[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 145 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7622-H7634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        PROTECTING AND SECURING FLORIDA'S COASTLINE ACT OF 2019


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 205.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 548 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. 205.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lawson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1443


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H7623]]

House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Lawson of Florida 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.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 205, the Protecting and Securing Florida's 
Coastline Act, would permanently protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
from oil and gas drilling.
  Nearly all of the eastern Gulf remains protected under a leasing 
moratorium until 2022 under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 
2006. This bill would permanently extend that moratorium and, in doing 
so, would safeguard Florida's marine resources, environment, and 
coastal tourism economy.
  Some of Florida's more valuable assets are tied to its beaches and 
its coastal ecosystems. These drive a tourism economy in Florida that 
brings in billions of dollars each year and supports over 1.4 million 
jobs.
  Over 2,000 Florida businesses, including restaurants, hotels, and 
outfitters, have expressed their strong support for permanently 
protecting the eastern Gulf because they know firsthand the economic 
consequences of an offshore oil spill.
  Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, Florida suffered a 
$7.6 billion loss in tourism revenue, and bookings for hotels and for-
hire fishing trips dropped significantly. Even for places that were 
left unscathed, the perception of oil-covered shores was enough to 
redirect vacationing tourists to other coastal States. That is why 
voters in the Sunshine State, Democrats and Republicans alike, have 
made clear time and time again that offshore drilling has no place near 
Florida's shores.
  The eastern Gulf of Mexico also has incredible value as a military 
test and training range, and enactment of H.R. 205 is critical for 
America's national security and military preparedness.
  In 2015, the Department of Defense determined that offshore oil and 
gas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would jeopardize the ability of the 
military to conduct operations in the region.
  Even the Trump administration, which bends over backwards to support 
the oil and gas industry, understands how deeply unpopular offshore 
drilling is in Florida and has manipulated the offshore leasing process 
for political reasons.
  Five days after proposing to offer all of America's oceans to oil and 
gas companies, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke rushed down to 
Tallahassee to meet with then-Florida Governor Rick Scott. 
Understanding that Governor Scott was facing a tough Senate race but 
could never oppose anything from the Trump administration, Secretary 
Zinke tweeted that he was ``removing Florida from the draft offshore 
plan'' at the Governor's behest.
  However, Secretary Zinke was contradicted less than 2 weeks later 
when a top Interior Department official stated that Florida was, in 
fact, still under consideration for offshore leasing. Then, at one of 
our hearings in the Natural Resources Committee, Secretary Zinke seemed 
to say that Florida was both safe yet still being considered.
  The problem for Secretary Zinke was that the oil and gas industry 
really wants to drill in the eastern Gulf, and this administration 
wants to do whatever this industry wants. But the people of Florida do 
not want the industry near their shores, and this administration needs 
Florida to vote for it next year.
  So now the administration has paused the new leasing program because 
they can't show their true intentions before the next election. With a 
wink and a nod towards industry, the administration has paused their 
plans for new leasing. But it is only a sham disguised to convince 
Florida that it is safe, while also making it clear to the industry 
that, if they get a second term, the eastern Gulf will be open for 
drilling.
  In May, I wrote to Interior Secretary Bernhardt requesting a copy of 
the leasing program as it currently exists so we could settle the 
debate over whether Florida was in or out. Unsurprisingly, Secretary 
Bernhardt has failed to turn over that plan.
  The fact is that Florida's beaches will not be safe from the threat 
of offshore drilling until we have passed the two bills we are debating 
today: this one to protect Florida's Gulf Coast and H.R. 1941 to 
protect Florida's Atlantic Coast.
  Florida voters should not have to worry over the next 16 months 
whether drilling rigs will one day appear on the horizon. H.R. 205 
provides Florida's Gulf Coast permanent protection from offshore oil 
drilling and deserves this body's full support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have three bills in this package of supposed 
Democrat energy. This is different than the other time.
  In the last bill we were talking about here on the floor--at least 
the five people who actually were here on the floor to talk about it--
that was an ideological approach. This is different. This deals with 
the military. This deals with military issues on water that is 
legitimately put off limits for its military purpose.
  There are military bases of significance in Florida, specifically 
Eglin. There is a military test and training range on the waters in 
Florida. They are significant, they are important, and, indeed, they 
need to be preserved for our military.
  If, indeed, the military has an area that is essential to military 
preparedness and readiness, we should be cognizant of that. There is no 
problem with that. The problem was in this military line, it was simply 
arbitrarily drawn.
  You take the latitude and the longitude and you just go down the 
line, which means the line, itself, is bizarre and arbitrary. The line, 
itself, is actually closer to New Orleans than it is to Florida. The 
line, itself, has a greater impact on the economies of Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana than it does in Florida.
  What we should have done, were we wise in this process, is to try to 
seek some kind of variance to make sure that the science was actually 
used and that we don't just take a ruler and draw a straight line on 
some map. Already in the areas that are west of this line--the other 
things that are already open for oil and gas exploration--there is 
cooperation between the Interior Department and the Department of 
Defense in how you do it.

  Thirty-six percent of all the drilling that is done in the rest of 
the Gulf is already under some kind of stipulation with the Department 
of Defense. In fact, there is a memo of understanding between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior that has been 
there since 1983 which mandates they cooperate and they consult and 
they work through these things in an appropriate way.
  Were something like that to be part of this bill, I know I could 
support it. And to everyone else who is on the floor, I would argue to 
do the same thing. The sad part is this bill doesn't do that. Instead, 
it simply locks up the issue on the one line that happens to be there.
  Now, here is where I don't blame anyone seated on the floor, the six 
of us who actually are here. I do blame the Rules Committee.
  The Rules Committee made a very bad rule and abused some of the 
powers that the Rules Committee has to deal with it. Not only did they 
make several amendments self-executing--and, I am sorry. I was on the 
Rules Committee for a long time. I thought when we did that, that was 
lousy policy. But it was also lousy policy in this rule to make some of 
the amendments self-executing.

[[Page H7624]]

  But then they forgot other amendments that could have brought 
something into conclusion so that we could simply say, if there is a 
military reason, then, yes, and allow the military to make that 
decision. That would have been something I would have bought, and I 
would have been happy to support this particular bill.
  But instead, the Rules Committee insisted that there be miscellaneous 
amendments that have nothing to do brought up here and that have 
nothing to do to try to bring some kind of cooperation together.
  So we are now faced with a bill that will be done on an arbitrary 
standard without study. It will be done on an arbitrary line without 
science being given to it. It will be an arbitrary line that will 
simply call everything out simply because somebody drew a line on a map 
without thinking about it.
  It did not have to be that way. That is the sad part about this 
particular bill.
  I respect the sponsor of this particular bill. I respect what he is 
trying to do. I agree with most of what he is trying to do. But this 
could have been a much better bill. This could have been a bill that I 
could support and I think most other people could support and we could 
move forward, that would have a much better option and chance of actual 
passage in the Senate as well as passage by a President who would sign 
it, rather than actually putting forth an SAP which indicates that he 
would be advised to veto it. That did not have to happen.
  The reason it is not happening in a better way is simply because the 
Rules Committee refused some of the options that were in front of them, 
and they should have done it. They could have done it, and it would be 
a much better situation than what they had done.
  So, in this situation, because we now have a bill which, once again, 
takes science and throws it into the trash can like the other bill did 
and like the next one tomorrow will do, I have a bill here which I have 
to oppose, and it did not have to be that way in the long run.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rooney), the original sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 205, the Protecting and 
Securing Florida's Coastline Act, which makes the existing moratorium 
in the eastern Gulf of Mexico permanent.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Castor, our colead, for 
coleading this effort with me and our bipartisan Florida delegation for 
their support.
  I have talked repeatedly about the existential threat offshore 
drilling poses to us on the west coast of Florida. It jeopardizes our 
tourist and recreational economy.
  Last year, 70 percent of Floridians voted to ban offshore drilling 
because tourism accounts for $37.4 billion of GDP, including $17.5 
billion right there on the Gulf Coast, and supports over 600,000 jobs.
  Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the west coast of Florida 
faced lost economic value for commercial and recreational fishing and 
many canceled tourist trips, despite the fact that there was no impact 
to our coastline. Perception became reality.
  A 2018 study by the Gulf Restoration Network describes the continual 
spills in the Gulf. The Taylor Energy leak, for example, has released 
approximately 1 million gallons of oil over the last 14 years. Even 
Shell, which is a good operator, had a spill from a jumper pipeline in 
2016 that dumped 1,900 barrels of oil into the Gulf. The following 
year, LLOG had a similar leak that dumped as much as 9,350 barrels into 
the Gulf.
  As long as humans and complex pipeline and well bore connections are 
involved, there will be significant environmental risk. These undersea 
connections are difficult to maintain and examine.
  Additionally, as documented in a study by the Pew Research Center, 
large quantities of bentonite and other chemicals are released in the 
water while drilling.
  My colleagues have raised concerns about energy security and energy 
independence. That is an important thing. As this export-import chart 
shows, we are energy independent and have become net energy exporters. 
It was radically different. Ten years ago, these big lines were coming 
that way, now they are coming that way.
  The exploitation of shale deposits via horizontal drilling coupled 
with hydraulic fracking has revolutionized the energy industry. Once 
again, our American free enterprise system has brought competitive 
innovation to energy to change the game.

  In the Permian Basin of west Texas, for example, there are three 
shale zones. One of them, the Wolfcamp, is said to contain 20 billion 
barrels of oil and natural gas liquids--yes, billion. We have more 
reserves in the United States now than Russia or Saudi Arabia have in 
conventional reserves. A radical shift in the import and export flows 
of oil and gas has taken place due to American innovation.
  In addition to the compelling economic case for making the moratorium 
in the eastern Gulf permanent, the eastern Gulf is the home of the Gulf 
Test Range, a 120,000-square-mile range that stretches from the Florida 
Panhandle to the Keys. This unimpeded training and testing area is a 
crucial national security asset. It cannot be replicated anywhere else 
in the United States--or possibly the world. Its large scale supports 
testing of hypersonic weapons, combat maneuvers, drone testing, and 
evolving weapons technology that need space for testing and 
restrictions for classified work.
  In May 2018, the DOD published a report, ``Preserving Military 
Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.'' This report examines the 
ongoing operations of the Gulf Test Range, its inability to coexist 
with oil and gas operations, and its projected usage of the range.

                              {time}  1500

  What this chart shows here is that the projected use of the range--
here is the line right here, south of Eglin Air Force Base. Alabama is 
way over here. It is not Alabama. It is Destin, Florida. It shows that 
the most intensive projected use in the foreseeable future for this 
testing range is right out here, smack dab next to the military mission 
line. We can't let this thing move an inch east.
  This is why we need to ban drilling east of the line. In 2006, this 
moratorium was enacted by a bipartisan Congress, President George W. 
Bush, and aided and abetted by Governor Jeb Bush, and I might say, Bill 
Nelson and Mel Martinez teamed up on this.
  As we look forward to extending this moratorium now, we are a unified 
team in the Florida House delegation, working with Senator Rubio and 
Governor DeSantis. We have been doing that for some time on a combined 
strategy.
  All of them agree that we must protect this national security asset 
in Florida's coastline. As we move forward, we will work together to 
convince President Trump of the critical importance of this moratorium 
to Florida.
  Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Grijalva have all stepped up and committed to 
protect Florida. Now we need the Senate and the administration to do 
the same thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 205, 
which is hostile to U.S. energy production and unnecessarily takes 
domestic resources off the table.
  This legislation overly restricts offshore exploration and 
development, which would eliminate opportunities to create jobs, grow 
the economy, and increase U.S. energy development to lower prices for 
consumers.
  In fiscal year 2018, offshore oil and gas development generated over 
$3 billion for the United States Treasury, and over $200 million for 
the Gulf States. So why would we move bills like this that would stop 
all the progress that we have made in the American energy renaissance?
  Members of Congress who support bills like this, they still like to 
drive their cars. They still like to fly in airplanes. They like that 
24/7, 365 baseload power supply that heats and cools their homes, 
provides the electricity for

[[Page H7625]]

their cold drinks, and provides the power for the manufacturing 
processes when they are in their district.
  Admiral Mike Mullen said that there is no national security without 
energy security. I firmly believe in that. We are going to weaken our 
national security by taking areas off the table for exploration and 
production. What that means is, we are going to be more reliant on 
foreign sources of energy.
  I talked about New England States receiving LNG ships from Russia to 
provide natural gas, which we have an abundance of here in this 
country, but New England States are getting natural gas from Russia. I 
find that horrid and abysmal when we have the resources in this country 
to provide the energy to meet our needs.
  Instead of focusing on anti-energy bills like H.R. 205, we should be 
pursuing policies that encourage safe, reliable, and affordable energy 
to the American people through free-market solutions.
  We are in an American energy renaissance thanks to President Trump 
and Republicans' progrowth policies, and anti-offshore bills like H.R. 
205 hamper these hard-earned gains. Taking domestic energy production 
off the table would mean one thing--I reiterate--reliance on foreign 
energy, and that is wrong when we have the resources here in this 
country.
  We should explore. We should find. We should develop. We should 
produce. We should benefit from those productions. And we should 
benefit from the royalties that come back to the States and the United 
States Treasury. To fund things like the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund that sets land aside for posterity funded through royalties 
through oil and gas production offshore. How are you going to fund the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund if you take those royalties off the 
table?
  I tell America, what they are going to do is raise taxes on you 
because they like the conservation policies. They are going to fund it 
with raising taxes. Royalties provide that funding for conservation. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), an original cosponsor--
along with Mr. Rooney--of this legislation before us, H.R. 205.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank Chairman 
Grijalva for being a champion for America's natural resources. In doing 
so, the gentleman is a champion for jobs and the economy.
  We know this in Florida. That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 
205, Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019.
  It is a pleasure to be here on the floor with my Republican 
colleague, Francis Rooney. He is passionate about protecting the State 
of Florida because our way of life is at risk when you put oil rigs off 
of our beaches.
  It threatens our way of life. And the gentleman understands very 
well, as a successful businessman, that when you threaten our way of 
life, and you threaten our natural environment and our beaches, you are 
threatening our economy and jobs.
  Even though it was 9 years ago, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is 
still fresh in my mind, and it is fresh in the minds of my neighbors 
who live all across the Gulf Coast. It was devastating.
  April 20, 2010. You all probably remember because CNN had the video 
from the oil well that continued to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico 
through May, through all of June, all of July, August, and they didn't 
cap the well until late in September.

  It wreaked havoc not just on Florida's economy and not just on our 
beautiful environment, but on people's lives. I remember very well 
holding a woman in my arms who was a small business owner from the 
Clearwater area. The oil didn't even wash up on the shores of Tampa Bay 
or the beautiful Pinellas coast beaches, or down to Sanibel Island, but 
the economy took a hit. They lost everything they had.
  It wiped out mom-and-pop businesses, restaurants, hotels, and 
everyone that relies on clean water and clean beaches for their 
livelihood. Fishermen couldn't fish. It was a catastrophe. Gulf seafood 
was off the menu. That meant people weren't coming to the mom-and-pop 
restaurants for their meals.
  In addition to all of that, whether it was deformed fish and species, 
there was permanent damage to the ecosystem. Researchers that I work 
with at the University of South Florida say that even today on the 
floor of the Gulf of Mexico in the trench off of the beautiful Florida 
Panhandle, there is still a layer of what they call dirty snow.
  Because if you remember, they had to pour dispersants and chemicals 
onto the area of the blowout to make sure that the oil dispersed.
  Well, that didn't just disappear. It ended up in the food chain and 
in the entire ecosystem, and it is still out there today, impacting the 
food web and everything we love about the State of Florida.
  In fact, the University of South Florida's College of Marine Science 
has done a lot of research on this. They did 12 separate voyages over 7 
years on the USF Research Vessel Weatherbird II. They say, 
interestingly, the areas where you have oil rigs, they have determined 
that fish species in that area of the Gulf are gone. There is lack of 
diversity there.
  The entire food web is impacted. This is going to impact us for 
decades to come, and there is no way to make it up. The deep sea is not 
recovering. In fact, clearly visible abnormalities have been chronicled 
just recently.
  The environmental impact is right in front of us; the economic 
impact, as well as the impact on small business owners. The U.S. Travel 
Association estimates that we lost $22 billion due to the BP disaster.
  Our bill will ensure that that never happens again because it says 
permanently. That moratorium that had a bipartisan vote that Congress 
took in 2006 which said that until 2022, you can't drill in that part 
of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, this bill will extend that permanently 
because this is a dangerous, dirty business.
  Florida, over time, has chosen not to industrialize its coastline. 
Our economy is based on clean beaches and clean water. And Floridians 
have spoken, by the way. Last November, there was a constitutional 
amendment on the ballot that said we are going to ban offshore oil 
drilling in State waters. It often is just a few miles off the coast. 
It passed by 69 percent.
  I wish the Trump administration would listen. But when you install an 
oil lobbyist as the head of the Interior Department, I guess we know 
that Big Oil is calling the shots. We are going to say no today. We are 
going to say, the people of Florida--in a bipartisan way with a united 
Florida delegation--we are going to say no. It is not needed. It is not 
wanted, and it is not the future.
  It is not needed because America is already an exporter of oil and 
gas. We don't need to expand into areas that are too precious to drill. 
It is not wanted. It is not welcome.
  Even the Department of Defense has said that this is an important 
military testing area off of the bases in the panhandle. They have 
already weighed in to say: Don't bring the oil rigs into this military 
testing zone. It is too special to drill.
  Today, once again, a united Florida delegation is asking Congress to 
continue to recognize this part of Florida as a special place, and to 
continue the moratorium permanently. Floridians and folks all over the 
country that come to our beautiful State to vacation, they know. It is 
not wanted. It is not needed.
  Our future is clean energy. That is what we should be investing in. 
That is what we should be debating and spending time here today on. 
That is the future of the United States of America. That is where the 
jobs of the future are going to come from. Jobs in solar and wind 
energy are already far surpassing jobs in fossil fuels.
  The climate crisis requires that America be smarter, and we don't 
double down on the dirty policies of the past--dirty oil drilling.
  For all of those reasons, let's demonstrate it here today and push 
back on the Trump administration's attempt to open up the Gulf beaches 
to oil drilling. Let's say no. We have got a bipartisan Florida 
delegation that is standing up, united, and I want to thank all of my 
colleagues from Florida for their leadership year in and year out on 
this issue.

  Let's send a strong vote today. Let's send a strong message today and 
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 205.

[[Page H7626]]

  

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman 
from Utah for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this bill and my colleagues' efforts to 
impede the rapid growth of American energy exploration. This bill is 
flawed in a number of ways, as we have recounted here already during 
this debate.
  First and foremost, it is clear that banning energy exploration will 
increase the prices that families pay at the pump and the prices they 
pay to power their homes.
  Unfortunately, the tax on our Nation's energy producers aren't new. 
We know what happens when government intervenes by imposing burdensome 
regulations and senseless moratoriums like we are seeing today.
  For years, New England States have pushed restrictive energy 
policies, and what we are considering here on the floor is no 
exception.
  A handful of Governors and State legislatures are narrowly focused on 
hindering the exploration and development of critical energy resources. 
What those policies have resulted in are increased prices for 
consumers, and they have done nothing to reduce demands for fossil 
fuels.
  In fact, as Congressman Duncan recounted just a few moments ago, last 
year, those policies culminated in a Russian tanker delivering natural 
gas to the Boston Harbor. Why? Because there weren't enough pipelines 
available to bring it from nearby Pennsylvania. You heard it right.
  Despite being just a few hundred miles from the Marcellus Shale, one 
of the largest natural gas reserves in the country, our New England 
States were forced to import natural gas from Vladimir Putin. Nobody on 
this floor--the advocates of this bill--seem to have a problem with 
that.
  Now my colleagues want to implement these policies on a Federal level 
with moratoriums on drilling. The event in Boston shows us that the 
legislation before us would have no impact on reducing demand for 
fossil fuels. We would simply have to import more from our adversaries. 
That is not good policy.

                              {time}  1515

  As has been explained, to add to the madness, the bill is completely 
irreconcilable with the Land and Water Conservation Fund, one of the 
biggest priorities of the Natural Resources Committee in this Congress.
  The LWCF receives its funding from oil revenues generated off the 
coast of States like Louisiana, my home State. On the very same day 
that the Natural Resources Committee marked up these bills to ban 
offshore oil and gas exploration, the committee marked up another bill 
to permanently fund the LWCF. The majority wants to see mandatory 
spending of $900 million per year out of the LWCF, but at the same 
time, it wants to eliminate completely its funding source. That is just 
simply nonsense.
  Our country is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We 
have the right to use those God-given resources to create jobs, foster 
economic growth, and pave the way to an era of American energy 
dominance. Oppressive policies like the ones before us today have been 
our own worst enemy, forcing us to rely on hostile, foreign nations to 
meet our energy demands. We simply can't do that any longer.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, if drilling off Florida is the only thing that is going 
to keep us from having high energy prices and a reliance on foreign 
energy, I don't know why that hasn't happened yet. Right now, we are 
not drilling off the coast of Florida, and we are energy dominant in 
the world. We are not drilling off the coast of Florida, and we 
continue to see energy prices dropping.
  As my colleague Representative Castor said, 69 percent of Floridians 
do not want to see drilling off our shores. Madam Chair, if you would 
like to drill off the coast of Louisiana or South Carolina, I would say 
have at it, but leave my beloved Florida alone.
  There are many reasons to oppose drilling off Florida's shores: our 
environment, our tourism economy, and our real property values. But I 
come to the floor today to plead the case for northwest Florida's 
military mission.
  The Gulf of Mexico test range is one of the only places in the world 
where we launch live-fire over water and land it on land. I cannot 
believe that I have to come here to make the argument that it is an 
incredibly stupid idea to launch experimental missiles over active oil 
rigs. That would seem to be obvious to most people. I know it is 
obvious to many in my district.
  This military mission is what keeps us safe. It is ludicrous to 
suggest that we have more to fear from LNG from Russia than we have 
from a China that continues to close the technological capability edge 
with our country. The Gulf test range is one of the places where we 
will be testing hypersonic and supersonic weapons. If we do not 
continue to maintain that advantage, everybody had better brush up on 
their Mandarin because we won't be able to protect our country, and 
that is the far more significant venture.
  In Florida, we will protect our environment from the Congress. Please 
don't do anything to harm us.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I appreciate the last gentleman's 
statements. He may remember he still has the land range in Utah to use.
  Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I respect the bill's author, and I 
understand that he is faithfully representing the opinions of the 
majority of his district in seeking to permanently place our offshore 
petroleum reserves off the coast of his State off-limits to exploration 
and development.
  All of our Nation's coastlines are beautiful, and they all support 
all sorts of tourism, commercial activities, and military activities 
important to their local communities and our Nation. For more than a 
century, offshore energy development has shown itself to be entirely 
compatible with these uses. To suggest that it is in some places but 
not in others is manifestly silly and wrong.
  For 22 years in the California Legislature, I represented 
California's Channel Islands, including the Santa Barbara Channel, 
which, by the way, is the home of the Pacific missile test range.
  Yes, in 1969, an outdated drilling technology produced the third-
largest oil spill ever recorded, devastating tourism and fishing that 
year. I fully understand the fears of the supporters of this bill. But 
a little perspective is needed.
  The economic losses caused by the spill were fully compensated, and 
the environmental damage was quickly healed. I might add that the 
second-largest oil spill in history was the wreck of the oil tanker 
Exxon Valdez, which is the alternative to offshore production.
  For more than 50 years, offshore production in the Channel Islands 
has been an immense positive for the region and is entirely compatible 
with military operations there. It has supported thousands of jobs; it 
has pumped a fortune into the local economy; and it has generated 
enormous revenues for local, State, and Federal coffers.
  By the way, if you ask any sports fisherman in the region where the 
best fishing is, he will tell you that it is by the rigs.
  I am not here today to argue for what is right for local communities 
in other States and other regions. I understand that offshore 
production suffers from what Bastiat called the paradox of the seen and 
unseen. We see the danger of a blowout like Santa Barbara in 1969 or 
the Deepwater Horizon in 2010. But what we don't see are the enormous 
economic benefits generated day in and day out by American energy 
production or the critical role it plays in our Nation's prosperity.
  This is where the national interest must be put ahead of parochial 
``not in my backyard'' protests. Procedures have been long established 
to ensure that offshore production can occur alongside commercial 
fishing, recreation, and, yes, military testing and training. They have 
proven themselves to be entirely compatible during many decades of 
practical experience.

  Indeed, one of the many ironies of this NIMBY movement is that 
commercial fishing and military operations are

[[Page H7627]]

highly dependent on precisely the abundant and affordable petroleum 
produced by offshore drilling, so too, by the way, is the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  Offshore production is the main funding source for this program, and 
another shortsighted irony is that the same markup that produced this 
bill to shut down offshore production off the Florida coast also 
permanently reauthorized the very fund that depends on offshore 
production for its very existence.
  If the Congress were to enact a permanent moratorium on production 
for one part of our coastline, it begs the question: Why are some 
people more equal than others?
  Madam Chair, we are all advocates for our local districts, and the 
bill's author is an able and respected advocate for his. But our 
collective responsibility as Congress is not to local interests but to 
the national interest, and it is in the national interest that our 
Nation is energy independent, prosperous, and strong. This bill 
undermines these vital national objectives.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For the record, this bill will not affect LWCF funds at all. All the 
money for the fund comes from existing oil and gas activities in the 
central and western Gulf of Mexico. The Land and Water Conservation 
Fund is credited with the first $900 million in offshore revenues. Last 
year, those revenues were $4.7 billion, and projections are that 
existing activity in the Gulf of Mexico is enough to keep the fund 
going for a long, long time.
  We don't need to drill in the Atlantic or the Pacific or near Florida 
to find more money. Revenues are not a problem. The real problem is 
that only twice in the history of the fund has Congress appropriated 
the full $900 million that it should get. In fact, over time, we have 
collected $37.8 billion of revenue that should have been spent on LWCF, 
but Congress has appropriated less than half, $18.4 billion. Revenue is 
not the issue.
  This permanent protection for Florida coastal areas is not going to 
hurt the fund. It has been stated three times already by my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, but that is completely false.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a Statement 
of Administrative Policy on this particular bill.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 205--Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019--Rep. 
                    Rooney, R-FL, and 18 cosponsors

   H.R. 1146--Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act--Rep. 
                   Huffman, D-CA, and 182 cosponsors

     H.R. 1941--Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act--Rep. 
                  Cunningham, D-SC, and 51 cosponsors

       The Administration opposes H.R. 205, the 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. These 
     bills would undermine the Administration's commitment to a 
     prosperous American economy supported by the responsible use 
     of the Nation's abundant natural resources. Development of 
     our resources enhances our energy security and energy 
     dominance, and produces high-paying American jobs; provides 
     increased revenue to the Treasury, States, tribes, and local 
     communities; and is a critical source of conservation 
     funding.
       H.R. 1146 would prohibit the Department of the Interior's 
     Bureau of Land Management from administering an oil and gas 
     leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. The bill would repeal a 
     provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that directed 
     the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program for the 
     development of the Coastal Plain that would allow the use of 
     no more than about 0.01 percent of the total acreage of ANWR 
     for surface development of production and support facilities. 
     The Administration supports environmentally responsible 
     energy development in the Coastal Plain, also known as the 
     1002 Area, of ANWR. Such development is expected to increase 
     America's energy security and independence, create jobs, and 
     provide affordable, reliable energy for consumers while 
     providing much-needed revenue to both the State of Alaska and 
     the Federal Government.
       Similarly, H.R. 205 and H.R. 1941 would both restrict 
     future oil and gas development in the Federal waters of the 
     U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). H.R. 205 would amend the 
     Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) to make permanent 
     the current temporary leasing moratorium on offshore leasing 
     in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast of Florida. 
     H.R. 1941 would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (OCSLA) to permanently remove from consideration acreage for 
     offshore leasing on both the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Both 
     of these bills would undermine OCSLA, which established a 
     periodic, multi-stage planning process involving State and 
     tribal consultation and a thoughtful comparison and balancing 
     of the benefits and impacts to all the regions of the OCS. 
     These bills would permanently constrain this careful 
     administrative process. Under the bills, large swaths of the 
     OCS would be off limits for resource development without the 
     benefit of periodic assessments of the potential economic, 
     social, and environmental effects of development, as required 
     by existing law. Excluding these areas from leasing 
     consideration could place more pressure for development on 
     other OCS areas and constrain our ability to meet national 
     energy needs as required by OCSLA.
       Additionally, each of these bills would eliminate the 
     potential for future direct revenue that would otherwise be 
     provided to the Treasury, and through revenue sharing, to the 
     States, tribes, and counties where the development activities 
     occur. In Fiscal Year 2018, energy development on Federal and 
     Indian lands and waters generated approximately $9 billion in 
     direct revenue from royalties, bonus bids, and rents. Of that 
     revenue, $1.78 billion was disbursed to 35 States. The top 
     States receiving Fiscal Year 2018 revenues were New Mexico 
     ($634.9 million); Wyoming ($563.9 million); Colorado ($112.5 
     million); Louisiana ($91 million); and Utah ($76 million). 
     Additionally, more than $1 billion was disbursed to Indian 
     tribes and individual Indian mineral owners; $1.22 billion to 
     the Reclamation Fund; $970 million to the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF); $150 million to the Historic 
     Preservation Fund; and $3.5 billion to the general fund of 
     the Treasury.
       Prohibiting energy development in new Federal areas would 
     hinder future administrations' efforts to make up for revenue 
     lost as production declines from leases in aging energy 
     fields. Such restrictions will tie the hands of future 
     administrations and reduce their ability to enhance energy 
     security through strong domestic energy production and to 
     ensure affordable energy for American families.
       If these bills were presented to the President, his 
     advisors would recommend he veto them.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter in 
strong opposition to the bill signed by over 20 entities, including the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Energy Alliance, and the 
Laborers' International Union of North America, and a letter in 
opposition from the Laborers' International Union of North America.
                                                September 5, 2019.
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We rely on American made energy to 
     power our daily lives, communities and to grow a more 
     prosperous future. Americans deserve clean, safe, reliable, 
     abundant and affordable energy so that our families, 
     communities and businesses can all share the opportunities 
     American energy creates. Our country cannot afford to block 
     access to new energy supplies and risk losing our energy 
     advantage. That's why we ask you to oppose legislation being 
     considered by the U.S. House of Representatives next week 
     that would slow scientific surveys and prevent access to new 
     sources of American offshore energy in the Outer Continental 
     Shelf.
       For more than seven decades, energy development in the Gulf 
     of Mexico has worked collaboratively alongside tourism, 
     fishing and Defense Department training activities. But H.R. 
     205 would permanently extend the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
     moratorium on oil and natural gas activities. The 
     Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimates that 
     this could cost taxpayers $400 million in revenue over the 
     next 10 years. Similarly, H.R. 1941 would block offshore 
     energy development in the Pacific and Atlantic planning 
     areas, and H.R. 1146 would lock up energy resources in the 
     Alaskan Coastal Plain.
       Congress should support progress. Modern energy 
     technologies have enabled an impressive record of 
     environmental stewardship and innovation. But when the 
     government chooses to arbitrarily and permanently close off 
     areas to exploration and potential development, we simply 
     increase our dependency on foreign sources. This reality is 
     visible in places like California and Massachusetts. Despite 
     abundant offshore oil and natural gas resources, California 
     imports 57 percent of its oil supply, a staggering 37 percent 
     of which comes from Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, to meet energy 
     needs each winter, Massachusetts imports liquefied natural 
     gas from Russia.
       American energy is produced with a smaller carbon footprint 
     under significantly stronger environmental protections than 
     energy produced anywhere else in the world. We ask you to 
     embrace these homegrown opportunities that benefit American 
     families, create high-wage jobs, strengthen the U.S. economy 
     and protect our environment.
       Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to 
     consider legislation undercutting domestic energy security 
     and economic

[[Page H7628]]

     opportunity by limiting American energy access. We urge you 
     to reject these bills and instead stand up for energy 
     produced in America, by American workers for the benefit of 
     American families.
           Sincerely,
       American Chemistry Council, American Council of Engineering 
     Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Gas 
     Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American 
     Petroleum Institute, American Pipeline Contractors 
     Association, Consumer Energy Alliance, Distribution Pipeline 
     Contractors Association, Energy Equipment and Infrastructure 
     Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America.
       International Association of Drilling Contractors, 
     International Association of Geophysical Contractors, 
     Laborers' International Union of North America, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Ocean Industries 
     Association, National Utility Contractors Association, 
     Offshore Marine Service Association, Portland Cement 
     Association, Power and Communication Contractors Association, 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Oil and Gas Association.
                                  ____



                                                        LiUNA,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf 
     of the 500,000 members of the Laborers' International Union 
     of North America (LiUNA), I want to express our opposition to 
     H.R. 205, which would permanently extend the moratorium on 
     oil and gas leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; H.R. 1146, 
     to once again prohibit oil and gas drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and, H.R. 1941, which would 
     bar offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
       Once again, jobs of LiUNA members who work in the energy 
     sector are being targeted for elimination by environmental 
     radicals for purely political purposes. There is absolutely 
     no chance for these ``message bills'' to be enacted into law 
     this Congress. So, instead of working to enact real job 
     creating infrastructure legislation, union members see their 
     jobs once again being denigrated and belittled.
       Energy independence is central to the future of the 
     American economy and our standard of living. Unfortunately, 
     the enemies of job creation continue to try to wall off and 
     strand our domestic energy resources from development; 
     killing jobs, prolonging our energy dependence on unfriendly 
     foreign regimes, and saddling middle-class and lower-income 
     families with rising energy costs.
       LiUNA members, in Alaska and elsewhere, know first-hand 
     that when done responsibly, with union-trained workers, 
     energy development can coexist with environmental 
     stewardship. LiUNA and the other building trades unions 
     invest significant resources into the training of our members 
     that help develop the knowledge and skills they need to work 
     safely and productively while constructing energy and other 
     infrastructure to the highest standards.
       For the hard-working members of LiUNA and other building 
     trades unions, these jobs put food on their families' tables 
     and roofs over their heads. These jobs enable them to put 
     their children through college, to save for retirement, and 
     to spend money in business establishments that employ others.
       I urge you to vote against these ill-conceived bills.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Terru O'Sullivan,
                                                General President.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for 
the recognition to talk about this legislation.
  Madam Chair, we are talking about legislation that has to do with 
energy policy and energy production. We are talking about the goals 
here, as I heard different speakers talk about protecting our fisheries 
and our environment. I heard speakers talk about protecting our 
military mission, those military servicemembers and that military edge 
and the technology we have. I heard people talking about jobs and the 
threat of spills.
  Madam Chair, I support those objectives, and I know that this may 
sound counterintuitive: This bill undermines the very objectives that 
it is purported to advance. Let's go through them. Let's go through 
those things.
  Number one, talking about the environment, that this bill will cause 
damage to the environment and it will undermine ecological 
productivity. Madam Chair, if you take a look at this graphic right 
here, you probably think this is where energy infrastructure is. You 
probably think that is what this is. This depicts the intensity of 
energy infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico from the Texas coast to 
right there in Alabama.
  In reality, oh, my goodness, look at that, if it is not red snapper 
landings. This is actually where the fish are. This shows the landings 
of where the fish are. This actually increases ecological productivity 
by creating habitat for fisheries.
  I heard a speaker on the other side talk about how there was 
devastation of fisheries in the State of Florida after the spill, the 
disaster in 2010. In 2011, the State of Florida had 117 million pounds 
of fisheries. In 2011, that was more than the fisheries they produced 
in the most recent year recorded. Let me say that again. In the 
immediate aftermath of the spill, in 2011, there were more fisheries 
landed worth more money than there was in the most recent year 
recorded, which is 2017.
  I hate to sit here and continue to undermine all these narratives, 
but let's go on.
  We are saying that this bill is designed to protect our environment. 
Actually, Madam Chair, you can look at statistics, and as far as I 
understand, they use cars and airplanes and have air-conditioning in 
Florida. That requires oil and gas. Since you are producing it and need 
it, the safest way to transport is to produce it domestically and then 
put it in a pipeline. That is not my statistic; it is from the National 
Research Council.
  Once again, Madam Chair, you are not protecting habitat; you are 
actually preventing habitat from being established. You are not helping 
ecological productivity; you are undermining it. You are not protecting 
the environment or preventing spills; you are providing a greater risk 
for that. My friend from California (Mr. McClintock) made reference to 
the Valdez spill. That was a boat.
  Let's go on to the other one, the military. I heard a speaker say: 
Oh, we can't have energy production here because that is going to 
prevent our ability to fly and practice with weapons in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  Madam Chair, when we go into war and go up against adversaries, do we 
say: Hey, we need you to take that building down so my missile can 
shoot straight in?
  No. That is absurd. You operate under real conditions, which 
includes, in some cases, obstructions.
  I want to make reference here that we are talking about thousands and 
thousands and thousands of square miles. You can produce here with 
very, very little surface infrastructure. Most of it is subsea, having 
zero impact.

                              {time}  1530

  Now, Madam Chair, I heard somebody talking earlier about 2006 and how 
Congress stepped in and provided a moratorium. Yes. But do you know 
what that moratorium is provided in exchange for? Moving the Military 
Mission Line to the east.
  There was an agreement. The 181 leasing areas, that was agreed to. We 
actually added more production areas in exchange for a temporary 
moratorium. But what is being proposed now is a greater threat to the 
environment. It is putting a moratorium in place, and it is not doing 
any type of balance.
  We can step in and protect our military mission, we can protect our 
environment, and we can have jobs and energy production in the United 
States.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Wasserman Schultz). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I also heard talk about the 
Land and Conservation Water Fund and, yes, the irony of the fact that 
there is legislation that the chair pushed that permanently authorizes 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Legislation moving it permanently 
funds it at $900 million; $150 million a year goes to the Historic 
Preservation Fund.
  But in reality, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not limited 
to $900 million. It is not. I have heard people say it over and over 
again. That is not accurate.
  There is an additional 12.5 percent that comes from revenue sharing 
that

[[Page H7629]]

also goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, putting it over $1 
billion a year. Plus, you add $150 million from the Historic 
Preservation Fund.
  Plus, just to put it in perspective, Madam Chair, when you add up 
just between 2011 and 2016, $55 billion--$55 billion--was generated for 
the U.S. Treasury from energy production on Federal lands and waters.
  Madam Chair, that doesn't just fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and Historic Preservation Fund. That funds our veterans' benefits. 
It funds environmental programs. It funds healthcare for our elderly. 
It funds early childhood education. It funds infrastructure.
  This, according to the Government Accountability Office, is one of 
the largest nontaxed streams of revenue. And we are talking about 
stopping it.
  Production doesn't go on in perpetuity. You need additional layers. 
It takes 10 years to go from leasing to production, so we have got to 
start planning now to produce safely to ensure we can continue to have 
a vibrant economy, jobs, to continue having a safe environment.
  This bill undermines the very objectives that it was purported to 
advance. Madam Chair, I urge objection to this uninformed legislation.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, as a point of reference, the BP oil spill 
cost the fishing industry at least, at the minimum, $94.7 million and, 
at the maximum, $1.6 billion in 2010. I mention that because, you know, 
oil spills are not necessarily good for fisheries in the long haul.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), 
ranking member, for some time to speak in opposition to this bill.
  Madam Chair, like the previous legislation, this bill represents a 
step backwards in ensuring American energy security, but making certain 
sections of the eastern Gulf of Mexico permanently off limits to oil 
and gas development, this legislation once again ties one hand behind 
our Nation's back.
  As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and the ranking 
member of the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources, I have a unique insight into many of 
America's energy issues.
  Many on the Western Caucus and Republican members on the Committee on 
Natural Resources have a different vision for America, a vision that 
doesn't pick winners and losers and includes a true all-of-the-above 
energy strategy that embraces wind, solar, nuclear, hydropower, coal, 
oil, and natural gas. Our vision encourages innovation and less 
burdensome mandates. We know responsible energy production and 
protecting our environment go hand in hand.
  The offshore coalition, a group of at least 17 members, including the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Laborers' International Union of North 
America, sent a letter opposing H.R. 205, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 1146. In 
the coalition's letter, they state: ``For more than seven decades, 
energy development in the Gulf of Mexico has worked collaboratively 
alongside tourism, fishing, and Defense Department training activities. 
But H.R. 205 would permanently extend the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
moratorium on oil and natural gas activities.
  ``We rely on American-made energy to power our daily lives, 
communities, and to grow a prosperous future. Americans deserve clean, 
safe, reliable, abundant, and affordable energy so that our families, 
communities, and businesses can all share the opportunities American 
energy creates.
  ``Our country cannot afford to block access to new energy supplies 
and risk losing our energy advantage. That's why we ask you to oppose 
legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives this 
week that would slow scientific surveys and prevent access to new 
sources of American offshore energy in the Outer Continental Shelf.''
  Our previous speaker actually alluded to this very aspect. It takes 
10 years to go from inquiry to actual production. I couldn't agree more 
with the sentiments expressed by this broad coalition, by previous 
Members here on this side of the aisle that have opposed it, and I urge 
Members to oppose H.R. 205.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

  Madam Chair, I appreciate the debate that we have had on this 
particular bill--kind of.
  Florida does have the right to do whatever it wishes to do on its 
property and on its State lands and State waters, and they should have 
the right to do it unless there is some kind of impact to Louisiana, 
Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, in which case, them doing something 
strictly for Florida's purposes that doesn't take into account the 
other States is wrong-minded.
  But for this particular bill, we are really not talking about the 
economy and the tourism and everything else. This bill is about a 
military line and military issues.
  As I have stated earlier, yes, there are military positions in 
Florida. There is a military testing training range on the water, which 
is not as good as the land-based one but is on the water in Florida.
  Those are there and they deserve to be protected, and when the 
military wants those things set aside without any kind of disturbance, 
that is logical. That is limited. That is logical, and it is something 
we should approve, which is why this issue should not be a bill before 
us. This bill should have been decided as part of the NDAA.
  But the question here is: Is everything on this arbitrary line that 
was drawn, is it all needed for military use? It should be the military 
that makes that decision; and, I am sorry, in the past, they have 
simply said, no, they don't need it all.
  So if we were wise, if we were really doing the right thing for this 
country, if we were really doing the right thing on this issue, we 
would simply say the military can exclude what the military needs; and 
what they don't need should be allowed to be open for other kinds of 
exploration that could benefit Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans 
and Texas, because they happen to be closer to the line than Florida 
is. That is the right thing to do.
  We should not do an arbitrary rule that just says to take the ruler 
and make the damn line down the middle of the map. That is wrong. That 
is a violation of everything that is logical. That is a violation of 
everything that is scientific that we are supposed to do. That is a 
violation of even taking away the ability of the military to make 
decisions for themselves. That is why this is a failed opportunity on 
our part.
  Had the Rules Committee simply decided to take more rules into 
effect, we could have modified this bill to make it something that 
almost everybody in this room could have accepted. But the Rules 
Committee refused to do that. For whatever political purposes they had 
in mind, they simply refused to do that.
  So, we have the option of instead of doing a bill that is the right 
thing to do and a good thing to do, we have a bill that is going to be 
questionable here. It is going to be questionable in the Senate. It is 
going to be questionable on the deck.
  We could have done the right thing. We should have done the right 
thing. Hopefully, before this bill is all the way through the system, 
we will do the right thing. But for that, this is a failed opportunity, 
and I do blame the Rules Committee for refusing to try and expand the 
discussion so we could actually make a bill that is viable.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity and all those who have 
spoken on this bill. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I thought I would close by talking a little bit about, 
because it relates to the discussion that we are having today, 
protecting these very valuable coastal areas in this country.
  My Republican colleagues introduced the American Energy First Act 
today, and, frankly, it is quite frightening. It is really the ``Earth 
isn't burning fast enough'' legislation, as I like to call it.
  America is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the 
world.

[[Page H7630]]

This administration is lifting protections on hundreds of millions of 
acres of public lands for even more drilling.
  Our Republican colleagues feel that is not enough. It is never enough 
for them. For them, President Trump's extreme antienvironment, 
anticlimate agenda needs to be pushed even further. They are rolling 
out a bill to give even more money away to their oil and gas polluter 
friends.
  This Republican bill that was introduced today by the minority would 
force the Florida Gulf Coast for offshore oil and gas, let States 
decide where energy development should happen on Federal public lands, 
gut Federal regulation, shorten environmental review times, give vast 
amounts of public money to four States in the Gulf of Mexico, and make 
Americans pay if they wanted to object to a government decision.
  Think about it. Right now, oil and gas companies get to nominate 
public lands for leasing without paying a dime. If Republicans had 
their way, oil and gas companies would keep the free ride, and anyone 
who wants to protest a lease would have to pay a fee to challenge them.
  These ideas are destructive, and they couldn't even pass in an all-
Republican government. Nearly all of this legislation was introduced in 
various forms by Republicans in the last Congress when they controlled 
everything: the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the 
Presidency. But the bills that were introduced today are so pro-
polluter, so backwards-looking, they weren't able to pass them in the 
House under Republican control.
  If my House colleagues just can't or won't take climate change 
seriously, then we shouldn't take this bill seriously at all. The 
American people want us to act on climate. They reject the Trump 
administration's pro-polluter agenda. That is why we are voting to 
protect our coasts today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 205.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-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 House Report 116-200, is adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for 
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 205

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

         This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting and Securing 
     Florida's Coastline Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON LEASING IN 
                   CERTAIN AREAS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO.

         Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
     of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note) is amended by striking 
     ``Effective during'' and all that follows through ``the 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary''.

     SEC. 3. INSPECTION FEE COLLECTION.

         Section 22 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1348) is amended by adding at the end the following:
         ``(g) Inspection Fees.--
         ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     collect from the operators of facilities subject to 
     inspection under subsection (c) non-refundable fees for such 
     inspections--
         ``(A) at an aggregate level equal to the amount necessary 
     to offset the annual expenses of inspections of outer 
     Continental Shelf facilities (including mobile offshore 
     drilling units) by the Secretary of the Interior; and
         ``(B) using a schedule that reflects the differences in 
     complexity among the classes of facilities to be inspected.
         ``(2) Ocean energy safety fund.--There is established in 
     the Treasury a fund, to be known as the `Ocean Energy Safety 
     Fund' (referred to in this subsection as the `Fund'), into 
     which shall be deposited all amounts collected as fees under 
     paragraph (1) and which shall be available as provided under 
     paragraph (3).
         ``(3) Availability of fees.--Notwithstanding section 3302 
     of title 31, United States Code, all amounts deposited in the 
     Fund--
         ``(A) shall be credited as offsetting collections;
         ``(B) shall be available for expenditure for purposes of 
     carrying out inspections of outer Continental Shelf 
     facilities (including mobile offshore drilling units) and the 
     administration of the inspection program under this section;
         ``(C) shall be available only to the extent provided for 
     in advance in an appropriations Act; and
         ``(D) shall remain available until expended.
         ``(4) Adjustment for inflation.--For each fiscal year 
     beginning after fiscal year 2020, the Secretary shall adjust 
     each dollar amount specified in this subsection for inflation 
     based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from fiscal 
     year 2020.
         ``(5) Annual fees.--Annual fees shall be collected under 
     this subsection for facilities that are above the waterline, 
     excluding drilling rigs, and are in place at the start of the 
     fiscal year. Fees for fiscal year 2020 shall be--
         ``(A) $11,500 for facilities with no wells, but with 
     processing equipment or gathering lines;
         ``(B) $18,500 for facilities with 1 to 10 wells, with any 
     combination of active or inactive wells; and
         ``(C) $34,500 for facilities with more than 10 wells, 
     with any combination of active or inactive wells.
         ``(6) Fees for drilling rigs.--Fees shall be collected 
     under this subsection for drilling rigs on a per inspection 
     basis. Fees for fiscal year 2020 shall be--
         ``(A) $33,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of 500 feet or more; and
         ``(B) $18,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of less than 500 feet.
         ``(7) Fees for non-rig units.--Fees shall be collected 
     under this subsection for well operations conducted via non-
     rig units as outlined in subparts D, E, F, and Q of part 250 
     of title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, on a per inspection 
     basis. Fees for fiscal year 2020 shall be--
         ``(A) $13,260 per inspection for non-rig units operating 
     in water depths of 2,500 feet or more;
         ``(B) $11,530 per inspection for non-rig units operating 
     in water depths between 500 and 2,499 feet; and
         ``(C) $4,470 per inspection for non-rig units operating 
     in water depths of less than 500 feet.
         ``(8) Billing.--The Secretary shall bill designated 
     operators under paragraph (5) annually, with payment required 
     within 30 days of billing. The Secretary shall bill 
     designated operators under paragraph (6) within 30 days of 
     the end of the month in which the inspection occurred, with 
     payment required within 30 days after billing.''.

     SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

         The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part B of the report. Each such 
further 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. Crist

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. CRIST. Madam 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:

       Page 1, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. PRODUCTION SAFETY SYSTEMS AND WELL CONTROL.

       Subparts D, E, F, G, H, and Q of section 250 of title 30, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 1, 
     2018), shall have the same force and effect of law as if such 
     subparts had been enacted by an Act of Congress.
       Page 1, line 11, strike ``3'' and insert ``4''.
       Page 5, line 5, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Crist) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRIST. Madam Chair, I was Governor of Florida in 2010 when the 
Deepwater Horizon rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana. It killed 11 
people and sent millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
  I witnessed firsthand the tar balls on our beaches, the marine life 
drowning in oil, and the billions of dollars of economic damage 
inflicted on countless families and small businesses.
  As the largest offshore oil spill in American history, this should 
have been a huge wake-up call to everyone. Floridians said never again 
and voted almost 70 percent in the last election to ban offshore 
drilling because, as we learned, drilling doesn't have to take place 
right off our shores to upend your way of life.
  My amendment is simple. It reinstates two critical rules regarding 
offshore drilling and safety regulations,

[[Page H7631]]

the Well Control Rule and the Production Safety Systems Rule, that were 
put into place after the Deepwater Horizon disaster itself.
  Sadly, the current administration has chosen to ignore the mistakes 
of our past and has, instead, weakened these rules, opening the door to 
self-regulation and less stringent standards. That is why my amendment 
codifies these rules in their previous form, reinstating critical 
safety requirements and reducing the risk of another tragedy.

                              {time}  1545

  I would like to thank the bipartisan cosponsors of my amendment, the 
Rules Committee for making the amendment in order, and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Barragan) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price) for their tireless efforts to support these regulations.
  Finally, on behalf of Florida's 13th District, I give my heartfelt 
thanks to the distinguished bipartisan colleagues from Florida, 
Representative Castor and Representative Rooney, for their tireless 
leadership on the underlying bill to keep drilling out of the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico for good.
  In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to drill at all. But as long as 
drilling does occur in the western and central Gulf, the site of the 
Deepwater Horizon spill, we must do everything in our power to make 
sure that history does not repeat itself.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment so that no State ever has 
to endure another Deepwater Horizon.
  Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), my colleague, the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
thoughtful and necessary amendment that will restore offshore drilling 
regulations and that will reduce the risks the Gulf communities face 
from offshore development.
  I thank him for that, and I very much support the amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The administration, rightfully, took a second 
look at the well control and production safety system rule that was 
implemented by the prior administration. They didn't make a whole lot 
of changes. About a 17 percent change to the overall rule was all that 
was done there.
  But the colleagues that I have heard and, also, those in the press 
who have talked about this have been opposed to the revised rules 
because they erroneously argue that they allow BSEE to issue the so-
called waivers to oil companies that give them a free pass to comply 
with the well control rule. In reality, that just is not what is 
happening.
  The rule allows BSEE to approve alternative compliance measures for 
companies that can prove there is a better way of handling a particular 
requirement that is at least as safe as the original regulatory rules 
were. So, in fact, the practice is nothing new.
  In the Obama administration, they approved these types of measures 
more than the current administration is doing it. The average during 
the Obama administration was roughly four times per day. The current 
administration does it roughly 2.3 times per day.
  BSEE isn't allowing oil companies to get away with not complying with 
the well control rule. They have simply found a better way of doing it.
  To codify this rule the way it was before takes away the flexibility 
and the ability to use technology and new ideas and new science to come 
up with a better way of solving the problem.
  This amendment does great harm not only to the process. To attach it 
to this bill, which ought to be about the military line, simply means, 
were this to pass, this amendment would make it more difficult for the 
ultimate bill to reach a solution in the Senate.
  It is an amendment to the wrong bill. It should have been on the 
earlier one. It is an amendment that is not needed. It is an amendment 
that moves us back. It is an amendment that takes out of the 
administration the ability, simply, to do things the right way. If they 
can find a better way of doing it, let the administration, at any time, 
authorize that better way of doing the well control protection rule.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRIST. Madam Chair, first, I thank the chairman for his support 
of the bill. I appreciate that very much.
  In response to my colleague from across the aisle, what is necessary 
and what is important is to make sure that we have stringent rules on 
this dangerous industry, to make sure that we protect our ecosystem and 
our environment.
  As I said, we, as Floridians, already understand it, voting almost 70 
percent of the vote in the latest election to ban offshore drilling 
from our beautiful coast.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, once again, I am somewhat confused 
as to the point and direction of this particular amendment.
  If it is about the military line, this amendment does nothing to it. 
If it is about protecting the coast of Florida, this amendment does 
nothing to it.
  It is about having a better way of doing the system to provide more 
protection. It moves us back and removes the ability of the 
department--BSEE, in this situation--to protect and realize that 
because it takes away their creative alternatives.
  There are always better ways of doing something. This prohibits us 
from doing it. This is the wrong amendment on the wrong bill that gives 
us the wrong direction.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Barragan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 116-200.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam 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:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. STUDY ON BSEE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS 
                   INSPECTION PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall contract with the 
     National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to 
     complete, not later than 21 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the study entitled ``Review and Update 
     of Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Offshore 
     Oil and Gas Operations Inspection Program'' that the 
     Secretary of the Interior had previously contracted with the 
     National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to 
     complete.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Barragan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam Chair, earlier this year, I introduced a bill 
called the Safe COAST Act to protect our coasts from offshore oil and 
gas drilling. A vital element of that bill was to protect the offshore 
oil and gas operations program. This critical piece of the Safe COAST 
Act is offered in this amendment.
  As this body may remember, in December 2017, the administration 
placed a stop-work order on a critical study of the inspections program 
for offshore oil and gas operations, in an attempt to delay the study 
and alter its management. The administration later changed its mind and 
resumed the study, but it doesn't mean the administration can't change 
its mind again and halt it or take away the study from the National 
Academy of Sciences and contract it to an oil and gas industry-friendly 
entity.
  We can't take that chance because this study is too critical. For 
example, this study ensures that vital aspects of the Bureau of Safety 
and Environmental Enforcement's regulatory mission are being met.
  The study would evaluate the Bureau's current risk assessment 
inspection process and provide recommendations for its improvement. It 
will also evaluate and migrate best practices into the Bureau's 
inspection protocols. Lastly, it will assess the potential role of 
safety-enhancing technologies, such as remote and real-time monitoring.
  In short, it will assess the use of emerging technologies, potential 
risks,

[[Page H7632]]

and improved safety and environmental protection practices.
  Our coast needs these protections. My amendment will ensure the study 
remains operational and in the objective and trustworthy hands of the 
National Academy of Sciences.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to help protect our oceans and 
support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I don't want to try to be snarky on 
these kinds of amendments, but it is already being done.
  It is a nice concept. It was stopped, but it has also started again. 
So this calls for a study to continue and resume. They have already 
done it.
  Back in October, in the Department of the Interior, they already 
resumed the meetings. They are ongoing. Everything you want is actually 
happening.
  I think a better study may be figuring out how five noes can be 
outweighed by three ayes. Nonetheless, this is a redundant amendment 
because it is already happening.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam Chair, the bottom line is this administration 
cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the coastline.
  This administration already issued a stop order and changed its mind. 
Again, there is nothing to prevent this administration from changing 
its mind again or, as I mentioned, from taking it away from the 
National Academy of Sciences.
  This amendment just ensures that the study remains operational and in 
the hands of the National Academy of Sciences so that there can't be a 
change. This is a protection we need for the coast.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I am going to end with the final 
conclusion, again, that it is a redundancy because it is already being 
done.
  Why don't you just mandate that everything we are doing in every 
other department be done at the same time? It would have the same kind 
of impact, the same kind of effect. It is cute, but it is a waste of 
our time.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam 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:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 2 of this Act shall not be effective until the 
     Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Director 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, finds that 
     the moratorium under such section will not adversely affect 
     jobs available to minorities and women.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


          Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
modified in the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Gosar:

       Strike ``Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service'' and insert ``Secretary of Labor''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
of Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
allows the section 2 moratorium in this bill to go into effect when the 
Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of 
Labor, certifies that the offshore energy moratorium in the bill will 
not kill a substantial number of minority and women jobs.
  We heard arguments from the Democratic Members on the other side of 
the aisle against a similar amendment, that this amendment doesn't 
matter and is meaningless. How callous that response.
  I tell opponents of this amendment to tell that single mother working 
to put food on the table for her two children that her job doesn't 
matter. How about the minority family who just moved into a new 
neighborhood so their kids could go to better schools? Tell those 
hardworking, minority parents that those jobs don't matter either.
  Under the current administration, unemployment has reached record 
lows. In August, the national unemployment rate sat at 3.7 percent, 
with the unemployment rate for African American workers sitting at 5.5 
percent, breaking the previous record of 5.9 percent set in May 2018.
  According to a recent report by The Washington Post--once again, the 
bastion of conservative reporting--nearly 90 percent of the jobs added 
under this administration has gone to minority communities. This can be 
attributed to, for the first time, a majority of new hires are people 
between the ages of 25 to 54 and are from minority communities.
  According to statistics published by the American Petroleum 
Institute, minorities will comprise one-third of the total workforce in 
the oil and gas sector by 2030. Women already comprise more than 15 
percent of the oil and gas workforce.
  These are good-paying jobs, paying $90,000, that hardworking families 
depend upon. This legislation puts these employment opportunities at 
risk by permanently putting off-limits potentially viable and valuable 
offshore energy opportunities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  For the first time since the 1950s, the United States will soon be a 
net exporter of oil and natural gas, something that was once 
unthinkable.
  America's energy renaissance has boosted the economies of previously 
left-behind towns throughout the country and turned them into vibrant 
communities.
  Madam Chair, this is a commonsense amendment that protects minority 
and women jobs and puts the interests of the American workforce first. 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, first of all, let's start with the premise here. The 
premise of protecting jobs for women and people of color is a laudable 
one. But on the eastern coast, at this point, there are no jobs to lose 
or protect because there are no jobs. If there was to be any activity, 
it would be when the moratorium would be lifted in 2022.
  The point of this amendment has nothing to do with the bill, and it 
is simply an attempt to block protections for the eastern Gulf based on 
a fake concern for jobs for women and people of color.
  I recall the hearing we had yesterday about the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management reorganization and its transfer of 
central activities to Grand Junction, Colorado. In that, the majority 
asked the question: What about the retention of senior, female, and of-
color staff in this move? How many are we going to lose? Do they need 
to be protected?
  At the hearing, the minority Members told us that was not an issue, 
that we shouldn't worry about it, that nothing was going to be lost and 
everything was going to be protected.

                              {time}  1600

  Here we have the issue being raised again, but from another 
perspective. I believe that enacting this bill and protecting Florida's 
shore from the dangers of offshore drilling will safeguard

[[Page H7633]]

jobs in coastal tourism, recreation industries, and many others that 
are held by the people of Florida, including women and people of color.
  For example, the Florida Gulf Coast Business Coalition is a diverse 
coalition of businesses and industries committed to protecting 
Florida's Gulf Coast, and they have offered strong support for the 
underlying legislation.
  The real threat to jobs and economic opportunity in Florida would be 
failing to extend the existing moratorium. This is why elected 
officials, including the entire Florida congressional delegation and 
the Florida Governor, oppose drilling in the eastern Gulf and support 
H.R. 205.
  This is not a serious amendment and does nothing to protect jobs 
belonging to women, to people of color, and, conversely, keeps the 
Florida Gulf Coast at risk.
  For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, if that supposition that has been proposed is 
actually true, then an easy certification by the Secretary of the 
Interior is in the works that there is no denominational change in 
regards to those jobs, in regards to the oil and gas industry with this 
permanent moratorium. So, once again, it gets us back to that permanent 
moratorium in section 2 does place those at risk.
  Again, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to think of 
that single mother who is working to put food on the table for her two 
children. Tell her that her job doesn't matter.
  Again, think of the minority family that just moved into a new 
neighborhood so their kids could go to better schools. Tell those 
working minorities, those parents that their jobs don't matter.
  Think of the statistics that we repeatedly looked at from, no less, 
The Washington Post. These are real jobs. They are helping real people. 
They are part of a real economy, an economy that needs all of the 
above.
  Once again, we can have tourism, we can have clean energy production 
and protect the environment, and we can have the good-paying jobs that 
are empowering women and minorities.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, again, the amendment is not necessary, and 
it is an attempt to delay and to put further risk to the Florida Gulf 
Coast, and I would urge its defeat.
  More importantly, I think concrete, real policy initiatives to 
enhance opportunities for women and people of color in this country are 
something this Congress should undertake as a whole. But crocodile 
tears on this particular piece of legislation and this amendment aren't 
going to do it.
  I urge opposition. I urge its defeat.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 251, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 520]

                               AYES--182

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Steil
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--251

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     Steube
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Abraham
     Clyburn
     Lawrence
     McEachin
     Radewagen

                              {time}  1633

  Messrs. HASTINGS, CISNEROS, PASCRELL, Mses. FINKENAUER, HILL of 
California, TLAIB, Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, GONZALEZ of Texas, and 
RICHMOND changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WITTMAN, WILSON of South Carolina, HUNTER, TURNER, PALAZZO, 
CALVERT, RICE of South Carolina, and LONG changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments under the rule, 
the Committee rises.

[[Page H7634]]

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bishop of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 548, she reported the 
bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry 
further amendments 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 further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were 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.
  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.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 180, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 521]

                               YEAS--248

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Dunn
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     Steube
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Stauber
     Steil
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Abraham
     Clyburn
     Lawrence
     McEachin

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________