[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 95 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4149-H4160]
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 may 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 (Mr. McClintock). 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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2231.
Will the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) kindly take the chair.
{time} 0917
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 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. Yoder (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
June 27, 2013, amendment No. 7, printed in part B of House Report 113-
131, offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell), had been
disposed of.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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. _01. PROHIBITION ON LEASING IN BRISTOL BAY OFF THE COAST
OF ALASKA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior may
not issue any oil and gas lease for any area of the outer
Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)) in
Bristol Bay off the coast of Alaska.
(b) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, title III of this Act shall have no force or effect.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to remove from the bill
provisions that would mandate leasing off of the fabulous Bristol Bay
area of Alaska.
Now, I've said this bill is a little bit like Groundhog Day because
we have passed it before, and we talked about that yesterday, but this
is about a bizarre version of Groundhog Day and why I am forced to
offer this amendment.
{time} 0920
Actually, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, I traveled up to the
spill with then-Subcommittee Chairman George Miller and saw what an
extraordinary mess had been created, something that in those cold
waters is very difficult to deal with and very persistent and caused
tremendous damage to the fisheries. Congress chose then, in 1989, under
President George H.W. Bush, to revoke the leases in the Bristol Bay
area in order to protect this $2 billion a year fishery.
In fact, the American people, the taxpayers of the United States of
America, paid $100 million to buy back those leases that had been sold
in the 1980s. That moratorium remained in place until then-President
George W. Bush lifted the moratorium.
The Obama administration has done the right thing and reversed George
W. Bush's decision and excluded Bristol Bay from drilling in the 2012-
2017 OCS leasing program. So we had the first President Bush agree that
a permanent protection of that area was warranted because of the $2-
billion-a-year renewable fishery and other precious resources, the cold
water, the difficult conditions. George W. Bush then reversed that, and
President Obama has reinstated a moratorium.
[[Page H4150]]
Now this bill would mandate leasing off of Bristol Bay. Obviously,
there's always division over these issues, but there is strong public
opposition to drilling in Bristol Bay--55 tribes, Native Alaskan
associations, and fishing organizations are opposed to the drilling in
that area. National environmental groups like Trout Unlimited, Wild
Salmon Center, and Natural Resources Defense Council also support this
amendment.
This is a precious and irreplaceable area. One major spill in that
area would devastate the environment, the fishery that supports
thousands of jobs in Alaska. Actually jobs all up and down the west
coast of the United States are dependent upon the fabulous fishery of
Bristol Bay, both the commercial and the sport fishing. I have guides
in Oregon who spend their summers in Alaska guiding in the Bristol Bay
area. It attracts people from around the world.
We should not put this extraordinary resource at risk in this bill
for some possible, potential future oil revenues in a State which is
already quite rich in oil, where the former Naval Petroleum Reserve has
been leased but, as in the case of many leases that the oil industry
holds, is not developed. That is why it was the Naval Petroleum
Reserve. There are known and large resources under that area of Alaska.
The balance is clearly in favor of protecting this area, not another
area to drill given the resources already available in Alaska.
I had to do a so-called ``pay-for.'' Last night we passed the Cassidy
amendment, which increases the Federal deficit by $15 billion--excuse
me, $14,999,999,970--over 30 years by lifting the cap on revenue
sharing with the Gulf States. That's costing, they say, $1 less than
$500 million a year. That didn't have to be paid for. They waived the
rules. But because I want to protect this fabulous resource, they're
saying you're forgoing potential possible future revenues for the
government, you must pay for it. So unfortunately, given that, I had to
move to strike title III so we could protect this resource.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
My good friend from Oregon talked about Groundhog Day as to the
nature of this bill. I can say, ``Well, here we go again.''
Instead of debating ways to create jobs, to enhance revenues, and to
secure our Nation from a national security standpoint, we are back to
debating a moratorium on offshore drilling that will lock away
America's energy resources. Specifically, this amendment would close a
wide area of Federal waters from drilling off the State of Alaska. But
this amendment doesn't just lock away America's resources, it also
eliminates State revenue-sharing provisions in the bill.
President Obama has already closed the North Aleutian Basin through
Presidential moratorium, closing off jobs and economic diversity to the
people of Alaska through 2017. The underlying legislation does not in
any way modify this unscientific Presidential closure or modify the
existing Presidential authority. It does, however--and this is
important, Mr. Chairman--provide that if this region contains some of
our Nation's greatest potential for energy, that we should open that
area for the future. I know that logic is sometimes lost in this town,
but in all honesty, Mr. Chairman, we should be drilling offshore in
those areas where we know the most resources are located or potentially
located.
The Natural Resources Committee has heard testimony time and time
again about young people leaving Alaska to chase jobs elsewhere. We
have also heard from the Aleutians, such as the Aleutians East Borough
mayor Stanley Mack, who spoke of how the opportunity for drilling in
the southern portion of the North Aleutian Basin could be a real
economic benefit for their communities.
This economic diversification is even more important when you
consider the petitions of extreme environmental groups proposing
massive fishery closures across Bristol Bay and the region, or the
potential for the declaration of a no-fishing national monument in
those areas, or the grave threat posed to fishing in Alaska in the
north Pacific by President Obama's executive order on ocean zoning,
where bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., will decide what happens and
what doesn't happen in ocean areas off Alaska and other States.
Finally, this amendment also eliminates revenue sharing for all
coastal States, preventing Alaska, Virginia, South Carolina,
California, and others from receiving a share of any energy development
off their shores.
This important provision is about bringing fairness to the Outer
Continental Shelf revenue sharing instead of limiting it to only four
States. Right now, only the Gulf States have that privilege.
When gas prices climbed to $4 a gallon in 2008, the American people
strongly supported lifting the Nation's offshore drilling bans, and
that support ran across the political spectrum, from Independents, to
Republicans, to Democrats. And that broad support for expanding
offshore drilling, frankly, continues to this day in this country.
This amendment would start us down the road of imposing new
moratoriums on America's offshore, which is the opposite of what
Americans want. And let me make this point, Mr. Chairman, and I said
this several times in the committee. If there is a poster child of a
State that was promised something when they got statehood and the
reverse is being done, it's got to be Alaska.
I know there's controversy surrounding the potential in the Bristol
Bay, but it's not unanimous on either side. But those in Alaska
certainly should be the ones that are integrally involved in that
decisionmaking process. But, no, here we have today an amendment from a
Member of Congress, who has every right to do it, but from the Lower
48, dictating what's going to go on in Alaska. Again, that to me
solidifies the poster child of a State really not getting what it
should be getting from its resources after statehood.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat this
amendment. And as I understand the gentleman from Oregon has yielded
back his time, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
{time} 0930
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. 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 __--JUDICIAL REVIEW
SEC. _01. TIME FOR FILING COMPLAINT.
(a) In General.--Any cause of action that arises from a
covered energy decision must be filed not later than the end
of the 60-day period beginning on the date of the covered
energy decision. Any cause of action not filed within this
time period shall be barred.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a cause
of action brought by a party to a covered energy lease.
SEC. _02. DISTRICT COURT DEADLINE.
(a) In General.--All proceedings that are subject to
section _01--
(1) shall be brought in the United States district court
for the district in which the Federal property for which a
covered energy lease is issued is located or the United
States District Court of the District of Columbia;
(2) shall be resolved as expeditiously as possible, and in
any event not more than 180 days after such cause or claim is
filed; and
(3) shall take precedence over all other pending matters
before the district court.
(b) Failure to Comply With Deadline.--If an interlocutory
or final judgment, decree, or order has not been issued by
the district court by the deadline described under this
[[Page H4151]]
section, the cause or claim shall be dismissed with prejudice
and all rights relating to such cause or claim shall be
terminated.
SEC. _03. ABILITY TO SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW.
An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the
district court in a proceeding that is subject to section _01
may be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit shall resolve any such
appeal as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not
more than 180 days after such interlocutory or final
judgment, decree, or order of the district court was issued.
SEC. _04. LIMITATION ON SCOPE OF REVIEW AND RELIEF.
(a) Administrative Findings and Conclusions.--In any
judicial review of any Federal action under this title, any
administrative findings and conclusions relating to the
challenged Federal action shall be presumed to be correct
unless shown otherwise by clear and convincing evidence
contained in the administrative record.
(b) Limitation on Prospective Relief.--In any judicial
review of any action, or failure to act, under this title,
the Court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief
unless the Court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn,
extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
a Federal law requirement, and is the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the violation concerned.
SEC. 05. LEGAL FEES.
Any person filing a petition seeking judicial review of any
action, or failure to act, under this title who is not a
prevailing party shall pay to the prevailing parties
(including intervening parties), other than the United
States, fees and other expenses incurred by that party in
connection with the judicial review, unless the Court finds
that the position of the person was substantially justified
or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
SEC. _06. EXCLUSION.
This title shall not apply with respect to disputes between
the parties to a lease issued pursuant to an authorizing
leasing statute regarding the obligations of such lease or
the alleged breach thereof.
SEC. _07. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Covered energy decision.--The term ``covered energy
decision'' means any action or decision by a Federal official
regarding the issuance of a covered energy lease.
(2) Covered energy lease.--The term ``covered energy
lease'' means any lease under this Act or under an oil and
gas leasing program under this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today has
great potential to create jobs, to boost our economy, and provide our
country with new, much-needed sources of energy. But as written, it
also has the potential to invite frivolous, duplicative lawsuits filed
by outside entities with no real tie to the individual contracts
stemming from this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen it happen time and time again: situations
in which the community, the developer, and the Federal Government are
all on the same page, but plans are ultimately ground to a halt by
activist environmental groups that file lawsuit after lawsuit in order
to stop the development in its tracks.
My amendment would stop this cycle as it relates to projects begun
under this bill. It would allow individuals and groups not party to a
lease under this bill to file a suit once--only once--within 60 days of
an official action under the bill. Should a suing entity lose, it would
be allowed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, and final resolution would have to be reached within
180 days.
Finally, my amendment would also include a ``loser pays'' standard,
meant to protect taxpayers and discourage the filing of a suit without
true legal merit.
Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would do much to move our country
ahead, but I fear that we will not reach our full potential unless this
important language is included.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
just simply want to say that I think the amendment adds to this
legislation, and I support the legislation.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment.
To begin with, this amendment creates a major obstacle for parties
such as States, municipalities, local entities, and nonprofit
organizations from challenging unsound licensing decisions in the
courts.
It does this by requiring the losing side in these disputes to pay
the legal costs, not just of the prevailing party, but for every
intervening party as well. Just imagine what this would mean.
How could a local beach community risk bringing an action knowing
that it may have to pay for its own legal costs, let alone the legal
costs of all of the parties in the case, which could include some of
the Nation's largest oil and gas producers. Without question, this
draconian cost-shifting regime will have a chilling effect on the right
of individuals, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations to
challenge licensing decisions that could have devastating effects on
their communities.
Sure, the provision allows the losing party to argue that its
position was substantially justified or that special circumstances make
such an award unjust, but even meeting that standard could require
extensive litigation.
This savings provision offers the tiniest of fig leafs. It is clear
that the real intent of this provision is to ensure that only the
wealthiest members of society will be able to litigate these issues.
Second, this amendment is not necessary. Current law already
authorizes a Federal court to sanction a party for filing frivolous
actions or for engaging in wrongful conduct. Federal rule of Civil
Procedure 11 deems every pleading, motion, and any other paper filed by
a party in a Federal proceeding to be a certification by such party:
that it is not being presented for an improper purpose; that the claims
and legal contentions asserted in the pleadings are warranted by
existing law; and that the factual contentions made in the pleading
have evidentiary support.
And should the court find that any of those requirements have been
violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction, including
requiring the offending party to pay all of the prevailing party's
reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses arising from the
violation.
In addition, the court, under certain circumstances, may also impose
monetary sanctions against a party who violates rule 11. So, in sum,
this amendment is simply not necessary.
Third, this amendment is not only an affront to the independence of
the Federal judiciary, but it could seriously disrupt the ability of
the courts to meet its obligations to litigants in other pending
matters. The amendment does this by setting hard-and-fast deadlines
that ignore the complexities of the individual case or the court's
schedule. And it requires the court to prioritize these actions over
all other pending matters before the court.
Not surprisingly, the Judicial Conference of the U.S. has long
opposed legislative efforts to impose specific deadlines and mandate
that certain actions be prioritized over others for some very important
reasons. By imposing rigid deadlines, measures such as this amendment
undermine the effective civil case management and unduly hamper the
court's discretion in managing and prioritizing its case docket. Each
case should be considered on its own merits without the imposition of
artificial deadlines.
Worse yet, this amendment specifically provides that if the district
court fails to meet this deadline, the case must be dismissed with
prejudice and terminates all rights relating to cause or claim. Just
imagine how a defendant could use this provision to its advantage by
running the clock through delaying tactics such as employing a
multiplicity of procedures and time-consuming discovery demands. This
amendment is anti-justice. It must be opposed.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm not advocating for ``loser
pays'' in all civil cases. My amendment relates only to these specific
cases, in
[[Page H4152]]
which an extremist environmental group files suit after suit simply to
stop the development of natural resources and energy resources on
American soil. Under my amendment, parties to a lease aren't subject to
this standard.
Furthermore, my amendment does not undo the ability for members of
the community who are concerned about a particular lease to petition
the government--State or Federal--during the NEPA process.
Finally, while I understand the concern that ``loser pays'' harms
complainants with the least amount of disposable income, I would simply
say that near-record gas prices are harming them and are hurting the
most vulnerable in our society, poor people and senior citizens on
limited income. In fact, my colleague from Georgia, my good friend, was
saying it's unnecessary. But if it's unnecessary, he shouldn't be
afraid of this amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, and I urge
its support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. 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 Georgia will
be postponed.
{time} 0940
Amendment No. 10, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Grayson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 113-131, as modified by the order of
the House on June 27, 2013.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting 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. __. STATE RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED.
Nothing in this Act and the amendments made by this Act
affects the right and power of each State to prohibit
management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath
navigable waters, and the natural resources within such
lands, within its boundaries.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple savings clause amendment
of the kind that we include typically, frequently, in almost every bill
that's a major bill that passes this House. It says as follows:
Nothing in this Act and the amendments made by this Act
affects the right and power of each State to prohibit
management, leasing, developing, and use of lands beneath
navigable waters, and the natural resources within such
lands, within its boundaries.
The simple purpose of this is to avoid any implication by this
statute that it is taking away any rights of any State, including my
State of Florida, where drilling rights are a matter of extreme
controversy.
Now, why do we do this? Because of the Constitution, because the
supremacy clause in the Constitution says the Federal law is the
highest law of the land. And whenever we're dealing with any area, any
area at all of the law, where there are states' rights and there are
Federal rights, it's incumbent upon us to explain that we are
preserving those State rights, not just in this bill but in every bill.
In fact, we are shoring up the provision that exists already in 43
U.S.C. 1311, entitled ``Rights of States.''
And why do we need to do that?
Because this is a comprehensive scheme to regulate offshore drilling
in this country, and when you establish any comprehensive scheme, you
run the risk that a court will determine that you have obliterated, you
have annihilated, you have eliminated states' rights. That is what
happens when you pass a law that is a comprehensive Federal scheme.
Now, yesterday, we had a similar amendment come up. In that case the
vote was a very exciting 213-213 tie vote. And the arguments that were
made against the amendment yesterday today simply do not apply.
Yesterday, if you may recall, Mr. Chairman, a map was provided by the
opposition to that amendment. The map pointed out that the drilling in
that area was limited to offshore drilling on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Well, today, we're dealing with drilling from sea to shining sea,
dealing with all of our shores. So that limitation that was promoted
yesterday doesn't apply.
Yesterday, there was an argument made at the last minute that,
somehow or other, the definition of States in this amendment applied to
Mexican states, which was absurd and ridiculous, and yet, it was made
against that amendment. All you had to do is look at the definition,
not just in the title, but in the chapter and the subchapter of the
word ``States,'' and you would see that the word ``States'' is defined
as limited to the United States of America.
Now, today's bill provides a much greater threat to Federal
preemption of State law than yesterday's bill did. In fact, this bill
explicitly entangles Federal and State law together in this area under
section 1344(a)(2)(F) of this bill. This actually establishes a
consultation regarding the States which could be construed as being in
lieu of and extinguishing states' rights.
It's a clear error in the drafting of this bill, and my amendment is
necessary to protect it. My amendment is necessary to prevent a
preemption, through this bill, of states' rights.
This bill clearly, as drafted, conflates Federal and states' rights
and would lead to a disastrous preemption of states' rights based upon
section 1344(a)(2)(F) alone.
Now, today we have new arguments that have been made against this
simple savings provision, and neither one of those arguments carries
any weight. One argument that we've already heard is that this bill
couldn't possibly preempt states' rights.
Well, in fact, it could possibly preempt states' rights. I've
explained to you how that could happen. Any Federal court could look at
this bill, reach the conclusion, particularly with regard to the
presence of 1344(a)(2)(F), that this is a comprehensive Federal scheme,
and it preempts states' rights.
We've never heard any explanation from anyone opposing this amendment
as to how it could not preempt states' rights.
Secondly, we've heard an argument which, respectfully, verges on the
specious, that this amendment somehow would negate individual rights,
and that is completely false, completely without any merit.
In fact, I would venture to say that there has never been a case
where a statute or an amendment or a bill that contains the phrase
``Nothing in this Act affects the right and power of each State''--I
don't know how that could ever be construed as somehow negating
individual rights.
Clearly, on its own terms, explicitly, this amendment simply
preserves states' rights.
We are in a fundamentally different situation today than we were
yesterday because of the presence of section 1344(a)(2)(F) in this
bill. There is a far greater need today than there was yesterday with
the tie vote to have this amendment here as a savings clause.
I would call, respectfully, upon the chairman of the committee to
agree to this amendment today and let us move on.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again with unnecessary amendments designed
to delay the work of Congress in enacting important legislation that
would expand U.S. offshore energy production in order to create, once
again, millions of new American jobs, to lower energy prices, to grow
our economy, and strengthen our national security.
H.R. 2231 is similar to legislation passed last Congress and fully
upholds existing states' rights within their boundaries and offshore
areas. Nothing
[[Page H4153]]
in this bill changes the fundamental 60-year-old relationship between
States and the Federal Government enshrined in the Submerged Lands Act
or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
This bill is focused on activity in Federal waters and respects
States' abilities to control and govern their waters. States' authority
is in no way limited or affected by this bill. Existing Federal law
protects states' rights over their waters, and boundaries are not
changed or amended in this bill. I've now repeated that three times.
The gentleman's amendment is asserted as a simple restatement of
these states' rights, though its sponsor admits the principle is not a
restatement of existing law, but of the principle--big difference in
that, Mr. Chairman, which is where the amendment then raises several
serious questions that leads me to oppose its adoption in the form that
it is written.
As drafted, the amendment purportedly reflects current law with
regards to management of natural resources, but it could effectively
usurp the individual private property rights of individuals in favor of
State control.
The amendment reads that it is the right and power of each State to
prohibit management, leasing, developing the natural resources within
such lands within its boundaries.
States have the right to regulate natural resources, but not outright
prohibit development of private property. That's the point here, Mr.
Chairman.
In the United States, unlike much of the remainder of the world,
natural resources are owned both by the government and private
individuals. The right to private property is one of the foundations of
our Constitution. Natural resources property rights include the right
to own minerals, timber rights, water rights, and those are just a few
examples.
Congress should not be endorsing a policy that gives the States sole
power to prohibit the development of these rights, and that's what this
amendment could do. Such an action, like that embodied in this
amendment, could be construed as a massive taking, in violation of the
Constitution.
The government can't take property without compensation. The courts
have held, including this week, in the gentleman's State of Florida, a
Florida case at the Supreme Court that the State taking property or
impinging on its fair use requires fair compensation.
Even if a State may not be inclined to fully exercise such authority
granted by this amendment, should it become law, simple passage could
open the door to lawsuits challenging private property rights. It's for
these reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on the Grayson amendment.
And Mr. Chairman, at a time when our Nation's economy continues to
struggle, we should avoid erecting new barriers to economic activity
and private freedoms.
Again, this amendment is unnecessary, as H.R. 2231 fully upholds and
it does not change or diminish or impinge existing states' rights.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I'd like to yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman of the full committee,
Representative Hastings. And I'll just reinforce the last point he was
making.
And I don't believe that the gentleman from Florida intended his
language to do this. But it says it is the right and power of each
State to prohibit management, leasing, developing of the natural
resources within such lands within its boundaries.
I don't believe it was intended, but this could have the dangerous
consequence of trampling on private property rights.
{time} 0950
It's been tried in the Fifth Amendment, and that is a vital core
principle in our Bill of Rights. And I know that you didn't intend
that, but this language could lead to that. For that reason alone, we
should reject this amendment. This could have dangerous consequences.
So I agree with the full chairman, the gentleman from Washington.
Let's reject this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to make this point in the 15
seconds I have left.
The gentleman from Florida referenced 1334(a)2(f). That is not
amended or referenced in this bill. So the gentleman's argument that
that could somehow play a part in that is simply not true because it's
not referenced; it is not amended.
I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, 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. __. PROVISIONS NOT EFFECTIVE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section
203 and title III shall have no force or effect.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment that is
overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, and I hope we can all
agree to it. The amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision
in the bill that actually mandates new drilling in the sensitive waters
off Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties in my district. Whatever the
reasons behind this provision, the fact remains that the people most
affected--my constituents--don't want new drilling.
My colleagues have heard me before invoke Santa Barbara's devastating
1969 oil spill, and that's because it galvanized central coast
residents and actually the entire State of California against more
offshore drilling. We were outraged by the damage to the environment,
wildlife, and our economy.
We understood the havoc that similar blowouts could wreak on our
economy, especially our tourism and our fishing industries. That's why
California permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in State waters
in 1994. It's why some 24 city and county governments, including both
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, have passed measures banning or
requiring voter approval before any new onshore facilities to support
offshore drilling can be built. And it's why in 2008, then-Republican
Governor Schwarzenegger told President Bush and Congress to oppose new
drilling off the west coast. Even the Pentagon has expressed concerns
with new drilling in the area.
Mr. Chair, Californians have spoken loud and clear. We do not want
more drilling off our shores. I urge my colleagues to join us in
striking these harmful and unnecessary provisions from the bill and
support the Capps-Brownley-Lowenthal amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, when Juan Cabrillo first sailed up the Santa Barbara
Channel in 1542, he noted a massive natural oil slick. That's how vast
California's petroleum resources are.
Today, we hear much about the Bakken shale oil formation that has
[[Page H4154]]
produced unparalleled prosperity for North Dakota. Yet California's
Monterey oil deposit is nearly five times the size of the Bakken field
in North Dakota. California also has 1.6 billion barrels of untapped
offshore oil in unleased acreage right now that can be reached with
slant drilling from onshore. But California's resources are placed off
limits by the ideological extremism that is now on full display
courtesy of the amendment offered by my colleagues from California.
They have had their way in California for a full generation, and I've
watched their folly take what once could boast of being America's
Golden State and turn it into an economic basket case and a national
laughingstock.
California's unemployment rate is the second highest in the Nation at
8.6 percent. North Dakota's is the lowest at 3.2 percent. Yesterday,
the average price per gallon of gas in California was $4.03. In North
Dakota, it was $3.69. Since 2000, California's reliance on foreign oil
imports has literally doubled as a percentage and tripled as a volume.
They're not helping the environment.
When I grew up in Ventura County 50 years ago, everyone on the coast
kept pans of turpentine in their garages to wash off the globs of
natural tar that you couldn't avoid as you walked on the beach. The
offshore oil development of that era relieved the natural pressure that
had polluted the waters of Santa Barbara Channel for centuries, and
over several decades the tar disappeared and the beaches have never
been cleaner.
Those were also the days when California literally led our Nation's
economy. People had high-paying jobs, low energy bills, and families
from across America seeking a better future for their children flocked
to California. Now those same families flee from California.
Mr. Chairman, if I sound a little bitter, it's because I am. I have
watched their policies destroy the promise and prosperity of my Golden
State for my children. For God's sake, don't let them destroy our
country.
Mrs. CAPPS. I'll just make the quick comment that the suggestion that
oil seeps are good for the environment or that more oil drilling would
reduce oil seeps is simply bad science. Even the authors of the one
study that suggested this might be possible have repudiated its use
before Congress.
I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman
from coastal California (Mr. Lowenthal).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentlewoman from California, who has been
an outstanding champion of ocean protection.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It would not only
honor the wishes of the Governor of California, but also the vast
majority of the Federal and State representatives, especially all those
that are closest to where this misguided bill would not only authorize,
but would force the sale of offshore oil and gas leases. These are the
people who would bear the greatest risk of any oil spill, which, as we
all know, has already occurred in the past in these waters.
As I just said, the underlying bill we are considering today not only
just authorizes, but it mandates lease sales in vast portions of the
Outer Continental Shelf, including southern California, forcing the
Interior Department and the States to accept leases in their backyards,
regardless of the opposition from potential impacts. And it not only
does that, it bars citizens from properly participating in the process.
What do I mean? This bill lacks meaningful environmental review and a
chance for Americans to voice their informed consent by not allowing
any consideration of any nonleasing alternative in the NEPA process.
Instead, what does the bill do? It dictates to the public, it
dictates to the States, it dictates to the Interior Department, without
any of their input, where oil and gas leases will be held. This would
occur regardless of whether the public has legitimate concerns or not.
Too bad. They're going to drill in our backyard.
Mr. Chair, instead of focusing on dead-end legislation, this body
should be preparing for our energy future, which I believe the public
will demand more and more.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 1 minute
remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment simply ensures that the express will of my
constituents and the people of California is respected. I find it
ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry the
overarching Federal Government seem to have no qualms about forcing new
drilling upon a local population directly against its wishes.
{time} 1000
The American people are tired of these political games, especially
those that put our coasts, our communities, and our way of life at
risk. Instead of expanding oil and gas drilling, we should be working
together on a responsible, sustainable energy policy for the future.
We can't end our dependence on oil overnight, but we can certainly do
more to encourage innovation and clean energy technologies like solar,
wind, and biofuels. We can enact better efficiency standards to make
the resources we do have last longer, and we can end the billions of
dollars in giveaways for Big Oil and finally level the playing field
for all types of energy technology.
A clean energy future is good for jobs, it's good for our
environment, and it's good for the American people. This bill is just
another recycled bad idea designed to go nowhere.
Doubling down on oil drilling may be good policy for oil companies,
but it's terrible policy for the American people. This amendment would
help stop these games and stop the reckless expansion of oil drilling
off the southern California coast.
I urge my colleagues to respect the will of California's voters and
support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this point. The fundamental reason
for H.R. 2231 is to expand energy production in American waters. This
amendment would put another moratorium; it goes the opposite direction.
Furthermore, this amendment would eliminate revenue sharing, which has
worked so well in the gulf coast.
But here's the point I want to make specifically about California
that was not made by my two colleagues on the other side of the aisle
from California. This legislation directs that any offshore drilling
should come from existing rigs onshore. That is possible to do, Mr.
Chairman, because of the new technologies--horizontal drilling--that
the oil industry has done for several years. It works. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Chairman, the Governor of the State of California, Jerry
Brown, has proposed precisely that for State waters.
Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from California
didn't mention that--I don't know why they didn't mention it, because
their Governor is in favor of that process. What this bill does is
simply mirror that by saying we'll do that in Federal waters.
I think my colleague from California (Mr. McClintock) put it in a
very good way: California, like the United States, needs a jump-start
in the economy. The best way to do that is through energy production,
providing a certainty of energy for a growing economy in the future.
With that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will
[[Page H4155]]
now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 113-
131 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
Amendment No. 11 by Mrs. Capps of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 235, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
AYES--183
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--235
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Coble
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Kaptur
Langevin
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Nunes
Perlmutter
Smith (WA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1035
Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 299, had I been present, I would
have voted ``yes.''
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 202, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 300]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
[[Page H4156]]
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--202
Amash
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Coble
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Goodlatte
Kaptur
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Nunes
Perlmutter
Smith (WA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1040
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I regret that I was detained at the
beginning of the vote series on June 28, 2013 during votes on
amendments to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Had I been
present, my intention was to vote ``no'' on the DeFazio Amendment and
``yes'' on the Broun amendment.
Again, I regret that I was detained.
Amendment No. 10, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Grayson
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Grayson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209,
noes 210, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 301]
AYES--209
Andrews
Barber
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOES--210
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
[[Page H4157]]
NOT VOTING--15
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Coble
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Kaptur
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Napolitano
Nunes
Perlmutter
Smith (WA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1046
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 300--Brown (GA) Amendment 301--
Grayson (FL) Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''
on rollcall No. 300 on Brown; ``yes'' rollcall No. 301 on Grayson.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Capps
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 241, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 302]
AYES--176
Andrews
Barber
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--241
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--17
Bachus
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Coble
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Kaptur
Levin
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Napolitano
Nunes
Perlmutter
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1050
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 302 Capps Amendment. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably absent earlier today during
rollcall vote 302. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 302, the Capps amendment to H.R. 2231, the Offshore
Energy and Jobs Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, 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,
and, pursuant to House Resolution 274, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Add at the end the following:
[[Page H4158]]
TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. _01. PROHIBITION ON DRILLING FOR OIL OR GAS UNDERNEATH
THE GREAT LAKES.
Nothing in Act and the amendments made by this Act affects
the prohibition on issuance of oil and gas leases for new oil
and gas slant, directional, or offshore drilling in or under
one or more of the Great Lakes established by section 386 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; 42 U.S.C.
13368 note).
SEC. _02. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT AND PROHIBITION ON
OUTSOURCING OF AMERICAN JOBS.
Each oil and gas leasing program issued pursuant to this
Act, and each lease issued pursuant to this Act or such a
program, shall encourage each major integrated oil company
(as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986) that obtains such a lease--
(1) to use only materials made in the United States in
drilling operations; and
(2) to avoid outsourcing American jobs.
Mr. FLORES (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
I rise to offer this motion to recommit to ensure, first, that one of
our Nation's most important natural resources, our Great Lakes basin,
is protected from untenable energy exploitation risk; and, second, that
as we explore additional ways to boost domestic energy production, we
do so with an appropriate emphasis on creating jobs here in America.
Our Great Lakes are truly unique. Within these lakes sit 95 percent
of the United States' surface water and 20 percent of the world's
surface water. Straddling the United States and Canada, the Great
Lakes--Superior, Michigan, Huron, Ontario and Erie--have more than
10,000 miles of coastline, touching eight States: Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York.
Not only a critical source of drinking water, the lakes are integral
to the country for transportation, power generation, and recreational
opportunity. Over 30 million Americans in cities, towns, and rural
communities depend on the Great Lakes for their lives and livelihoods.
In fact, according to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action
Plan, taken as a whole, the Great Lakes region economy would be the
second largest economy in the world, second only to that of the United
States.
The Great Lakes support an incredible biodiversity, including almost
200 species of native fish and scores of species found nowhere else in
the world. In short, as one of our Nation's greatest treasures, we
cannot put the Great Lakes at risk from oil and gas drilling of any
kind.
My amendment is quite simple and straightforward. With it, I only
seek to ensure that the Great Lakes will remain protected and off-
limits from unjustifiable environmental risk. It safeguards Lake
Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario from
potentially detrimental and irreversible harm and provides necessary
protections against potentially irresponsible exploitation of our
natural resources.
In my own State, the Great Lakes annually contribute over $200
billion in economic activity for Illinois. Lake Michigan alone provides
drinking water for 7 million Illinois residents. It brings 20 million
visitors annually to Illinois, supports 33,000 jobs, and generates $3.2
billion in economic activity.
As we explore ways for the United States to become more energy
independent, we cannot lose sight of the importance of protecting our
environment and establishing commonsense rules of where and how we can
effectively, safely utilize our natural resources.
Preserving the prohibition on drilling the Great Lakes provides
economic security to thousands of businesses, large and small, that
depend on the lakes every day for trade, recreation, and tourism. It
also protects the health of our communities and the health of our
wildlife.
Let me be clear: the underlying legislation, while focusing on
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, has other provisions that
relate to domestic energy production and may, when implemented, have
implications for the Great Lakes.
The bill specifically restricts oil and gas leasing in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico and should also include a restriction on new oil and gas
leasing in the Great Lakes basin. This clarifying amendment is,
therefore, necessary to ensure that our energy policy does not
compromise our Great Lakes ecosystem, does not threaten our single
greatest fresh water supply, and does not unduly put our Great Lakes
basin economy at unwarranted risk.
In addition to protecting the Great Lakes, the amendment I am
proposing today would also encourage companies seeking leases to drill
for oil and gas found in America to use materials and products made in
America.
{time} 1100
This additional provision will ensure that U.S. oil and gas resources
will benefit American workers, as well as provide new business
opportunities for American manufacturers. As we pursue a diversified
energy portfolio, we must continue to ensure that America's natural
resources benefit the American people and are not unfairly diverted to
the benefit of foreign suppliers and foreign workers.
Mr. Speaker, the essential provisions of this amendment will only
improve the underlying bill, while protecting Americans' jobs and our
environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support these commonsense
changes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLORES. I rise in strong opposition to this motion. This motion
epitomizes what's wrong with Washington Democrats' energy and economic
plan.
Let's start with the obvious: the Great Lakes are not part of the
Outer Continental Shelf. The second thing is current law already
provides for offshore drilling to be done, using America's goods and
service wherever practical. So their empty argument doesn't make any
sense at all.
But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, this week offers a true contrast
between two visions for how to fuel our economy and to build
manufacturing jobs. One vision was laid out by the President earlier
this week. While we are currently in the midst of a transformation in
the way we produce American energy cleanly, affordably, abundantly, and
responsibly through the use of new and improving technology, how does
the administration respond? By declaring a war on coal and picking
winners and losers in energy production, both of which have been an
assault on job creators, especially for American manufacturing.
Even as we've been debating this bill, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have responded by attempting to drown offshore
production with more regulations and declarations that make it more
difficult to achieve energy independence by 2020, thus, killing tens of
thousands of American jobs that could be created.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is another vision of how we can energize
America through the responsible production of our resources and create
American jobs. That vision does not include ill-advised regulations
that ignore the effects on the pocketbooks of hardworking American
families. It does not include programs where political appointees and
bureaucrats can decide who can and cannot produce energy at the expense
of hardworking taxpayer dollars. And, most importantly, it does not
include administrative attempts to implement a backdoor cap-and-trade
regime to fulfill the President's original goal, where ``electricity
rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
This new vision, our vision, builds off what the private sector has
done in revolutionizing how oil and can be produced. It takes stock of
what laws this Congress has passed and the regulations this
administration has promulgated, and then we ask ourselves? What can we
do to make America truly energy independent? What can we do to make it
easier for the job creators to
[[Page H4159]]
actually create jobs that grow healthy American families?
This House is working to achieve this vision now, offering solutions
to take advantage of the innovative, job-creating, and cost-reducing
energy resurgence that is going on across America to fuel the next
generation of American manufacturing. We have passed hydropower bills
out of this house. We passed the popular Keystone XL pipeline bill.
Today, we will pass a bill for responsible offshore energy production.
And this is just the beginning. This House, through the leadership of
my good friend from Washington, Chairman Doc Hastings, will continue to
bring bills through committee and to the House floor that will embrace
American resources and that will get the government out of the way of
producing them.
By producing American energy, we are just starting. We must harness
these same technological advances to achieve even greater economic
opportunity and job creation through the distribution of this energy
and, most importantly, creating an environment where we can start
making things in America again.
We know that the cost of energy is one of the most important factors
that determine where plants are built and if jobs are created. So we
know that cheaper energy means higher-paying American jobs.
I often see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this
floor with a big sign that says, ``Make It in America.'' We agree. So
instead of standing next to a slogan or getting behind the same
rhetoric as the President, I urge my colleagues to work toward a
vision, a vision of jobs and energy security and a greater standard of
living that all Americans are desperately seeking. This is how we
really take action for our kids, as compared to the empty rhetoric of
the White House.
The American people want us to create results-oriented solutions of
what America can do, not the tired liberal rhetoric of what America
can't do. We will not sit idly by as the President lays down his vision
of new regulations, producing uncertainty for American energy workers
and American families that could stamp back our Nation's energy and
economic revolution.
Remember the results of the President's last energy plan:
Number one, greatly reduced access to offshore areas and public
lands;
Number two, programs like Solyndra, where he ``invested'' $26 billion
of money from hardworking taxpayers to produce only 2,300 jobs, at a
cost of $11.5 million per job;
Number three, the shutdown of 20 percent of our coal-fired
electricity generation and the loss of paychecks for thousands of
American families.
His latest energy plan is more of the same types of action that he
wants to do to destroy the futures of our kids and grandkids.
Mr. Speaker, we will work toward energy security, and I urge a ``no''
vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and approval of the Journal,
if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 303]
AYES--195
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--225
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Benishek
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Coble
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Kaptur
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Nunes
Perlmutter
Smith (WA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1114
Mr. PETERSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page H4160]]
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 186, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 304]
AYES--235
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--186
Andrews
Barber
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Campbell
Coble
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Kaptur
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Nunes
Perlmutter
Smith (WA)
Young (FL)
{time} 1120
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 299 on H.R. 2231,
on Agreeing to the Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon Amendment
No. 8, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a death in the
family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 300 on H.R. 2231, on Agreeing to the
Amendment offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia Amendment No. 9, I am not
recorded because I was absent due to a death in the family. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 301 on H.R. 2231, on Agreeing to the
Amendment offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida Amendment No. 10, I am not
recorded because I was absent due to a death in the family. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 302 on H.R. 2231, on Agreeing to the
Amendment offered by Ms. Capps of California Amendment No. 11, I am not
recorded because I was absent due to a death in the family. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 303 on H.R. 2231, on Motion to Recommit
with Instructions, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, I am not recorded
because I was absent due to a death in the family. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 304 on H.R. 2231, on Passage, the
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, I am not recorded because I was absent
due to a death in the family. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________