[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 144 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7566-H7571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 205, PROTECTING AND SECURING 
 FLORIDA'S COASTLINE ACT OF 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
 1146, ARCTIC CULTURAL AND COASTAL PLAIN PROTECTION ACT; AND PROVIDING 
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1941, COASTAL AND MARINE ECONOMIES PROTECTION 
                                  ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 548 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 548

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 205) to amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 to permanently extend the moratorium on 
     leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
     in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-29, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in 
     the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the

[[Page H7567]]

     House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
     against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with 
     such further amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1146) to amend Public Law 115-97 (commonly known as the Tax 
     Cuts and Jobs Act) to repeal the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge oil and gas program, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
     in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-30, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part C of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
     be in order except those printed in part D of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1941) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
     prohibit the Secretary of the Interior including in any 
     leasing program certain planning areas, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     116-31, modified by the amendment printed in part E of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part F of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 548, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 205, Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019; H.R. 
1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act; and H.R. 
1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act.
  The rule provides for consideration of each bill under a structured 
rule. The rule provides one hour of debate on each bill equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. Additionally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit on each bill.
  Mr. Speaker, together these three bills block oil and gas drilling in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Atlantic and Pacific Coast, 
and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  For those of you that have worked with me over the years, you know 
that I have said, and I mean, that I will be the last person standing 
before offshore oil drilling is expanded off the coast of Florida. I am 
a native Floridian, and I have seen substantial changes in my State, 
and I have seen that coastline on either side threatened by a variety 
of issues that man should not be undertaking.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I am glad it didn't have to come to that. I am glad that 
the people's House is taking up these measures that undoubtedly will 
protect our Nation's environment, climate, and the economies of coastal 
communities that rely on tourism, outdoor recreation, and fishing. I am 
glad that the House of Representatives is demonstrating to the American 
people that we work for them, not for the oil and gas industry.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, in a radical move, the Trump administration 
proposed a plan to open nearly all U.S. coasts to oil and gas drilling. 
This disastrous plan brought to mind the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster 
in the Gulf of Mexico, where the explosion not only killed 11 people 
and injured many, but it poured millions of gallons of oil into the 
Gulf waters and also killed hundreds of thousands of birds, marine 
mammals, fish, and sea turtles. Just the prospect of oily beaches led 
to hundreds of hotel cancellations along Florida's Gulf Coast, even in 
places the oil never reached.
  Mr. Speaker, I was living there during that period of time, of 
course, and many around this Nation saw that continuous loop shown on 
television of oil spilling into the Gulf. It has not all gone away, and 
much of the industry along that coastline has been decimated.
  Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration's plan is risking billions of 
dollars and millions of jobs from the industries that depend on a 
clean, healthy ocean. Make no mistake about it, our coastal communities 
are the backbone of the United States economy.
  According to the National Ocean Economics Program, coastal States 
encompass over 80 percent of the Nation's population, GDP, and 
employment. Moreover, the ocean economy's tourism and recreation 
industry singlehandedly provides 71 percent of the jobs to the United 
States economy. In fact, our coastlines provide 12 times the amount of 
jobs of the offshore oil industry.
  If that is not enough, in 2016, the U.S. Atlantic Ocean economy and 
California's ocean economy contributed more than $94 billion and $43.5 
billion to the country's GDP, respectively, during that period of time. 
National parks on both coasts and in the eastern Gulf States 
contributed $6.2 billion to the local economies. And the Department

[[Page H7568]]

of Defense has made it abundantly clear that the continuation of the 
moratorium in the Gulf on oil and gas leasing is essential to vital 
military readiness activities.
  Mr. Speaker, there is widespread bipartisan support for ending 
offshore drilling.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the entire Florida delegation for the work that 
they have done, with special emphasis to Ambassador Rooney, Ms. Castor, 
Ms. Shalala, and others of our colleagues who have been drilling down 
on these issues legislatively.
  Opposition includes nearly all the coastal Governors; over 2,200 
elected officials across the political spectrum; more than 300 
municipalities, including all in my district; 47,000 businesses; and 
500,000 fishing families.
  Mr. Speaker, America needs to conserve energy, safeguard our natural 
resources, and look to clean energy and innovative ways to build a 
sustainable energy portfolio. Offshore oil drilling is simply not the 
answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hastings for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, energy is a critical driver of the American economy and 
quality of life. Its production creates thousands of well-paying jobs. 
Energy is needed in almost every aspect of our lives, from fueling the 
trucks that transport our goods to stores, to powering the servers that 
make the internet possible.
  The United States cannot reach or sustain our potential without 
large-scale access to developing our energy resources, but today, we 
are debating three bills that put American energy, American quality of 
life, and American national security at risk.
  This majority wants to pass sweeping bans on harnessing domestic 
energy resources. They want to ban American energy from the Pacific, 
ban American energy from the Atlantic, ban American energy from Alaska. 
They want to ban it all, and American families will pay the price.
  These bills ignore the economic benefits of domestic energy 
production. Energy development brings high-paying jobs, facilitates 
manufacturing and investment, and provides government revenues. Energy 
development in the United States also makes energy more affordable for 
everyone.
  The average salary paid in the natural gas and oil development fields 
is $113,000 per year, and the energy industry supports 300,000 jobs in 
the United States.
  These bills also ignore how affordable energy makes a higher standard 
of living accessible.
  I spent this summer, part of it, back home in Arizona. Air-
conditioning, of course, is essential in our climate in Arizona, but it 
is also a major driver of electricity bills. Our electricity bills are 
very high.
  Many of my constituents are retirees living on limited incomes. I 
want to work to lower their energy costs by expanding American energy 
development, but instead, my Democratic colleagues, I believe, are 
doing the opposite.
  Domestic oil production has allowed Americans to spend 28 percent 
less in fuel, resulting in nearly $1,000 in savings per family in 2017 
alone. To my constituents, that is a lot of money.
  The reality of our current situation in energy exploration is that 94 
percent of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States is 
currently off-limits to offshore exploration and development. We 
haven't even had a lease auction for areas of the Atlantic Ocean since 
1984. We have made substantial gains in exploration technologies, 
drilling technology, and overall safety since then. Why not even just 
allow for exploration, to know what resources we have?
  We must consider how access to domestic energy resources helps keep 
our Nation secure. Oil and gas supplies 67 percent of the energy 
Americans use, and total oil and natural gas consumption is expected to 
grow over the next 30 years, generating over 60 percent of America's 
energy. By limiting access to offshore areas containing resources, we 
risk being dependent on foreign actors, like the Russians for natural 
gas or Saudi Arabia for oil. In fact, California recently bought 
billions of dollars of oil from Saudi Arabia, which will benefit the 
Saudi Arabian royal family.

  These bills will weaken our energy and national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I do agree with many of my colleagues whom I have spoken 
with that we should be prudent with future offshore exploration and 
drilling. We must be mindful of the impact on our military training and 
testing, especially in Florida. However, we cannot do this with an 
outright ban. We must take a measured and thoughtful approach.
  To make this point, the United States is one of the only countries 
along the Atlantic that is not actively exploring for energy in those 
waters. Nations with fewer resources and far less strict environmental 
regulations are adopting policies to proceed with offshore development, 
yet these bills before us today would halt all American progress.
  I believe in an all-of-the-above energy approach. In my home State of 
Arizona, this is a reality and necessity. We have to rely on multiple 
and diverse sources to ensure affordable and reliable energy. I support 
nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, Sun, wind, and other alternative 
solutions, but I also support domestic oil and natural gas production.
  I point to my State of Arizona. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 
sits just outside my district, generating about 3.3 gigawatts of clean 
energy for Phoenix and southern California. We also have several 
natural gas plants, such as the Agua Fria Generating Station. Just last 
month, I moderated a panel at Arizona State University where we 
discussed the Salt River Project harnessing rivers to produce 
hydropower.
  An all-of-the-above approach like that in Arizona would benefit 
American families and their quality of life.
  In contrast, the bans that my Democratic colleagues propose would 
harm the U.S. economy, threaten our national security, and increase 
energy prices and rates on consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good 
friend, just enunciated the number of jobs that the oil and gas 
industry provides, and the figure that she reported was 300,000. There 
are 242,000 jobs as a result of solar energy in this country, 102,000 
jobs on wind farms in this country, and the coastline that we are 
talking about provides 12 times the amount of jobs than the offshore 
oil and gas industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I won't be here with you all 20 years from now, but I 
predict for you that the fossil fuel industry, interestingly enough, 
the leaders in that industry will own a lot of the solar in this 
country. It is just a matter of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Shalala), my dear and good friend, and a member of the distinguished 
Rules Committee.
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), my good friend and a distinguished Congressman, for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and these three 
bills that protect our coasts and our coastal economies.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my fellow Floridians, Mr. 
Rooney and Ms. Castor, for introducing the bipartisan legislation that 
places a permanent moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the eastern 
Gulf.
  Beyond protecting coastal ecosystems, these bills help ensure 
military readiness, given the long history of military training and 
activities, particularly in the Gulf.

                              {time}  1245

  Offshore drilling is a dirty and dangerous venture that threatens our 
fragile coastal ecosystems, and in Florida, offshore drilling threatens 
our very way of life.
  Mr. Speaker, millions of tourists come to Florida each year to join 
us in enjoying our pristine beaches and our clean water. Our 
livelihoods depend on a healthy and clean marine environment.

[[Page H7569]]

  Offshore drilling threatens nearly 610,000 jobs and roughly $37.4 
billion in GDP in Florida alone. The risk of another catastrophe like 
Deepwater Horizon is too great to endanger Florida's healthy ocean 
resources and thriving coastal economies.
  In 2018, Mr. Speaker, Floridians spoke out loud and clear. A State 
constitutional amendment to ban offshore drilling in Florida's waters 
passed with nearly 70 percent of the vote. In the county where my 
district is located, Miami-Dade, it passed with nearly 80 percent of 
the vote.
  Simply stated: We don't want offshore drilling. Instead, we should be 
investing our time and resources in renewable, clean energy that we 
know creates jobs and sets us on a course to combat climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't need offshore drilling, and we don't want 
offshore drilling.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly just talk about what my 
colleague, Mr. Hastings, said.
  He mentioned that there are 242,000 solar energy jobs and 102,000 
wind energy jobs, and that is great. Allowing oil and gas exploration 
is not going to take away those jobs. In fact, jobs in those industries 
are going to increase just naturally.
  However, at this time, with our technology, I know that you need 
natural gas and other sources to spin up electric plants fast because 
the technology isn't there to store the energy for when it is needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that what I don't understand about the 
bills is we are going to need oil and gas. Why would we want to go back 
to the seventies-type crisis, oil embargo crisis, when we are reliant 
on foreign nations that are often hostile to us? I just don't 
understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Rooney), my friend.
  Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. H.R. 205, the Protecting 
and Securing Florida's Coastline Act, makes the existing moratorium in 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico permanent.
  I thank Congresswoman Castor, our coleader on this bill; Judge 
Hastings; Dr. Shalala; and the rest of the Florida delegation who have 
signed up enthusiastically to protect Florida.
  Offshore drilling is an existential threat to our tourism economy. 
Tourism is highly competitive. Any conditions or circumstances which 
could, however remote or circumstantial, stoke fear of oily beaches or 
ruined fishing grounds or dead birds will have a significant impact.
  Just last November, Florida passed a constitutional amendment banning 
offshore drilling. The amendment received over 5 million votes and 
passed with nearly 70 percent of the vote.
  Fishing, tourism, and recreation account for $37.4 billion in 
Florida, including $17.5 billion just from the Gulf Coast, and supports 
over 600,000 jobs.
  Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the west coast of Florida 
lost economic value in both commercial and recreational fishing and in 
lost tourist visits despite the fact that, as Judge Hastings said, 
there was no oil that reached there. There was no impact. It is 
perception becomes reality in a competitive tourist industry.
  In addition to the compelling economic need to make the moratorium 
permanent, the eastern gulf is home to the Gulf Test Range, a 120,000-
square-mile military testing range that stretches from the Florida 
Panhandle to the Keys.
  This unimpeded training and testing area is crucial to national 
security and cannot be carried out anywhere else in the United States 
or, perhaps, the world. Its vast size allows the testing of hypersonic 
weapons, combat maneuvers, drone testing, and future operations that 
will need space for testing and restricted access for classified 
operations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the majority of this activity is 
right along the area east of the military mission line at longitude 86 
degrees 41 minutes, which we can see right here. This blue line is the 
military mission line.
  As we can see, the military forecast is that the majority of testing 
is to take place adjacent to the east of this line--not out in here, 
but right in here, where it is most critical.
  I have circled here all of the major bases, including one of the 
largest ones in the country, Eglin Air Force Base.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to protect both this 
military mission line and Florida's tourist-based economy by voting 
``yes'' on the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my good friend.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and in 
opposition to these anti-energy bills.
  America leads the world in both oil and natural gas production, and 
our gas prices are on track to be the lowest in 20 years. We are 
experiencing, Mr. Speaker, an American energy renaissance.
  The oil and gas industry today accounts for over 10 million jobs, and 
we have the potential to add even more jobs in my State and others. 
However, this legislation before us today is a jobs killer. It 
increases our dependence on foreign oil and gas, and it reduces 
our ability to develop our own natural resources.

  In order for us to continue to lead, we need to explore our abundant 
resources at home. By safely developing America's own energy resources, 
we can create a more abundant, affordable, and sustainable energy 
supply, while, at the same time, we can ensure strong protections for 
the environment.
  Not only are there economic concerns, but there are also serious 
geopolitical implications. As a member of the Helsinki Commission, I 
know firsthand the national security concerns that come with turning 
over our share of energy markets.
  Russia is the largest exporter of natural gas to the European Union, 
and they use this to bully our allies and grow their sphere of 
influence. By divesting our energy production, Washington politicians 
are handing over opportunities to Russia to expand their energy 
foothold and increase their influence over our allies. We should be 
countering Russian influence in any way that we can, not giving up our 
own economic and geopolitical power.
  This opportunity will fade fast. If we don't take advantage of it 
now, the jobs, the money, and the bright economic future will all go to 
other countries, making our Nation and our allies more reliant on 
foreign energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on these underlying 
bills.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my good friend.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about energy policy; we are 
here today to talk about jobs and national security; and we are here 
today to talk about the environment and climate change.
  We have three bills that this rule addresses: We have an Alaska bill; 
we have an eastern Gulf of Mexico bill; and we have an Atlantic bill.
  The idea here is that we are going to carry out policies that stop 
energy production in the United States for the purpose of protecting 
the environment. That sounds like a laudable goal: Let's protect the 
environment. I fully agree with that.
  Here is the problem: When you look at evidence from the Obama 
administration, it shows that, by shutting down domestic energy 
production, it increases greenhouse gas emissions--increases, not 
decreases. It increases imports of energy from other countries, not 
decreases. It threatens our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, do you want to see how this plays out? Case in point, 
let's go up to the Northeast last winter.
  In the Northeast last winter, because they obstructed and prevented 
natural gas pipelines from being built into the Northeast to provide 
cleaner natural gas fuels to help warm these homes, heat these homes, 
they had to import natural gas from Russia.
  The policies that these bills are advancing, all this is is a gift 
for Vladimir Putin. This is billions of dollars. This is American jobs. 
You are not

[[Page H7570]]

helping the environment. You are not helping the trade deficit.
  We, very simply, came in and just said: Do you know what? We want to 
offer some amendments to help clean these up. Let's help these bills 
achieve their objectives. We offered 10 amendments. All 10 amendments 
were rejected by this rule.
  If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fine. I am with you. 
Let's do that.
  If you want to improve the environment, fine. I am with you.
  Mr. Speaker, opposition to this rule is necessary. These bills do not 
achieve the objectives that are set.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that eight 
Republican amendments were made in order; perhaps none that he offered, 
but I thought that the rule was particularly fair.
  I would also say to him that no oil that is being produced in this 
country right now is affected by anything having to do with this 
legislation.
  Yesterday, Ambassador Rooney made it very clear to us in the Rules 
Committee that, at the present rate of production of oil, we are 
producing enough oil to go into 66 years of oil production. That is at 
the present rate, without going anywhere else.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
statement about energy production today.
  I want to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that as we produce 
energy, we are extracting something. Therefore, new development in 
these areas is necessary in order to replenish the areas that are 
producing today.
  I also want to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that, if the United 
States is not providing energy to these countries where we are 
exporting today, in some cases, countries like Russia come in and fill 
that void. So it doesn't make sense for us to shut down these areas, to 
stop these areas, particularly in the eastern Gulf of Mexico where you 
have adjacent production. You have production attempts in Cuba, 
production in Mexico.
  This doesn't do anything to help to protect this environment. I 
really think we need to look at this a little bit more carefully.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman had done well until he, in 
the words of my grandmother, ``stepped on the cutout'' when he talked 
about the eastern Gulf. I just offer BP as an example of what happens.
  If he were to come and go down that coastline with me and see the 
businesses that went out of business, including all of those in the 
fishes industry, oysters, the whole coastline has been impacted. We are 
still suffering the residual.
  And I might add, on the floor of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, they 
call it snow something that is on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's position, but I will be the 
last man standing on not having oil drilling off the coast of Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I have an amendment to the rule 
to prohibit the use of Federal funds for payments in support of 
campaigns for the offices of Senators or Representatives.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) to explain the amendment.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, 
Mrs. Lesko, for doing a great job representing her constituents in 
Arizona.
  This is an issue that has got to be addressed. As my friend said, 
though, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer my bill, H.R. 
4261.
  When the majority of Democrats proposed public financing of campaigns 
in H.R. 1 at the start of this Congress, I thought it was one of the 
worst ideas in campaign finance ever. Public financing of campaigns 
will fill the swamp and any Member that voted for it was voting to fill 
their own pockets and the pockets of political operatives nationwide.
  At first, Democrats tried to use the tax dollars of hardworking 
Americans to fund their public financing sections of H.R. 1. Remember, 
H.R. 1 was a 622-page behemoth of a bill that was supposed to get money 
out of politics that initially had provisions to put public taxpayer 
dollars into Members of Congress' own campaign coffers.
  Imagine, if more people watched C-SPAN, they would have been able to 
see so many Members of Congress vote to line their own pockets with 
public tax dollars for their own personal political campaigns.
  That is not what my constituents asked us to do when cleaning up 
Washington. That is not what we should be doing. We need to work 
together now to make sure that it doesn't ever happen again.
  This matching program would have created a six-to-one match of public 
financing. Well, once the public caught some sense that this was 
happening, the majority decided to change the way they do this. What 
they did instead was, they were going to use corporate fines.
  Well, that criticism forced them to change it, but also not be able 
to get funding at the levels that are needed for every Member of 
Congress to be able to run this new publicly financed campaign. They 
would have had to subsidize the corporate fines with tax dollars. When 
the Federal Government fines a corporation that has broken a Federal 
law, it does so with specific intentions.
  Remember, for every dollar that a donor gives to a campaign under the 
Democrats' plan, you would have gotten six times that in first-tax 
dollars and then so-called corporate-fine dollars. Imagine a scenario 
where a pharmaceutical company is fined for corporate malfeasance 
associated with the opioid epidemic and the resulting funds go not to 
those actually affected by this horrible epidemic, but, instead, they 
go to line the pockets and campaign coffers of Members of Congress, 
politicians.
  Not to mention, this form of public financing would bring into 
question judges' partiality. If they knew a corporation's fine could 
end up helping their preferred political party, help them win elected 
office, what is to stop them from determining who specifically then 
receives the money?
  Using taxpayers' dollars or money from corporate fines to publicly 
support a candidate and start yet another mandatory program, is 
irresponsible. There are better uses that would be more beneficial to 
our constituents than putting it back into Congress' own campaign 
coffers.
  Call it what you want to call it, but we are now subsidizing private 
money with funds from corporate fines through campaign subsidies, and 
this is simply a money grab for politicians.
  Imagine, if every Member of Congress, not counting all candidates in 
each of the congressional races--just the 435 of us who serve here--
receives just $1 million in matched funds from the Federal Government. 
That is close to half a billion dollars going to just the incumbent 
politician's campaigns. In districts like mine, where the investment 
every campaign season is substantially higher, it would be even more.
  Welcome to campaign finance socialism.
  If the goal is to get money and corruption out of politics, public 
financing of campaigns is the wrong way to do that.
  I thank my colleague from Arizona, and I thank my colleagues who are 
going to vote to make sure that we don't publicly finance campaigns of 
anyone in this institution.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend 
from Arizona that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close 
whenever she is.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I am also ready to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7571]]

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, the bills before us today, I believe, and 
many believe, are harmful to American jobs, Americans' quality of life, 
and Americans' security. These bills, like quite a few of the other 
bills passed by the Democrat majority, will die in the Senate.
  These are just more messaging bills, but the message underlying these 
bills is the false notion that domestic energy production is harmful. I 
cannot disagree more. Domestic energy production creates hundreds of 
thousands of well-paying jobs, lowers electricity bills, and prevents 
us from being dependent on foreign countries for oil and gas.
  As The Washington Post opined last year: ``As long as the economy 
requires oil, it must come from somewhere, and better the United States 
than a country with much weaker environmental oversight.''

  In a bipartisan op-ed I have here, written by Jim Webb, a former 
Democratic Senator, and Jim Nicholson, it notes that: `` . . . because 
of current U.S. policy, major energy investments are moving to 
countries like Mexico where regulations could lag even farther behind 
ours.
  ``Over the last four years, as we have debated whether to open up 
carefully selected new areas for exploration on our side of the Gulf of 
Mexico, Mexico has leased over 20 million new acres on its side. The 
country's total acreage leased in the Gulf is now over 30 million 
acres, double that of the U.S.'s 14.7 million.''
  Utilizing America's energy sources is a commonsense step for 
America's energy future. America must make safe and full use of all of 
its energy resources for our economy and for our national security. 
Much of that energy could be from offshore.
  We should encourage an expansion of domestic energy production, but, 
instead, unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues in the majority seek 
to limit it.
  There are numerous reasons why offshore natural gas and oil are 
important to the United States and why we should reject these bills:
  One, 67 percent of the energy Americans use in total oil and natural 
gas consumption is expected to grow over 30 years.
  Two, U.S. offshore has accounted for more than 1 million barrels of 
oil per day for the past 20 years.
  Three, by 2035, the natural gas and oil industry could create more 
than 1.9 million new jobs.
  Four, there are 89.9 billion barrels of oil and 327.49 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas, potential energy resources, yet to be discovered 
in the United States' Outer Continental Shelf.
  Five, there is about $900 million annually in funding for national 
parks and conservation programs from offshore development through the 
LWCF.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' 
vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend just said that the three measures that we 
offer are going to be dead in the Senate.
  One of the regrets in this country is that virtually everything that 
we are doing in the House of Representatives goes over to the Grim 
Reaper's office and dies on his desk. And that includes substantial 
measures having to do with prescription drugs, sensible gun 
regulations, and a variety of measures, adding up to close to 75 that 
are on his desk now that could be sent to the President of the United 
States.
  I would imagine that we are going to continue down this path of when 
we offer sensible measures that will help the United States citizens, 
that one person is going to hold them up for whatever reason, and that 
includes sensible gun regulation, such as background checks that more 
than 90 percent of the American people want us to pass.
  I don't know how the Senate works, but I do know that the Senate 
ain't working right now, and it is being held up by one person.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to oppose drilling off one's State's 
coastline. Oil spills travel and climate change knows no borders.
  Our Nation's coastlines are vital, recreational, economic, and 
ecological treasures that will be polluted by expansion of offshore 
drilling. Let's underscore that all of the drilling that is going on in 
the Gulf right now is not affected by this particular measure. What we 
are saying is, no more. Please, don't give us your oil on our beaches, 
BP, and others in that industry.
  House and Senate Republicans can stick their heads in the tar sands 
all they want, but pumping more fossil fuels out of the ocean and into 
the atmosphere will not sustain the American economy nor provide the 
economic prosperity that will benefit all Americans.
  As I said earlier, I won't be with you 20 years from now, but I can 
assure you that during that period of time, we will have electrically 
driven cars. We will have moved substantially in the solar, and wind, 
and thermal areas in this country, and it will benefit us immensely as 
well as benefit this planet.
  I can't imagine that we will have fossil fuel in 2050, and I can't 
imagine that our children would not be worse off if we did.
  Now, one thing that you can be assured, the people with the money are 
going to control the deal. So when we move to solar energy, the 
existing energy mongrels are going to be about the business of owning 
solar energy. It is just that simple. They will know when the 
transition is going to take place.
  In the meantime, what they want to continue to do, is to pollute the 
environment that we live in, destroy the habitat of the ocean that is 
provided for mammals that are there as well as fish and a variety of 
other spinoffs in our ocean activity.
  We have polluted the ocean in a very bad way in many forms. We don't 
need to add to that with further development at this point.
  I might add, America is the leading producer of oil and gas in the 
world. We are exporting oil and gas. Therefore, I don't see that we are 
suffering a single bit as we transition from fossil fuels to solar, 
wind, thermal, and other forms of energy that will be developed along 
the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on 
the previous question.

                              {time}  1315

  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 548

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4261) to prohibit the use of federal funds for payments in 
     support of campaigns for election for the offices of Senator 
     or Representative of Congress. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on House Administration. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4261.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________