[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 149 (Friday, October 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6941-H6965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ADAPTATION TO CHANGING CRUDE OIL MARKETS


                             general leave

  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material in the Record on the bill, H.R. 702.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 466 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. 702.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1003


                     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. 702) to adapt to changing crude oil market conditions, with Mr. 
Hultgren 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 Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Harper), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 702, but, 
more importantly, I rise today in support of American jobs.
  The U.S. daily production of oil has increased dramatically in the 
past 14 years. That number is projected to continue to increase due to 
advances in technology, but companies need a new market. At this point, 
the ban is not protecting the economy. Instead, the economy is being 
restricted, and Americans are being denied jobs.
  My district and State rely on good-paying oil industry jobs. At a 
time when our economy can't afford to see unemployment numbers rise, 
oil companies are being forced to cut back their workforce. Lifting the 
ban on crude oil exports will mean new jobs for Mississippians that 
will allow them to support their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 702 and for 
American jobs.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 702, a poorly crafted bill 
that needlessly and recklessly sweeps away 40 years of critical energy 
protections for national security, our economy, consumers, and the 
environment.
  H.R. 702 is a blunt object that doesn't just undermine current 
protective authorities related to crude oil; it also prohibits any 
Federal official from taking any action at any time if that action 
either restricts or enforces a restriction on the export of oil. The 
term ``restriction'' is undefined and potentially dangerous in scope.
  The bill would also override any other law that would impose any 
restriction by any Federal official on exports. That means that the 
bill does nothing to preserve any environment or safety statutes or 
regulations, and it doesn't even preserve the Defense Production Act, 
one of the most important tools any President has to ensure our 
national energy security in the face of a threat.
  Let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. The President has already stated that 
he will veto this bill. Further, any legislation of this nature is 
completely unnecessary since the President already has the authority to 
ease or even remove restrictions on crude oil exports, and the Obama 
administration has taken major steps to exercise that authority by 
approving crude oil swaps with Mexico and applications for the export 
of condensate.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that it is imperative for Congress 
to consider a host of factors before we lift the current restrictions 
and, certainly, if we are to completely dismantle our Nation's ability 
to restrict oil exports, as proposed by H.R. 702.
  First, Mr. Chairman, there are consumer impacts, especially related 
to the price of crude oil and gasoline. A recent study found that 
changes to U.S. oil export policy will have little to no impact on the 
future price of oil.
  What we do know is that changes in our crude oil policy will lead to 
a significant payday for oil producers, with increases in annual 
profits approaching $30 billion by 2025.
  Next, there are the impacts on our refinery capacity and associated 
jobs, well-paying middle class jobs that have grown over the past few 
years due to increased production. Unrestricted exports of crude oil 
put those jobs at jeopardy and could mean exporting those jobs and 
losing out on critical investments in future refining capacity.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, there are, of course, the environmental 
and climate impacts of lifting the export ban. Energy policy is 
fundamentally linked to environmental policy. Each is a facet of the 
other. Increasing crude oil exports means increasing domestic 
production and its impacts on climate change, public health, worker 
safety, property owners, and protection of our drinking water supplies.
  As I have said before, this legislation eagerly embraces short-term 
profits and benefits without understanding or even considering the cost 
of such a major action. We simply can't afford to make that mistake. We 
should ensure we fully understand and consider the enduring 
consequences of our actions and choose the cleanest and most 
sustainable path forward.
  I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the potential impacts of H.R. 702 
on national security, on the economy, on consumers, and on the 
environment can be considered acceptable.
  So, Mr. Chairman, increased crude exports certainly help oil 
companies. It is a bonanza for the oil companies, but without any 
guaranteed benefits for consumers. I urge my colleagues to join me and 
the President in saying ``no'' to this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON. My understanding, in general debate, the majority, or 
proponents, have 30 minutes, and then the opponents have 30 minutes; is 
that correct?

[[Page H6942]]

  The CHAIR. On this bill, yes, the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce each control 30 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the original Democrat sponsor, have 6 minutes 
of the proponent's time to control as he sees fit.
  The CHAIR. The Chair cannot entertain a unanimous consent request to 
change the scheme for control of general debate.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an additional parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON. Could the Chair educate the illiterate Member from Texas 
on how I could give Mr. Cuellar time that he may control on his side? 
If I can't yield it unanimously, how can I do that?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas may yield from his own time to 
engage in debate, and may yield to Members on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. BARTON. Continuing the parliamentary inquiry, if I do that, can 
he reserve part of that time, or does he have to use it all in one 
slot?
  The CHAIR. The other gentleman from Texas would not control the time.
  Mr. BARTON. He could not reserve any of it?
  The CHAIR. Correct.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
the time to speak on this bill, which I wholeheartedly support, because 
ending this oil export ban will not only boost our economy, it will 
also improve our foreign policy.
  I also rise with hesitation to a proposed amendment that would remove 
a provision of this bill boosting payments to the 60 ships of our 
maritime security fleet. These ships are essential in transporting 
cargo to the men and women of our Armed Forces who are serving overseas 
in harm's way. As evidence of this, 90 percent of all cargo moved to 
Iraq and Afghanistan has been transported on these privately owned 
ships.
  As of right now, Mr. Chairman, the stipend provided by the government 
is too low to make this program viable to those who have stepped up to 
defend our Nation against foreign threats. Without this increase, it is 
likely that participants will drop out of the program. This, obviously, 
is a national security threat.
  It is estimated that for the government to replicate this program, it 
would cost more than $50 billion in taxpayer money. This programs saves 
money while enhancing our security, and I encourage my colleagues to 
avoid supporting this amendment, but voting ``yes'' to lift this 
outdated oil export ban.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).
  Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this bill.
  I have been here in Congress for 21 years, and during that time, we 
always hear talk about we want to be energy-independent in the United 
States. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle always talk about the 
dream of energy independence, where we don't have to depend on any 
other country for our oil. It would change policy in the Middle East, 
and it would dramatically improve our national security. Well, the bad 
news is, Mr. Chairman, we are not energy-independent. We use 17 million 
barrels of oil a day, but we only produce 9 million, which means we are 
still importing nearly half of all the oil we use.
  Now, here is the good news, Mr. Chairman. Horizontal drilling and all 
this oil we are finding in the shale formations gives us a chance to be 
truly energy-independent. We could produce an additional 9 million 
barrels a day, and we wouldn't have to depend on any other country in 
the world for our oil. All we have to do is produce what we have in our 
own country and make sure that we have refinery capacity to take care 
of this light sweet crude, and we are energy-independent.
  So the question is, Mr. Chairman, why aren't we investing in our own 
domestic refinery capacity to keep high-paying jobs here in the United 
States in the refinery industry, in the maritime trades, and in 
manufacturing, like steelmaking? Why aren't we doing that for America 
while enhancing America's security?
  We had the former commander of the USS Cole, Kirk Lippold, testify 
before our committee. He highlighted ``the significant national 
security risks associated with greater oil imports.'' He said that 
``too many times in recent history, the U.S. has made oil deals with 
hostile or unfriendly governments that actually threaten our foreign 
policy and our national security objectives.
  ``Lifting the export ban will undermine U.S. power projection 
capabilities by undermining the competitiveness of our U.S. 
refineries.''
  Do we really want to undermine the U.S. military?
  And then we hear the story that, somehow, lifting this ban is going 
to help our European allies because it will reduce their dependence on 
Russian oil. Well, that is a myth, too.
  As Commander Lippold testified before our committee, ``the primary 
recipient of this U.S. exported oil is going to be Asia, specifically, 
China.''

                              {time}  1015

  So we want to export U.S. oil to China and still have to import oil 
from countries that aren't necessarily friendly to us. Why would we do 
that?
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 702 is deeply flawed because it doesn't allow for 
any future oversight of oil exports under any circumstances. Even if 
there is an oil spike or a shortage, there is no ``safety valve'' to 
ensure that we have enough of this critical resource for our Armed 
Forces, our industries, and our constituents.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this bill undermines our national 
security, and we are still importing an incredible amount of oil. This 
just defies common sense, and we should reject it.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters), a cosponsor of the bill.
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 702, legislation that would lift the 40-year-old ban on 
U.S. oil exports.
  In 1975, President Gerald Ford signed the ban into law in response to 
gasoline shortages and the Arab oil embargo.
  While the ban served a purpose nearly 40 years ago, much has changed 
since that time. Today we need an energy policy that aligns with our 
current economic and political climate.
  The United States is the largest petroleum and natural gas producer 
in the world. Our self-imposed export ban doesn't make sense and does 
nothing but hinder economic growth.
  If the ban is lifted this year, over 57,000 new supply chain jobs 
would be created in my home State of California by 2018, and nationwide 
nearly 450,000 new jobs would be created.
  Having the option to put U.S. crude oil on the world market would 
benefit Americans. Lifting the ban would create jobs, strengthen the 
U.S. economy, and help reduce our trade deficit. It would also provide 
the international marketplace with more options, in turn, limiting the 
ability of energy commodities to be used as political weapons.
  It is important to note that this bill doesn't require the U.S. to 
export crude oil. It simply provides the option needed for barrels to 
be used in the areas where they are needed most.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time so the 
Republicans can have another speaker.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) at the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar), who is my original Democrat sponsor.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support and as a 
cosponsor of H.R. 702, which lifts the ban on crude oil exports.
  Modern advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have 
allowed the United States access to large deposits of crude oil and 
natural gas. Last year our country produced over 350 million barrels of 
crude oil, and that number is steadily increasing.
  The crude oil in our deposits is lighter and sweeter than the 
traditional heavy crude oil our refineries process. The export ban 
hinders our access to international markets that need the

[[Page H6943]]

sweeter type of crude and that have the refinement infrastructure for 
it.
  I am convinced that lifting the outdated crude oil export ban will 
create jobs and economic opportunities for our communities as we strive 
for greater energy independence.
  In the great State of Texas, lifting the export ban is estimated to 
increase the annual GDP by over $7.1 billion and create over 40,000 new 
supply chain jobs.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds on behalf 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. According to the Government Accountability Office, 
removing export restrictions will create employment opportunities, 
expand trade, and lower gasoline prices.
  The economic and political landscape has evolved since the ban's 
inception in the 1970s. I am confident that now is the time to repeal 
the ban on the export of crude oil to increase our economic and energy 
competitiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 702.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
702.
  In the past 10 years, the United States has undergone an energy 
revolution. Our production of oil and gas has far exceeded all analysis 
or prediction. The success in the field has materialized into jobs in 
our district in the Houston area, both in the chemical and the refining 
industries.
  The price of oil dropped from $100 a barrel to $45 a barrel. Gasoline 
prices have fallen from $4 per gallon to less than $2 in Houston.
  I have represented our refinery complexes for many years. All of 
these benefited our economy and the consumer.
  Unfortunately, the success has brought hardship upon the upstream 
producers. The energy sector, which led our country out of the 
recession, has now laid off approximately 150,000 folks. Bloomberg 
estimated that 40 percent of those layoffs were in Texas.
  I know the oil patch is facing a tough and difficult time, and I want 
to help. That is why it is very difficult for me to oppose this bill 
today.
  I support crude oil exports while protecting our domestic 
manufacturing jobs, including refining. We have the resource. We should 
use as much as possible here at home and sell what is left.
  I am a legislator who would like to solve this problem, and I like 
working across the party lines to get results. In fact, I worked with 
my good friend from Texas, Joe Barton, on many issues during our years 
in Congress. In fact, Joe and I sat together for years at the Texas A&M 
football games until we realized A&M would lose when we sat next to 
each other. So last Saturday, when they beat Mississippi State, we sat 
a ways apart so we didn't jinx them.
  For months, I talked with Representative Barton about the crude 
export issue. The crude oil export ban has been in place since 1975. In 
the seventies, the United States was in a tough spot, and we put the 
ban in place to protect our national interests.
  That is more than 40 years of legislative history. Before we throw 
all of that away, we should make sure we have a policy that will make 
sense for the next 40 years.
  I am hoping we can craft a bill that would create a process at the 
Bureau of Industry and Security within the Department of Commerce that 
would establish an authorization and reporting requirements for crude 
oil.
  Crude oil is a valuable national resource, and the government should 
have some oversight as to where and when we send it overseas.
  We export liquefied natural gas through a process developed at the 
Department of Energy. I have not been a fan of that process, but we 
have worked to improve it. We should have some basic requirements at 
the Department of Commerce to oversee crude.
  Unlike LNG, crude is a raw commodity. Unlike refined products, raw 
crude oil doesn't have value added. Our refiners add value to that, and 
we export that refined product. So those are jobs created in our 
community.
  Building LNG terminals and exporting refined product creates good-
paying jobs and lots of capital expenditure. If exporting crude is the 
right policy, then let's do it correctly. Let's maximize the benefits 
for the United States.
  Let's make sure U.S. crude doesn't end up in the hands of North Korea 
or any of our other foes. We need to know where this resource is going, 
how much of it is being sent, and how often it is being sent there.
  We need to ensure that, if at any time, a potential bad actor enters 
the marketplace; the Department of Commerce has the ability to enforce 
the law.
  The Department of Commerce is not an obstacle to exports.
  In fact, I have struggled to find a more industry-friendly government 
agency.
  The Department of Commerce has approved every application to export 
oil in the last five years.
  That's 138 permits.
  What's more impressive is Commerce approves 99 percent of all export 
applications, regardless of product.
  Now, I agree that the Department could approve permits more 
efficiently but that's something we can legislate.
  That's a ``fix'' I can support and believe would help our upstream 
producers.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to find that compromise.
  I did not want to oppose this bill but without changes it is not in 
the best interest of our country.
  The time to address exports is now but we cannot just open the tap 
and hope for the best.
  I do not want the United States to become a resource nation and I 
certainly do not want to go back to the days of the 1970s.
  I look forward to working on this issue again and hope that a 
reasonable, commonsense approach can be reached.
  I want folks in all sectors to get back to work.
  For these reasons, I am forced to oppose H.R. 702 and I urge all my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) just said.
  The whole concept of this bill is to let willing buyers interact with 
willing sellers in a free market, transparent fashion.
  If you subject the bill to some sort of a discretionary permitting 
requirement, as one of Mr. Gene Green's amendments would have done, you 
gut the bill. You destroy the entire purpose of the bill.
  So as much as I respect my good friend from Houston, Texas, I 
respectfully have to object to that amendment.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a 
member of the committee.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Emeritus Barton's 
tremendous leadership on this issue.
  I rise today in strong support of the bill, bipartisan in nature, 
which will create thousands of American jobs, generate billions of 
dollars in revenues to States and locals, and use our Nation's natural 
resources as a counterbalance to the rogue actors currently dominating 
world oil markets.
  American energy brings security and independence to the world and 
jobs and economic development to the United States.
  It makes no sense that Iranian oil will soon be permitted to flow, 
but American-made energy is left untapped.
  It is time to end the outdated restrictions on the export of U.S. oil 
and, instead, work to create and protect tens of thousands of U.S. 
jobs, enhance our national security, and help keep prices at the pump 
affordable for all consumers across the country.
  American energy brings growth, prosperity, security, and independence 
to the United States and our allies. Our Nation should counter Iran and 
create thousands of U.S. jobs in the process.
  Please vote for H.R. 702.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time there is on both 
sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 20\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great State of New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), one of our original cosponsors 
and a strong proponent of this bill.

[[Page H6944]]

  

  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his work 
on this important proposition.
  Mr. Chairman, for almost my entire life, the Nation has worked under 
prevailing science that said we have reached peak energy, we are out, 
that we have to plan for the future because we have no more oil.
  Two years ago a discovery was found in New Mexico that will provide 
more oil from that one find than has been produced in our State from 
its entire history through the entire geographic part of New Mexico.
  The science was a lie. We are finding oil.
  What is happening right now is that the refineries use a heavy sour 
crude. The new finds in shale are producing light sweet, which is more 
valuable. It is easier to refine.
  Yet, that light sweet oil is sitting in the pipelines in New Mexico, 
trying to get to Houston. It is selling at $17 below the market cost 
because there is no destination.
  The Baltics have said they would use our oil, they would put our 
workers back to work. But this law prevents it. The law in place, H.R. 
702, simply says: Open that door and put Americans back to work, 
Americans driving trucks, Americans at the convenient stores. Americans 
everywhere get the jobs.
  The idea that this somehow undercuts jobs is absolutely a frivolous 
idea to present on this House floor.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, over the past couple of months, I have worked 
tirelessly to find a reasonable compromise with the sponsor of H.R. 
702, my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton), that would allow 
me and others with similarly situated constituencies to support this 
bill.
  Although I share the concerns of many of my Democratic colleagues on 
how this bill might impact the environment and climate change, I have 
always stated that I believe in the all-of-the-above energy approach 
that balances environmental concerns and economic opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the Rules Committee I advocated for an 
open rule process that would have allowed Democrats to offer amendments 
that would reflect priorities and concerns of the minority party.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I myself submitted an amendment that would 
have expanded access for minority- and women-owned firms to more fully 
participate in the energy supply chain, which we know will be greatly 
enhanced if the export ban is lifted.
  Mr. Chairman, although my friends in the environmental community 
wouldn't agree, in my district, we say: Oil is not just a commodity. 
Oil is indeed an economic opportunity.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Chairman, my most pressing concern is making sure up front and 
from the beginning that minority firms would be part of the pipeline 
economy and would directly benefit from vendor and contracting 
opportunities that lifting this ban would create. Instead, Mr. 
Chairman, despite positive rhetoric from members of the majority party, 
a closed rule was adopted.
  While my comprehensive amendment was not allowed, Members are asked 
to vote now on Trojan horse amendments that would do nothing to 
actually benefit minorities and women as my far-reaching amendment was 
designed to do. Rather than shielding the majority party from charges 
of creating a multibillion-dollar boondoggle for the energy industry, 
today there is not much in this bill as currently drafted that I can 
point to as really benefiting all segments of the American population.
  As I have said time and time and time again, cut us in or cut it out. 
Cut us in or cut it out. Cut women in or cut it out. Cut the minorities 
in or cut it out.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, we will put the gentleman from Illinois 
down as undecided on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Flores), who is the chairman of the Republican Study Committee and a 
member of the committee. He is from the home of the Fightin' Texas 
Aggies.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 702.
  H.R. 702 results in five key benefits:
  Number one, it benefits the American consumer with resulting overall 
lower energy prices. This particularly benefits lower-income and lower-
middle-income Americans, providing greater financial security for these 
hardworking families.
  Number two, it benefits the American producer and allows them to 
further reinvest in our domestic energy infrastructure, furthering our 
energy security and American jobs.
  Number three, it benefits our geopolitical standing and strengthens 
ties with our global friends and allies, and it hurts those countries 
like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela who are opposed to American interests 
around the world.
  Number four, it benefits the downstream refining community, as lower 
prices will stimulate volume demand for refined products. This volume 
gives them more financial capital to hire skilled American workers and 
to reinvest in their operation.
  Number five, it strengthens our national defense by enhancing the 
Maritime Security Program, which supports a robust Merchant Marine for 
use by our military during times of international crisis.
  These are five critical reasons why everybody wins after we lift the 
ban.
  The President has threatened to veto this commonsense bill, and 
hardworking American families all over this country should ask: Mr. 
President, why are you putting the interests of Iranian terrorists 
ahead of the interests of hardworking American families?
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Amash 
amendment and to support H.R. 702.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation for several reasons. First, 
except in very narrow circumstances, the bill does not allow any 
limits--not any limits--on exports of domestic oil regardless of 
potential threats to our national security, and that is our top 
responsibility as Members--our national security.
  For decades there has been a bipartisan commitment in Congress and 
several administrations to energy independence and reducing our 
reliance on foreign oil. Given the continued dependence of our economy 
and our military on oil, energy independence remains critical to our 
national defense. But with little consideration of any national 
security implications, this bill allows unlimited exports of a critical 
strategic resource.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States still imports 26 percent of the oil 
we consume and remains the world's top importer. Every barrel exported 
under this bill would have to be replaced by a barrel imported from 
elsewhere, leaving us more reliant on foreign countries.
  The bill allows the President to limit exports only if he declares an 
emergency under the National Emergencies Act or the International 
Emergency Economic Powers Act or if he is directed by the International 
Energy Agency to respond to an international supply crisis. Outside of 
these narrow circumstances, the bill permits no restrictions on exports 
of crude oil. This means strategic considerations such as decreasing 
our reliance on imports from unfriendly regimes can play no part in 
deciding whether to allow exports. I don't think that is a good deal at 
all.
  The bill also will have drastic impacts on the U.S. shipbuilding 
industry, tanker fleet, and refineries, all of which are critical to 
our national defense. Congress has recognized for nearly 100 years that 
it benefits our national security to maintain a robust domestic 
shipbuilding industry and commercial shipping fleet. For example, crude 
exports from Alaska which were legalized in 1995 must be carried on 
U.S.-flagged vessels crewed by Americans. This bill contains no 
requirement that exports be carried on U.S.-flagged tankers.
  Under current law, the President can allow exports of crude oil if he 
finds they are in the national interest. This bill would allow 
unlimited exports regardless of whether they are in the national 
security interests of the United

[[Page H6945]]

States or not. I think that this is a slippery slope.
  Commander Kirk Lippold, the retired Navy Captain of the USS Cole, 
testified before Congress earlier this year.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, the retired Navy Captain of the USS Cole said the 
following: ``The national security implications of changing the 
existing policy regulating the export of crude oil are rife with 
unknown and probably unintended consequences that must be fully 
considered and addressed.''
  I agree with Commander Lippold. This bill largely ignores those 
important national security concerns, and it is why I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), from the energy capital of the world, Houston, Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration has worked very hard to make sure 
the export ban on crude oil from Iran is lifted. But the administration 
has threatened to veto this bill that would lift the crude oil sanction 
ban on American oil. That doesn't make any sense to me--help the 
Iranians sell their excess crude oil abroad, but prevent America from 
selling our excess crude oil abroad. That is nutty.
  Why does the President prefer the Iranians over Americans? It doesn't 
make any sense. The President should at least give us the same deal 
that he gave the Iranians: lift sanctions on them, lift the sanctions 
on American oil. We have a surplus. We need to sell it. ``Use all we 
can and sell the rest.'' That is the motto.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I believe we are lopsided on the time a 
little again, so I would like to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Could we ask what the time differential is, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from New Jersey has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). Chairman Upton is 
the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee from 
the great State of Michigan and my good friend.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I really thank Chairman Emeritus Barton for 
doing a really significant, good job on getting this bill bipartisan 
support and working so hard over the last 18 months or so, and both in 
the last Congress and this Congress, to get this bill ready for the 
floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, much has changed since the ban on crude oil was put in 
place in 1975. At that time, Congress and President Ford were 
responding to the Arab oil embargo crisis in an effort to protect this 
country from the unwanted impacts of the unstable global crude oil 
market. But we got good news today. Times have changed, and one of the 
biggest threats to the American energy boom today is not an 
international actor but, rather, our own ban on oil exports.
  Lifting the crude oil export ban is a win for our economy, yes, it 
is. Study after study has shown that lifting the ban would actually 
lower prices at the pump, create thousands of jobs, generate hundreds 
of millions of dollars in economic benefits, and strengthen our 
geopolitical influence across the globe. It will actually also reduce 
the deficit by more than $1 billion with additional oil royalties. 
These are real benefits that will be felt not only in southwest 
Michigan, my district, but across the country; yet, somehow, this 
administration does not support this thoughtful solution.
  Let's look at the benefits. According to the nonpartisan GAO, lifting 
the ban could lower prices by 1.5 to 13 cents a gallon, real savings 
that add up for every family's budget. Some estimates suggest that it 
could support the creation of an average of 394,000 jobs. Additionally, 
the bill before us would boost royalty payments, as I indicated, from 
Federal oil and gas leases. Collectively, all of these gains provide 
the making of a success story that would greatly benefit our economy at 
a time of great uncertainty.
  This administration often likes to say that they are for an all-of-
the-above energy policy, but the rhetoric, indeed, falls well short of 
reality. It doesn't make much sense that the White House is gung ho to 
lift the export ban in Iran, but when it comes to this country, the 
answer is ``no.''
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan bill would strengthen our 
hand in foreign diplomacy at a time when America has lost its standing 
on the global stage. By exporting our excess crude oil, we can help our 
allies seeking a safe and secure supply of energy. Instead of being 
beholden to OPEC and Russia for their energy needs, they can instead 
rely on their friends, the United States of America.
  Creating jobs, keeping energy affordable, boosting energy production, 
and improving our energy security--that is what this bill does. I would 
urge my colleagues to support the Barton bill in a vote later on this 
morning.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 702. Not only does this 
bill incentivize more oil development while ignoring its impact on our 
climate, it also essentially guarantees billions more in profits for 
oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers.
  There are many more important issues that we should be spending our 
time on to actually help American families, like raising the minimum 
wage and making college more affordable, but instead we are passing a 
bill to help oil companies make more money.
  Additionally, section 3 of the bill prohibits any Federal official 
from taking any action that could potentially restrict the export of 
oil. This broad language could seriously undermine critical health and 
safety responsibilities of the Federal Government.
  For example, under current law, the Secretary of Transportation has 
the authority to shut down a crude oil pipeline if it poses a threat to 
life, property, or the environment. But what if an oil pipeline leading 
to an export terminal were in imminent danger of rupturing? Would the 
Secretary still have the authority to shut down that line, or would 
that action be considered a restriction on exporting crude oil under 
this bill?
  Mr. Chairman, these are not hypothetical questions. This authority 
was recently used in my district to shut down line 901 of the Plains 
All American Pipeline when it ruptured last May. Since line 901 is the 
only way for the nearby offshore oil platforms to transport their oil 
to refineries, these platforms have had to shut down production 
entirely. Nearly 5 months after the spill, line 901 remains shut down, 
and there is no indication that it will be restarted in the near 
future.
  It is not hard to imagine a similar event happening again, and the 
Secretary's authority to protect public health, property, and the 
environment during such an event must not be undermined.

                              {time}  1045

  Yet, if this bill were law, the Secretary's authority could be 
preempted entirely by section 3 of this bill. In other words, the bill 
could create a scenario in which the perceived right of oil companies 
to export their oil supersedes our very real responsibility to protect 
public health and safety.
  The American people deserve better. This is a fatally flawed bill and 
sets the wrong priorities.
  I urge its defeat.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), from District One of the great Pelican State, 
the distinguished Republican whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding, but also for his leadership in bringing this bill to the 
floor and building a strong bipartisan coalition to finally lift the 
ban on oil exports.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a relic of the 1970s that doesn't fit with 
today's

[[Page H6946]]

world economy, but it also doesn't fit with the revolution that has 
happened in American energy because of American technology.
  We have an abundance of natural resources now and an abundance of 
oil. We literally could be the Saudi Arabia of energy. Yet, there is a 
law that is on the books that bans the ability of the United States to 
export its own oil. There is no other nation in the world that has that 
limitation on their ability to sell that natural resource.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when the President is actually supporting 
this horrible deal with Iran that, among other things, allows Iran to 
export their oil to the world markets, the President at the same time 
is saying he opposes this bill that allows America to export its oil.
  What is at stake, Mr. Chairman? What is at stake under this bill, if 
this bill passes, is it will create over 800,000 American jobs, good 
American jobs, here at home.
  If this bill passes, Mr. Chairman, we can actually create over $800 
million to reduce the deficit, deficit reduction, just by passing this 
bill.
  What is also at stake, Mr. Chairman, if we pass this bill? We can 
help our allies around the world who don't want to have to get their 
oil from countries like Russia, where Vladimir Putin is using energy as 
a weapon against our friends. They can now get that energy from us.
  Creating American jobs along the way, everything about this says yes. 
It is time to lift this relic of the 1970s. Let's finally allow 
American oil to be exported on world markets when we have such an 
abundance and we have the ability to create hundreds of thousands of 
new American jobs along the way.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Pallone 
for yielding the time.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 702. The bill is an irresponsible 
giveaway to Big Oil at the expense of America's national security, at 
the expense of American consumers, and our longstanding policy of 
working towards energy independence.
  Now, our current policy is not a ban. You can call it a ban, but it 
is not a ban. It allows and promotes oil exports to strategically 
important allies, to places in the national interest. It is a smart 
policy.
  But now Big Oil wants free rein to ship America's natural resources 
to countries not in our national interest. This bill will eviscerate 
our thoughtful policy.
  Despite assertions that the oil will go to allies in Europe and 
elsewhere, that is not supported by the facts. Who is most likely to 
benefit? Experts say China. The Energy Information Administration 
projects that China's oil consumption will double over the next 2 
decades.
  China has been very aggressive all across the globe in exploiting and 
locking down natural resources. They have gone to Africa. They have 
gone to South America. While we have been fighting battles in 
Afghanistan, they have been locking down contracts for natural 
resources in Afghanistan.
  At the same time that America is dealing with Chinese cyber espionage 
and their geopolitical confrontations with our allies and the U.S., why 
would we help China gain a strategic foothold on America's natural 
resources? I would think that America's national security interests 
would compel you to defeat this bill.
  You should also vote this bill down and side with American consumers 
instead and American jobs. America is still heavily dependent on 
imports of crude oil. We still import 25 percent today.
  Any claims that sending American oil overseas would help consumers in 
America is entirely unsupported, no matter how many times they say it. 
Instead, what the studies show is that exporting American oil would 
feed the uncertainty of oil markets and likely increase costs to 
American consumers.
  Back home in Tampa right now you can go to the gas station and fill 
up your tank at about $1.99 per gallon. So it defies logic to say that 
changing this policy that is working for America right now would really 
lower the price. I don't think so.
  American jobs are also very likely to take a hit if this bill becomes 
law. Why? Because of the important jobs in the refining industry, the 
shipping industry. Those are American jobs. Side with the American 
jobs.
  This bill is very poor public policy. Exports will be determined only 
by Big Oil to serve the interests of Big Oil, ceding complete control 
of this strategic national asset.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Just to close, Mr. Chairman, the cost to U.S. 
consumers, our policy of energy independence, our national security 
interests compel a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Cincinnati, the Buckeye State of Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of leading the House Small 
Business Committee. A few months back we held a hearing on this very 
topic. We heard from small businesses about how this ban is holding 
them back. That is the untold story of this. This ban is hurting small 
businesses all across this country.
  America is now the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. 
Lifting this decades-old ban is an opportunity to jump-start the 
economy. It would help 1 million Americans find work. It would increase 
the GDP. It would narrow the trade deficit, attract new capital to the 
U.S., and stabilize the global energy supply.
  If America is going to lead the world in the 21st century, let's not 
keep one hand tied behind our back. Let's replace outdated energy 
policies with ones that are forward-thinking, ones that will create new 
jobs in a new American century.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. David Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentleman, this 
bill is about two things. It is about jobs and it is about national 
security. It will give us an opportunity to get Congress to join in 
with my good friend from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer, and Brad Ashford 
from Nebraska, because this is about jobs and nobody needs jobs more 
than African Americans.

  The hardest hit on unemployment is African American males. This 
allows us to be a part of being able to get language in that will help 
African American males get the kind of apprenticeship training with the 
Teamsters, with the AFL-CIO, with the operating engineers, all of those 
unions and contractors who are rebuilding this infrastructure for this 
oil.
  Now, on national security, make no mistake about it, ladies and 
gentlemen. What do you think Russia is doing over in the Middle East? 
They want dominance over energy in the world, and he who controls the 
energy in the world controls the world. That is why they want to prop 
up Syria, because that is the seaport to get it out of the Middle East.
  Stand up for jobs for the American people and protect the world from 
Russia. Vote to lift the ban on the oil exports.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say ``amen'' to what the 
gentleman from Georgia just said.
  Mr. Chairman, what time is remaining on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 15 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the entire delegation 
from the great State of North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the original 
cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  I have often said I don't know why it takes 36 Texans to do one 
person's job.
  I have to tell you, I was prepared to give a great speech and then I 
listened to my friend from Georgia and, quite honestly, I feel 
inadequate to the task.
  Because you stated it so eloquently and so beautifully, and I am 
committed to exactly what you talked about.
  So maybe what I will try to do instead in my remaining seconds is 
remind us of the context that it was 72

[[Page H6947]]

years ago this week that the Yom Kippur War broke out that led to U.S. 
aid to Israel, which led to a 5 percent reduction out of OPEC of oil, 
which led to the very issue we are talking about today, that this 
historical context in a national security context is not irrelevant.
  Let's not, I would say, let history repeat itself, but let's use the 
peaceful tools of energy development while creating jobs in America 
replace the weapons of war in Europe and in the Middle East. Let's use 
our influence for good by selling this American-made product that is 
produced by American workers, and let's do it in a bipartisan fashion 
today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan), on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I am normally 
on the opposite side of the gentleman on the congressional baseball 
team and normally with Congressman Doyle. So I hope we can win this one 
against Congressman Mike Doyle. So I thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity.
  Two or three points I would like to make, Mr. Chairman.
  One, in Ohio, lifting this ban means 16,000 jobs in Ohio, almost $3 
billion in investment. Our friends, the operating engineers and the 
laborers who are going to do that work, are supportive of this bill.
  I know we have some issues with the refineries, and I think we need 
to continue to work on that and see if we can fix that issue.
  We have a number of studies that say the savings to the American 
consumer will be anywhere from 2 cents a gallon all the way up to 12 
cents a gallon. Colombia University, Brookings, Aspen, Resources for 
the Future, all are saying this is going to reduce the cost of gas, 
which is a direct benefit for our consumers and our constituents who 
need it as we see this huge economic squeeze for the middle class.
  Lastly, I have been sitting on the Defense Appropriations Committee 
now for a number of years, and this issue here can directly benefit our 
ability to deal with what is happening in the Middle East.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio on the understanding that he will not play his best game against 
us next summer.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield back. No. I am just kidding.
  I also would also like to say, sitting on the Defense Appropriations 
Committee, we sit in these classified briefings and we see what is 
happening with Russia, we see what Putin is doing, we see what is 
happening in the Middle East, the Ukraine.
  We need to export this oil. We need to export our natural gas. We 
need to have a bigger footprint in the world so that we can make sure 
that our allies have access to consistent energy flows coming here from 
the United States and creating jobs here in the United States.
  Michele Flournoy, CEO and Founder of the Center for New American 
Security, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President 
Obama says:

       By lifting the ban on U.S. exports of crude oil, U.S. 
     policymakers have an extraordinary opportunity to enhance not 
     only our economic vitality, but also our national security.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I support removing restrictions on the export of crude oil from the 
United States. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 702.
  Current export laws are outdated, as we have heard. Since these laws 
were last visited nearly 40 years ago, U.S. oil production has 
increased significantly and the United States is now the largest 
producer of oil and gas.
  Studies have shown that lifting the current ban on crude oil exports 
would create jobs, many in the rural areas. We in our part of the world 
have seen the benefits that domestic drilling can provide by looking at 
our neighboring State of North Dakota.
  We need to do everything we can to support the use and production of 
domestic energy. H.R. 702 is an important part of that.
  Following this bill's approval, I hope all Members of Congress will 
continue to support an all-of-the-above domestic energy production 
strategy by considering the national security and the economic 
development benefits of not just oil production, but of biofuel 
production and related products.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 702.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Sugar 
Land, Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the committee and a sponsor of the 
bill.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, this picture shows why we have to end this ban 
on crude exports.
  In October 1973, OPEC cut us off. We were getting 1.2 million barrels 
per day from OPEC, and that dropped down to a scant 19,000. Gas prices 
doubled. If you had to gas your lawn mower, you had to get in line 
behind cars.
  Because of American innovation, that world is gone. We are now awash 
in American crude oil. OPEC's days of dominance are over; but we can't 
deliver a knockout blow until we end the ban on American crude exports, 
which we will do in a few short minutes. When that happens, American 
families will have lower prices at the pump. Thug oil nations like 
Venezuela, Russia, and Iran will lose bite.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, we will create thousands and thousands and 
thousands of good-paying American jobs.
  I ask my colleagues vote today to end the ban on crude oil exports.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
great Buckeye State of Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a member of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
extraordinary work on this bill.
  This bill is important for our national security. It is important for 
jobs. We need to end the oil export ban so that we can export oil that 
has been generated as part of this energy revolution in this country 
that is going to be great for jobs and help our national security 
partners around the world.
  Let's make the world safer. Let's give America more jobs. Let's end 
the oil export ban. Please support this bill today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, this is ill-advised legislation.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle claim 800,000 jobs, a 
million jobs. They don't have any real defined ability to provide such 
an estimate. Actually, this is a number that is made up because, as 
some of the speakers have acknowledged, there will be offsetting job 
losses as a result of what is going to happen, for example, in the 
refining industry or what is going to happen in terms of some of the 
transport.
  But that is beside the point. We actually have a policy that is 
working. There will come a time, perhaps, when it makes sense in a 
strategic matter to make an adjustment.
  Right now, the President has the latitude to be able to help some of 
our strategic partners. He has that flexibility. We are awash in oil in 
this country, and to expect that somehow exporting more of it is going 
to make a dramatic impact at the pump here is a pipe dream. It won't. 
It might make a modest impact.
  What we could do is provide a benefit to the large oil companies as 
part of a larger package that would help everybody. We have expiring 
tax provisions, for instance, dealing with the production tax credit, 
dealing with wind and solar that actually create far more jobs than 
will be found in the refining and in the oil production. And these are 
good, family-wage jobs all across the country
  Let's put together a package that speaks to alternative energy 
continuity, that speaks to conservation, that speaks to a long-term 
strategy that is a win-win. I am absolutely confident that Mr. Pallone 
and Mr. Barton could sit down and deal with a

[[Page H6948]]

package that would have far more benefit for America.
  If you are going to hand out another goodie to the oil companies, 
let's have a more comprehensive approach that meets our comprehensive 
energy needs. This bill doesn't do it.
  Mr. BARTON. May I ask how much time remains, Mr. Chair?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa) on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, the 
ban on crude oil exports is an outdated policy. It was 1975 that it was 
enacted. A lot has changed since 1975.
  I believe this bipartisan, commonsense solution is needed to develop 
a comprehensive effort to deal with our energy policy in America that 
deals with both our short-term and our long-term needs. I think we have 
to use all the tools in our energy toolbox, and I think this is part of 
that effort.
  New technologies have provided the United States with an abundance of 
crude oil that is only continuing in nature, combined with our 
renewables and our other energy sources.
  We need to understand that this is about stimulating our economy and 
creating jobs, and it also has a very important geopolitical influence 
on bad actors, like Russia and Iran, who use energy as a political 
weapon.
  I understand there are concerns by my colleagues about eliminating 
this ban and the negative impacts it will have. I have some concerns 
with small and midsized domestic refineries, which I have represented.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, this is a work in progress. We obviously need 
to address a number of other issues with the Senate.
  I remind my colleagues, this is important. It is about jobs, the 
economy, and providing alternatives of energy to Russia and Iran, and 
that is why I support this legislation as we continue to work together 
in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the Golden 
Gate State of California (Mr. Hunter), a distinguished subcommittee 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I am voting for this bill overall.
  In California, we don't drill anymore, and we are cutting down on our 
refineries even, but this is important for the Nation.
  One big part of this bill is the Maritime Security Program. If you 
don't know it, over 90 percent of all the stuff that we transfer to 
Iraq, Afghanistan, anywhere where there are American troops--all of 
their gear, their tanks, their weapons, their ammo, everything, for the 
most part--is shipped on American-flag commercial vessels.
  Of the 50,000 cargo ships that travel the ocean every day, 79 of 
those are American-flag. That is it, 79 out of 50,000. Sixty of those 
are on call when America needs them to transfer our gear to our troops 
overseas.
  When I was a lieutenant in the Marine Corps, on my second tour in 
2004, I drove down to the San Diego Port with my Marine battery, and we 
loaded up all the equipment that we would then fall in on in Iraq 2 
months later.
  Without the Maritime Security Program plus-up that is in this bill, 
we would not be able to go fight wars. We would not be able to move our 
equipment. We would not be able to support our troops.
  This is a national security bill. It is not only national security 
because it is energy security, but it is national security because that 
is how we support our troops overseas is with the Maritime Security 
Program, which this bill pluses up.
  I just want to say thank you to the chairman and everybody who 
supports this.
  I would urge my colleagues to not just support energy security, but 
support national security.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to 
support this bill, as a matter of fact, as a cosponsor; but since I 
have been unable to remove myself from the cosponsorship, I wish to 
speak on the record regarding my opposition to this particular bill.
  While I believe that Congress should consider the potential for all 
energy sources to meet our Nation's current and future needs, I believe 
that this legislation lacks the proper safeguards and oversight for 
such a major change in our Nation's energy policy. The bill does not 
appropriately consider the implications of our national security, the 
economy, consumers, and, especially, the environment.
  Exporting crude oil does not increase demand for oil or definitively 
increase the number of U.S. jobs in the energy sector. On the contrary, 
many U.S. jobs that are downstream in the domestic refining process may 
be threatened.
  In addition, exporting oil to foreign countries for refining purposes 
would likely increase overall CO2 emissions.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, the bottom line is 
that we must consider many factors related to our energy portfolio 
before we lift any current restrictions.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 702. Since I am unable 
to remove myself as a cosponsor of the legislation, I would like to 
speak on the record regarding my opposition to this particular bill.
  While I believe that Congress should consider the potential for all 
energy sources to meet our nation's current and future needs, I believe 
that this legislation lacks the proper safeguards and oversight for 
such a major change in our nation's energy policy. The bill does not 
appropriately consider the implications for our national security, the 
economy, consumers, and especially the environment. Exporting crude oil 
does not increase demand for oil or definitively increase the number of 
U.S. jobs in the energy sector. On the contrary, many U.S. jobs that 
are downstream in the domestic refining process may be threatened.
  In addition, exporting oil to foreign countries for refining purposes 
will likely increase overall CO2 emissions, thus amplifying 
the impacts of climate change. Facing the challenge of climate change 
requires us to be responsible and accountable for our own natural 
resources. This bill does not provide any recourse to mitigate or even 
examine these potential impacts, and thus ignores this responsibility 
entirely.
  It should be noted that the Obama Administration has made every 
effort to compromise by easing export restrictions where appropriate 
after careful review. The Commerce Department recently approved limited 
crude oil exchanges with Mexico. However, the President believes that 
unilaterally lifting the export ban is excessive, and I join him in his 
opposition. Lifting the crude oil ban for short-term gains with no 
accounting of the costs that will be incurred is ill-advised and short-
sighted.
  The bottom line is that we must consider many factors related to our 
energy portfolio before we lift any current restrictions. Without 
serious deliberation and oversight of the potential environmental and 
economic impacts of such as significant shift in our national energy 
policy, I must urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Peach State of Georgia (Mr. Bishop) on behalf of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I come to the floor today to 
express my support of H.R. 702, much-needed legislation which will lift 
the arbitrary ban on the export of one of our country's most abundant 
natural resources: crude oil.
  The current ban on exports is a relic of a different time before we 
as a nation knew just how much crude oil we have stored in the earth 
across this country. We are entirely too dependent on foreign oil 
sources, particularly from countries who have no regard for the 
American economy.
  Today is different. In fact, from the period between 2000 and 2013, 
U.S. production of crude oil increased by nearly fourteenfold, from 
250,000 barrels per day to 3.5 million. With this large amount of 
excess capacity, we can sell our oil to the global markets, which will 
bring U.S. crude prices in line with global prices, and global prices 
will go

[[Page H6949]]

down because of the increased supply. No less than 68 percent of 
consumers' cost of gasoline--and 57 percent for diesel fuel--come from 
the price of the source: crude oil.
  Numerous studies have shown that the increased global supply will 
lead to lower prices at the pump. Not only will consumers have more 
money to spend on school supplies, food, clothing, and other household 
staples, but the prices of these goods will go down because the cost to 
transport them from manufacturer to store will decrease.
  Possibly, more importantly, we have to consider the security 
implications of allowing the export of crude.
  We are in the position of showing the world that we can provide a 
stable source of energy to friendly countries around the globe. Our 
supplies will dilute the market share of unfriendly countries and 
weaken their grip on our democratic ally nations who have to depend on 
some of our unfriendly countries for their oil supplies. We can provide 
an alternative source to those who don't want to support our 
adversaries and their adversaries.
  So I thank my colleagues Mr. Cuellar and Mr. Barton for bringing 
forth this critically important legislation.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 702.
  Mr. PALLONE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I only have two speakers, myself and Mr. 
Cuellar. I believe I have the right to close, so I would ask my friend 
from New Jersey how many speakers he still has.
  Mr. PALLONE. Just myself and Mr. Garamendi remain.
  Mr. BARTON. Well, at this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time remains on my 
side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we have before us a very, very important 
issue. It is a national security issue. My good friend from San Diego 
spoke to one part of our Nation's security, and that is the ability of 
this Nation to move its interests around the world not just with 
airplanes, but with ships.
  Unfortunately, this is a very narrowly constructed piece of 
legislation that speaks to the interests of the petroleum industry and 
the many thousands of people who work there. We concede that. But this 
bill could also be a boon to another part of our Nation's security, and 
that is our maritime industry. Unfortunately, the bill does not do 
that.
  While it does deal with the Maritime Security Program--and that is 
good--it does not deal in full potential with what we can do, and that 
is to require that this strategic asset, oil, be shipped on American-
built ships with American mariners. That is not in the bill. It should 
be. It could be.
  If it were, our shipyards and our mariners all around this Nation 
would have tens of thousands of jobs, and we would secure yet not only 
the interest of our petroleum industry but, also, the interest of our 
maritime industry as well as the shipyards upon which this Nation's 
national defense depends. Put it in the bill. Then let's see how many 
votes you can get.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar), my chief sponsor, the gentleman that represents 
south Texas and the Eagle Ford Shale.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Barton for the leadership he has 
provided on this bill.
  I rise in support of H.R. 702 that repeals the ban on crude oil. This 
ban reflects an America of yesterday. It is our job, as Members of 
Congress, that our laws reflect the America of tomorrow.
  If you look at why this is important, this ban hurts the economy and 
prevents the creation of jobs. This ban imposes an estimated $200 to 
$300 billion cost to the economy and discourages domestic, made-in-
America crude oil production.
  By lifting the ban now, we will create 359,000 new jobs. How do I 
know? Because I represent the Eagle Ford and I have seen small-business 
people, men and women, that work very hard every single day to have 
this type of job. And I think we owe it to them and across the Nation.
  This ban also reduces the Federal direct spending by $1.4 billion, 
according to the CBO. So it also helps our deficit. This ban is 
something that we need to change, and we need to make sure that we lift 
this ban.
  What about gasoline prices? You heard Mr. Ryan. You heard other 
folks. According to the General Accounting Office, this will bring 
prices down from 1.5 cents to 13 cents. The CBO says the same thing: 5 
cents to 10 cents. The administration's own agency, the Energy 
Information Administration, says it will bring it down one penny or 
remain. It doesn't go up. It goes down.
  This ban also doesn't allow us to use our powers in foreign policy. 
Why are we allowing Russia or Iran to dictate what happens in this 
world? This is why we need to make sure that we support the repealing 
of this ban.
  Now, who supports this? Mr. Barton, you know it is a bipartisan bill. 
Democrats and Republicans support this bill, but it is also supported 
by business, small-business owners, and by some of the labor 
organizations. We have talked to those labor organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, support H.R. 702, a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the administration, the 
President, has issued a SAP saying that he would veto this bill. This 
bill is going nowhere because of that veto and the potential for a 
veto.
  All this legislation does is to give a windfall of $30 billion in 
profits to the oil industry, no strings attached, no sacrifices 
required.
  The legislation is opposed by over 40 environmental groups: the 
United Steelworkers, the IBEW, the BlueGreen Alliance, and the 
Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it is supported by the American 
public who, regardless of party, support investing in refineries at 
home rather than lifting crude export restrictions. In fact, around 70 
percent of voters oppose allowing oil companies to export more U.S. 
oil.
  The Republican majority has spent the whole week doing little more 
than attacking women's health and assisting Big Oil for their big 
profits. It is time to come together in the name of energy and national 
security. In the name of common sense and economic good sense, I urge a 
``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, we have had a very enlightening debate for 
the last hour. I would say 30 Members of Congress have stood up and 
spoken either in favor or opposition to the bill.
  I want it to be noted that a large number of my friends on the 
Democratic side have risen in support of the bill. I want to compliment 
Mr. Cuellar for his strong leadership in that area. This is a 
bipartisan bill.
  When we do our town hall meetings, Mr. Chairman, person after person 
stands up and says: Why can't you folks in Congress get along? Why 
don't you try to be positive? Why don't you try to do what is right for 
America? Why don't you work together on a bipartisan basis?
  Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill does. This is a bipartisan bill.
  We have a large number of Democratic cosponsors and a large number of 
Republicans. This bill will help all 50 States. As Mr. Bishop and Mr. 
Scott have stated on the Democratic side, it helps low income, it helps 
minorities, it helps women. It helps every sector of the economy, not 
just the oil industry, not just the roughnecks, not just the drillers. 
It helps truck drivers. It helps steelworkers. It helps refinery 
workers. It even helps computer programmers. You name it, it helps it.
  Some estimates are this bill, if enacted, would create as many as a 
million jobs. We know, for a fact, that the

[[Page H6950]]

collapse in oil prices in the last year and a half has cost the U.S. 
economy over 500,000 jobs, 750,000 jobs. Those are real people.
  That is not Big Oil, Mr. Chairman. That is people that get up every 
morning and kiss their wives, hop in their car, go to work and work 
hard 8, 10, 12 hours a day, get the bills at the end of the month and 
hope they have enough money to pay the bills. It is blue-collar 
America. It is not Big Oil. It is everybody in this country, Mr. 
Chairman.

  This bill is a market-based bill: willing buyer, willing seller. The 
U.S. has the largest oil reserves in the world. We have the capability 
to be number one in the world. Why on God's green Earth don't we use 
it? Why are we the only nation in the world that is restricted in one 
of the blessings that God has endowed our great Nation with?
  We could produce, if we wanted to, up to 20 million barrels a day. We 
are producing right now 9 million barrels a day. U.S. oil can go 
anywhere in the world if we allow it to. That is an economic asset. It 
is a military strategic asset. All we have to do is repeal an archaic 
law that was passed in 1975 when we couldn't export a barrel of oil if 
we wanted to. We were importing two-thirds of our oil.
  We have a bipartisan bill that helps everybody in America, that is in 
the economic interests of America, that is in the environmental 
interests of America, that is in the military strategic interests of 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, let's work together. Let's send this bill to the Senate 
with strong bipartisan support. God bless America. God bless this great 
country. Pass H.R. 702.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Foreign Affairs Committee on H.R. 702, a bill to adapt to 
     changing crude oil market conditions, which was referred to 
     us on February 4, 2015.
       I agreed that the Foreign Affairs Committee might be 
     discharged from further action on this bill so that it could 
     proceed expeditiously to the Floor, subject to the 
     understanding that this waiver does not in any way diminish 
     or alter the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
     or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or 
     similar legislation in the future. I would request your 
     support for the appointment of Foreign Affairs conferees 
     during any House-Senate conference on this legislation.
       I respectfully ask that you place our letters on H.R. 702 
     into the Congressional Record during floor consideration of 
     the bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation and look forward to continuing to work with the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce as this measure moves 
     through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, October 6, 2015.
     Hon. Edward R. Royce,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Royce: Thank you for your assistance 
     regarding H.R. 702, a bill to adapt to changing crude oil 
     market conditions, which was referred to our respective 
     committees on February 4, 2015.
       I appreciate your willingness to agree that the Foreign 
     Affairs Committee might be discharged from further action on 
     H.R. 702 so that it can proceed expeditiously to the floor, 
     and I agree that this waiver does not in any way diminish or 
     alter the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or 
     prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or 
     similar legislation in the future. In addition, I would 
     support your request for the appointment of Foreign Affairs 
     conferees during any House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       I will place our letters on H.R. 702 into the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation.
  Increased U.S. energy exports benefit our national security and 
foreign policy. The Administration has created an absurd situation. 
While they are lifting sanctions on Iranian crude oil, they are 
fighting to keep sanctions on American crude oil. It makes no sense.
  I am, however, concerned by language that would increase subsidy 
payments to U.S. shipping companies participating in the ``Maritime 
Security Program.'' By increasing our oil exports, as this legislation 
does, that's already a boon to U.S. shipping. So why the government 
subsidy?
  So I will support an amendment that is to be offered to strike this 
provision of the bill.
  But Mr. Chair, if this maritime subsidy is ultimately part of this 
legislation, the door is then open to offset it by eliminating yet 
another damaging subsidy: U.S. cargo preference for international food 
aid.
  Over the past three years, the Foreign Affairs Committee has led 
efforts to reform U.S. international food aid programs so we could 
reach more starving people in less time, and for less money.
  A stumbling block to this effort has been a requirement in U.S. law 
that U.S. food aid be shipped on U.S. vessels--even though many of them 
are foreign-owned. This requirement remains year-after-year despite the 
fact that the Defense Department has concluded that relieving a portion 
of our food aid budget from U.S. purchase and shipping requirements 
would have no effect on U.S. maritime security.
  If maintained in this bill, the proposed increase for ``Maritime 
Security Program'' payments literally ``sinks'' the arguments against 
food aid reform. One wasteful corporate subsidy is bad enough; a second 
that kills our ability to reform food aid and save lives would be 
beyond conscience, and something I am confident this body would wisely 
reject.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 702, a 
bipartisan bill to lift the 40-year old, self-imposed, crude oil export 
ban.
  The United States is now among the top oil producing nations in the 
world. Lifting this export ban will bring us roaring back into the 
global oil markets at a time when market conditions are particularly 
competitive.
  Contrary to what some of my friends across the aisle may say, this 
bill would actually lower gas prices here at home. We live in a global 
economy, and participation in a global market leads to competitive 
pricing. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office--in addition 
to the world-renowned analytics firm, HIS--have both determined that 
enacting this bill will lower gas prices, create hundreds of thousands 
of jobs, and provide a much-needed boost our economy.
  With all these benefits, why would we continue to hold onto this 
export ban? The only reason it was imposed in the first place was in 
response to the Arab oil embargo. That was over 40 years ago. It is 
prudent to move past these decades-old issues, and instead focus on the 
issues we face today.
  Today, we are facing a dangerous nuclear deal with Iran--a deal of 
President Obama's making. And one component of this terrible deal is 
that sanctions will be lifted on Iran so that they will be able to 
access a much larger portion of the world oil market, yielding billions 
of dollars to their coffers. Why would we make a deal with Iran--a deal 
that allows them to export their oil so they can fund terrorism around 
the world--but still hold onto this self-imposed ban?
  Without this bill, the U.S. would be missing out on billions in 
direct revenue to the Treasury, not to mention the secondary revenue 
streams from improved economic conditions.
  Let's pass this bill to unleash economic growth. Let's pass this bill 
to create hundreds of thousands of much-needed jobs. Let's pass this 
bill to counterbalance the exports of Iran, Russia, and the OPEC 
nations.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 702, a bill to 
``Adapt to Changing Crude Oil Market Conditions.''
  H.R. 702 repeals the law prohibiting the exports of crude oil that 
has been on the books for more than 40 years, a response to the Arab 
Oil Embargo led by OPEC in 1973 that sent oil prices soaring and 
inflicted substantial damage on the American economy.
  Let me express my appreciation to Chairman Emeritus Barton and 
Ranking Member Pallone for their leadership and commitment to American 
energy independence, economic growth, national security, and expanding 
opportunities and diversifying the energy sector workforce.
  I support H.R. 702 because it holds the promise of moving our country 
towards energy independence, create good-paying jobs, lowering gasoline 
prices, promoting our geopolitical interests, and strengthening our 
defense capabilities.
  But I strongly am ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-growing economy,'' ``pro-
sustainable environment and development,'' and for homeland and 
national security.
  That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal 
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when 
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
  As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the 
nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly 
advocated for national energy policies

[[Page H6951]]

that will make our nation more energy independent, preserve and create 
jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
  The Eighteenth Congressional District, which I represent and is home 
to Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Phillips, BP Corporation of North 
America, Marathon Oil, Enterprise Products Partners (Oil and Gas 
Pipelines), and Halliburton (Oilfield Services), and many others.
  My constituents have a strong interest in policies that maintain or 
enhance the competitiveness of American petroleum energy business in 
the world oil markets.
  Mr. Chair, the world is very different than it was in 1973 when the 
ban on crude oil exports was adopted.
  And much of the change we see today is attributable to America's 
unconventional oil boom.
  U.S. crude production is now more than 11 million barrels per day 
according to the U.S. DOE's Energy Information Administration, up from 
7 million barrel per day in 2008.
  And it is estimated that U.S. output will exceed 18 million barrels a 
day by 2040.
  Crude inventories are at an 80-year high, and imports have declined 
nearly 30 percent between 2005 and 2013.
  Mr. Chair, paradoxically, continuation of the crude oil export ban 
may pose one of the biggest threats to this U.S. production boom and to 
the economy.
  This is because increased production has led to a substantial decline 
in oil prices over the past year and the resulting decrease in revenues 
has forced U.S. producers in my district and elsewhere to slash 
investment and cancel projects.
  Since last autumn the industry has cut more than 125,000 jobs, 
including many in my district.
  I have met and know many of the employers and workers affected by 
industry job reductions.
  Lifting the crude oil export ban would offer American crude oil 
producers new markets for their product and would mean fewer layoffs.
  Studies by the highly respected Brookings Institution and other 
organizations suggest that the economic benefits to the nation of 
repealing the ban on crude oil exports would be substantial.
  Specifically, it is predicted that repeal of the crude oil export ban 
will: 1. generate over $1.4 billion in revenue to the federal treasury 
over the next 10 years from oil and gas leases, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office; 2. lower gasoline prices by 13 cents per 
gallon according to the Government Accountability Office; 3. support up 
to 964,000 additional American jobs; 4. allow the United States to help 
its allies, enhance its energy security, and weaken the influence and 
market power of OPEC and Russia; and 5. strengthen the 60-ship Maritime 
Security Fleet, assuring that United States flag ships and crews will 
be available to provide support to the military in defense of our 
national interests and our allies.
  The economic benefits projected to be derived from a repeal of the 
crude oil export ban are stunning in their magnitude: 1. 300,000 
additional jobs by 2020; 2. $5.8 billion savings in fuel costs each 
year between 2015 and 2035; 3. $70 billion in additional investment in 
U.S. exploration, development, and production of crude oil between 2015 
and 2020; 4. 500,000 barrels per day increase in domestic crude oil 
production in 2020; 5. $38 billion in additional economic activity in 
2020; 6. $13.5 billion in additional federal, state, and local revenue 
in 2020; and a 7. $22 billion reduction in the U.S. trade deficit in 
2020.
  It is estimated that in my own congressional district, lifting the 
ban would generate an additional 500 jobs and inject an additional $275 
million into the local economy, resulting in an increase in government 
revenues in the amount of $227.7 million.
  Another positive impact of repealing the crude oil export ban is that 
the U.S. crude oil production would increase 1.2 million barrels per 
day average between 2016 and 2030.
  Additionally, manufacturing jobs are expected to increase by an 
average of 37,000 per year through 2025 and analysts predict that 
construction jobs will increase 217,000 in the peak year 2017, while 
related professional services jobs would grow by an average of 148,000 
per year.
  Repeal of the crude oil export ban is expected to spur capital 
investment in machinery, exploration, and development by $7 billion in 
2020.
  The gross domestic product would increase by nearly $73 billion in 
2016 and by at least $134 billion in 2018.
  Total government revenues would increase by a combined $1.3 trillion 
between 2016 and 2030.
  The revenue generated translates to an expected average annual 
increase of $2,500 in disposable income per household, additional jobs 
for American workers, and lower gasoline prices for American consumers.
  As it relates to our geopolitical stance, Mr. Chair, lifting the 
crude export ban will enhance our national influence in international 
affairs because we will be stronger economically and more energy 
independent.
  This will enhance our ability to achieve our geopolitical objectives 
of maintaining peace and security across the globe which in turn 
furthers our national security interests.
  For all of these reasons, I support H.R. 702 and urge my colleagues 
to join me and also support Jackson Lee Amendments 9 and 10.
  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 Energy and Commerce, 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 114-29. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of the substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 702

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States has enjoyed a renaissance in energy 
     production, establishing the United States as the world's 
     leading oil producer.
       (2) By authorizing crude oil exports, the Congress can spur 
     domestic energy production, create and preserve jobs, help 
     maintain and strengthen our independent shipping fleet that 
     is essential to national defense, and generate State and 
     Federal revenues.
       (3) An energy-secure United States that is a net exporter 
     of energy has the potential to transform the security 
     environment around the world, notably in Europe and the 
     Middle East.
       (4) For our European allies and Israel, the presence of 
     more United States oil in the market will offer more secure 
     supply options, which will strengthen United States strategic 
     alliances and help curtail the use of energy as a political 
     weapon.
       (5) The 60-ship Maritime Security Fleet is a vital element 
     of our military's strategic sealift and global response 
     capability. It assures United States-flag ships and United 
     States crews will be available to support the United States 
     military when it needs to mobilize to protect our allies, and 
     is the most prudent and economical solution to meet current 
     and projected sealift requirements for the United States.
       (6) The Maritime Security Fleet program provides a labor 
     base of skilled American mariners who are available to crew 
     the United States Government-owned strategic sealift fleet, 
     as well as the United States commercial fleet, in both peace 
     and war.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL.

       Section 103 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6212) and the item relating thereto in the table of 
     contents of that Act are repealed.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL POLICY ON OIL EXPORT RESTRICTION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote the 
     efficient exploration, production, storage, supply, 
     marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy resources, 
     including fossil fuels, no official of the Federal Government 
     shall impose or enforce any restriction on the export of 
     crude oil.

     SEC. 4. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study and 
     transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate recommendations on the appropriate 
     size, composition, and purpose of the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve.

     SEC. 5. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act limits the authority of the President 
     under the Constitution, the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), or part B of title II of the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271 et seq.) 
     to prohibit exports.

     SEC. 6. NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Payments.--Section 53106(a)(1) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma before ``for 
     each'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``2016, 2017, and 
     2018;'' and inserting ``and 2016'';
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (4) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) $4,999,950 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(E) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 
     2020;
       ``(F) $5,233,463 for fiscal year 2021; and''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 53111 of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``2016, 2017, and 2018;'' 
     and inserting ``and 2016'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
       (3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

[[Page H6952]]

       ``(4) $299,997,000 for fiscal year 2017;
       ``(5) $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018, 2019, and 
     2020;
       ``(6) $314,007,780 for fiscal year 2021; and''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 114-290. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
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. Amash

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mr. AMASH. 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 2, lines 3 through 15, strike paragraphs (5) and (6).
       Page 3, line 18, through page 4, line 21, strike section 6.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Amash) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes a new section of the 
bill added by the Committee on Rules that increases funding for the 
Maritime Security Program by $500 million. My amendment does not 
eliminate the program. It simply keeps it at its current authorization 
level.
  Just last week the House passed the conference report for the 
National Defense Authorization Act. This defense policy bill, 
negotiated at length between House and Senate conferees, increases the 
annual subsidy for Maritime Security Program participants from $3.1 
million per vessel to $3.5 million per vessel, a 12.9 percent increase. 
The provision, added quietly by the Committee on Rules, circumvents 
regular order and increases funding even more.
  As amended, H.R. 702 boosts per-vessel payments to $5 million per 
year, increasing the subsidy by a whopping 42 percent. The proper place 
for a discussion on funding for the Maritime Security Program is in a 
defense bill like the NDAA, not as part of a bill that lifts a ban on 
crude oil exports.
  This spending increase is all the more reckless, given our more than 
$18 trillion national debt. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, lifting the export ban will increase receipts from Federal oil 
and gas leases by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. We should use 
those receipts to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two ways we should amend bills. The first way 
is to go through the normal committee process, by introducing 
amendments during a markup. Members have the opportunity to debate and 
vote on amendments in the committee of jurisdiction. We should respect 
the work committees do by not altering the bills they report before we 
even consider the legislation on the House floor.
  The second way is to offer an amendment when the bill comes up for 
debate on the House floor. This gives all Representatives the 
opportunity to participate in the debate and represent their 
constituents by voting on the measure. Unfortunately, the Committee on 
Rules changed this bill behind closed doors late last week.
  The Maritime Security Program is a defense-related program that has 
nothing to do with oil exports or energy production. This provision has 
no place in H.R. 702, and its eleventh-hour addition by the Committee 
on Rules is the latest example of our broken legislative process.
  Mr. Chairman, we must protect this institution and the legislative 
process. Adding an unrelated provision to this bill behind closed doors 
is no way to legislate.
  I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to remove this 
unrelated $500 million spending increase so we can consider H.R. 702 as 
reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Dold). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 702 but, more 
importantly, to oppose this amendment.
  First of all, I would tell the gentleman, this amendment was 
considered and this provision was considered in the NDAA, and we 
actually did mark it up.
  The second thing is this is vital to the national security of this 
country to maintain the private sector sealift capacity. Our top 
military commanders have called MSP a vital element of our military 
strategic sealift and global response capability, and it is worth 
noting that 90 percent of all U.S. military cargo moved from Iraq and 
Afghanistan has been by American-flagged, American-crewed commercial 
vessels enrolled in the MSP program.

                              {time}  1130

  If we were to adopt this amendment, it would basically cost us $13 
billion to re-create this. The U.S. Transportation Command has 
estimated it would cost $52 billion. In other words, Mr. Chairman, it 
would take us between 42 years and 168 years to recoup our costs.
  Let's defeat this amendment and protect the Maritime Security 
Program.
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about process. I recognize 
the concerns of my colleague. This should be handled in the NDAA or in 
a defense bill.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment eliminating this $500 
million increase in spending and reject the Rules Committee's eleventh-
hour revision that has nothing to do with crude oil exports.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I join my friend, Mr. Forbes, in opposition 
to this amendment.
  This amendment would harm America's national security. Under the 
program that it seeks to eliminate, the Pentagon reserves capacity on 
roughly 60 U.S.-flagged commercial ships to ensure the supply and 
transport of American troops. It is a program that supports our private 
sector as well, requiring the Defense Department to contract private 
commercial ships rather than building their own. So there was not 
redundancy, but complementary ability.
  It is a program that enhances America's national security by ensuring 
that our military can depend on U.S.-flagged and crewed vessels instead 
of foreign ones. It is a program that supports important domestic 
maritime jobs.
  In my view, we ought to reject this amendment. This legislation is, 
obviously, controversial. I hope this amendment is not controversial 
and that it receives overwhelming bipartisan opposition.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I represent the Port of Houston, and maritime transportation is vital 
to our success. Last year, the United States imported $2.4 trillion and 
exported $1.6 trillion in cargo and goods. Much of that cargo came to 
the United States on foreign-built ships, under foreign flags, and 
without U.S. citizens on board.
  Our maritime industry has been the bedrock of our economy since our 
founding. More cargo moves through our waterways than any other mode of 
transportation. We need to protect our domestic maritime industry, and 
that includes men and women that work on these ships.
  I have worked with the maritime unions, including the Seafarers and 
the Marine Engineers, since my first days in Congress. I want to thank 
my colleagues for supporting our U.S.-flagged maritime unions. I oppose 
this amendment because I support any effort to keep these folks 
working.
  I would like to take a minute and acknowledge a recent incident in 
the Atlantic Ocean. The disappearance of the El Faro resulted in the 
loss of life. I

[[Page H6953]]

want to extend my prayers to the families. Working on these ships is 
tough and can be hazardous, as we learned last week.
  It is my hope that we can defeat this amendment and ensure our 
economic viability and national security by putting U.S. crews and U.S. 
flags on more ships.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Michigan's point, 
this is the process.
  I chair the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. I 
am also the vice chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee in the Armed 
Services Committee. Mr. Forbes is the chairman of the subcommittee that 
handles this stuff. This went through the process. This is the process. 
This is how it is supposed to work.
  There are only--I will say again--79 U.S.-flagged commercial vessels 
on the ocean today. That is 79 out of about 50,000; 60 of those are 
used in times of war. It would cost us billions of dollars to create a 
fleet that sits there mothballing until we go to war and then we get to 
use it.
  This is how the system works. This is the process, and this is how we 
keep national security strong. Republicans and Democrats realize this 
is the process. It is the right way to do it, and it shores up the 
Maritime Security Program for a decade. That is 10 years that we don't 
have to worry about this, and it is paid for. The gentleman from 
Michigan would have a point if this were not paid for. It is totally 
paid for.
  This is the right vehicle for it, and I would urge all my colleagues 
to vote against the gentleman's amendment and support maritime security 
and national security.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amash amendment that 
would undermine our domestic maritime industry and its workers.
  The Pacific Northwest has a proud maritime tradition that supports 
quality jobs and keeps our economy moving.
  The Maritime Security Program ensures that we have the ships and 
mariners to support our local, regional, and national economy--to keep 
folks employed and get goods to market.
  Having worked in economic development for a decade I believe the MSP 
is the kind of program we ought to back, not completely scrap.
  Let's not turn our back on the hard-working men and women that are 
out on the sea.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AMASH. 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Delaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, after line 15, insert the following:
       (7) The United States has reduced its oil consumption over 
     the past decade, and increasing investment in clean energy 
     technology and energy efficiency will lower energy prices, 
     reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase national 
     security.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Delaney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, recent data suggests that climate change 
is accelerating. As a result, the destabilizing effect it has on our 
environment is worsening. To my mind, this is a clear threat to 
American prosperity and global stability.
  Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that the Governor of the Bank of 
England in a speech recently said that he is very concerned that unless 
we respond to climate change, there will be a dramatic reduction in 
value of carbon assets, which will cause a financial crisis. As a 
country with the largest financial markets in the world, we should be 
concerned about that.
  Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that Citigroup recently put out a 
research report that said unless we deal with climate change, the 
effect on global GDP will be $44 trillion to the negative by 2050. That 
is twice the size of the U.S. economy.
  Mr. Chairman, consider the fact that the U.N. has estimated that 
unless we deal with climate change, 150 million people will be forced 
to be relocated by 2050; 20 million, alone, in Bangladesh. Put that in 
the context of the fact that in Syria we are seeing the effects of 7 
million people being forced to be relocated.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a clear threat to American prosperity, 
and the bad news is that our environment is worse.
  The good news is the technology is better for dealing with this 
problem. Consider the fact that, as we have doubled the installed base 
of solar energy in this country, we have reduced the cost of energy by 
23 percent. It has happened over the last several cycles of doubling 
solar, and people expect it to continue. This is occurring because of 
good old-fashioned American innovation.
  And while I believe there should be policy prescriptions from the 
government that effectively cost and price carbon, at a minimum, Mr. 
Chairman, we should agree that by investing in clean energy technology, 
we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will lower energy costs for 
the American public, and we will increase national security. That is 
what the amendment that I have here today is designed to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but 
only in order to control the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON. Chairman Upton and I are prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment, but we do have some Republican speakers who 
would like to speak in favor of it.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  First, Mr. Chairman, let me offer my support for the underlying bill, 
H.R. 702.
  Over the August district work period, I had the opportunity to visit 
an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and see firsthand the safety 
regulations and enhancements that have been put in place by the 
industry in recent years. Two of the primary topics of discussion 
during our visit were safety and the environment. I was glad to learn 
the industry has put a lot of contingencies in place to make sure we 
can continue drilling for oil in a manner that is safe and responsible.
  I have joined my colleagues Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gibson in offering 
this simple amendment that would recognize our country is making 
progress in becoming more energy efficient; and that is better for the 
economy and the environment.
  It is also very important to note the other forms of energy that are 
benefiting our country's economy and its national security. Wind, 
solar, natural gas, and nuclear energy are all contributing greatly to 
our energy independence, and this amendment before us today 
acknowledges that we should continue to promote an all-of-the-above 
energy strategy for this 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. DELANEY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great city of 
Kinderhook, New York (Mr. Gibson).
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am honored to be 
working with my colleagues John Delaney and Carlos Curbelo to offer 
this bipartisan amendment.
  This amendment adds another strategic dimension to this bill: support 
for

[[Page H6954]]

clean energy and energy efficiencies. On our way to energy 
independence, it is critical that we support research and development 
for clean energy technologies.
  In New York, we are doing a lot of this work supporting important 
programs like the SunShot program, with the ambitious goal of driving 
down the total cost of photovoltaics to 9 cents per kilowatt hour, 
which would allow it to compete with any other energy source and 
democratize energy, transforming the way we produce, convey, and 
consume energy.
  With improved technologies, we will also see more proliferation of 
wind power, hydroelectric power, and biomass energy complementing all 
other traditional energy sources, including crude oil, adding up to a 
stronger America.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a country that can do hard things. We have 
proven that time and again. With the proper focus and investment, we 
will dominate the clean energy world market. And when we do, we will 
drive down energy costs; we will grow our economy, strengthen our 
national security, and conserve our environment.
  I urge support of this amendment. Let's take a robust and holistic 
approach to energy independence.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and my friend 
from Texas for accepting this amendment. I want to thank my colleague 
from New York and my colleague from Florida for their support of their 
amendment and their insight into this issue.
  Again, I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. It is very 
simple. It simply says that investing in basic research and investing 
in American innovation will, in fact, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
which it has been proven to do; will, in fact, lower energy costs, 
which it has been proven to do; and will, in fact, increase national 
security in this great country.
  So, again, I want to I thank my colleagues for their support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 4, insert ``(a) Strategic Petroleum Reserve'' 
     before ``Not later than''.
       Page 3, after line 10, insert the following:
       (b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall conduct, and transmit to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate the 
     results of, a study on the net greenhouse gas emissions that 
     will result from the repeal of the crude oil export ban under 
     section 2.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 702. 
This is the only amendment that the majority would allow in order to 
help us understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban on 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Before the Rules Committee, Ranking Member Pallone and I offered two 
other amendments that would have more proactively studied the increase 
in greenhouse gas emissions caused by this bill. Instead, the majority 
only allowed this amendment, which requires that the Department of 
Energy do a report on the increasing greenhouse gas emissions caused by 
the lifting of the crude oil export ban, but still allows the ban to be 
lifted.

                              {time}  1145

  This is what the legislative process has come to, unfortunately, in 
this Chamber. Instead of analyzing full impacts before voting, the 
majority has adopted a ``pollute first, ask questions later'' approach. 
Repeal the restrictions on fossil fuel extraction and production, and 
then we will figure out the environmental impact later.
  Now, lifting this 40-year-old ban on exports could increase oil 
production by as much as 500,000 barrels a day. That is a significant 
increase that risks expanding production into sensitive areas off our 
coasts and our public lands.
  According to the Center for American Progress, this surge in 
production would result in an additional 515 million metric tons of 
carbon pollution each year. That is the equivalent of an additional 108 
million passenger cars on the road or 135 coal-fired power plants put 
online. That is what this bill could do. That is why over 40 
environmental groups are opposing it.
  Now, my Republican colleagues might dispute this study. It is the 
Center for American Progress. And so, when we hear studies from any 
group that is not funded by the fossil fuel industry, we typically hear 
them accused of being biased, left-leaning sources, and certainly they 
are welcome to make that argument.
  But doesn't that support the need for an established, nonpartisan 
source of assessments on the impacts to our environment for bills that 
this Congress considers?
  That is why today, Mr. Chairman, I am also introducing the Carbon 
Pollution Transparency Act of 2015. This is a bill that would require 
the CBO to estimate and report on the projected carbon footprint of 
each bill Congress considers. That way, we know before we vote how a 
bill would impact our climate and our environment.
  Members of Congress already rely on the fiscal impact estimates 
produced by the nonpartisan CBO to help us make good decisions, make up 
our minds. But we need to also take into account the environmental 
consequences of our votes.
  The American public has the right to know whether their 
Representatives in Washington are voting to help harm the environment, 
to worsen climate change, or whatever the impact may be. That is why my 
bill ensures that we have a fair judge, the CBO, for each bill that we 
consider on its environmental impact.
  But today we at least have an opportunity to require such a study as 
part of H.R. 702. It is not enough, but it is a step forward to fully 
understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban and, 
potentially, the harm that would result to our environment.
  So I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and a ``no'' vote on the 
underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in mild opposition, and I may change 
my mind, depending on what the gentleman says.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. I want to make a deal with the gentleman. We want to be 
open and transparent. We are the open, transparent Congress.
  We will accept your amendment if you voice vote it and at least 
consider voting for the bill. But if you are going to rollcall vote it 
and vote against the bill, then I will oppose it, and we will defeat 
you on the rollcall vote.
  So I am going to make you a deal. I am not saying you have to vote 
for the bill. I am just saying I want you to think nice thoughts about 
the bill and consider voting for the bill, and then we will accept it 
on a voice vote, but we don't want any rollcall votes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is advised to direct his 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BARTON. Well, I hope the Chair was listening.
  I yield to my friend from California, if I have time to yield, to see 
what his thoughts are.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Through the Chair, I would say to my friend, I 
appreciate the offer, but I don't think there could be anything more 
transparent than going on record and voting on these.
  Mr. BARTON. So the gentleman is going to ask for a rollcall vote?
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I am going to ask for a rollcall vote.
  Mr. BARTON. Then, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment 
and ask every Member to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not violently opposed to this. It is a study. I 
am confident that this bill will on a net basis

[[Page H6955]]

reduce greenhouse gases because the oil that would must probably be 
exported is produced under the strictest environmental regulations in 
the world.
  It also happens to be the easiest oil to refine because it is light 
sweet, which means it doesn't have a high sulfur content. When you run 
it through the cracking process, because it is lighter, it tends to 
separate into the various refined products more easily.
  So the gentleman's amendment is benign in nature in the sense that, 
if we were to conduct the study, I think the results from the study 
would be positive.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON. I will be happy yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. To my esteemed colleague and coach of the baseball team, 
in the spirit of thinking good thoughts, if you will think good 
thoughts about considering the impacts to our environment and our 
climate, I will accept your previous offer to voice vote this 
amendment, and maybe all of this great good thought stuff will get us 
home faster.
  Mr. BARTON. Reclaiming my time, I commend the gentleman for his 
thoughtful understanding from Mr. Pallone. And, with that, we accept 
the gentleman's amendment. I'm going to ask everybody to vote for it on 
a voice vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 4, insert ``(a) Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     Study.--'' before ``Not later than''.
       Page 3, after line 10, insert the following:
       (b) Crude Oil Export Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Department of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the Department of Energy, and other 
     departments as appropriate, shall conduct a study of the 
     State and national implications of lifting the crude oil 
     export ban with respect to consumers and the economy.
       (2) Contents.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include an analysis of--
       (A) the economic impact that exporting crude oil will have 
     on the economy of the United States;
       (B) the economic impact that exporting crude oil will have 
     on consumers, taking into account impacts on energy prices;
       (C) the economic impact that exporting crude oil will have 
     on domestic manufacturing, taking into account impacts on 
     employment; and
       (D) the economic impact that exporting crude oil will have 
     on the refining sector, taking into account impacts on 
     employment.
       (3) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Bureau of Industry and 
     Security shall submit to Congress a report containing the 
     results of the study conducted under paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would direct the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the 
Department of Energy and other departments, as needed, to conduct a 
study.
  This study would measure the impact of exporting millions of barrels 
of domestically produced crude oil on Americans and our economy.
  Let's be clear. Lifting the crude oil export ban benefits very few. 
Let's also be clear about who does not benefit: American consumers and 
the American economy.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will make the case for 
lifting the ban on crude oil exports. They will cite reports by the 
U.S. Department of Energy, the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Government Accountability Office, and various other organizations to 
support their claims.
  Some of the benefits they will list include claims of an increase in 
crude oil production, additional investment in crude oil production, 
and an increase in employment along the energy supply chain.
  But there is a problem with these claims, that the U.S. crude oil is 
already at peak production. According to a report by the EIA, 
production reached 9.7 million barrels 1 day in April of 2015, the 
highest levels since 1971.
  In 2015, production is expected to average 9.2 million barrels a day. 
We still import 7 million barrels of oil a day. Let's find a way to 
keep domestically produced crude oil within our borders, which benefits 
our consumers and the economy in the U.S.
  For example, the domestic gas prices are at record low levels due to 
the surplus of crude oil.
  According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove 
nearly 2 trillion miles during the first 7 months of 2015, contributing 
to the high gas consumption and setting a record level.
  Lifting the ban now on U.S. crude oil benefits will undoubtedly raise 
prices. For consumers, these increases will result in higher gas prices 
at the pump and higher heating costs for families in the winter.
  As all of you know, the manufacturing industry is the backbone of 
Michigan's economy. While the U.S. manufacturing industry has struggled 
in the past, it has been one of the bright spots in our economy since 
the recession and remains a vital part of America's economy, as well as 
our Nation's economy.
  Since 2010, over 700,000 manufacturing jobs that were lost during the 
recession have been recovered. One major reason for this resurgence of 
the manufacturing sector is low energy prices. Up to one-third of all 
energy used in the United States goes into the manufacturing sector.
  Rushing to lift the ban on crude oil now would only hurt the 
manufacturing industry and dent its growth. Let us find a way to keep 
domestically produced crude oil within our own boundaries and allow the 
consumers and the economy to reap the benefits of lower energy prices.
  Let us put together a comprehensive study of the impact of lifting 
the U.S. crude oil export ban on the consumers and our economy first, 
before we rush to export millions of barrels of domestically produced 
crude oil.
  For the benefit of all Americans, for the benefit of our economy, I 
urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in mild opposition, but I could 
become a supporter of the amendment under certain conditions.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from Michigan is willing 
to accept the same deal that the gentleman from California just 
accepted, we will accept the amendment. We will vote for it on a voice 
vote, and we will move on down the road to catch my plane at 1:40 from 
Reagan National Airport.
  Does the gentlewoman agree to voice vote it?
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. To the Chair, considering all that is happening here, 
I really need good thoughts, and I want to be part of the process of 
expanding good thoughts in Congress.
  So I will accept, sir.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of the 
gentlewoman's amendment and ask that it be voted for on a voice vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Messer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 15, strike ``or''.
       Page 3, line 17, after ``(42 U.S.C. 6271 et seq.)'' insert 
     the following: ``, the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 1 et seq.), or any other provision of law that imposes 
     sanctions on a foreign person or foreign government 
     (including any provision of law that prohibits or restricts 
     United States persons from engaging in a transaction with a 
     sanctioned person or government), including a foreign 
     government that is designated as a state sponsor of 
     terrorism,''.


[[Page H6956]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Messer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his leadership on this important bill, and 
I am hoping today to join the voice vote kumbaya, if possible.
  H.R. 702 is a commonsense legislation that repeals the outdated ban 
on crude oil exports. This ban was originally implemented when America 
was going through an energy crisis. I was very young then, but 
certainly remember the gas lines in the early 1970s.
  The truth is things are different today. America is one of the 
largest oil exporters, thanks to a boom in production all across our 
country. Gas prices are at historic lows, and refineries are near 
capacity.
  Yet, our laws do not reflect this new reality. Producers are still 
held captive to the domestic marketplace. It is long past time to 
modernize.
  This bill will pave the way for a new age of energy innovation in 
America. It will support and create thousands of U.S. jobs, good-paying 
jobs, and encourage the investment of millions of dollars into our 
economy.
  America now has opportunities that would have seemed unimaginable 
even a generation ago, potentially even a few years ago.
  We could now become a net exporter of energy. Think about that. And 
when we do, it will jump-start our economy, create thousands of good-
paying jobs, and improve our national security and economic security as 
well.
  Now, Mr. Chair, I am offering a bipartisan amendment today that 
clarifies language in the bill to avoid creating any unintended 
consequences regarding terrorist enemies of our country.
  I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for 
cosponsoring this amendment and Chairman Royce for working with us in 
crafting the amendment as well.
  While we should all want to see crude oil exports expanded, we do not 
want this bill to inadvertently help our enemies. My amendment very 
simply clarifies the bill's language to allow the administration to 
retain its ability to prohibit the export of crude oil to state 
sponsors of terrorism.
  I believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying goals of 
the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MESSER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. Chairman Upton and I strongly support the gentleman from 
Indiana's amendment. We commend him for offering it. We think it adds 
to the bill.
  Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in mild opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. I support the amendment but would note that the best way 
to prevent our Nation's oil resources from falling into the hands of 
bad actors is to maintain the reasonable, time-tested controls on 
exports that are currently in place.
  If you are concerned about our oil falling into the wrong hands, then 
you should vote ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 702.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Messer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mr. MESSER. 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:

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS OF CRUDE OIL, REFINED 
                   PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS 
                   TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the 
     export of crude oil, refined petroleum products, and 
     petrochemical products by or through any entity or person, 
     wherever located, subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States to any entity or person located in, subject to the 
     jurisdiction of, or sponsored by the Islamic Republic of 
     Iran.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Messer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chair, again, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) for his leadership on this important bill and 
reiterate my support for H.R. 702. This is commonsense legislation that 
repeals the outdated ban on crude oil exports.
  The U.S. is producing more oil today than ever before, and we could 
literally become a net exporter of energy, something that would have 
been unimaginable a generation ago and would have incredible results 
for our economy. The fact that we are the only advanced nation that 
prohibits the export of domestically produced oil holds us back.
  I believe very strongly that we should not empower our enemies 
unintentionally through this legislation, and this includes the Islamic 
Republic of Iran. My amendment today prohibits the export of crude oil, 
refined petroleum products, and petrochemical products to Iran.
  Obviously, Iran has oil. It has no need to import it from the United 
States. But my amendment goes beyond just crude oil. It ensures Iran 
will not inadvertently have access to other petroleum-based products 
produced in the U.S.
  Refined petroleum and petrochemical products are used to manufacture 
thousands of goods that we use every day. Things like plastics, 
asphalt, paints, and cell phones are manufactured in this way.
  It was only a few weeks ago in this very Chamber that we discussed 
the dangers of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as 
the Iran nuclear deal. Despite being able to enrich uranium and self-
police its nuclear facilities, Iran will receive sanctions relief to 
the tune of $150 billion. That is $150 billion pumped into a $400-
billion-a-year national economy. $150 billion of that will, no doubt, 
be used by Iran to bankroll terrorist organizations, further 
destabilize the Middle East, and continue their work to wipe Israel off 
the map.
  Things should not be made easier for them. The intent of the 
underlying bill is not to aid and support Iran. It is to open up the 
U.S. energy sector, export oil, grow our economy, and create thousands 
of jobs.
  My amendment ensures that the intention of this bill is clear. I 
believe the amendment is consistent with the underlying goals of the 
bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MESSER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and myself support your amendment and 
ask that it be accepted.
  Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentleman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in mild opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana. However, I would point out that Iran has the 
fourth largest number of proven oil reserves in the world. In fact, 
supporters of this bill often state concern over the

[[Page H6957]]

market impact of increased Iranian exports on domestic producers.
  So while it is hard to understand why we need to worry about our 
crude oil going to a country that is a major net exporter of oil, I 
have no objection to adopting this amendment and making really sure 
Iran doesn't get any of our oil and petroleum products.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 Indiana will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 7. PARTNERSHIPS WITH MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Department of Energy shall continue to 
     develop and broaden partnerships with minority serving 
     institutions, including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) 
     and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in 
     the areas of oil and gas exploration, production, midstream, 
     and refining.
       (b) Public-private Partnerships.--The Department of Energy 
     shall encourage public Private partnerships between the 
     energy sector and minority serving institutions, including 
     Hispanic Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges 
     and Universities.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I am here, of course, to talk about an 
amendment to H.R. 702, this important legislation before us that will 
lift this outdated ban on the export of oil, modernize the U.S. energy 
economy, and create U.S. jobs. The amendment that I bring forward is to 
help Minority-Serving Institutions grow the leaders of the future in 
the oil and gas industry.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that Hispanics will account 
for 74 percent of the growth in the Nation's labor force from 2010 to 
2020. This amendment ensures that our Minority-Serving Institutions, 
such as Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities, can create a competitive and able workforce in our 
oil and gas industry. This will ensure that our Nation can continue to 
compete in the global market far into the future. Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions are about 12 percent of the nonprofit colleges and 
universities, yet they enroll 59 percent of all Hispanic students.
  The other part of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that it also calls 
for the Department of Energy to encourage public-private partnerships 
between the energy sector and Minority-Serving Institutions.
  This is an amendment that I think will be good for all workers across 
the Nation. I ask all Members to vote in favor of this amendment and to 
support the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I do support the gentleman's amendment. I 
want to commend him for his leadership on this issue. I hope we will 
accept it on a voice vote.
  I see Mr. Rush. I am willing to yield to my good friend from Chicago 
(Mr. Rush) if he wishes to speak on it. I was told he might.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield for the 1-minute prayer, not the 5-minute sermon.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline the time the gentleman 
was gracious to give. I really want my own time on the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time has already been claimed.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), which couldn't exceed 5 minutes 
because that is all I have.
  Mr. RUSH. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that I did not come here to Congress to 
shadowbox with the majority party over jobs and economic opportunities 
for the intergenerationally and chronically unemployed citizens of my 
district and similarly situated districts across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which was not allowed by the majority 
party, would have provided real solutions to real problems. My 
amendment would have put dollars in the pocketbooks of the unemployed 
minorities, the unemployed women, and the unemployed veterans of this 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say, this amendment before us is like pouring 
perfume on an overused pigsty. It provides DOE--and I quote from the 
amendment, Mr. Chairman--it provides DOE with the authority to continue 
its ongoing work. In other words, it tells the Department of Energy: Do 
what you are already doing.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike the amendment I offered in the Rules Committee 
that was drafted with input and collaboration from the various 
stakeholders who would benefit most had it been adopted, there is no 
specific initiative, no program, and no objections in the Cuellar 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would have established--not 
encouraged, but established--partnerships between DOE, Commerce, the 
Small Business Administration, Minority Business Development Agency, 
industry, the National Minority Supplier Diversity Council, the Women's 
Business Enterprise Network Council, and minority chambers of commerce 
chapters across the Nation.
  The Rush amendment would have established programmatic commitments 
for diversity hiring for vendor and contracting opportunities within 
the supply chain through contractual obligations, incentives, and other 
means with a goal of no less than 10 percent participation by minority-
owned firms by the year 2020.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would have created regional diversity 
supply chain specialty centers to develop strategies for minority 
business contracting and vendor opportunities, and to hold business 
development sessions in strategic locations where energy development 
exists or is expanding.
  The Rush amendment would have helped minority- and women-owned firms 
form consortiums and partnerships in order to better meet 
qualifications and capacities that industry is seeking.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would have established a program to 
provide access to capital for loans, financing, and insurance 
assistance for minority- and women-owned businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would have established--not just 
encouraged, but established--public-private partnerships between 
minority-owned banks and private investors as well as provided grants 
to Minority-Serving Institutions to help recruit businesses for energy-
related supply chain sector activity.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I am not here to criticize my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar). I am here to just bring out the 
differences between what an imaginary amendment would do and what a 
real amendment would do.
  Mr. BARTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words of the 
gentleman from Illinois.
  I understand the amendment that he was trying to get in. Actually, I 
was trying to help try to get his amendment accepted, but it is up to 
the Rules Committee and the democracy there.
  This amendment is very simple. It is something that we have added in 
the

[[Page H6958]]

appropriation bill on different agencies. We all have voted for this in 
the appropriation bills time after time after time, and it is to help 
the Minority-Serving Institutions.
  I ask the gentleman from Texas and Members to please accept this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 8 will not 
be offered.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       Not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall jointly transmit to Congress a report that reviews the 
     impact of lifting the oil export ban under this Act as it 
     relates to promoting United States energy and national 
     security.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. 
Barton for their courtesies and as well the Rules Committee. Let me 
first of all say there has been a lot of discussion on the floor of the 
House regarding this bill and different opinions. Might I add that this 
is an important and vigorous discussion. I think this is the best of 
what this Congress is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take note of H.R. 702, which many of us 
know came about because of the gas prices in the 1970s. This bill 
simply repeals that portion of the legislation that responded to that 
crisis.
  What I like in the bill is, of course, we have in the bill that we, 
as a Congress, will get a report some 120 days after dealing with the 
maintenance and the strength of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That 
is a very important national security item.
  A savings clause indicates, of course, that the President has all of 
his powers in the light of crisis and other issues to implement any 
necessary changes or any necessary restrictions on this legislation.
  My amendment tracks giving more information. Not later than 10 years 
after the date of enactment of this act, the Secretary of Energy and 
the Secretary of Commerce shall jointly transmit to Congress a report 
that reviews the impact of lifting the oil import ban under this act as 
relates to promoting, supporting, and providing for the United States 
energy and national security policy.
  Our number one responsibility is the American people--I understand 
that--both environmentally, which reflects to their own energy 
resources, and certainly with national security. This amendment allows 
for that report to be on the front side of 10 years. It could be 2 
years from now, 3 years from now, and the Congress can dictate that.
  U.S. crude production bottomed in 2008 at about 7 million barrels a 
day. It is now more than 11 million barrels a day, and it is now 
possible to go up to 18 million barrels a day in 2040 under the 
strictest environmental concerns.
  But right now in my district--right now in my district--they are 
laying off thousands of people because there is no work. So I would 
argue to my colleagues that this amendment provides the insight on what 
is going on.
  This bill could provide the GDP would rise by 550 billion to 1.8 
trillion between 2015 and 2039. It is estimated in my own congressional 
job lifting the ban would generate an additional 500 hundred jobs, an 
additional 270 million in the local economy, and increase government 
revenues in 227 million.
  This 10-year period under that--by the way, it is up to 10 years--is 
giving long enough time to provide a probative, intelligent assessment 
of whether there is irreversible damage.
  Amendment No. 9 operates as a safety valve and reassures that those 
who may be skeptical of lifting the export ban get reasonable 
opportunities to oppose it or get the right information. The same thing 
with those who may support it. It gives us a basis of empirical data 
rigorously analyzed.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment can be summed up as follows: For those who 
are confident in the future, my amendment offers vindication. For those 
who are skeptical of the new change, my amendment will provide the 
evidence they need to prove their case.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I would rise in mild opposition, which 
could turn to support.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Houston for offering it.
  Is she willing to do this on a voice vote and consider voting for the 
bill if we accept it?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is the gentleman rising to support the gentlewoman's 
amendment with great enthusiasm?
  Mr. BARTON. I will if you rise to voice vote on your amendment. I 
will make it a package deal. I will give you this amendment and the 
next amendment double enthusiasm if they are both voice votes and you 
actually really do vote for the bill or at least start thinking about 
it strongly.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman surmise that amendments that are 
passed by voice vote are still strong amendments?
  Mr. BARTON. Oh, they are.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. And included in the bill?
  Mr. BARTON. Yes, ma'am.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. As opposed to being susceptible to being gotten rid 
of?
  Mr. BARTON. No. You have got my word. I will be on the conference 
committee if we have one. Your amendments will be in the conference 
report that goes to the President if we get that far.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am always eager to work with my 
friends on this side of aisle, Mr. Pallone. I am always eager to work 
when we are moving forward. And so I would offer my amendment and offer 
it for a voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in, as I just said I would, double 
enthusiastic support of her amendment, but I am going to be looking on 
that board when it comes time to vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say my amendment 
answers many of the concerns that have been expressed on the floor of 
the House by giving empirical data, not 10 years and beyond, but in a 
period up to 10 years, to let us make further informative decisions to 
provide for the energy resources of the American people, the national 
resources, and, of course, being able to provide for the national 
security.
  With that, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chair, let me express my appreciation to Chairman Emeritus Barton 
and Ranking Member Pallone for their leadership and commitment to 
American energy independence and economic growth and security.
  I also wish to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and 
the members of the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee 
Amendment Number 9.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which provides:

       Sec. 7. Report. Not later than 10 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy and the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall jointly transmit to Congress a 
     report that reviews the impact of lifting the oil export ban 
     under this Act as it relates to promoting United States 
     energy and national security.

  As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the 
nation, I have always

[[Page H6959]]

been mindful of the importance and have strongly advocated for national 
energy policies that will make our nation more energy independent, 
preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
  The Eighteenth Congressional District, which I am proud to represent 
is home to Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Phillips, BP Corporation 
of North America, Marathon Oil, Enterprise Products Partners (Oil and 
Gas Pipelines), and Halliburton (Oilfield Services), and many others.
  I am strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-growing economy,'' ``pro-
sustainable environment and development,'' and for homeland and 
national security.
  Volatile energy prices threaten economic security for millions of 
middle class Americans and hits consumers hard; rising gas prices 
strain budgets for millions of American families.
  It is a familiar story, but in order to restore lasting security for 
middle class families we need a smart and reasonable plan for American 
energy, not false promises or quick fixes.
  That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal 
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when 
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
  So my constituents have a strong interest in policies that maintain 
or enhance the competitiveness of American petroleum energy business in 
the world oil markets.
  Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to 
improve them by offering constructive amendments.
  H.R. 702 repeals the law prohibiting the exports of crude oil that 
has been on the books for more than 40 years, a response to the Arab 
Oil Embargo led by OPEC in 1973 that sent oil prices soaring and 
inflicted substantial damage on the American economy.
  But much has changed since 1973; America's unconventional oil boom 
changed everything.
  U.S. crude production bottomed in 2008 at about 7 million barrels per 
day; now it is now more than 11 million barrels per day and according 
to the U.S. DOE's Energy Information Administration, U.S. output is 
estimated to top 18 million barrels a day by 2040.
  Crude inventories are at an 80-year high, and imports have declined 
nearly 30% between 2005 and 2013.
  Mr. Chair, paradoxically, continuation of the crude oil export ban 
may pose one of the biggest threats to this U.S. production boom and to 
the economy.
  This is because increased production has led to a substantial decline 
in oil prices over the past year and the resulting decrease in revenues 
has forced U.S. producers in my district and elsewhere to slash 
investment and cancel projects.
  Since last autumn the industry has cut more than 125,000 jobs, 
including many in my district.
  I have met and know many of the employers and workers affected by 
industry job reductions.
  Mr. Chair, lifting the crude oil export ban would offer American 
crude oil producers new markets for their product and would mean fewer 
layoffs.
  Studies by the highly respected Brookings Institution and other 
organizations suggest that the economic benefits to the nation of 
repealing the ban on crude oil exports would be substantial: 1. GDP 
could rise by $550 billion to $1.8 trillion between 2015 and 2039; 2. 
U.S. oil production could rise by 1.3 million to 2.9 million barrels 
per day in 2020; 3. 300,000 additional jobs created by 2020; 4. $5.8 
billion in estimated reduced consumer fuel costs each year between 2015 
and 2035; 5. up to $70 billion in additional investment in U.S. 
exploration, development, and production of crude oil between 2015 and 
2020; 6. $13.5 billion in additional federal, state, and local revenue 
in 2020; 7. $22 billion reduction in the U.S. trade deficit in 2020; 
and 8. 100,000 barrels per day increase in refinery throughout between 
2015 and 2035.
  It is estimated that in my own congressional district, lifting the 
ban would generate an additional 500 jobs and inject an additional $275 
million into the local economy, resulting in an increase in government 
revenues in the amount of $227.7 million.
  Admittedly, these are predictions, projections, and forecasts made on 
the basis of the best information currently available.
  We hope they are accurate but candor requires that we acknowledge 
that no one can say with certainty they will come to pass.
  That is why it is essential that at an appropriate juncture we review 
and assess the impact on the American petroleum industry, the national 
economy, and consumers.
  And that is the purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment #9, which mandates a 
comprehensive review of the impact of crude oil export ban repeal after 
a 10 year period.
  This 10 year time period is long enough to accumulate data sufficient 
and probative enough to assess the impact of H.R. 702, but not so long 
as to prevent irreversible damage if the evaluation does not 
approximate the expected benefits reveals unintended adverse 
consequences.
  In sum, Jackson Lee Amendment Number 9 will help ensure that the 
brave new world of unrestricted crude oil exports by American producers 
is more than a leap of faith.
  Rather, Jackson Lee Amendment Number 9 operates as a safety valve and 
reassures those who may be skeptical of lifting the export ban that 
reasonable opportunities will exist to make an informed evaluation of 
the effect of the ban's repeal on our economy and national security.
  And it is important to emphasize Mr. Chair, that this evaluation will 
be based on empirical data rigorously analyzed.
  In short, Mr. Chair, my amendment can be summed up as follows: for 
those who are confident of the future, my amendment offers vindication.
  For those who are skeptical that the new change will work, my 
amendment will provide the evidence they need to prove their case.
  And for those who believe that maintaining the status quo is 
intolerable, my amendment offers a way forward.
  I urge all members to support Jackson Lee Amendment Number 9.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 114-290.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 7. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall jointly transmit to Congress a report analyzing how 
     lifting the ban on crude oil exports will help create 
     opportunities for veterans and women in the United States, 
     while promoting energy and national security.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 466, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my amendment be considered 
by my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires within 180 days of enactment the 
Secretaries of Energy and Commerce submit a report to Congress 
analyzing how lifting the ban on crude oil, in particular, on exports, 
will create opportunities for veterans and women.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few days ago I went to an initiative called 
Stand Down. I have gone a number of years. Most military persons will 
understand it is where you come and stand down from battle.
  In this instance, they were veterans, many of them homeless, many of 
them in great need. Obviously, social services, substance abuse 
services, and others were offered there. What I heard from these men 
who wore the uniform in dignity is they want jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this legislation will provide a strong 
pro-jobs agenda growing the economy. As my previous amendment said, I 
do not take lightly the impact of lifting the ban; therefore, my 
previous amendment would provide the insight on whether or not this is 
a positive impact.
  I can tell you that there is a great need, as has been discussed 
earlier, about collaborating with historically Black colleges and 
Hispanic-serving colleges.
  I have worked on those issues and have certainly seen the leadership 
of Mr. Rush and Mr. Cuellar. But I will tell you that it is indicated 
that State shale development supports American jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, $107,000 is the average salary that is provided by the 
energy company in energy jobs, 1.7 million employment attributed to 
upstream, unconventional oil and natural gas. Women fill 40 percent of 
the vacancies in oil and gas.
  Mr. Chairman, I will insert this into the Record.

[[Page H6960]]

  


                            [Apr. 23, 2014]

 The Energy Revolution is Creating Career Opportunities for Women and 
                               Minorities

                          (By Cheryl Jackson)

       Minorities are projected to fill an unprecedented number of 
     jobs in the oil, natural gas and petrochemical industries--
     increasing from one-quarter of total jobs in 2010 to one-
     third by 2030--according to a new IHS report sponsored by 
     API.
       ``The oil and natural gas industry pays wages significantly 
     higher than the national average and can provide tremendous 
     career opportunities for women and minorities,'' said Jack 
     Gerard, API President and CEO. ``To lower unemployment and 
     shrink the income inequality gap without spending a dime of 
     taxpayer money, we encourage President Obama to embrace this 
     pro-development energy opportunity.''
       Of up to 1.3 million new job opportunities in the oil, 
     natural gas and petrochemical industries predicted by 2030, 
     almost 408,000 positions--32 percent of the total--are 
     projected to be held by African American and Hispanic 
     workers, according to the report. Women are estimated to fill 
     185,000 of those jobs, and 63 percent of new job 
     opportunities will be in blue collar professions.
       ``We have the natural resources and the technology to be a 
     global energy superpower with all the economic and national 
     security benefits that entails,'' Gerard said. ``Smart energy 
     policy will create tremendous opportunity for hundreds of 
     thousands of workers--from those with just a high school 
     diploma and some post-secondary training to those with post-
     graduate degrees.''
       ``As the study highlights job opportunities, it signals the 
     tremendous need to prepare African Americans, Hispanics and 
     Women to be ready to fill the workforce gap'', said Paula 
     Jackson, president and CEO of the American Association of 
     Blacks in Energy. ``These jobs in the oil and natural gas 
     industry don't just put people to work, they help to 
     transform communities.''
       ``This powerful and important report is a road map for 
     workforce development stakeholders to align the content of 
     their training with a sense of urgency to adequately prepare 
     people for energy jobs,'' said Jose L. Perez, chairman and 
     CEO Of Hispanics In Energy. ``Energy job replacement and 
     growth is a clear pathway for diverse communities to rise 
     from poverty to middle-class, what a rare opportunity.''

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The government and the administration are working to 
pair up and find jobs for veterans. The unemployment rate for veterans 
we have seen has been a constant issue, and it is going down. But we 
need to provide them with other opportunities. They were higher 
unemployment, as we can see, than the regular workforce.
  So my amendment wants to ensure that, if we lift this ban, women and 
veterans will benefit. We know, of course, that we have been pushing 
our educational facilities to engage in STEM, but what we need now is a 
pipeline for qualified veterans and women looking for jobs right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support this Jackson Lee 
amendment. It causes us to focus on these vulnerable populations--women 
and veterans--to direct them into the industry.
  Might I say to my constituents, the energy companies that I 
represent, a long list of names that I will not name at this time, that 
we hope that they are focused as well on expanding opportunities in the 
energy industry for veterans, returning soldiers, if you will, women, 
and, of course, across-the-board minorities. This is an industry that 
is moving and growing, and the opportunities should move and grow as 
well.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson 
Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I only would like to say we support the 
amendment and we will honor the deal we just made on the prior 
amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on a voice vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Pallone. I hope that our colleagues have 
heard us to emphasize the creation of jobs along with the environment, 
national security, and the energy resources of America.
  Mr. Chair, again, let me express my appreciation to Chairman Emeritus 
Barton and Ranking Member Pallone for their leadership and commitment 
to American energy independence, economic growth, national security, 
and expanding opportunities and diversifying the energy sector 
workforce.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which provides:

       Sec. 7. Report. Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy and the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall jointly transmit to Congress a 
     report analyzing how lifting the ban on crude oil exports 
     will help create opportunities for veterans and women in the 
     United States, while promoting energy and national security.

  I also wish to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and 
the members of the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee 
Amendment Number 10.
  As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the 
nation, I have always been mindful of the importance and have strongly 
advocated for national energy policies that will make our nation more 
energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's 
economy strong.
  I strongly am ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-growing economy,'' and ``pro-
expanding economic opportunities for women, veterans, minorities, and 
small business!''
  That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal 
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when 
they are sound, balanced, promote the national interest, and expand 
economic opportunities for everyone, particularly for women, veterans, 
and members of underrepresented communities.
  My constituents have a strong interest in policies that maintain or 
enhance the competitiveness of American petroleum energy business in 
the world oil markets.
  Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to 
improve them by offering constructive amendments.
  That is why I have offered Jackson Lee Amendment Number 10, which 
recognizes the fact that veterans, minorities, small businesses and 
women currently are significantly underrepresented in the oil and gas 
industries at all levels and severely underrepresented in the senior 
managerial, professional, board and ownership ranks.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 10 directs the Secretaries of Commerce 
and Energy to submit a report to Congress within 180 days assessing the 
beneficial impact, if any, that lifting the crude oil export ban holds 
for veterans and women.
  This report should shed light on any additional measures that should 
be taken to increase the participation of women and veterans in the 
petroleum industry as workers, executives, and entrepreneurs.
  Nationally, there were 1.2 million people employed in the oil and gas 
industry in 2010, only 17% of which are women.
  Our booming energy sector has been one of the great American success 
stories over the last decade, and remains a bright spot in our economy 
as it continues to fuel job creation.
  To continue this success and to ensure that opportunities and 
benefits are shared equitably, it is critical that we have a diverse 
energy workforce equipped with the skills, knowledge, and experiences 
needed to compete and win in the global economy.
  And there is no better place to look than from our pool of talented 
veterans and women?
  Women make up half our population and are increasing their presence 
in the STEM fields vital to success in the petroleum energy sector.
  Veterans not only have proved their mettle and leadership skills in 
defense of our country but also are among the most resourceful and 
resilient members of our society, possessing the mission-critical ethic 
necessary for success in the workplace.
  A pipeline of qualified veterans and women looking for employment 
could play a key role as the energy industry seeks qualified, 
motivated, and skilled workers and entrepreneurs.
  As a nation, we must remain committed to utilizing the talents of 
women and veterans if our nation is to meet the challenges and take 
advantage of the opportunities offered by a dynamic global energy 
market.
  Jackson Lee Amendment Number 10 helps us meet this challenge by 
providing critical information regarding the impact of lifting the 
crude oil export ban will have on creating opportunities for veterans 
and women.
  I urge all members to support Jackson Lee Amendment Number 10.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will

[[Page H6961]]

now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 114-
290 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Messer of Indiana.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Messer of Indiana.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Amash

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Amash) 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 109, 
noes 306, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 545]

                               AYES--109

     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Massie
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Salmon
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Tipton
     Wagner
     Walker
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--306

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guinta
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bishop (UT)
     Blum
     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hudson
     Kaptur
     Kind
     Knight
     Payne
     Sanford
     Sinema
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  1251

  Messrs. GUINTA, WITTMAN, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. 
NADLER and GOODLATTE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BUCSHON, LAMBORN, GOWDY, and DUNCAN of South Carolina 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. BLUM. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 545, the Amash Amendment to H.R. 
702, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 545, I was unavoidably delayed 
and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, on rollcall vote 545, I was not 
present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to speak out of order.)


Moment of Silence to Honor the Brave Men and Women who Served on the El 
                                  Faro

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, last Thursday was a tragic day for the 
American maritime community and America. El Faro, an American flagship 
en route to Puerto Rico, was lost in Hurricane Joaquin and, with it, 
its 33 crew, including 28 Americans.
  In the hours after we learned El Faro was in trouble, the Coast 
Guard, DOD, and other government and private sector partners mobilized 
assets with search crews battling treacherous weather conditions in an 
attempt to find survivors; and we appreciate their efforts.
  Mr. Chair, today our thoughts and prayers are with the crewmembers' 
families and loved ones. I ask that the House observe a moment of 
silence to honor the brave men and women who served on the El Faro.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members will rise and observe a moment of silence.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Messer

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2 minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Messer) 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 414, 
noes 1, not voting 19, as follows:

[[Page H6962]]

  


                             [Roll No. 546]

                               AYES--414

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                                NOES--1

       
     Speier
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Grijalva
     Hudson
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Kind
     Knight
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Marchant
     Nunes
     Payne
     Sanford
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1257

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote 
No. 546 on the Messer of Indiana Part B Amendment No. 5 on H.R. 702. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Messer

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Messer) 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 is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419, 
noes 0, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 547]

                               AYES--419

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke

[[Page H6963]]


     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Grijalva
     Hudson
     Kind
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Payne
     Posey
     Sanford
     Sinema
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1301

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Dold) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 702) to adapt 
to changing crude oil market conditions, and, pursuant to House 
Resolution 466, 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. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Huffman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 702 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 3, line 17, insert ``Nothing in this Act prevents the 
     President or any other Federal official from enforcing 
     Federal laws or regulations necessary to protect human 
     health, the environment, or public safety, including the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Hazardous 
     Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-129), the Pipeline 
     Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355), the 
     Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act 
     of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-468), or the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 
     Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90).'' 
     after ``prohibit exports.''.

  Mr. BARTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to 
make a point of order against the bill that it is not germane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. HUFFMAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that we suspend the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON. If I make a point of order that the motion to recommit is 
not germane and it, in fact, is not germane, there is no vote. Is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to a 
hypothetical. A point of order has been reserved.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the motion to 
recommit is not germane. Oh, it is germane. I withdraw the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order and the reservation of 
the point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the usual stipulations. 
This is the final amendment to the bill. It won't kill the bill or send 
it back to committee. When this is adopted, the bill will immediately 
proceed to final passage as amended, so there is no procedural reason 
to oppose this motion to recommit.
  Let's talk about the substance. Now, we have heard a lot of debate 
this morning about the need to give Big Oil--the most profitable 
industry in the history of the world--yet another advantage. For years, 
Americans have been told that we have to ``drill, baby, drill.'' The 
theory that we always hear is that we need to extract every barrel of 
oil from every acre of American soil to keep gas prices low and to 
provide ``energy security.''
  But as soon as American gas prices started to drop, the curtain was 
raised, and the truth was revealed. The real reason for ``drill, baby, 
drill,'' surprise, surprise, was to give Big Oil the chance to maximize 
their profits on the world market.
  It is not enough that they have been able to game the Tax Code for a 
century with billions of dollars of tax breaks not available to other 
taxpayers or businesses. It is not enough that they continue to enjoy 
access to our public lands and waters for oil drilling, even though 
they are no longer paying into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
the longstanding law that expired at the beginning of this month.
  As a reminder, for the past 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund was an agreement, a compact between the American people and Big 
Oil. It said that when we let oil and gas companies drill and profit 
from drilling in Federal waters, they have to dedicate a fraction of 
the profits, just a fraction, to protect our great outdoors for future 
generations. The deal is that they have to dedicate a fraction of those 
profits to protecting our great outdoors for future generations so that 
our grandchildren will be able to hike and hunt and fish in our parks 
and wildlife refuges.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund was shamefully allowed to lapse 
at the beginning of this month, and the majority hasn't scheduled a 
single vote--or even a hearing--to get it back on the books. No, all of 
these concessions to the oil and gas industry are not enough for this 
House.
  With today's bill, the House majority is saying that American oil and 
gas companies can drill more, export more, and realize even greater 
profits, no matter the environmental consequences, no matter the 
consequences to health and safety. As presently written, the underlying 
bill, H.R. 702, would permanently ensure that no export restrictions 
for any reason could be implemented or enforced in the future. That is 
what this bill says. That is breathtaking in its devotion to the oil 
and gas industry's agenda.
  Now, my motion to recommit would ensure that the President and 
Federal

[[Page H6964]]

Government agencies charged with protecting human health, the 
environment, and public safety can continue to do their job that 
constituents rely on them to do. Specifically, with this amendment, we 
will ensure that bedrock health and safety laws, like the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, that laws like 
that will not be cast aside in favor of Big Oil's desire to sell more 
crude overseas.
  Now, if you think about it, this is a very straightforward motion.
  I just want to ask my colleagues a question: Should crude oil exports 
trump the Safe Drinking Water Act?
  Should Big Oil profits trump the need for pipeline safety and 
pipeline inspection?
  Of course not. We need to protect safe drinking water. We need to 
ensure pipeline safety. So, my colleagues, I urge you to vote ``yes'' 
on this MTR to improve this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON. First of all, I want to thank the minority for giving us 
a one-page motion to recommit that I can actually read and understand. 
I have read it. I don't like it. It is not necessary. It is redundant. 
I oppose it. Please vote against it.
  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. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 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 179, 
noes 242, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                               AYES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Grijalva
     Hudson
     Kind
     Knight
     Payne
     Sanford
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1317

  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. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 159, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               AYES--261

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs

[[Page H6965]]


     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--159

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Clyburn
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Grijalva
     Hudson
     Kind
     Knight
     Payne
     Sanford
     Sinema
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1324

  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

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and so I missed 
rollcall vote No. 545 regarding ``Amash of Michigan Part B Amendment 
No. 1'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  I missed rollcall vote No. 546 regarding ``Messer of Indiana Part B 
Amendment No. 5'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  I missed rollcall vote No. 547 regarding ``Messer of Indiana Part B 
Amendment No. 6'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  I missed rollcall vote No. 548 regarding ``On Motion to Recommit with 
Instructions'' (H.R. 702). Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''
  I missed rollcall vote No. 549 regarding ``On Passage'' (H.R. 702). 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on October 9, 2015, I returned to Oregon to 
attend to various matters in my District. Had I been present, I would 
have voted on the following:
  On agreeing to the Amash amendment to H.R. 702, I would have voted 
``no.''
  On agreeing to the Messer/Lowenthal amendment to H.R. 702, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  On agreeing to the Messer amendment Number 2 to H.R. 702, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  On passage of the Democratic Motion to Recommit to H.R. 702, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  On final passage of H.R. 702, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________