, through the Office, all functions, powers, and duties
vested in the Secretary and relating to the administration of
offshore royalty and revenue management functions.
(2) Specific authorities.--The Secretary shall carry out,
through the Office, all functions, powers, and duties
previously assigned to the Minerals Management Service
(including the authority to develop, promulgate, and enforce
regulations) regarding offshore royalty and revenue
collection; royalty and revenue distribution; auditing and
compliance; investigation and enforcement of royalty and
revenue regulations; and asset management for onshore and
offshore activities.
(d) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not carry out through
the Office any function, power, or duty that is--
(1) required by section 402 to be carried out through
Bureau of Ocean Energy; or
(2) required by section 403 to be carried out through the
Ocean Energy Safety Service.
SEC. 405. ETHICS AND DRUG TESTING.
(a) Certification.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
certify annually that all Department of the Interior officers
and employees having regular, direct contact with lessees,
contractors, concessionaires, and other businesses interested
before the Government as a function of their official duties,
or conducting investigations, issuing permits, or responsible
for oversight of energy programs, are in full compliance with
all Federal employee ethics laws and regulations under the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) and part
2635 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and all
guidance issued under subsection (c).
(b) Drug Testing.--The Secretary shall conduct a random
drug testing program of all Department of the Interior
personnel referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue
supplementary ethics and drug testing guidance for the
employees for which certification is required under
subsection (a). The Secretary shall update the supplementary
ethics
[[Page H4119]]
guidance not less than once every 3 years thereafter.
SEC. 406. ABOLISHMENT OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE.
(a) Abolishment.--The Minerals Management Service is
abolished.
(b) Completed Administrative Actions.--
(1) In general.--Completed administrative actions of the
Minerals Management Service shall not be affected by the
enactment of this Act, but shall continue in effect according
to their terms until amended, modified, superseded,
terminated, set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by
an officer of the United States or a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(2) Completed administrative action defined.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), the term ``completed administrative
action'' includes orders, determinations, memoranda of
understanding, memoranda of agreements, rules, regulations,
personnel actions, permits, agreements, grants, contracts,
certificates, licenses, registrations, and privileges.
(c) Pending Proceedings.--Subject to the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior and the officers of the Department
of the Interior under this Act--
(1) pending proceedings in the Minerals Management Service,
including notices of proposed rulemaking, and applications
for licenses, permits, certificates, grants, and financial
assistance, shall continue, notwithstanding the enactment of
this Act or the vesting of functions of the Service in
another agency, unless discontinued or modified under the
same terms and conditions and to the same extent that such
discontinuance or modification could have occurred if this
Act had not been enacted; and
(2) orders issued in such proceedings, and appeals
therefrom, and payments made pursuant to such orders, shall
issue in the same manner and on the same terms as if this Act
had not been enacted, and any such orders shall continue in
effect until amended, modified, superseded, terminated, set
aside, or revoked by an officer of the United States or a
court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(d) Pending Civil Actions.--Subject to the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior or any officer of the Department of
the Interior under this Act, pending civil actions shall
continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act, and in
such civil actions, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken,
and judgments rendered and enforced in the same manner and
with the same effect as if such enactment had not occurred.
(e) References.--References relating to the Minerals
Management Service in statutes, Executive orders, rules,
regulations, directives, or delegations of authority that
precede the effective date of this Act are deemed to refer,
as appropriate, to the Department, to its officers,
employees, or agents, or to its corresponding organizational
units or functions. Statutory reporting requirements that
applied in relation to the Minerals Management Service
immediately before the effective date of this Act shall
continue to apply.
SEC. 407. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY
RATES.
(a) Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and Minerals.--
Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to ``Under Secretaries of
the Treasury (3).'' the following:
``Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and Minerals,
Department of the Interior.''.
(b) Assistant Secretaries.--Section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Assistant Secretaries
of the Interior (6).'' and inserting the following:
``Assistant Secretaries, Department of the Interior (7).''.
(c) Directors.--Section 5316 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``Director, Bureau of Mines,
Department of the Interior.'' and inserting the following new
items:
``Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Department of the
Interior.
``Director, Ocean Energy Safety Service, Department of the
Interior.
``Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Department
of the Interior.''.
SEC. 408. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ENERGY SAFETY ADVISORY
BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
establish, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, an Outer
Continental Shelf Energy Safety Advisory Board (referred to
in this section as the ``Board'')--
(1) to provide the Secretary and the Directors established
by this Act with independent scientific and technical advice
on safe, responsible, and timely mineral and renewable energy
exploration, development, and production activities; and
(2) to review operations of the National Offshore Energy
Health and Safety Academy established under section 403(d),
including submitting to the Secretary recommendations of
curriculum to ensure training scientific and technical
advancements.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Size.--The Board shall consist of not more than 11
members, who--
(A) shall be appointed by the Secretary based on their
expertise in oil and gas drilling, well design, operations,
well containment and oil spill response; and
(B) must have significant scientific, engineering,
management, and other credentials and a history of working in
the field related to safe energy exploration, development,
and production activities.
(2) Consultation and nominations.--The Secretary shall
consult with the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering to identify potential
candidates for the Board and shall take nominations from the
public.
(3) Term.--The Secretary shall appoint Board members to
staggered terms of not more than 4 years, and shall not
appoint a member for more than 2 consecutive terms.
(4) Balance.--In appointing members to the Board, the
Secretary shall ensure a balanced representation of industry
and research interests.
(c) Chair.--The Secretary shall appoint the Chair for the
Board from among its members.
(d) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not less than 3 times
per year and shall host, at least once per year, a public
forum to review and assess the overall energy safety
performance of Outer Continental Shelf mineral and renewable
energy resource activities.
(e) Offshore Drilling Safety Assessments and
Recommendations.--As part of its duties under this section,
the Board shall, by not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section and every 5 years thereafter,
submit to the Secretary a report that--
(1) assesses offshore oil and gas well control
technologies, practices, voluntary standards, and regulations
in the United States and elsewhere; and
(2) as appropriate, recommends modifications to the
regulations issued under this Act to ensure adequate
protection of safety and the environment, including
recommendations on how to reduce regulations and
administrative actions that are duplicative or unnecessary.
(f) Reports.--Reports of the Board shall be submitted by
the Board to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House
or Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and made available to the public in
electronically accessible form.
(g) Travel Expenses.--Members of the Board, other than
full-time employees of the Federal Government, while
attending meeting of the Board or while otherwise serving at
the request of the Secretary or the Director while serving
away from their homes or regular places of business, may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code, for individuals in the Government serving
without pay.
SEC. 409. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF INSPECTION FEES.
Section 22 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1348) is amended by adding at the end of the section
the following:
``(g) Inspection Fees.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
collect from the operators of facilities subject to
inspection under subsection (c) non-refundable fees for such
inspections--
``(A) at an aggregate level equal to the amount necessary
to offset the annual expenses of inspections of outer
Continental Shelf facilities (including mobile offshore
drilling units) by the Department of the Interior; and
``(B) using a schedule that reflects the differences in
complexity among the classes of facilities to be inspected.
``(2) Ocean energy safety fund.--There is established in
the Treasury a fund, to be known as the `Ocean Energy
Enforcement Fund' (referred to in this subsection as the
`Fund'), into which shall be deposited all amounts collected
as fees under paragraph (1) and which shall be available as
provided under paragraph (3).
``(3) Availability of fees.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title
31, United States Code, all amounts deposited in the Fund--
``(i) shall be credited as offsetting collections;
``(ii) shall be available for expenditure for purposes of
carrying out inspections of outer Continental Shelf
facilities (including mobile offshore drilling units) and the
administration of the inspection program under this section;
``(iii) shall be available only to the extent provided for
in advance in an appropriations Act; and
``(iv) shall remain available until expended.
``(B) Use for field offices.--Not less than 75 percent of
amounts in the Fund may be appropriated for use only for the
respective Department of the Interior field offices where the
amounts were originally assessed as fees.
``(4) Initial fees.--Fees shall be established under this
subsection for the fiscal year in which this subsection takes
effect and the subsequent 10 years, and shall not be raised
without advise and consent of the Congress, except as
determined by the Secretary to be appropriate as an
adjustment equal to the percentage by which the Consumer
Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year
preceding the adjustment exceeds the Consumer Price Index for
the month of June of the calendar year in which the claim was
determined or last adjusted.
``(5) Annual fees.--Annual fees shall be collected under
this subsection for facilities that are above the waterline,
excluding drilling rigs, and are in place at the start of the
fiscal year. Fees for fiscal year 2013 shall be--
``(A) $10,500 for facilities with no wells, but with
processing equipment or gathering lines;
``(B) $17,000 for facilities with 1 to 10 wells, with any
combination of active or inactive wells; and
``(C) $31,500 for facilities with more than 10 wells, with
any combination of active or inactive wells.
``(6) Fees for drilling rigs.--Fees for drilling rigs shall
be assessed under this subsection for all inspections
completed in fiscal years 2013 through 2022. Fees for fiscal
year 2013 shall be--
``(A) $30,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water
depths of 1,000 feet or more; and
``(B) $16,700 per inspection for rigs operating in water
depths of less than 1,000 feet.
``(7) Billing.--The Secretary shall bill designated
operators under paragraph (5) within 60 days after the date
of the inspection, with payment required within 30 days of
billing. The Secretary shall bill designated operators under
paragraph (6) within 30 days of the end of the month in which
the inspection occurred, with payment required within 30 days
after billing.
[[Page H4120]]
``(8) Sunset.--No fee may be collected under this
subsection for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2022.
``(9) Annual reports.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2013, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the
operation of the Fund during the fiscal year.
``(B) Contents.--Each report shall include, for the fiscal
year covered by the report, the following:
``(i) A statement of the amounts deposited into the Fund.
``(ii) A description of the expenditures made from the Fund
for the fiscal year, including the purpose of the
expenditures and the additional hiring of personnel.
``(iii) A statement of the balance remaining in the Fund at
the end of the fiscal year.
``(iv) An accounting of pace of permit approvals.
``(v) If fee increases are proposed after the initial 10-
year period referred to in paragraph (5), a proper accounting
of the potential adverse economic impacts such fee increases
will have on offshore economic activity and overall
production, conducted by the Secretary.
``(vi) Recommendations to increase the efficacy and
efficiency of offshore inspections.
``(vii) Any corrective actions levied upon offshore
inspectors as a result of any form of misconduct.''.
TITLE V--UNITED STATES TERRITORIES
SEC. 501. APPLICATION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT
WITH RESPECT TO TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED
STATES.
Section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (a), by inserting after ``control'' the
following: ``or lying within the United States exclusive
economic zone and the Continental Shelf adjacent to any
territory of the United States'';
(2) in paragraph (p), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(3) in paragraph (q), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(r) The term `State' includes each territory of the
United States.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 113-131. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Brady of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 8, before the period insert ``, and shall
include and consider all such subdivisions in any
environmental review conducted and statement prepared for
such program under section 102(2) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2))''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is in the middle of an
exciting energy revolution, but we will never truly reach energy
security as long as 85 percent of our offshore areas remain off limits
to oil and gas manufacturers.
Chairman Hastings' Offshore Energy and Jobs Act on the floor today
will open more offshore areas to energy development and bring our
Nation closer toward the bipartisan goal of energy independence. This
is a great thing.
In particular, Chairman Hastings' innovative bill allows State
Governors to request that certain offshore areas be included in the 5-
year leasing plan. This gives States more power to unlock offshore
energy resources and the jobs and the affordable energy that go along
with responsible offshore energy development.
I'm offering an amendment to strengthen that language based on my
More Energy, More Jobs legislation recently introduced with my
colleagues, Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois. It
will require the Interior Department to include all these areas
requested by State Governors in the environmental review process for
the leasing plan.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires all major Federal
actions, including offshore leasing plans, to undergo an environmental
review. For offshore leasing, this is an environmental impact
statement. Typically, this is a 2-year process at least, and a first
step for including any area in an offshore leasing plan. Without
environmental impact statements, new areas can't be leased for offshore
drilling.
My amendment will bring more areas into consideration for offshore
energy development and move them further along in the leasing process,
regardless of whether they are included in the final leasing plan.
More importantly, it will make it easier for future Congresses to
pass leasing plans like the underlying bill because more offshore areas
will have gone through the necessary environmental review process.
I'd like to thank Chairman Hastings for working with me both on this
amendment and including some of our ideas in the underlying bill. With
this struggling economy and our Nation in the midst of an energy
revolution, now is the time to act to unleash more American-made energy
and more American jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and we
support his amendment.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Chairman Hastings.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the general debate we had
some creative math and/or cherry-picking of years to make a point that
is not accurate.
The point is that oil production from Federal lands today is higher
than it was at the end of the Bush administration--596 million barrels
compared to 565 in 2008.
Now, in the offshore, when you use a certain number of years,
obviously there is some anomaly. The anomaly was the worst oil spill
disaster in the history of the United States, which was the Macondo
blowup in the gulf, which of course set back leasing activity and
development in the gulf for a period of time. However, we have now
adopted new regulations. We're actually requiring blowup preventers
that work and a few other sorts of things that the Obama administration
has done to make the drilling safer.
Under this administration, there are now more floating rigs in the
gulf than before the spill and during the Bush years; and we approved
112 Deepwater drilling permits last year--the most since 2005. Of
course that drilling is being conducted more safely than it has in the
past.
So, I mean, we're going to be able to switch around, pick different
years, and do all of these things, but these are aggregate, longer-term
numbers as opposed to specifying a particular year--and particularly
picking a year after the worst oil spill rig disaster in the history of
the United States.
With that, Mr. Chairman, we do not object to the amendment by Mr.
Brady, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
want to respond to my good friend from Oregon's statistics.
What I said is that the production is down from when the President
took office. And that, of course, is true. The gentleman makes the
argument that there was more production initially in the Obama
administration than the Bush administration. I never argued with that.
But there's a reason for it. There were more lease sales during the
Bush administration, and it takes a while to get these leases
producing. They started producing at the first part of the Obama
administration; and since then, they have gone down because of the
actions of this administration.
[[Page H4121]]
So my statistics are correct, and I guess his statistics are correct;
but it's not the whole story. The whole story is it takes a lot of time
in order to bring a lease sale into production, and that's what the
gentleman overlooked.
{time} 1620
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
I am ready to close whenever the ranking member is.
Mr. DeFAZIO. As I pointed out earlier in the debate, yes, the
chairman is correct, it does take time, and there are 5,484 leases, 30
million acres, mostly about 85 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, that have
an estimated, according to the Energy Information Administration, 18
billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that
have not yet been developed.
In any case, I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment. He makes a
small improvement in what we consider to be a bad bill by requiring
that if States opt into leasing, that there will be a NEPA review. I'm
glad that there is some recognition on the other side of the aisle on
the value of NEPA reviews to protect our precious natural resources.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is a commonsense amendment that helps us responsibly develop our
traditional energy sources for more jobs, more revenue to help balance
this budget, and more affordable energy for America.
I urge my colleagues' support, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 11, beginning at line 3, strike section 204.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy
and Jobs Act. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Gerry
Connolly and Jim Moran, for working with me to bring this amendment to
the floor.
This amendment strikes section 204 of the underlying bill. Section
204 seeks to limit the ability to conduct a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Statement, EIS. Given our experience with devastating oil spills
such as the BP spill, the Exxon Valdez, and a spill off the coast of
Santa Barbara, we should be improving our review processes and
strengthening safety requirements.
The combination of reduced resources and shortened timeframes that
are mandated by the bill, as well as the expanse of area to be
addressed, make the task of preparing a credible EIS difficult, if not
impossible.
With these demanding schedules provided by section 204, what
information is compelling Congress to seek such swift approval? Oil
production, as has been said, is at a 20-year high and natural gas
production is also at an all-time high. Furthermore, under President
Obama's leadership, our dependence on foreign oil has fallen from 57
percent to 36 percent.
Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to pass
legislation that will serve them. Section 204 limits the environmental
review to provide for less rigor than a typical review process, which
can create huge environmental and economic risks.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I generally do not rise to vote or argue against a Hastings
amendment, but in this case I feel I have to. It is the nature of who
the author of the amendment is, perhaps, and I think the gentleman
understands.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly
increasing energy production. The amendment, as the gentleman noted,
would strike a section of the bill, but that bill, that section,
requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be conducted prior to any
leasing in any lease sale areas.
The gentleman takes issue in the manner in which the Environmental
Impact Statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to
mention is that the administration is required to do yet another
environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on
each lease block as part of the leasing process. Then each expiration
plan has additional environmental work.
In effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied
and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the
environment.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will be
subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore
leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National
Fishing Enhancement Act, just to name a few.
The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the
environment; it goes the extra mile in requiring a multi-sale EIS on
all of the lease areas, while still ensuring that leasing does occur
because of the certainty in the process.
Support for offshore energy does not mean that you cannot respect a
wide range of different environmental needs based upon a lease area.
We want to drill safely and responsibly. I think that is embodied in
the underlying bill. For that reason, I urge rejection of the Hastings
amendment, the Hastings of Florida amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to
tell me how much time I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased
at this time to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment and
good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Hastings of Washington would be
more comfortable calling it the Hastings-Connolly amendment, so that a
Virginia name might make him feel more comfortable.
Mr. Chairman, have we already forgotten the consequences of lax
regulation? I know the gulf coast hasn't. For many Americans, the image
of more than 200 million gallons of oil spilling into the gulf, an area
of oil spill and oil slick that if superimposed in this region would
have gone from my district in northern Virginia all the way to New York
City. It threatened America's largest fishery, jeopardizing tourism,
wreaking havoc with the region's entire economy.
Sadly, the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill might have
been mitigated had BP and Transocean simply been required to do what
this amendment requires--to comply with the basic environmental
standards established to prevent such disasters from happening in the
first place. Yet here we are 3 years later, and this Congress still has
not taken a single action to improve drilling safety because the House
majority has blocked every attempt. Now they want to make matters worse
by gutting NEPA protections.
I am pleased to join my colleague in offering a commonsense amendment
to preserve NEPA protections, and at least some modicum of impartiality
in this attempt to legislate the majority's motto of ``drill, baby,
drill'' everywhere.
[[Page H4122]]
Considering that all other major projects, even transit projects,
with clear environmental benefits must undergo an Environmental Impact
Statement, it is absurd to exclude from analysis activities that have
the potential to destroy entire economies and ecosystems. For example,
why is it that northern Virginia's Rail to Dulles project, a public
project I oversaw, had to go through an extensive full 2-year
environmental review, yet a privately-owned oil rig in the gulf was
exempted from that same process? It makes no sense.
The BP spill was preventable, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, gulf coast
residents will pay that price for that poor decision to waive an
environmental review for decades to come as we continue to clean up the
worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history.
Let's not allow that to happen. Let's support this amendment.
{time} 1630
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the impacts of a major oil
spill off Florida's coast would be devastating to tourism, travel to
nearby beaches, mangroves, and wildlife. This is a truncated process
and wrong.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does could have very serious
consequences to Virginia's economy. By looking at multiple sales, you
lose sight potentially of the harmful impact of individual parcels.
For example, drilling the close-in parcels could have a very adverse
impact to the tourism industry in Virginia Beach. Other parcels would
affect the absolutely essential shipping channels to Baltimore and
Hampton Roads. Opening up other parts of Virginia's waters would have a
very serious and consequential impact upon the ability of the Navy to
use that area off Virginia's shores. Other parcels would have an
adverse impact upon the fishing industry.
So what we are suggesting is to look specifically at these individual
parcels. If you look at the entire broad scope of these sales, you're
going to lose sight of some of the most serious adverse consequences.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate just simply on this
amendment because I would point out to my colleagues that there has
been a lot of reference on the floor today about the Senate's doing
something or not doing something. I would just remind my colleagues
that their Senators, both of whom are Democrats, support drilling off
the Virginia coast. I've found out, too, that their candidate for
Governor has switched his position now and that he, too, supports
drilling off the coast of Virginia. So I can say here today, I think
very honestly, that there is bipartisan support for drilling off the
coast of Virginia.
Finally, I want to address the point that my good friend from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) made about no safety. I will just refer him to
title IV in this legislation. If his concern is on not having safety
and updating rules because of oil spills, then he should support this
legislation, because title IV does that through the reorganization
process.
So, Mr. Chairman, it hurts me to say vote ``no'' on a Hastings
amendment, but I will in this case for the arguments that I made a
moment ago. We simply don't need it because of all of the environmental
reviews you have to go through on lease sales.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following new section:
SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the
issuance of a lease under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to any person designated for the
imposition of sanctions pursuant to--
(1) the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note),
the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and
Divestiture Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), the Iran
Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22
U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a), or
the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22
U.S.C. 8801 et seq.);
(2) Executive Order 13622 (July 30, 2012), Executive Order
13628 (October 9, 2012), or Executive Order 13645 (June 3,
2013);
(3) Executive Order 13224 (September 23, 2001) or Executive
Order 13338 (May 11, 2004); or
(4) the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this straightforward amendment ensures
that the Interior Department will not allow leases under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act to go to any person currently subject to
sanctions by the U.S. Government under existing Federal laws. This
amendment will ensure that no company can benefit from today's
legislation if it helps prop up oppressive and destabilizing regimes,
such as Iran or Syria.
With the threat from Iran continuing to grow, it is vital that
Congress respond with prudent and effective action. We must continue to
isolate Iran, promote stability in the Middle East, and protect Israel.
Growing our own domestic energy resources is an important part of
further isolating Iran. My amendment ensures that we do not
inadvertently or indirectly support the Iranian regime while opening
American sources of energy. Iran is an existential threat to our best
ally in the region, Israel; and it is a state sponsor of terrorism in
addition to Iran's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and the abuse
it directs to its own citizens.
With regard to Syria, existing sanctions are already helping increase
the pressure on President Assad's regime. Thanks to the sanctions,
Syrian oil production has decreased as companies have cut ties with the
government and exited the country. Despite this pressure, more action
is needed. This amendment is a responsible next step to ensure that
nothing in this bill will empower President Assad's continuing war
against the Syrian people.
The United States should not be rewarding companies that are
currently subject to sanctions by the U.S. Government. We must ensure
that none of the profit derived from today's legislation will prop up
nations that would harm our national security interests or those of our
ally, Israel. Israel has a hard enough time surviving in a dangerous
neighborhood without letting it get any worse.
With both the Iranian and Syrian regimes threatening our allies in
the Middle East and with Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, now directly involved
in the fighting in Syria, I believe that Congress must show its unity
in the protection of our good friend Israel and with the people of
Syria.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman's amendment adds a
great deal to this legislation, and I support your amendment.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for that and for his leadership on
the entire bill.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this simple amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is recognized
for 5 minutes.
[[Page H4123]]
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. At the beginning of the consideration of this bill, I
talked about how this was a little bit of ``Groundhog Day'' because all
or parts of this bill passed in the last Congress five times. Now the
gentleman is kind of disproving my theory because, well, I guess, at
the very end of the movie, they broke out of the ``Groundhog Day''
cycle's being repetitive; but the gentleman is actually breaking us out
of the cycle.
Actually, last year, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the
gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a Democrat, offered this
identical amendment for sanctions to one of the many offshore oil
drilling bills passed by the Republicans in the last Congress. On that
day, which was the 25th of July 2012--almost a year ago today--I would
note, on an amendment that does exactly what this amendment does, which
we think is extraordinarily meritorious, that every Republican voted
no--N-O. That would, of course, include Mr. Lamborn and the esteemed
chairman, Mr. Hastings.
So I'm not sure what has changed in the last year. Perhaps they just
opposed it the last time because a Democrat was offering it and because
the principle and the danger posed by businesses operating in these
countries which are hostile to the United States of America wasn't
worth dealing with when you could beat a Democratic amendment. I don't
know. Maybe there has been a new realization on the other side of the
aisle of the dangers of Iran and Syria since that time. Again, I don't
know.
Not one Republican Member of the House voted in favor of this
amendment 1 year ago despite the fact that the esteemed gentlelady from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered it as a motion to recommit on a bill.
It could be because Republicans lockstep oppose motions to recommit or
Democratic amendments, even if they have merit, just to make some sort
of a perverse point.
We support this amendment today, as Democrats did last year, and
perhaps all of the Republicans will change their positions this year,
and it will be a unanimous vote.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to receiving the vote of
the ranking member. I suppose that means he is in favor of this
amendment, so I appreciate and applaud that.
This is very similar to the amendment last year, though it is not
identical as you stated. It is very similar, and this is an example
that we can work together in a bipartisan way to commonly work together
on good ideas. Motions to recommit, as I will remind you, do sometimes
throw up a procedural roadblock that delay the progress of a bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman.
{time} 1640
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding as I
want to make this point.
Existing law already exists as it relates to sanctions with the
countries we're talking about, but I think it is very important, since
we're talking about a national commodity, that we reemphasize--and
that's really what the gentleman's amendment does, it reemphasizes what
is already on the books. I think that needs to be done, especially
right now with the volatility that we see in the Middle East.
So I think the gentleman's amendment, as I stated, makes a great deal
of sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. LAMBORN. As I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman would have been accurate had the motion to
recommit been worded ``promptly,'' but it was worded ``forthwith,'' so
it would only have delayed the bill by a total of 10 minutes or 15
minutes, however long the next vote was set for. It would not have sent
the bill back to committee, and it would not have disrupted the
movement of the legislation. So that part of the statement is not
accurate and not a good explanation for why the Republicans uniformly
opposed this excellent policy last year, even if it is, as the chairman
says, reemphasizing existing law.
We happen to think it's a really great existing law, and we wanted to
make that point last year. Your side didn't. I'm glad that you've come
around on looking at the companies that do business in Iran and Syria
as serious threats to the United States and are going to essentially
support the amendment that we offered last year, which you opposed.
That's the best I can do, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we change our minds
around here. We haven't. All the Democrats, I expect, will vote in
favor of this amendment, as they did last time. Apparently now, most or
all Republicans will vote. That is a privilege we have around here, to
change our minds. I just wish they had opposed it on better grounds
last time rather than saying, well, it would have delayed the bill by
15 minutes.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I do look forward and appreciate the
gentleman across the aisle's support of this amendment, and I thank him
for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I urge everyone's support,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flores
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title IV add the following:
SEC. 410. PROHIBITION ON ACTION BASED ON NATIONAL OCEAN
POLICY DEVELOPED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 13547.
(a) Prohibition.--The Bureau of Ocean Energy and the Ocean
Energy Safety Service may not develop, propose, finalize,
administer, or implement, any limitation on activities under
their jurisdiction as a result of the coastal and marine
spatial planning component of the National Ocean Policy
developed under Executive Order 13547.
(b) Report on Expenditures.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit
a report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate identifying all Federal expenditures
in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, by the Bureau of Ocean
Energy and the Ocean Energy Safety Service and their
predecessor agencies, by agency, account, and any pertinent
subaccounts, for the development, administration, or
implementation of the coastal and marine spatial planning
component of the National Ocean Policy developed under
Executive Order 13547, including staff time, travel, and
other related expenses.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment.
It basically says that it prohibits the offshore agencies of the
Interior Department from imposing ocean zoning related to the Obama
administration's continued attempts to establish the National Ocean
Policy under Executive Order 13547 without congressional authorization.
It also requires the administration to submit a report to Congress
identifying expenditures for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 by the
Bureau of Ocean Energy, the Ocean Energy Safety Service, and their
predecessor agencies.
Just as a little background, Executive Order 13547 was signed in
2010, and it requires that various bureaucracies essentially zone the
ocean and the sources thereof. This essentially means that a drop of
rain that falls on your house could be subject to this overreaching
policy because that drop of rain will ultimately wind up in the ocean.
There are concerns that have been raised recently that the National
Ocean Policy may not only restrict ocean and inland activities, but it
may also have a problem because it has not been given any specific
appropriations by this Congress. We have had hearings on this in the
Natural Resources Committee, and no agency has told us from which
source they're getting the funding for this initiative.
[[Page H4124]]
As you can see in chart 1, this light green area shows the area
that's covered under ocean zoning. As you can see, that covers a lot
more than the blue areas that represent the ocean. There are 26 States
just in the Mississippi watershed that would be affected by this
executive order.
If we go to chart 2, you can see that the executive order creates a
huge new bureaucracy at a time when we're trying to make government
smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive. There are 63 agencies
involved, as we see on the next chart, in this effort to try to zone
the oceans. This looks like more than a planning exercise at this
point.
Let me say that you're going to hear from the other side something
that says planning is good. Yeah, planning may be good. Planning with
the intent to regulate or a backdoor regulation or backdoor rulemaking
is not, because here is what the executive order states on its face. It
says:
All executive departments, agencies, and offices that are
members of the council and any other executive department,
agency, or office whose actions affect the ocean, our coasts,
and the Great Lakes shall, to the fullest extent consistent
with applicable law . . . comply with council certified
coastal and marine spatial plans.
That means all these folks are going to have something to say on how
we move forward.
This is a very simple amendment, and it was so simple that we offered
it as a limitation amendment for the FY13 CJS appropriations bill, and
it passed on a bipartisan vote of 246-174.
Let me close by saying that we're not plowing new ground here. This
has already been approved in the CJS appropriations bill from last
year. This amendment does not stop any existing statute, any existing
rule, or any existing regulation. For instance, you may hear that it
stops the Rigs-to-Reefs program. That is totally false. It does not get
in the way of any existing program.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLORES. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.
The gentleman knows that I have the same concerns he has on this
executive order, and I think his amendment adds a great deal to this
bill, and I support his amendment.
Mr. FLORES. Reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in adamant opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. This amendment would prohibit the Department of the
Interior offshore agencies from using voluntary and commonsense
planning as part of the National Ocean Policy to inform decisions they
make under existing laws.
It's interesting that the National Ocean Industries Association,
which represents offshore energy developers of many kinds, yesterday
noted:
This is a great example of the progress that can be made
when industry and regulating agencies communicate with each
other. It's gratifying to see government and an industry come
together to cooperatively and responsibly address these
complex and important environmental issues.
And the gentleman's amendment would bring that program to a halt,
which obviously the industry actually seems to think is useful.
With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California will
control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
I think the gentleman might be well intended with his thought of what
this amendment does, but it's exactly the opposite of what the industry
wants.
The gentleman is a relatively new Member to Congress and does not
represent a coastal area in his district. But if he were here during
the nineties and early 2000, the reason we have a National Ocean Policy
is because Congress set up a commission to study the conflicts of the
sea brought to us by users of the ocean. That was the petroleum
industry. That was the fishing industry. They were in conflict.
We had one agency saying, You can drill for oil, and others were
saying, No, those are protected fishing grounds. Crab pots were being
swept up by seismic boats going out and looking for oil and other
geological issues. We had the Navy not corresponding with buoys. We had
just tons of conflicts all within our 200-mile ocean exclusive economic
zone, and the industry begged for some kind of collaboration of getting
together.
{time} 1650
Congress put together a commission; and on that commission Lawrence
Dickerson, who was Diamond Offshore, chairman of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors and chairman of the National Ocean
Industries Association, was appointed by President Bush to sit on that
commission. The recommendations of that commission, a commission that
Congress created, were to create a national ocean policy. Congress
actually introduced bills. The bills were introduced by Republican
Members. Congressman Jim Greenwood carried the bill. Others carried the
bill. The Resources Committee would never even give them a hearing.
Admiral Watkins was chair of the committee, who was first President
Bush's Energy Secretary, and also former CNO. All of these Republicans
were asking for a national ocean policy.
Now we have it, and the gentleman says let's ignore it, let's ignore
it. Let's not allow it to even be involved. This is a setback. If you
want to absolutely have fast track in permitting, then do it under
planning. That's the way we plan for our military with the quadrennial
review. There isn't anything--health plans. Everything we do,
transportation plans, you name it, it's around a big plan. We don't
spend any money until the plan is in place.
Now we are in the process of having that plan, which the industry
supports, and the gentleman wants to say, no, don't do anything, ignore
it. You bring us back to conflicts at sea. You bring back regulatory
fights. If you want to delay decisionmaking, then don't have a plan
like we have.
This amendment destroys the ability to get the job done.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The Chair would note that the gentleman does not have the
right to close.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I am a newcomer to Congress, but the reason
I'm a newcomer to Congress is because before I did this, I had 30 years
of experience working offshore. So I have firsthand experience with
this. Twenty years of that, it was as a sea level officer for different
companies that operated offshore.
Congress studied this issue for 10 years, and took no action. What
does that tell us? That means the intent of Congress is to have no
statute or regulation to zone the oceans. So the gentleman's issue is a
little off base here. And just to make sure we correct the statement
about what NOIA said, here's what they're putting out today:
NOIA staunchly supports the good work that Congressman
Flores has done and continues to do to fight back this ill-
conceived national ocean policy, and stands in strong support
of the Flores amendment on the House floor today.
I want to remind everybody I have this list of folks that support
this. This is the fishing industry, both commercial and recreational.
It's agriculture. It's home builders. It's the energy industry. We're
not trying to stop a niche problem.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that the
national ocean policy is the recommendation of a commission that we
created, bipartisan commission, appointed by President Bush, to
recommend how we might avoid the conflicts of sea. The national ocean
policy is that, to have a policy so that when we do activities in the
ocean, we know whether those activities are consistent with a policy.
I think the gentleman is completely wrong in thinking that disrupting
that policy planning is going to get a faster and more equitable way of
drilling for oil. I think he's totally wrong in that, and the
administration would probably veto the bill if it's in there. I don't
think that it is an amendment that's going to do good. I think it's
going to do harm, and I would oppose it.
[[Page H4125]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Cassidy
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5, as
modified, printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. 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. __. AMOUNT OF DISTRIBUTED QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF REVENUES.
Section 105(f)(1) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; 43
U.S.C. 1331 note) shall be applied by substituting ``2023,
and shall not exceed $999,999,999 for each of fiscal years
2024 through 2055'' for ``2055''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, in 2006 Congress passed the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act, or GOMESA. This legislation for the first time
allowed States to share in revenues generated from offshore drilling.
GOMESA provided 37.5 percent of revenue to the Gulf States, to begin in
the year 2017, but arbitrarily placed a $500 million cap on the
collectively shared revenue.
Conversely, the Mineral Leasing Act requires the Federal Government
to allocate 50 percent of the energy revenue generated on Federal lands
to interior States in which the revenue is generated without an annual
cap.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply moves
offshore royalty sharing more in line with the benefit onshore interior
States experience by moving the GOMESA cap from $500 million to $1
billion. This would begin 10 years from now. It's almost $1 billion,
just short of $1 billion.
My amendment does not impact onshore producing States. If your State
is receiving revenue sharing from onshore, my amendment does nothing to
change that. It just moves Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama a
little bit closer to parity. You can look at this graph right here, and
you can see that this graph shows that interior States are receiving 50
percent with no dollar cap. Gulf States, less a percentage and with a
cap. And all other States have the same percent with no cap.
The House has previously passed a similar version of this amendment
twice: once in the PIONEER Act and second on the Domestic Energy and
Jobs Act, both last year, overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. In
fact, the House laid the groundwork for this with the landmark passage
of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. This was the first
offshore revenue-sharing bill to pass a congressional Chamber, and it
did not include an arbitrary cap.
So I ask my colleagues, if you're worried about rising energy prices,
I'd recommend a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. Thirty percent of the
Nation's energy comes off the gulf coast. If you're interested in
treating Gulf Coast States equally, the way we treat onshore drilling
in Federal lands for inland States, I also recommend a ``yes.'' And if
you're interested in the environment, let me just make the case here
that by the Louisiana Constitution, 100 percent of the Federal tax
revenue that comes from this will go to coastal restoration. That is
important to us because every place you see red is a place where we
will lose in Louisiana land over the next 50 years. And where you see
red, I see families. I see families and businesses which will no longer
exist unless we do something proactively to restore those lands.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
just want to tell the gentleman that I support his amendment. I think
it adds a great deal to this legislation, and I commend him for it.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to commend the gentleman from
Louisiana for his amendment. I think it is the right thing. I thing the
Gulf Coast States are treated unfairly with the cap. This raises the
cap. It's the right thing.
I was talking with a gentleman from an ACC school--I know you're an
LSU guy--but he was from Virginia Tech. He said, Go Hokies. I didn't
like that, but he understands that Louisiana is treated unfairly when
you compare to what is going on in Wyoming where they got a billion
dollars last year in revenue.
My State of South Carolina is included in this bill, and they want
the revenue-sharing as well. It is the right thing for the States that
help produce America's energy. So I commend the gentleman. Let's raise
that cap, and let's treat those Gulf Coast States fairly because they
are the producers of American energy. And so I commend the gentleman.
Mr. CASSIDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because I can't
believe--I am kind of excited that you want to get more money--but I
can't believe the Republicans are suggesting that the Treasury of the
United States ought to be robbed of another $11 billion that goes to
deficit reduction so it can be spent on the Gulf States because in
legislation we just passed we give the Gulf States something no other
States get: we give them in law now $150 billion over the next 60 years
in revenue earmarked for the Gulf States. And what this amendment says
is that's not enough; we want $11 billion more. What gall.
{time} 1700
Most of us, if we were doing this, would be accused of doing an
earmark. And certainly you don't do earmarks anymore in the House of
Representatives. So what is it that $150 billion isn't enough for four
States and you need, now, before you even have spent that money, to put
into law another $11 billion?
Could you answer that question?
Mr. CASSIDY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. No, you have the time. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASSIDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. I will yield to the gentleman for a question. Explain to me
what is broken that needs $11 billion more, right now, with the $150
billion that you've already been given, or will be given.
Mr. CASSIDY. This is what is broken. This is our coastline, which is
melting away. This is what increases our risk. We've lost a land mass
equal to Rhode Island in Louisiana.
Now, the money that is received, our share will go to this, but it is
not adequate to rebuild this coastline. And the other thing which is
broken is--
Mr. FARR. You've lost the coastline why?
Mr. CASSIDY. Because we channeled the Mississippi in order to create
navigational services for the rest of the inland nation. And so as you
channel that Mississippi, the wetlands lost the nourishing sediment
that comes to them.
Mr. FARR. And those are the States that have also instate waters and
onshore and offshore drilling?
Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, we do have onshore and offshore drilling,
absolutely.
Mr. FARR. Which are very lucrative revenues for the State.
Mr. CASSIDY. If we want to speak about lucrative revenue, all I ask
is to have the same deal that every other State has. No, I don't even
ask for the same deal that every other State has, because every other
State, if they're interior, gets 50 percent of the revenue.
Other coastal States, for example, California, have no cap on the
amount
[[Page H4126]]
of royalty sharing that they may have with the Federal Government. It
is only in the gulf coast that there is a cap.
Now, if you want to have the same deal for our State that other
States have, I would love to have the 50 percent that Wyoming has.
Mr. FARR. That's onshore, not offshore. We actually have caps with
offshore, and we have banned further offshore drilling, both State and
Federal waters.
Mr. CASSIDY. Well, if you decide to cut off your economic nose to
spite your face, I can't help that.
Mr. FARR. The Republicans have been very big on deficit reduction and
very much against earmarks. And now, with this amendment you're
proposing it seems to fly in the face of the policy of your own party
that you want to take out of the Treasury $11 billion that could be
applied to deficit reduction and give it to the Gulf States, which
already have $150 billion over the next--in revenue coming to you,
earmarked for you. That is far more than California or other States.
Mr. CASSIDY. If I may say, I admire your verbal sleight-of-hand
because never in the past has royalty sharing been considered earmarks.
But if now we're going to start considering royalty sharing earmarks,
heck, let's go back and look at every State. But that is, again, a
verbal sleight-of-hand. That is not under the definition of an earmark,
and I think the gentleman knows that.
Mr. FARR. Well, I'm on the Appropriations Committee, and if this were
brought up in the Appropriations Committee, it certainly would be an
earmark. And it is a process that should be in the appropriations
process and not added to this bill, where you create an $11 million
earmark for four Gulf States.
Mr. CASSIDY. Assuming that the gentleman continues to yield to me, I
would say, in that case, we need to go back to every State which has a
better royalty sharing arrangement with the Federal Government than we
and ask to reconsider that.
We're not even asking to have the 50 percent on the inland or the no
cap on the other coastal States. We're just asking that you raise the
cap and keep our revenue sharing royalty percent at the same lower
level than it is on the inland. Now, I don't know why we're being
singled out when those other States do so well.
Mr. FARR. Well, I think the chair of your committee, Mr. Hastings,
who knows this, that only about 40 percent of the money that comes in
for the Land and Water Conservation account, of the revenue that comes
from the offshore drilling, only 40 percent of it is given back to the
States for land and water conservation purposes. That other 60 amount
just goes into the Treasury. That's where this money goes, and what
you're doing is getting something that none of the other States have.
If we want to revise the percentage of money that goes into the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, I'm all for that.
Mr. CASSIDY. So, when I spoke to someone from Wyoming today, she
goes, Oh, you're only getting 37.5? Wyoming gets 48 percent.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman from
California has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield
to me for 15 seconds?
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to point out, the gentleman,
my good friend from California, is talking about revenue loss.
I just want to make this point: the CBO says this legislation will
create $1.5 billion to the Federal Government.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CASSIDY. How much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) for yielding and for bringing this amendment. I
think it's important to point out that this was an arbitrary cap that
was put in place based on problems that were really created in the
1950s when initial revenue sharing was done.
For whatever reason, there are various reasons, one State was singled
out to not be able to participate in revenue sharing. It just so
happens to be the State that produced about 30 percent of the offshore
oil and gas. All we're asking for is a little bit closer to fairness.
This amendment's a really important step in the right direction and
continues the concept that we've always promoted: to allow States that
do participate in producing American energy to also participate in the
revenue that's produced to the Federal Treasury. It's an incentive to
continue to encourage that kind of American energy exploration.
I support the amendment.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I'll just close by saying--and I'm not
sure I understand the logic of my friend on the other side of the
aisle--apparently, this is going to increase our Federal revenue by
$1.5 billion. But more importantly, it generates dollars for the State
of Louisiana to preserve these, the homes of these families. This
allows revenue that has been from our Outer Continental Shelf to come
back to preserve this coastline, these families, and these businesses
to remain in existence. And that's what this is really about, equity,
increased revenue for the Federal Government, and families in Louisiana
being able to preserve their existence.
I urge support for our amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 27, 2013, on page H4126, the following appeared: by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. SCALISE).
The online version should be corrected to read: by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. CASSIDY).
========================= END NOTE =========================
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman
from Louisiana will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cassidy
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. RULES REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES UNDER GULF
OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
issue rules to provide more clarity, certainty, and stability
to the revenue streams contemplated by the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note).
(b) Contents.--The rules shall include clarification of the
timing and methods of disbursements of funds under section
105(b)(2) of such Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply stipulates that no
later than 60 days after the enactment of H.R. 2231, the Secretary of
the Interior shall issue rules to provide clarity, certainty, and
stability to the revenue streams we just discussed that were created by
GOMESA of 2006.
This Federal law allows the State to use this money for the
restoration of coastal areas and the mitigation of damage to natural
resources. However, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, formerly
MMS, has yet to issue the necessary rules and regulations.
In 2009, a letter signed by the Governors of Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Texas asked for these rules to be published and
recommendations incorporated. It's now 2013, over 6 years since
Congress passed in 2006, and the rules have still not been published.
The lack of clarity in this phase 2 implementation of GOMESA impedes
the ability of Gulf States and eligible coastal political subdivisions
to conduct and achieve the planning efforts needed to maximize coastal
protection.
It's long overdue for these rules to be published. The amendment is
simple. It just directs it to do so. I move for approval of the
amendment.
[[Page H4127]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think his amendment again adds a great deal to this legislation. I
support the amendment.
Mr. CASSIDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose this amendment at this
time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE __MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. __. SEISMIC TESTING IN THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF.
Not later than December 31, 2013, the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management shall publish a record of decision on the
Atlantic G&G Programmatic Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. RIGELL. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2231, which
requires the administration to complete its Atlantic Environmental
Impact Statement by December 31 of this year, which will pave the way
for us to calculate new estimates of the tremendous energy potential
that's off our shores.
{time} 1710
It's been 30 years since geological and geophysical studies,
including seismic studies, have been conducted in Atlantic waters.
Those studies used outdated technology, and our current estimates for
the energy that is out there are surely inaccurate. And I believe
they're low. For example, we collected five times more oil from the
Gulf of Mexico than the government estimated to be there in 1983. The
study also will allow us to move forward with a critical component of
renewable energy--and that's wind.
So for all those reasons, the administration must stay on track here
and issue its long-awaited environmental impact statement--and do that
on time. And that's what my amendment ensures happens. It should move
forward with energy production and, most importantly, job creation,
using the best science available.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGELL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman's amendment makes a
great deal of sense. We've had discussions in our committee on the
accuracy of the data.
The point is that this legislation says that one ought to drill where
the resources are. And the gentleman's amendment, I think, goes a long
way in that direction. I commend him for that and support it.
Mr. RIGELL. I thank the chairman for your leadership on this bill.
I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. WITTMAN. I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's
amendment that sets a deadline for the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management to complete an environmental review to allow offshore
Atlantic seismic studies to go forward. I have joined 42 bipartisan
House colleagues urging President Obama to move quickly to complete the
environmental analysis.
Unfortunately, the Department of Interior is well over a year behind
in completing its work. As you know, delays continue to prevent the
creation of thousands of good-paying jobs and around $19.5 billion in
Federal, State, and local revenue.
I'm glad to join with Chairman Hastings in support of the Offshore
Energy and Jobs Act. These measures are important for Virginia and this
Nation, supporting domestic energy security, revenue sharing, and job
creation. This is about jobs, energy independence, and just plain, old
common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and this
important energy bill.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2013.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President of the United States of America,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge that your
Administration act to diligently complete the long-delayed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the conduct of a
safe, environmentally protective seismic assessment of the
oil and natural gas resources offshore the Atlantic outer
continental shelf (OCS). The gathering of such information
represents a critical step toward making science-based
decisions with regard to any future commercial or
recreational activities in the federal waters off our
Atlantic coastline that could provide the nation much needed
energy, economic, and environmental benefits.
It has been nearly two generations since seismic testing
was last conducted along our eastern seaboard. Since that
time, technological advancements have rendered those previous
findings nearly irrelevant. For example, while 2-D imaging
was restricted by certain geological characteristics, today's
3-D and 4-D imaging techniques allow us to identify resources
previously unknown to exist. By relying solely on outdated
technology and information, we are blindly assessing offshore
resource potential and making uninformed decisions without
the benefit of sound science. To further illustrate this
point, in 1987 the Minerals Management Service estimated that
there were 9.57 billion barrels of oil within the Gulf of
Mexico. In 2011, with more recent seismic data and
exploration, they adjusted that estimate to 48.4 billion
barrels of oil--roughly a 500% increase.
Contrary to the hyperbolic comments of many opposed to this
simple information-gathering process, history tells us it can
be done safely with great deference to our valuable ocean
ecosystems. Industry employs a number of effective mitigation
measures to reduce any potential impacts to wildlife in the
seismic survey areas such as ramping up the sound levels to
allow animals to leave the area before the full survey begins
and placing marine mammal observers onboard the survey vessel
to shut down the survey if an animal is spotted in the
vicinity. Industry has been performing seismic surveys around
the world, including the Gulf of Mexico, for decades and
there has never been a documented case where use of an air
gun to perform a seismic survey has caused the death of an
animal. Similarly, a report by the National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council stated that ``No
scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated a link
between exposure to sound and adverse effects on a marine
mammal population.'' It is past time to continue your
Administration's efforts to safely accumulate this
information using modern technology.
As you know, the Department of the Interior (DOI) held an
initial scoping meeting on their EIS for Atlantic OCS seismic
in April 2010. Previous to that in 2009, the FY 2010 House
Interior Appropriations bill instructed DOI to indicate their
expected timeline for completion of the EIS. DOI's response
in February 2010 indicated a Final EIS being issued in April
2012. With nearly a full year having passed beyond this
target date, we would urge the swift completion of this
environmental analysis so that the many seismic permits
already submitted to DOI may be properly considered, along
with any future applications.
Finally, in order to ensure a viable market for Atlantic
seismic data, we also urge your reconsideration of current
policies prohibiting any new oil and gas leasing in the
Atlantic OCS. Only the prospect of future leasing provides
proper market incentive to make the significant investments
needed to obtain this data.
We thank you for your consideration and hope to quickly
move forward on Atlantic seismic testing to enable a science-
based decision making process with regard to OCS access.
Sincerely,
Jeff Duncan; Doc Hastings; John Fleming; Steve Scalise;
Joe Wilson, Morgan Griffith; Robert Wittman; Doug
Lamborn; Rob Bishop; Tom Graves; Randy Forbes; Paul
Broun.
Mick Mulvaney; Virginia Foxx; Robert Hurt; Tom Rooney;
Frank Wolf; Richard Hudson; Trey Gowdy; Glenn Thompson;
Tom Rice; Renee Ellmers; Scott Rigell; Bob Goodlatte;
Mark Meadows; Robert Pittenger; Lynn Westmoreland; Bill
Cassidy.
Cynthia Lummis; Michael Conaway; Steve Stivers; Kevin
Cramer; Henry
[[Page H4128]]
Cuellar; Gene Green; Blake Farenthold; Bill Flores;
Chris Stewart; Mark Amodei; Tim Huelskamp; Charles
Boustany; Bill Johnson; Andy Harris.
____
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2013.
Hon. Robert Wittman,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wittman: Thank you for your letter
dated March 21, 2013, to President Barack Obama expressing
your support for the completion of the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate potential
effects of multiple geological and geophysical (G&G)
activities in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
President Obama has asked me to respond. A similar letter is
being sent to each co-signer of your letter.
We share your commitment to ensuring that our resource
management decisions are based on the best available science.
To that end, the information developed from the PEIS will
help guide future decision making regarding the resources
available on the Atlantic Coast OCS as well as the social,
economic, and environmental impacts of developing those
resources.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is in the
process of preparing a PEIS under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate potential effects of multiple
G&G activities in these areas, including seismic surveys
using air guns. BOEM was directed to develop this PEIS under
the Conference Report for the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
This PEIS is part of a region-specific strategy for oil and
gas exploration and development in the Mid and South Atlantic
that focuses on the need to update resource information in
order to inform future decisions about whether and, if so,
where leasing would be appropriate in these areas. Seismic
surveys and other G&G activities being evaluated in this PEIS
are valuable to understanding the location, extent, and
properties of hydrocarbon resources. G&G surveys are also
used to identify geologic hazards, archaeological resources,
and hard bottom habitats that would need to be avoided during
exploration and development. A variety of G&G techniques in
addition to air guns are being evaluated in the study. These
techniques are also used to understand the potential to site
renewable energy structures and locate marine mineral
resources, such as sand and gravel used for beach and barrier
island restoration.
In preparing the PEIS, BOEM uses the best available science
and works with experts and other regulatory agencies, such as
the National Marine Fisheries Service. BOEM has contributed
close to $40 million over the last decade on groundbreaking
research to better understand the potential for acoustic
impacts to marine life from geophysical sound sources. The
BOEM has also conducted several expert stakeholder workshops
to discuss and identify information needs on acoustic impacts
and reasonable measures to manage and mitigate such effects.
We appreciate your interest in potential seismic
exploration in the Mid and South Atlantic OCS waters. Please
be assured that completion of this important environmental
review remains a high priority for us.
Sincerely,
Tommy P. Beaudreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary--Land
and Minerals Management.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. As part of the Interior Department's 5-year plan, they
are preparing to allow companies to reevaluate the potential oil and
gas resources in the Mid- and South Atlantic using seismic and other
testing. The Interior Department is currently going through the process
of preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement for that
testing because they have received nine permit requests for seismic
airgun surveys. They have determined that because of the scope of
interest, a programmatic EIS under the National Environmental Policy
Act is needed prior to permitting any new, large-scale seismic surveys.
The programmatic EIS would establish a framework for future NEPA
evaluations of site-specific actions while identifying and analyzing
mitigation measures for future programmatic use.
Despite the claims of the majority, Mr. Chair, the Interior
Department already intends to finish the programmatic EIS by the end of
this year. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Beaudreau
testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on
May 16 of this year that:
In the spring of 2012, BOEM released the draft programmatic
environmental impact statement, or PEIS, for proposed
geological and geophysical activities in the Mid- and South
Atlantic for public comment. The completion of this PEIS is
part of a region-specific strategy with respect to oil and
gas exploration and development that will focus on the need
to update information in order to inform future decisions on
whether, and where, leasing would be appropriate. The final
PEIS is expected to be published this year.
That's just what Interior said just over 1 month ago. Their intention
is to finish this work by the end of this year. But if for some reason
Interior needs to complete additional surveys, we should not prevent
them from doing so. But that's what this amendment would do. It would
potentially short-circuit the NEPA process. We should allow the
Interior Department to finish its work to ensure that these activities
can occur in a way that does not adversely impact the environment and
not tie their hands, as the gentleman would do.
I urge defeat of this amendment that would potentially truncate a
proper environmental review, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RIGELL. How much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RIGELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's argument. I certainly don't agree with
it. The concern that we have--that I have personally--is that the
administration's willingness to keep the tempo and the cadence of this
whole process going forward is real. And if I approach this with a
great sense of urgency, it's because people are hurting. We need to
diversify our local economy. This bill that the underlying bill
supports could create 18,000 jobs in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia
alone.
I so appreciate the full support that we have, in principle, from
Senators Warner and Kaine on this very issue. This is a commonsense,
common ground, overall initiative to grow revenue that we need for
better roads and healthier schools in an environmentally responsible
way, moving forward with coastal Virginia energy. Our Governor supports
it. Our general assembly supports it. Our two U.S. Senators support it,
in principle. I ran on it. And it has the support of so many different
groups, including the local chapter of the NAACP, the chambers of
commerce. It's just a wonderful and, frankly, diverse group of
coalitions that has come together to say this is what is best for
Virginia and job creation. We need to move forward with this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his arguments.
And we have no problem with the underlying process. The question is,
why should we truncate this process at this time when important work is
now being done by the Department of Interior? We do not object to the
Department of Interior going forward. The Department has said in a
timely manner they will finish this this year. That is appropriate. It
is not necessary at this moment to eliminate the environmental process
when in fact we know it's moving forward in a fair and a judicious way.
If anything comes up, we need to hear that and understand that for
future oil leases.
And so I really request that we urge the defeat of this amendment and
allow the proper process to go forward because we do not oppose the
underlying theme of the bill but we do oppose the truncation of the
process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RIGELL. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. RIGELL. I appreciate the gentleman's argument but my deep concern
about the Federal government's real commitment to moving this forward
is legitimate. I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. But the Federal
Government does have a commitment in the Department of Interior to
finish this in a timely manner. It has just been reported in the past
month that they are working at this. They will finish it this year. So
notwithstanding the very strong arguments of the gentleman from
Virginia, we do not support truncating the environmental review
process, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
[[Page H4129]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Wittman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2231) to
amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to increase energy
exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, provide for
equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, implement the
reorganization of the functions of the former Minerals Management
Service into distinct and separate agencies, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________