[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 146 (Thursday, September 12, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7671-H7690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ARCTIC CULTURAL AND COASTAL PLAIN PROTECTION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1146.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  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. 1146.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0916


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1146) to amend Public Law 115-97 (commonly known as the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act) to repeal the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas 
program, and for other purposes, with Mr. Casten of Illinois 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 be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in section 2 of House Resolution 548, and 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 California (Mr. Huffman) and the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today the House of Representatives will take a historic vote to roll 
back one provision of the Republican tax law that was rammed through 
the last Congress on a party line vote. In addition to the tax breaks 
to millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations, there 
was a provision that mandated oil and gas development in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  Today we will take up bipartisan legislation to repeal this drilling 
mandate, protecting, not just the Arctic Refuge, but the wildlife and 
the indigenous people who depend on this sacred natural landscape.
  I introduced H.R. 1146 earlier this year with my Republican colleague 
Brian Fitzpatrick because we believe, as do 182 other cosponsors of 
this bill, that there are some places that are simply too important, 
too special, too sacred to be spoiled by oil and gas development. This 
is the same basic proposition that we were presented with yesterday 
when the House passed bipartisan legislation to protect our coasts from 
offshore drilling. Because the north coast of California is too special 
to have its fisheries and coastal economy put at risk for the profit of 
big oil. Because places like the Lowcountry of South Carolina are too 
special to be spoiled by oil spills. Today we are here to show that the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the largest wildlife refuge in the 
United States is also too special.
  The refuge is home to more than 200 different wildlife species, and 
that includes the Porcupine caribou herd that is a vital source of 
subsistence for the indigenous Gwich'in people. The refuge is a special 
place where veterans recovering from PTSD find themselves again. We 
have heard these voices and many others during Natural Resource 
Committee deliberations on this bill in a hearing earlier this year. 
And I thank all of those who testified and have spoken out to help us 
bring this bill to the floor today.
  The question before us is: Will the Federal Government protect this 
special place and the communities that depend on it or will our Federal 
Government be responsible for its destruction by auctioning it off to 
big oil? During this debate, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are going to ask us and ask the American people to trust this 
administration to do the right thing.
  They are going to say that drilling can be done responsibly. They 
will ask us to trust a Secretary of the Interior who the GAO has 
determined violated Federal spending laws during the Trump government 
shutdown. A secretary who violated his ethics pledge by meeting with 
his former clients at the U.S. Oil and Gas Association as they were 
pushing for more drilling on American public lands. And a secretary who 
continues to shill for his former lobbying clients at every turn.
  They will ask us to trust this administration where the leading 
Department of the Interior official pushing for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge just left public service days ago to start a 
new job at an oil and gas company with interests, believe it or not, in 
Arctic oil and gas development in Alaska. You can't make this stuff up. 
They will ask us to trust a President, who, armed with a Sharpie, 
overrules scientists and threatens the jobs of scientists when they 
speak out.

  We need to reject this agenda of big oil and protect America's Arctic 
from oil and gas drilling. It is time to pass H.R. 1146 and repeal the 
Trump administration tax laws drilling mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the presentation of the author 
of this bill. I have been in this House 48 years. We have been arguing 
about this ANWR for 40 of those years. We have passed it out of the 
house 14 times. And by the way, it was established by a Democrat 
President and a Democrat House to allow the 1002 areas to be explored 
if Congress said so. And that is what we have done.
  Now we have a sponsor from California who doesn't know beans about 
this business talking about big oil and about Trump. This has been a 
policy of this Nation to allow drilling there if the Congress spoke, 
and we did so. Under the tax bill, yes, but 13 times before that this 
House passed the legislation to have the 1002 explored.
  Just keep in mind, we are talking about an area of a 19-million-acre 
refuge and areas left inside, the 1002 area--the map behind me, if 
anybody can see that little tiny red dot, 2,000 acres, less than the 
size of Dulles Airport, less than the size of the Capitol grounds. And 
yet, we are trying to say, no, no development. We are trying to say 
that is not right, this is the last pristine area. May I say again, it 
is not the last pristine area.
  We have had approximately 30 years of development in Prudhoe Bay, the 
same type of terrain, same species of animals, same amount of caribou. 
In fact, we have more now than we had before after we started drilling. 
So this bill is a sham. And I listened to this with great interest. I 
always understand what they are trying to do, and it is also a sham to 
this Congress. This Congress spoke. It is a sham to this Nation. We are 
taking time away from what should be done in this Nation. We have sat, 
frankly, 2 years in this House and have done nothing.
  Unfortunately, we have heard also this is a cultural bill, and the 
Gwich'in supposedly is all this gentleman listens to, doesn't listen to 
the Inupiats. That to me is important. The people that live there want 
the drilling. The people at least 150 miles away don't want the 
drilling, but that is who they are listening to.
  So, again, my colleagues, this bill is the wrong step forward for 
this Nation.

[[Page H7672]]

It is not about big oil. It is about the State of Alaska. It is about 
my constituents, not California; they have enough problems of their 
own. Just read the papers. So I am suggesting, with respect, this bill 
should not go anywhere. It may pass today, because there are a lot of 
people on that side who don't believe in oil. I understand that. But it 
is wrong to undo what Congress has done. And now I will suggest, 
respectfully, it is dead. You are wasting our time. It will not go 
anywhere, that is why I am not going to get really excited and go over 
there and--never mind.
  I would suggest, respectfully, I am going to see the death of this 
bill a long time before this gentleman is ever in this House again.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his restraint. 
One of the arguments my friend from Alaska invariably makes when we 
talk about this issue is the proposed drilling area is just a tiny 
little piece of a great big refuge in a great big State. And it is 
typically characterized as just a little 2,000-acre postage stamp.
  We need to dispel this very inaccurate and disingenuous 
characterization. It may be 2,000 acres of hard footprint, but it is 
not 2,000 acres of development all in one place. It is spread out 
across the coastal plain, which is the beating heart of America's 
largest wildlife refuge. And if you want to see what this footprint 
really looks like, it is not so tiny, folks. When you look at the 
hundreds of miles of roads and the gravel mining and the gravel pads 
and the oil rigs and other infrastructure that have to go in, it looks 
a lot differently than what has been characterized.
  So this picture depicts what the true footprint of this little 
postage stamp development in the Arctic refuge looks like. And I think 
by any fair measure, it would absolutely despoil the beating heart of 
America's largest wildlife refuge.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), my friend and great champion of our public lands and of 
the Arctic refuge.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and 
allowing me to speak on this.
  I was on the Ways and Means Committee that passed the grotesque 
Republican tax cut. This provision was never debated on a bill that 
never had a hearing wedged in. The math doesn't work out. It portends 
that we are going to have hundreds of millions, a billion or more in 
savings. It is not going to happen. We are talking about a relatively 
small amount of money, which I am convinced, despite my good friend 
from Alaska's assertion, this is going to move forward.
  The American public opposed it. It is the wrong thing to do. We need 
to be moving in the other direction in terms of keeping the oil up 
there in the ground for climate, but also, for the environment there. I 
had a chance to visit that area with Governor Inslee and other 
colleagues and am really impressed with the nature of that. I saw that 
caribou herd.
  This is a treasure. It is much more fragile than one would think, and 
we are bound and determined to work to support the environmental 
values, the desire of the American people, our challenges for climate, 
and to unwind this egregious provision in the Republican tax bill, 
which, mark my words, will, in fact, be substantially adjusted, if not 
in this Congress in a subsequent Congress.
  I appreciate my friend's forthright approach here. I appreciate the 
fact that we are focusing the American public on the outrageous 
provision, that we are fighting to protect the Arctic Wildlife Refuge 
and dismissing this egregious provision in the Republican tax scam.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle proclaim 
that they are concerned about the environment, but that does not mean 
that I am not concerned about the environment or that my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle are not concerned about the environment.
  One of our earliest and most recognized conservationists, Gifford 
Pinchot, stated that when conflicting interests must be resolved that 
we should strive to do the greatest good for the greatest number for 
the long run. Pinchot also wrote that conservation is the application 
of common sense to the common problems for the common good.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill today lacks common sense. I have been to the 
North Slope of Alaska. We can develop clean, safe, low-cost energy in 
the world and conserve our public lands and the environment. I would 
argue that because of our technology and innovation and using clean 
fuels like natural gas that has allowed the United States to decrease 
our global greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country in the 
world.
  As we look at this bill today, and we look at the history of what has 
happened, in 1980 a Democratic-held Congress passed the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, and President Carter signed it into 
law. That act set aside more than 1.5 million acres for responsible oil 
and gas development in ANWR itself, nearly 20 million acres in total.
  Such a large commitment less than a decade after the Arab oil embargo 
made logical sense at the time.

                              {time}  0930

  However, it took until 2018 for Congress to uphold its word, finally 
approving a limited exploration project on 2,000 acres in ANWR. This 
constitutes less than one ten-thousandth of the total acreage and one 
one-hundredth of the initial exploration.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, in the face of increasing belligerence from 
Russia and China and an unstable Middle East, Members of this House 
have a choice. We can choose dirtier foreign energy over responsibly 
developing a tiny parcel of land already set aside for production.
  That inaction, Mr. Chair, is one that demands common sense. It is in 
the common interest to protect domestic energy. Realistically, 2,000 
acres is a small price to pay for our security.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for the greatest good for the 
greatest number and to vote for the long run. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for common sense and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1146.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Ms. Haaland), the chair of the National Parks, Forests, and 
Public Lands Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, as a 35th-generation American, I rise in 
support of H.R. 1146.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was set aside to protect its 
unique wildlife, wilderness, and resources. It sustains the Gwich'in 
Tribe and has for centuries. It is why they call it ``the sacred place 
where life begins.''
  Oil and gas drilling puts at risk the Porcupine caribou herd, which 
has sustained tribes for centuries and centuries. It also threatens 
wolves, polar bears, and migratory birds that live in the refuge. It 
will release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, exacerbating the 
effects of global warming, which have affected Alaska far more than any 
State in this country.
  Republicans slipped this drilling provision into their tax cut bill 
last Congress. I might add that no tribes had an opportunity to voice 
their opinions on any of that. Now, this administration is rushing 
ahead without adequate environmental review or Tribal consultation.
  Americans want a smart approach to sustainable energy development, 
not a careless rush to sell off one of our most iconic and sacred 
places for shortsighted, destructive fossil fuel production.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with the Gwich'in, speak up 
for the animals that live in the refuge, and support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).
  Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from 
Alaska for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, how long must we rely on foreign adversaries for fuel? 
Utilizing

[[Page H7673]]

our domestic resources is essential to a strong economy. Energy 
dominance on the world stage is our end goal. We will never get there 
if we continue to cut off access to our own resources.
  The truth is, oil and gas production in ANWR benefits our country as 
a whole, but it is also a key industry for the people of Alaska.
  The community of Kaktovik sees the energy sector as a significant 
source of employment, revenue, and reliable energy. The people, 
including the local Tribe of Alaska Natives, are incredibly supportive 
of the continuation of oil and gas production in their community. These 
people were never consulted by my colleagues at any point in the 
development of this bill.
  Neither was our colleague   Don Young, who has represented the needs 
of the people of Alaska for more than 40 years, who has more experience 
than everyone who wrote this bill combined.   Don Young, the dean of 
the House, the longest serving Member in Congress, should have been the 
first person consulted about this legislation was never sought out. 
Instead, they consulted a Tribe 350 miles away that has nothing to do 
with oil and gas in ANWR.
  To put this in perspective, I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Omaha, 
Nebraska, is about 380 miles away. Can anybody tell me what my opinion 
would matter in Omaha, Nebraska? I don't spend time there. I don't know 
what the people there want.
  The only assumption we can make as to why a Tribe over 350 miles away 
was consulted instead of the local community is that my colleagues knew 
they wouldn't find support in Kaktovik.
  This should be an easy decision. There is no reason to vote ``yes'' 
on this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to think about the future of our 
country and vote ``no'' today on H.R. 1146.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I know the gentleman does not mean to 
disrespect or trivialize the interests of an indigenous tribe that for 
hundreds and hundreds of years has depended on the Porcupine caribou 
herd, where its calving grounds and the heart of its migratory road is 
right in the refuge we are talking about. I know the gentleman doesn't 
mean to disrespect them by suggesting that their voices don't matter, 
but we believe that the Gwich'in people's voice does matter. Mr. Chair, 
you are going to hear us stand up for their interests consistently on 
this issue.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act.
  After almost 40 years of protection, the Trump administration and the 
fossil fuel lobbyists that have taken up residence at the Department of 
the Interior opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and 
gas development. The timing of this decision could not be more 
irresponsible.
  The last thing we should be doing is expanding fossil fuel 
development in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as fast 
as the rest of the United States. But we know that this administration 
isn't concerned about protecting our environment or addressing the 
climate crisis, so it is not surprising that it is willing to sacrifice 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's diverse habitat in an attempt to 
help its Big Oil friends turn an even bigger profit.

  The American people disagree. The vast majority of Americans oppose 
drilling in this iconic landscape, and I am proud to stand with them.
  We should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, embracing 
renewable energy, and leading the world in combating climate change, 
not going backward.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly support the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain 
Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, environmentally responsible development of 
ANWR will 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.
  While congressional authorization is required by law for any leasing 
in ANWR, I, along with my Republican colleagues on the Natural 
Resources Committee, believe that Alaska Natives should be able to 
exercise their right to develop minerals on their lands if they so 
choose.
  As the gentleman from Alaska has pointed out, Native Alaskans who 
actually live within ANWR fully support responsible development of 
their local energy resources.
  Who do we listen to? The people who actually live there or extreme 
environmental activists here in Washington?
  The oil and gas sector has historically served as a significant 
source of employment, revenue, and reliable energy for Alaska and 
Alaska Natives, and supports over 110,000 direct and indirect jobs.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation, 
which, fortunately, will never become law.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Chair, listen to ``the people who actually live there.'' I wish 
we had seen that same concern yesterday when we had a chance to vote on 
banning offshore drilling in places where Governors, mayors, and 
overwhelming majorities of actual residents don't want to see their 
pristine coastlines and their coastal economies despoiled by oil and 
gas development.
  I am afraid that my friends sometimes have a selective sense of 
hearing, but the one consistent voice that always seems to be heard is 
that of Big Oil.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lowenthal), my friend and the chair of the Energy and Mineral Resources 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Huffman for his 
leadership on this very, very important bill.
  I would like to discuss briefly one idea, and that is the idea that 
you hear around that if we are going to protect ANWR, that somehow is 
going to hurt our ability to become energy independent, that we cannot 
be energy independent unless we open up ANWR, and that right now, we 
have to really worry because we are going to become, by not opening 
ANWR, more beholden to the Russians, to Saudi Arabia.
  This is all going to be whether we open up ANWR or not? This is 
absolute nonsense.
  Republicans and this administration no longer care about energy 
independence. Let's be clear. They do not care about energy 
independence, and they haven't for years, ever since they voted to lift 
the oil export ban.
  For so many years, we said that we care about energy independence, 
and we are not going to export our oil and gas. If energy independence 
was the goal, we wouldn't be letting companies send American-produced 
oil all over the world, particularly when we are still importing from 
other countries, yet that is exactly what is happening today.
  We export over 3 million barrels a day. Yet at the same time, we are 
importing 7 million barrels a day.
  If oil development, what we are hearing today, is really about making 
America energy independent, instead of exporting those 3 million 
barrels, we could keep them here at home.
  If Republicans want to put the export ban back in place, then we 
should have a real discussion. I would love to have that discussion, 
but they know that their friends in the oil and gas industry would 
never let them have that discussion because this is all about profits.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, this is all about profits. It is not about 
energy independence.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to this legislation, as 
it hamstrings U.S. energy production and goes against the will of the 
people.
  Tax reform not only delivered on the tax cuts for the country and 
propelled our record-breaking economy, but it paved the way to further 
energy dominance by authorizing the development of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. Specifically, there is an area in the NPR that has 
reserves designated in 1980 by a Democratic Congress to be opened up 
for gas and oil lease sales.
  Before tax reform and the opening of ANWR, 92 percent of the 19.5 
million

[[Page H7674]]

acres could not even be legally touched. This area was set aside by the 
1980 Congress and was limited to 2,000 Federal acres. That is just 
0.0001 percent of ANWR.
  I heard an analogy the other day. It is like the size of a football 
on a football field. It is a very, very small spot. I heard another 
analogy, the size of a postage stamp on a wall.
  This was set aside for energy production. It has the resources, and 
it is time for us to develop those resources because the failure to 
develop the resources we have in this country to meet the energy needs 
of our Nation means that we continue to be dependent on other nations.

  We think about the Middle East when we think about that, but as I 
told a story yesterday, the New England States get natural gas from 
Russia. An LNG tanker that showed up at Boston Harbor provides natural 
gas to an American State.
  That means they are relying on Russia. That is hard for me to fathom 
when we have an abundance of natural gas in this country, when we have 
an abundance of oil in this country both offshore and onshore.
  These are American resources that should be developed, with a very 
minimal impact on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is time for 
America to develop the resources God gave us when He blessed this great 
Nation, develop these resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
It is the law of the land right now. It is time to develop.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Chair, we have addressed this postage stamp canard that we often 
hear. This is the postage stamp. It is spread out throughout the 
coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. It is the world's biggest postage 
stamp, if it is a postage stamp, and it would certainly despoil the 
beating heart of America's largest wildlife refuge.

                              {time}  0945

  Let me just briefly address this other canard, the idea that Congress 
set aside the 1002 area of the refuge for oil and gas development. If 
we actually read the law, it was set aside for a study by the 
Department of the Interior that would determine if it makes sense to 
open up the beating heart of America's largest wildlife refuge to oil 
and gas development.
  And here is an inconvenient fact: The Department of the Interior 
actually found that this is a uniquely vital natural resource that 
could be dramatically harmed. That is why, for over 40 years, Congress 
has declined to take the step that that law envisioned of opening it up 
to oil and gas development. That is, until the last Congress, when it 
was slipped in on a party-line vote against the wishes, frankly, of 
even many of my friends across the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1146 and 
protecting one of our Nation's greatest treasures from becoming the 
spoils of an industry that recklessly puts profits ahead of risks to 
the environment.
  After nearly four decades of protection, earned by virtue of its 
diverse wildlife habitats and scenic wonders, the Trump administration 
wants to sell off the heartbeat of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to the highest bidders. Buried in the small print of a tax giveaway, 
the President removed critical habitat protections with the stroke of a 
pen, leaving more than 250 wildlife species, like the polar bear, 
exposed to potential disaster at the hands of the oil industry.
  This action is not only a complete failure of the government's 
stewardship of these natural habitats, but completely unnecessary, 
considering the United States is already the world's largest producer 
of petroleum. Why threaten a fragile ecosystem that is already under 
terrible threat from climate change?
  We owe it to the planet, to future generations of Americans, and to 
the two-thirds of American people who are opposed to drilling in this 
iconic landscape to pass this protection act.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, as painful as it is to listen to all of that 
nonsense on the other side, I am glad to have logical people speak on 
this side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, it is great to be out here with my friends 
on both sides of the aisle. As many know, I have announced I am not 
going to run for reelection. One of the successes is because of what 
Chairman Young was able to do in the last Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I 
don't want to debunk the view. Alaska is bigger than the whole 
continental United States. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a 
small area where no one is at. I have been there. I hope you get there. 
It is a flat coastal plain. This would be like putting a drilling rig 
that is the size of a football field on the State of South Carolina. We 
can't debunk those arguments.
  My father-in-law worked on the pipeline. He was a communications 
microwave guy. There are thousands of jobs.
  Also, an insidious part of this plan is we know that the pipeline has 
to have oil in it to flow. We know that we need to continue to have 
exploration up there so that there is enough oil to keep that pipeline 
operating.
  My friends in the environmental left organizations want to shut down 
the pipeline. This will make sure it doesn't get shut down.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the chair of the House Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee for the time and for his 
longstanding leadership on this issue. And also, I thank the 182 
Members of Congress who support H.R. 1146.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support this legislation, H.R. 
1146, a bill to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the 
irreversible impacts of oil and gas drilling.
  This bill would undo a particular terrible provision that was slipped 
into the 2017 Republican tax bill with no debate in this Chamber, no 
amendments in this Chamber, and no votes in this Chamber.
  The Republican Party was not content with merely giving trillions of 
dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest companies and individuals in this 
country, tax cuts that have driven us deeper into debt without any of 
the positives the bill sponsors promised; at the same time they were 
handing out trillions of dollars to their friends and donors, they 
threw in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for their oil and gas 
buddies. They promised that this would be done right, as if destroying 
a pristine wilderness and threatening the survival of an entire Tribe's 
way of life can ever be done right.
  But then the Trump administration took over. Since then, we have had 
rushed environmental reviews so they could try to get a lease sale done 
in 1 year, 2 years quicker than the schedule laid out in the tax bill.
  We have seen evidence of the concerns of career scientists being 
ignored or overridden, and we have seen the Assistant Secretary in 
charge of making this lease sale happen jump ship and, after a long 3-
day cooling off weekend, start at an oil company that has leases right 
next to the refuge.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should never have been opened, 
and even those who want to see it develop should recoil at the idea 
that this is now in the hands of Donald Trump and his buddies.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has nothing to do with national 
security, has nothing to do with gas prices, and has nothing to do with 
energy independence. It has to do with greed, plain and simple.
  This administration simply can't stand the idea that there are some 
places that the oil and gas industry shouldn't be allowed to destroy. 
They can't believe that there are some places that deserve to be 
protected. They can't imagine there being anything more important than 
profits.

  I don't agree. At some point, we have to say: Stop. You have enough.
  We are the number one producer of oil and gas in the world, and 
production is going up.
  The administration is repealing regulations left and right and 
reduced land or wildlife protections on over 150 million acres of 
public land. The oil and gas industry has enough. They shouldn't get 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well.

[[Page H7675]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Young for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this Democratic messaging 
bill, H.R. 1146, a harmful attempt to undermine responsible energy 
development.
  Throughout the history of our country, we have observed a pattern of 
politicians in Washington and the East and West Coasts legislating 
based on what they think is best for the folks in the rest of the 
country. As we have listened to debate today, we can clearly see that 
this Washingtonian habit is alive and well.
  My good friends on the other side of this issue think they know 
better than the Alaska Natives living within ANWR; they think they know 
better than those who would benefit from job growth; they think they 
know better than the unions; and they think they know better than the 
people closest to the project.
  I urge my colleagues to take a step back and look at the unsettling 
trend that is occurring throughout this country of outsiders with a 
tenuous grip on the truth imposing their will on the people really 
impacted by these local projects.
  For instance, in my home State of Minnesota, the same thing is 
happening with the replacement of Line 3. People from the Twin Cities 
who are unimpacted by this project are launching efforts right here in 
this Chamber to stop the replacement and stop the job growth and 
economic development that would accompany it. Instead of putting our 
laborers, operating engineers, teamsters, and construction workers to 
work, they support legislation that is undermining these jobs.
  These projects are meant to develop our natural resources to ensure 
our energy independence and not reduce our reliance on foreign and 
hostile nations to this country. We responsibly develop our energy with 
the strongest environmental standards and labor standards in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Let's listen 
to those affected directly by these projects and do what is right.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from California, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong support of this bill as 
someone who has had the privilege of spending 2 weeks in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge 15 years ago. It was a life-changing trip.
  ANWR's beauty and majesty are almost beyond description. Paddling 
down the Kongakut River and along the shore of the Beaufort Sea, my 
companions and I experienced an astounding wealth of plants and animals 
in a mix unique to the region, a truly iconic corner of our Earth.
  Anyone who says it is an empty place or that there is nothing there 
is committing a sacrilege as far as I am concerned. It is a sacred 
place to me, and it is no wonder that it is a sacred place to the 
Gwich'in people.
  The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the United States. 
Drilling in ANWR would exacerbate that regional effect as well as 
hastening catastrophic warming, generally.
  In short, we must prevent this administration's reckless effort to 
open up ANWR to oil and gas development to prevent dangerous 
biological, cultural, and climate impacts. We simply cannot allow this 
to happen on our watch.
  I would point out that, when I paddled down the Kongakut River, I 
visited these places that are planned for drilling. We were literally 
hiking along the plain and we came upon these drill pads. It would be 
outrageous to drill in these places where there are nesting grounds for 
birds and homes to other animals that just don't exist anywhere else.
  I invite any of my colleagues who have the ability to travel on their 
own power paddling and hiking to join me in going back to ANWR. I don't 
think they would want to drill there if they did.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Huffman for his leadership on this, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Alaska for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
  I wish I could say that I am surprised by the bills that are being 
brought before us this week, but I am not. The Democratic war on our 
economy, on America's families, and on fossil fuels continues.
  Mr. Chairman, energy independence is crucial for our economy and our 
security. I stand in strong solidarity with my friend and colleague 
from Alaska, someone who is a mentor not just to me, but to all on our 
side of the aisle.
  Partly, I stand in solidarity with him because I, like Mr. Young, 
represent my entire State. Like Alaska, Wyoming is no stranger to 
outsiders thinking they know what is best for us.
  The legislation we have before us today echoes the majority's goal of 
making the Green New Deal a reality, fundamentally changing our way of 
life by making us increasingly dependent on foreign sources of energy.

  Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I joined my colleagues, Whip Scalise and the 
House Committee on Natural Resources ranking member, Mr. Bishop, to 
introduce the American Energy First Act.
  Our bill would end unnecessary overreach from Washington bureaucrats 
and enable States to manage energy production on lands within our 
borders. Our all-of-the-above pro-energy legislation would help put our 
families to work, further our energy independence, and put our national 
security at the forefront.
  Wyoming prides itself on our fossil fuels. We know that our economy 
and that our security depends on these. We consider our fossil fuels to 
be national treasures, and, Mr. Chairman, we thank God for our fossil 
fuels.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to oppose this misguided anti-energy 
independence and anti-national security agenda that the Democratic 
majority has continued to put before us, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about energy independence. If my friends 
across the aisle were concerned about energy independence, they 
certainly wouldn't have lifted the crude oil export ban in the previous 
Congress. And if they wanted to talk about putting that crude oil 
export ban back in place, we would have something to work together on 
and we could actually take a step towards energy independence.
  But the truth is we are awash in oil right now. We are exporting 
millions of barrels of oil a day while we continue to import all that 
big bad imported oil that sometimes my friends across the aisle are 
concerned about.

                              {time}  1000

  What this is really about, is money and profits for Big Oil. They 
make a lot more money when they can export that oil on the world 
market. That is why, when we talk about developing the coastal plain of 
the Arctic refuge, no one should be confused by these claims that that 
oil would go to American consumption. It won't.
  It will find top dollar on the global export market because that is 
where Big Oil can make the most money, and that is what the agenda we 
have heard about is really all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
Representative from Alaska for yielding me the time.
  I want to say it again. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska, 
the sole Member representing all Alaskans in the House of 
Representatives, who joins with his Senators, the entire Alaska 
delegation, in opposing this bill.
  I heard Mr. Stauber come down earlier and talk about how we don't 
need people from other States, from California coming in and imposing 
their beliefs on Alaska. We have a Constitution. We have a structure 
here where

[[Page H7676]]

Members from the State of Alaska, residents from the State of Alaska, 
they elect their Representatives. And their Representatives are 
unanimously supporting the development in the ANWR. They unanimously 
support it.
  Why do we have this structure where other people come in? It is 
fascinating to me that we can be here and have folks from California 
sit there and all the time ask for exemptions, ask for exceptions, ask 
for their own conditions or rules in California, and then they now come 
in and they know better, and they need to tell Alaskans what needs to 
be done.
  I just heard allegations that this was about oil company profits and 
other things. This is about what the citizens of Alaska want, what 
their elected Representatives are doing to represent their own 
constituents.
  Now, to give you an idea of how much of a farce this whole thing is, 
do you realize that this is the third bill that is using the same 
funding stream to pay for everything? We have taken $1 and we paid $3 
with it. How do you do that? This entire thing is a farce.
  To take it a step further to let you know what a farce this is, when 
this bill came up in the Natural Resources Committee, I offered an 
amendment that said that if this bill results in greater greenhouse gas 
emissions, then this bill doesn't take place. It is not enacted.
  Do you know that my Democrat friends voted against it, meaning they 
want greater emissions and greenhouse gases, my environmentalist 
friends? This whole thing is a farce. This is going to result in 
greater dependence upon foreign oil imports.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Young for yielding me 
more time.
  This is going to result in greater dependence on imports of energy. 
We have seen it over and over again. We had career officials sit right 
in front of us in the Natural Resources Committee and testify that when 
you stop domestic production, that you become more dependent.
  Look upon my friend's own State of California that has become 
increasingly dependent upon oil from Saudi Arabia, increasing their 
imports of oil from Saudi Arabia. Look at our friends up in the 
northeast that had to import natural gas from Vladimir Putin's Russia 
and burn heavy heating oil to help to warm the homes in the northeast 
because they similarly cut off their energy supplies.
  This makes no sense whatsoever. We are doing it under the auspices of 
an environment that this very bill threatens.
  Mr. Chair, I urge rejection of this legislation, and rejection of 
this entire farce process.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We just heard some pretty high sanctimony about the need to listen to 
the people who actually live there. That might be convincing but for 
the fact that just yesterday, my friends voted to override the wishes 
of the people who actually live on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, the 
wishes of their Governors, their mayors, overwhelming majorities of 
their populations, who don't want to wreck their pristine coastlines 
and put their coastal economies at risk because of oil development.
  So, again, let's not pretend that this is about listening to local 
voices. This is about listening to one voice, and that is the voice of 
Big Oil.
  Let's take it back to Alaska. Even in the hotbed of oil development, 
as my friends would tell it, in the village of Kaktovik, a 2016 poll in 
that community indicated that that community itself is divided on the 
question of whether oil and gas development should proceed.
  So, again, let's not be selective or hypocritical about the voices we 
claim to care about. Certainly, the voice of Big Oil is well-
represented here today in this debate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I served 
as the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and now 
serve as the top Republican on the Energy Subcommittee.
  In those years, I helped develop, promote, and implement a North 
American energy independent plan, and it includes all of the above--
yes, renewable energy as well.
  I can remember the gas lines. I can remember paying higher prices for 
natural gas. I can remember $4 and $5 per gallon gas prices. And I can 
remember sending $1 billion every day to the Middle East.

  I smiled this last weekend when I filled up for $2.25. I smile now 
when I know that we can export rather than import oil from places that 
may not be so friendly to the United States.
  So if this bill passed, as well as the other two that passed 
yesterday and somehow became enacted into law, we have this thing 
called supply and demand. And guess what? Our consumers will pay much 
higher gas prices and we will lose out. So I would urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no.''
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleague from Alaska, 
the Dean of the House here, Mr. Young, for his strong efforts for many 
years on opening up this important piece of energy for our country and 
for our whole grid.
  It is fascinating to listen to the debate here. Every piece of land, 
everything we would ever go to develop, whether it is for a pipeline, 
for energy, for forestry, the moment somebody approaches that resource, 
these God-given resources we have all over this country, it now becomes 
this pristine, untouchable, non-usable land that we shouldn't have 
anything to do with as humankind.
  Salvage logging after a fire, oh, we can't do that. We have to sue 
over that. So we hear a lot about Big Oil.
  How about big enviro? There are a lot of people who make a lot of 
money, six-digit numbers and more, in this town, a lot of dollars that 
come in by invoking a picture of an animal who probably was a victim of 
a fire in a forest because we are not managing that.
  We have 47,000 acres of burning fire right in my district, in Plumas 
County in northern California, because we are not allowed to go out and 
manage these lands.
  Almost everybody here in this Congress that lives more than a few 
hundred miles away flew here by a jet to get to this place to do this 
session. So where is the hypocrisy being talked about with the amount 
of energy everyone uses?
  Energy has to come from somewhere, Mr. Chairman, for us to live as we 
do, to keep the lights on in this place, to keep it cool in here, to 
keep it warm in the winter--especially in the northeast where it is 
extremely cold. Oil is needed. Energy is needed.
  We need to develop it in this country. We hear: We are exporting oil. 
We are importing oil. Well, there are different types of oil for 
different types of purposes, too. You have different types of food you 
exchange for different recipes. We have different types of oil and 
different types of energy.
  Do we want to be relying or have our European allies relying on 
Iranian oil? Is that what we are asking here? Do we want them to be 
relying upon Russian natural gas in our European theater? No. We need 
to be part of that matrix, the United States. If we are an exporter or 
self-sufficient, we need to be active on this.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, we know how to ecologically do it well. This 
isn't 1850. We are not going to go out and do horrible environmental 
damage. We know how to do this right and we will be responsible. When 
that resource is done being used someday, we are going to put it back 
how it was.
  We need to develop within our own country under our own rules, 
instead of having the arrogance of relying on other countries who do it 
without rules, such as China, such as the Middle East, and others that 
don't have

[[Page H7677]]

our best interests or even the environment at heart.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy on this bill which indicates that the President's advisers would 
recommend that we veto it, even though it is unlikely that it will ever 
get to his desk.

                   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. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I also insert in the Record a letter in strong 
opposition to this bill signed by over 20 entities, including the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Energy Alliance.

                                                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 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.

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I also insert in the Record a letter of 
opposition from the Laborers' International Union of North America.


                                                       LiUNA!,

                                                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

[[Page H7678]]

     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,
                                                 Terry O'Sullivan,
                                                General President.

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record a letter from the 
president of Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, which is in strong opposition 
to this legislation.

                                   Voice of the Arctic Inupiat

                                   Point Hope, AK, March 20, 2019.
     Congressman Jared Huffman,
     Washington, DC.
       Representative Huffman, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat (VOICE) 
     strongly opposes H.R. 1146 amending Public Law 115-97 to 
     repeal the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil and gas 
     leasing program. Beyond the fact that your bill would repeal 
     an opportunity that the Inupiat people have fought for 
     decades to achieve, we are struck by the lack of knowledge 
     displayed in this legislation, which completely ignores the 
     existence of the Inupiat people, and especially the people of 
     Kaktovik. The Native Village of Kaktovik is a federally 
     recognized tribe and the Kaktovikmiut have occupied the 
     Coastal Plain for at least 11,000 years.
       The Coastal Plain is home to more than just caribou and 
     none of the Coastal Plain is wilderness. It is not a place 
     without people; it never has been--it has been continuously 
     occupied by the Inupiat people and our ancestors for 
     millennia, and we find it insulting that you fail to 
     acknowledge this history Currently, the Coastal Plain is the 
     home of a community of over 200 people. People who live, 
     hunt, fish, raise their families, and hope for a secure 
     economic future for their children. People who walk in the 
     footsteps of their ancestors all over the land that Congress, 
     without our permission, designated as the 1002 Area of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge People that you have 
     completely disregarded because they generally do not agree 
     with you. In light of this, Congressman, your concern about 
     human rights seems a bit pale.
       When we, Indigenous peoples, use terms like self-
     determination, sovereignty, economic equality, cultural 
     survival, and traditional lands, they are more than just 
     buzzwords. These are objectives that have long been denied us 
     and for which we have had to fight for generations. It is not 
     for you to ignore those ideas, nor the people fighting for 
     them, in favor of those who are more aligned with your 
     political agenda. To us, this issue goes beyond politics to 
     the very sustainability of our communities, culture, and 
     economy.
       The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act 
     undermines the wishes of those of us living closest to ANWR 
     and negates years of work by local stakeholders toward 
     ensuring a sustainable economy for the people and communities 
     of our region. We hope this letter might help you better 
     understand the realities of life in the Arctic. H.R. 1146 
     preaches a ``moral responsibility to protect this wilderness 
     heritage as an enduring resource to bequeath undisturbed to 
     future generations of Americans'', but fails to acknowledge 
     the basic needs of future generations of Arctic Inupiat. Our 
     regional government, the North Slope Borough (NSB), is 
     responsible for more territory than any other local 
     government in the nation. The NSB receives over 96% of its 
     revenue from property taxes levied on industry infrastructure 
     on the North Slope, which enables them to provide services 
     that were never accessible before in the Arctic. The Borough 
     School District provides vocational and academic education 
     for people of all ages; NSB health clinics provide modern 
     medical services to residents in even the smallest and most 
     remote of villages. The Municipal Services Department 
     operates water, sewage, and electric utilities, plows roads 
     and runways, and maintains landfills Other NSB departments 
     provide housing, police and fire protection, search and 
     rescue, and other critical services to our communities. 
     Altogether, the NSB is the single largest local employer on 
     the North Slope, employing over 63% of the workforce. These 
     benefits of modern American civilization, common in the rest 
     of the nation, have been built on the foundation of the North 
     Slope oil industry.
       It is hypocritical of you, Congressman, to stifle the 
     efforts of Kaktovik to secure jobs, a local economy, and 
     income for their community while your state makes billions of 
     dollars off the development of its own oil and gas resources. 
     If you are concerned about the impacts of resource 
     development, we suggest that you focus on your own state of 
     California, which despite its green image, produces the 
     dirtiest crude in America and has some of the largest 
     refineries on the West Coast, which in addition to refining 
     much cleaner Alaska North Slope Crude, also imports and 
     refines oil from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and 
     Angola. The message this bill sends is that you prioritize 
     the leisure whims of your California constituents above the 
     needs of the Native people of Kaktovik.
       H.R. 1146 cites climate change as one of the main drivers 
     of the bill. In reality, climate change--and the world's 
     response to it--add additional layers to existing burdens 
     that we, the Arctic's Indigenous people, are facing. We agree 
     that climate change has deeply affected our traditional 
     Inupiat ways of life. We do not agree that the solution to 
     that problem is to create more wilderness that hinders our 
     ability to provide for our people and respond to the impacts 
     that we are facing. It is unfair for you to ask that we, as 
     Indigenous peoples, carry the burden of climate change and 
     the burden of mitigation so that you can fly back and forth 
     to your home district with an easy conscience.
       Even with the services our local government provides, many 
     of the people in the Arctic live in conditions that fall 
     below acceptable standards of living, despite being citizens 
     of one of the richest countries in the world. We are 
     concerned and puzzled, then, by your focus on protecting eco-
     tourism and this idea of pristine, unspoiled wilderness--at 
     the expense of an economy to sustain our children--that rich 
     elites across America ``cherish.'' While we are certainly 
     used to this harmful narrative by now, it does not seem in 
     line with your democratic values. For our part, we do not see 
     any contradiction between developing our resources and at the 
     same time protecting our environment and wildlife. These are 
     not diverging priorities but an integral piece to balance in 
     the Arctic.
       The bill as introduced further ignores the historical and 
     cultural trauma that is a part of this land and the 
     Kaktovikmiut who inhabit it. The people of Kaktovik, in 
     recent memory, have suffered through three forced relocations 
     at the hands of the American military. Then, in 1980, the 
     federal government took 23 million acres of land--without 
     consent, consultation, nor a treaty between parties--and gave 
     the people of Kaktovik back 92,000 acres of land immediately 
     surrounding their village. A mere fraction of their 
     traditional and ancestral lands. The ``deal'' was that this 
     land was locked up, the Kaktovikmiut were unable to access 
     Native allotments, cultural sites, and subsistence areas in 
     the newly expanded Refuge in the summer months. No, they now 
     live with extreme restrictions on how they can use their own 
     lands as a result of the changes made by the federal 
     government in how the land is designated, lands that the 
     Inupiat people have been stewards over for thousands of 
     years. Do you consider these human rights violations, 
     Representative Huffman? We hope, at the very least, that this 
     does not diminish ``the integrity of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System,'' which in itself operates on the mistaken 
     Western idea that Indigenous peoples are incompetent at 
     managing their own lands.
       The views of the Inupiat who call ANWR home are frequently 
     ignored, and your bill reinforces the perception that the 
     wishes of people who live in and around the Coastal Plain are 
     less important than those who live hundreds and thousands of 
     miles away. Mr. Huffman, you do not have to tell the Inupiat 
     people, who have lived on this land for generations, the 
     importance of our homelands--we see it, we know it, we depend 
     on it, we are a part of it. We have something very important 
     in common, that often gets lost in this debate--this false 
     dichotomy of ``for'' vs. ``against'', republican vs. 
     democrat, economy vs. environment--we all share a commitment 
     to protecting this land and we would welcome the opportunity 
     to work collaboratively with you and the Gwich'in people, to 
     whom we have extended many invitations for discussion, to 
     protect this balance between responsible development and 
     environmental protections that is integral to our way of life 
     and the long-term sustainability of our culture.
       The Inupiat people have existed, and even flourished, in 
     one of the most severe climates in the world for generations. 
     We understand the balance needed to sustain our way of life 
     and our communities; this priority is currently dependent on 
     successful and safe oil and gas developments. We are 
     confident that the health of the Porcupine Caribou Herd can 
     be maintained given our success in maintaining the health of 
     three other caribou herds that migrate within our region. We 
     respectfully request that you remove your bill from 
     consideration and come visit our communities to better 
     understand the needs of our people and our communities. We 
     would welcome the opportunity.
           Taikuu,
     Sayers Tuzroyluk,
       President, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat.
     Rex A. Rock Sr.,
       Chairman.
     John Hopson Jr.,
       Vice Chairman.

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the former chairman of the committee 
and ranking member at this time.

[[Page H7679]]

  

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I was hoping the gentleman would 
insert me as well.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity of being here. We are here 
today on day two of the Democrat week of energy proposals. And once 
again, we will quote Earl Weaver when he went out to the umpire and 
said:

       Is this as good as it gets, or are you going to get better?

  I will say the same thing on this bill as we did yesterday. Is this 
as good as it gets, or are you actually going to get better?
  This is the same concept we had with the first bill that we did. We 
voted second, but we actually discussed it as the first bill yesterday, 
in which we did things that are basically illogical, not for science 
reasons. Science was essentially taken out and shoved into a trash can, 
but, actually, we did it for political reasons.
  It is signified by the amendments that the Rules Committee, 
unfortunately, made in order in which we made amendments in order to 
have all sorts of studies on the issue.
  In the real world, you would try and do a study, come up with 
results, and then come up with the policy. That is not what we did 
yesterday. We decided on a policy, and then we are going to institute a 
lot of non-comprehensive, skewed studies to try and see if we can come 
up with arguments in favor of the policy we already did. It is 
backwards.
  It is okay to do it. You have the votes to do it. That is fine. Just 
don't have the audacity to say that this administration doesn't trust 
science or that we don't trust science over here, when you also put an 
amendment in there to deny any kind of seismic research, which would 
give you the data we haven't had since the 1980s, but only some of that 
seismic data. It is a skewed approach to it.
  But the most significant issue is the one that Mr. Huffman has raised 
several times today in which he was right--slightly off center with 
it--but he is actually right.
  Yesterday, many of the arguments that were made were that the States 
and State populations in these areas want a kind of moratorium on 
drilling in their areas. I get that. Listening to those people is a 
good thing to do. But where the gentleman got it wrong, though, is that 
they weren't talking to the States who were wanting that. We are not 
talking about the areas within their States or even the water that 
abuts their States as legally theirs. They wanted the ability to 
control what happens on Federal waters, which is not part of the 
State's concept.
  Once again, if you would allow me the ability to have control of what 
happens on Federal lands in my State, in the State, we might have an 
apples-and-apples situation, but that ain't it.
  There is also the concept that there was not consultation with Native 
Americans who live in Alaska and that, once again, is actually 
inaccurate. There have been consultations going on since the gentleman 
was playing volleyball in college. And they will continue to go on from 
that side.
  In fact, that is where the difference comes. The people in Alaska who 
live there don't want this bill. And, once again, they don't want it 
because it is impacting their State, their property, their land, which 
is not what was happening yesterday, where States were trying to impact 
what was happening on Federal water.
  It was sad that when we had the hearing on this bill, the Democrats 
did not invite those residents of this area to testify. We did. And 
when they came in March to testify, the Tribal leaders from the only 
village in this coastal plain, the one that is closest to this area, 
simply said they were against this bill.
  Their exact words were: ``The Arctic Inupiat will not become 
conservation refugees. We do not approve of efforts to turn our 
homeland into one giant national park, which literally guarantees us a 
fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope for the 
future of our people.''

                              {time}  1015

  That is what they want in their area. When some of the other speakers 
said there is no consultation, that is not true.
  Mr. Young is saying exactly what the constituents want in their area. 
Even though this land is controlled by Fish and Wildlife, the mineral 
resources are not Federal. These people who are testifying that they 
don't want this bill own a majority or a significant portion of those 
mineral rights. It is their mineral rights, and they should have the 
ability to say what they want, too. They have spoken clearly year after 
year.
  That is where the difference of yesterday and today is significant, 
and the gentleman is glossing over that. That is significant.
  These people need to have the ability to control their own destiny. 
They are not trying to control something that is not within the State. 
It is their resources. It is their area.
  We have had this debate before. We had it when I first came here. It 
is going to continue on ad nauseam.
  The problem is this is not a good energy position for the future. 
What we produced yesterday as Republicans is a program that increases 
jobs, increases the economy, and makes this country stronger. The stuff 
the Democrats are putting on in their energy week is disjointed, 
discombobulated, and doesn't actually help anyone at all.
  Once again, Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Young. Trust his people on 
what they want to do with their resources--not Federal--their 
resources.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, it is important to remember that we are 
talking about a Federal wildlife refuge, America's Arctic refuge.
  Mr. Chair, you would lose sight of that, perhaps, listening to the 
pretzel logic we just heard from my friend who at the end of the day 
cannot square the selective concern for local voices when it comes to 
drilling in a Federal refuge and yet the flouting of local voices when 
it comes to drilling, in the Federal interest, the Outer Continental 
Shelf on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. The disconnect is dizzying.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette), who is one of the Members of Congress who has actually 
spent some time in the Arctic refuge.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, in 2017, with little debate, the Republican-
led Chamber quietly approved a provision to open up the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. ANWR is our Nation's largest 
wildlife refuge, and it is the ancestral home to the Gwich'in people 
and current home to more than 250 species of wildlife, including 
threatened species like polar bears that raise their cubs there.
  As the chairman said, I have traveled to this special place. I have 
met with the Gwich'in people. I saw the pristine beauty of the coastal 
plain, and I saw thousands of Porcupine caribou in their annual 
migration process. I know how important this refuge is to our entire 
ecosystem.
  Instead of protecting this important environment, this administration 
is going to open it up to drilling and allow it to be destroyed for an 
indeterminate amount of oil. Why? The American people are 
overwhelmingly opposed to this plan. They want this land preserved, not 
destroyed.
  This bill, H.R. 1146, will block the administration's disastrous plan 
and protect the refuge.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this unwarranted legislation. Like the two 
bills we debated yesterday, this bill is another attempt to hinder 
American energy dominance and our national security.
  As someone who has visited the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I 
know the support that responsible energy production in section 1002 has 
among the local population.
  Responsible energy production will provide much-needed employment 
opportunities to the local population as well as critical tax revenue 
for local government services. Not only does energy development in 
section 1002 have the support of inhabitants in the region, but it also 
has the support of our colleague, Congressman   Don Young, and Alaska's 
two Senators. In addition, the majority of Alaskans support it; every 
Alaskan Governor since 1980 has supported it; 100 percent of Alaska's 
congressional delegation since 1980 has supported it; and the Natives 
who live right there, the village of Kaktovik,

[[Page H7680]]

the Inupiat, the proper Tribe that is closest to them and the only 
Tribe within section 1002, support it.
  This bill follows a bad pattern of how Democratic members on the 
Natural Resources Committee operate. They do not care that local 
representatives and residents oppose this legislation. They believe 
that Washington, D.C., and extremist national environmental groups know 
best and everyone else should just go along with their extremism. And 
it double-crosses the tax bill passed just last year.
  Section 1002 has the potential to benefit greatly our country's 
energy security. Estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey believe 
section 1002 contains more than 12 billion barrels of oil, not to make 
mention of natural gas.
  Once again, Mr. Chair, we have an example of the other side putting 
left-wing extremism and their environmental donors ahead of local 
voices, our national security, and the needs of the American people. I 
am a firm believer in an all-of-the-above approach to responsible 
energy production and multiple use. Our public lands, like section 
1002, have nearly unlimited potential to power our country.
  Further, we can do all this while protecting the environment. Section 
1002 is a small sliver in this area, 2,000 acres, in fact.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, does the gentleman from California have the 
right to close?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to close.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, this is a sham bill. I have heard people say there was no 
consultation. There has been consultation. The gentleman from 
California has driven a wedge between two groups of Alaska Natives, one 
that lives there, resides there, and is directly affected, and the 
other one is 400 miles away. We had testimony from that group.
  By the way, I am a Gwich'in. I may not be one, but my daughters are. 
My wife was. She would turn over in her grave right now if she heard 
this nonsense about the Gwich'in.
  You invited a group in Alaska. This used to be the House of the 
people. Instead of people putting their nose in my business, I am going 
to put it in your business. I will figure out a way to do that because 
this is wrong. This has been debated for 40 years, an area set aside by 
this Congress for exploration.
  By the way, we gave the Alaska Natives who live there at Kaktovik 
70,000 acres of land for their social and economic well-being, and you 
are taking it away from them. You talk about a cultural aspect, you are 
hurting those people, and you don't care. I remember who you represent, 
and I understand that. You are a lawyer.
  To me, to have this type of bill on the floor is not only a waste of 
time for this House body but a bad thing for this Nation, but worse 
than that is going back on their word.
  I represent the whole State of Alaska. The people who live there, 
live on the Arctic slope, want this legislation, not the Gwich'in. Yes, 
they are being, very frankly, shilled and used for a sham, and that is 
a shame.
  You can be what you want to be. You can stand there holier-than-thou. 
You are doing something wrong to this Nation, the Alaska people, and 
the Alaska Native. You listen to one side.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I have a lot of respect and affection for the dean of the 
House. I am sorry that we are on opposite sides of this issue. I am 
also sorry that it seems when it comes to oil and gas development in 
the Arctic refuge, he is listening to only some of the voices in the 
Alaska community.
  Mr. Chair, this week, dozens of indigenous Gwich'in leaders flew all 
the way to Washington, D.C., as they have done many, many times over 
the years, long before I started working on this bill. They do that 
because the Arctic refuge is not simply a policy issue for them. It is 
not about energy supplies, geopolitics, profits, or scoring political 
points. It is about their entire way of life.
  Those of us on the floor today don't worry that our entire history 
and our entire culture hinge on the outcome of this vote. But for the 
people in the gallery today, the Gwich'in who are in the gallery behind 
me right now, that is exactly what is at stake.
  For those on the other side who would have us destroy this wild and 
sacred area for some petroleum profits, I would ask them this: Why now? 
Why do we need to do this now? Because once it is done, it is done. The 
coastal plain will never be the same again after the drill rigs roll 
in.
  If we wait, if we conserve, if we protect, and if we treat this 
special area with the care it deserves, then it will still be there, 
wild and undisturbed for future generations to enjoy. Or maybe my 
grandchildren will still be debating Congressman Young's great-great-
grandchildren over this same issue on this very floor.
  Do you know what? That is fine. I don't mind the debate. That is what 
this country is all about. But recklessly throwing open one of the most 
special places in this country because a few oil companies want even 
higher profits and President Trump wants a win? That is not fine. That 
is not worth it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to protect the Arctic, stand with the 
Gwich'in people, and vote ``yes'' on the Arctic Cultural and Coastal 
Plain Protection Act.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to avoid referencing 
occupants of the gallery.
  All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 116-30, modified by the amendment printed in part C of House 
Report 116-200, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
shall be considered as an original bill for 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. 1146

       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 ``Arctic Cultural and Coastal 
     Plain Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE OIL AND GAS 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 20001 of Public Law 115-97 (16 U.S.C. 3143 note) is 
     hereby repealed.

     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--

[[Page H7681]]

       ``(A) $25,300 for facilities with no wells, but with 
     processing equipment or gathering lines;
       ``(B) $40,700 for facilities with 1 to 10 wells, with any 
     combination of active or inactive wells; and
       ``(C) $75,900 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) $73,700 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of 500 feet or more; and
       ``(B) $40,700 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) $29,172 per inspection for non-rig units operating in 
     water depths of 2,500 feet or more;
       ``(B) $25,366 per inspection for non-rig units operating in 
     water depths between 500 and 2,499 feet; and
       ``(C) $9,834 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 CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part D of House Report 116-200.
  Each further amendment printed in part D of the report may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Young

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part D of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       On page 1, line 6, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Section
       On page 1, after line 7, insert the following:
       (b) Tribal Consultation Requirement.--The repeal made by 
     subsection (a) shall not take effect until--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior completes a thorough 
     consultation with the Inupiat people regarding the effect of 
     this Act on the quality of life, human rights, and future of 
     the Inupiat people; and
       (2) by formal action Kaktovic Village approves of such 
     repeal.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, we discussed before that this bill was written 
by the gentleman from California. It only impacts Alaska and impacts it 
only, and I am the only Congressman. I strongly oppose this 
legislation.
  My amendment, very frankly, was to try to solve one of the problems, 
the lack of consultation with the people in Kaktovik, the Inuits, and 
only listen to one side, the Gwich'in.
  This amendment says, yes, they will have to consult with the Inuits, 
and they have to consult with the people of Kaktovik, and it would 
require them to understand that if they didn't agree with it, very 
frankly, this would not go forth.
  It is a good amendment. If the gentleman says this is culturally 
real, you have to listen to both sides. You have divided us. This 
amendment solves that problem.
  Adopt this amendment and make this bill a little bit better but not 
totally good.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, this amendment is a stall 
tactic to delay the bill's protections for the Arctic refuge from 
taking effect until the Secretary of the Interior--a walking conflict 
of interest who became the subject of investigations into ethical 
violations just 4 days into his job--has conducted a ``consultation'' 
process and received formal action from one village, the village of 
Kaktovik. I wish that same concern for Native American community 
consultation had existed before the Republican tax bill was amended to 
insert this drilling mandate without any consultation with Native 
American Tribes, certainly not the Gwich'in people who may technically 
live a little further away from the drilling area, but we are talking 
about people who for millennia have depended on the Porcupine caribou 
herd that absolutely depends on this pristine beating heart of 
America's Arctic refuge.

                              {time}  1030

  So again, we are cherry-picking, I am afraid, which voices matter, 
which voices get to be listened to, and certainly putting this 
Secretary of the Interior in charge of that process would be a cruel 
joke.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG. Again, might I may say, Mr. Chairman, this bill has been 
debated. It passed out of this House 14 times--14 times--with 
consultation.
  And with all due respect to my friend from Gwich'in, I would like to 
take a count of the caribou they have harvested in this last year and 
the year before. It is a very small number. The people who live there, 
right on the shores and with them, are saying this is okay.
  We developed Prudhoe Bay. We have more caribou now than we have ever 
had.
  This is, again, a sham. It is such a dishonest presentation of 
something that is not fact at all. But, again, in society, people can 
do that. I understand that.
  But we ought to understand one thing: This bill should never have 
came to the floor.
  Number two, it is not the first time. There was consultation. We did 
pass it--again, 14 times--out of this House, even when you were in 
control, and now it is the wrong thing to do. The Senate didn't pass 
the bill once, and Bill Clinton beat it to death.
  So I am just saying, again--not much use talking about it much more--
that we can go ahead and vote on this today, but this amendment solves 
one of the problems: true consultation with two groups of individual 
Alaska Natives, both having some say in it, one totally not listened to 
because you have never asked them, and that is an unfortunate thing.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, let's do be careful about the facts.
  More caribou than we have ever had before? That is certainly the case 
for the Porcupine caribou herd, precisely because it has had the 
benefit of the wilderness management of the coastal plain of the Arctic 
Refuge so critical to its migratory pattern and its calving.
  Throughout the rest of the Arctic, caribou are in real trouble. Herds 
are declining, and a very recent study has confirmed that. So let's 
take note of the fact that we have one place where caribou are 
thriving. Let's not wreck that place with oil and gas development.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland), 
chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
  Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As 
a 35th-generation American, it is well known that I am deeply committed 
to ensuring proper consultation with Indian Tribes about Federal 
policies and laws that impact them.
  But this amendment isn't really about Tribal consultation. If it 
were, Republicans would have insisted on this provision before the 
Arctic Refuge was added to the tax bill and opened up for drilling. And 
they would also be insisting on consultation with all Tribes, including 
the Gwich'in people, who get sustenance from the Porcupine caribou

[[Page H7682]]

herd that will be directly impacted by drilling on the coastal plain.
  Just because certain Alaska Natives don't ``live there'' doesn't mean 
they don't have ancestral ties to the land. And, in fact, this land is 
imperative to their present and future existence. The real purpose of 
this amendment is to delay protecting the refuge until this 
administration is able to give it away to oil and gas companies, when 
it will be too late.
  If we stop the leasing process first, I would fully support a 
thorough consultation with the Inupiat and Gwich'in people and would 
look for ways to improve the quality of life of the people of Kaktovik 
without drilling the Arctic Refuge. We can't drill first and ask 
questions later, because there is no going back.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I am urging a ``yes'' vote on this amendment 
and ``no'' on the legislation itself.
  And, again, I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) has 
done a great disservice to the people of Alaska, especially the 
natives. He has divided us, and that is not right.
  The floor of this House has divided a culture, different cultures, 
Alaska Natives, and it is for that I am deeply regretful. It shows what 
you can do when you interfere with other people's districts.
  This House used to be a House of the people. Now it is a House of 
what? What have they done in 2 years? Nothing.
  Now they are trying to undo what was done legitimately in 40 years. 
And so I understand it. You have the votes. I understand that. It is 
not going to become law. I hope you understand that.
  And we are going to have a sale--I hope you understand that--and then 
my people that I represent will, in fact, get their just due. I know 
that.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this amendment is a delay 
tactic to ensure that the current administration will lock in a lease 
sale before protections can go into place or before they are finally 
run out of office.
  It does not require consultation with the Gwich'in people, many of 
whom are here today. These are the folks who consider the coastal 
plains sacred. They have relied on the Porcupine caribou since time 
immemorial for their cultural, spiritual, and physical sustenance, as 
well as food security.
  There was no demand for Tribal consultation prior to this little 
provision being slipped in to the tax giveaway in the previous 
Congress. What we are hearing today is a very selective interest in 
consultation that would place the entire process in the hands of a 
Department of the Interior whose only interest is serving the interests 
of big oil.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and 
``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part D of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of 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 Secretary 
     of Labor, finds that the repeal under section 2 will not 
     adversely affect jobs available to Native Americans, other 
     minorities and women.

  The 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.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, 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 anti-energy moratorium in the bill will not 
kill a substantial number of Tribal, minority, and women jobs.
  We heard arguments from 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. Tell the opponents of 
this amendment to tell that to the 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 these jobs don't matter.
  Tell those local Tribe members, the Inupiat, the only Tribe within 
the 1002 section who want these jobs, whose prosperity comes to their 
community with these jobs, that these economic benefits don't matter.
  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, which was set in 
May of 2018.
  According to a recent report by The Washington Post, a bastion of 
conservative dictation, nearly 90 percent of the jobs added under this 
administration have 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 and 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, $90,000 and above, that hardworking 
families depend on. This legislation puts these employment 
opportunities and associated economic benefits at risk.
  America's energy renaissance has boosted the economies of previously 
left-behind towns in areas and sections of this country and has turned 
them into vibrant communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment, protects minority 
Tribal members and women jobs, and puts the interests of the American 
workforce first.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I am sorry to say, is 
another delay tactic in order to buy this administration more time to 
jam through a lease sale.
  We know that former Assistant Secretary Joe Balash said earlier this 
year that the leased sale will happen in 2019 and that the 
administration is running over all opposition in order to make that 
happen, ignoring concerns of wildlife biologists about impacts from 
seismic testing and oil development itself.
  Now, I said ``former Assistant Secretary'' when I referred to Mr. 
Balash, because he left the Department of the Interior. Just days ago, 
he was a top official--remember--pushing for drilling in the Arctic 
Refuge, and he left to take a job with an oil company that stands to 
profit from the Trump administration's oil giveaway bonanza.
  You can't make this stuff up, folks. Anyone who thought Teapot Dome 
was the high watermark of corruption at the Department of the Interior 
I hope is paying attention to the incredible craven levels of 
corruption that we are seeing today. These are the folks who this 
amendment would entrust with the authority to call the shots on whether 
drilling should proceed.
  Unfortunately, this is not a serious proposal. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, how offensive. How offensive that argument, 
particularly when you look at the Department of Labor. Hardly a bastion 
in regards to the corruptness, at least in this administration.

[[Page H7683]]

  Amazing. Amazing that jobs that we see the empowerment of people, 
taking them away from the victims, victimhood, that Democrats so 
desperately need, particularly, the Native Americans who are empowered 
right here with the money and the jobs to lift them out from the 
poverty that they actually see.
  Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
  So it seems to me that when you start looking at this application in 
consultation with the Department of Labor, makes a big, big difference.
  Now, when you look at this, American oil and gas production is nearly 
responsible for 10 million jobs. That is a huge amount of sector. And 
we discussed earlier that 90 percent of these jobs in this sector are 
going to women and minorities. That is a fabulous number. That is the 
American Dream.
  This is a commonsense application that Congress has got to get used 
to to understand the ramifications, the true ramifications of our 
intent.
  Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to vote for this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, the impacts on jobs for Native Americans, for minorities, 
for women, this should not be used as a pretext for more oil and gas 
drilling, especially in a pristine place like the Arctic Refuge. These 
are frontline communities that often bear the brunt of pollution and 
environmental justice impact. And it is deeply cynical to try to 
suggest that their interest would be a reason to push for more drilling 
in a place like the Arctic Refuge.

  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to work on jobs and the economic 
interest of these communities, we have got a lot to work together on, 
but we should do that in a way that looks to the future.
  Squeezing a little more fossil fuel out of a special place like the 
Arctic Refuge is not the future. Developing clean renewable energy 
resources absolutely is the future. I hope some day we can get to the 
point of working together to create great, well-paying jobs in those 
future interests instead of trying to look backward to the era of 
fossil fuels, which I hope we can bring to an end as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part D of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of 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 Secretary 
     of Labor, finds that the repeal under section 2 will not 
     adversely affect Caribou herd populations.

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

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

  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman of 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
  The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The modified amendment allows section 2 of the bill to go into effect 
when the DOI, in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
certifies that section 2 of the bill will not harm the caribou herd 
population.
  It has been proven that, over time, the caribou herds of the North 
Slope can coexist and even thrive with energy development that takes 
place there.
  Many of my Republican colleagues and Members of the Western Caucus 
have seen this firsthand. We have seen the great lengths that industry 
and regional governments, Alaska Natives and others have gone through 
to protect the caribou.

                              {time}  1045

  In March of this year, the Tribal administrator of the Native village 
testified: ``Through the use of science and traditional knowledge, best 
practices have been implemented to reduce or avoid impacts; such as, 
adequate pipeline height to not impede migrating caribou, sufficient 
distance between pipeline and road to avoid deterring crossing caribou, 
specifications on road height and slope, thoughtful design on road 
placement to avoid funneling migrating caribou, aircraft altitude 
guidelines, time-area closures, and other restrictions on operations.
  ``These safeguards have worked to protect caribou across the North 
Slope, and we are confident that, through coordination with the people 
of Kaktovik, these mechanisms can be successfully applied to oil and 
gas programs in the coastal plain.''
  In fact, I have seen that the pipelines that go through the area 
occupied by the caribou herd are now 10 to 15 feet in the air, allowing 
the herds to easily pass underneath them to facilitate migration and 
breeding. And this was done voluntarily, at the industry's expense.
  Statistics have shown that the caribou herds that inhabit areas in 
and around areas where oil and gas production is taking place have 
actually grown in size; whereas, herds that have inhabited areas where 
no oil and gas activity has taken place have actually declined.
  Yes, we have heard the false narrative from the other side today and 
over the years that caribou populations are declining and oil and gas 
production is to blame. That is simply not true.
  For example, the Porcupine herd located within the proposed 
development has fluctuated greatly, even without the oil and gas 
development taking place. From 1989 to 2001, the Porcupine herd 
population decreased by nearly one third, even while no oil and gas 
production was taking place on the lands they inhabited.
  This stands in stark contrast with the central Arctic caribou herd 
which inhabits lands adjacent to ANWR, where oil and gas development 
takes place.
  The central Arctic herd grew from 5,000 caribou in 1975, about the 
time development began, to almost 32,000 in 2002.
  In short, oil and gas production has proven to be good for the 
central Arctic caribou herd, and breeding caribou have even been found 
to migrate toward the pipelines due to the heat they put off.
  The other side uses the caribou herds that live in the ANWR region as 
political pawns to try and prevent energy development in the area.
  Again, statistics show that the caribou herd populations can benefit 
with responsible oil and gas development.
  This amendment challenges the false narrative that has clearly been 
dis-proven with the population explosion of the central Arctic caribou 
herd in oil-and-gas-producing areas.
  Further, this commonsense amendment provides further protection for 
caribou herds by ensuring this bill won't negatively impact these 
populations.
  Mr. Chair, I urge everybody to vote for this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, this is, unfortunately, another delay tactic 
intended to enable this administration to

[[Page H7684]]

rush through oil lease sales in the Arctic refuge.
  And now I am afraid my friends across the aisle are really 
stretching. This argument that oil development is good for caribou is 
something we have heard before. It has been debunked every single time 
we hear it.
  But, if you really want to see the craven nature of this proposal, 
focus on the fact that the person who would make the decision, who 
would strike that balance between oil drilling and caribou protection, 
is none other than the Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt, an 
oil and gas lobbyist who temporarily left the payroll of the oil and 
gas industry for a little time in public service and has never stopped 
representing their interests. And we all know that, a year and a half 
from now, he will be right back on Big Oil's payroll.
  So this is not a serious argument. This is a delay tactic.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, once again, we are going to debunk the flawed 
science that the other side looks at.
  Mr. Chair, I have two different articles that have been peer 
reviewed, and I include them in the Record.

            Caribou Calves and Oil Development--Do They Mix?

                           (By Patti Harper)

       One thing's certain about day-old caribou calves. ``They 
     are incredibly cute,'' says Steve Arthur, a biologist with 
     the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Fairbanks.
       Arthur and his research partner, Patricia Del Vechhio, have 
     gotten up close and personal with newborn calves of the 
     Central Arctic caribou herd each June since 2001, in an 
     effort to address an important question: What is the effect 
     of oil field development on wildlife?
       Arthur says data they have collected suggest that when cows 
     are displaced from preferred calving areas, their calves are 
     smaller at birth and may not grow as fast or survive as well. 
     It's an important finding because some of the calving and 
     summer ranges of the Central Arctic caribou herd overlap 
     areas of oil development on Alaska's North Slope.
       The herd's size increased from approximately 5,000 caribou 
     in 1975, about the time development began, to almost 32,000 
     in 2002. But Arthur says no easy answer can be gleaned about 
     whether development has affected the herd from looking at 
     changes in the overall number of caribou, because many 
     factors affect growth or decline of caribou populations. 
     Previous researchers have drawn contradictory and 
     controversial conclusions about whether and how much caribou 
     are affected, he said.
       When the study started, the Alaska Department of Fish and 
     Game (ADF&G) and other management agencies had been 
     encouraging oil field developers to minimize impacts and 
     activities in calving areas, but wanted better data. ``My 
     interest is in trying to cut through some of the 
     controversial aspects of some of the previous work that has 
     been done and come up with something concrete and 
     measurable,'' Arthur said. The goal has been to identify and 
     measure the mechanisms through which development disturbance 
     might affect the caribou population, such as by reducing body 
     condition, reproductive success or calf survival.
       The Bureau of Land Management and ConocoPhillips 
     contributed major funding for the project, and the National 
     Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also provided 
     support.
       Arthur and his team spent five years measuring calves, and 
     radiotracking cows and calves, to learn more about such 
     things as preferred calving areas, feeding ranges, and calf 
     survival. Each year, they captured 60 to 65 calves during the 
     two-week calving season in June, fitted them with radio 
     collars, weighed them and measured metatarsus (lower leg 
     bone) length. These calves were then located by radio signal 
     every two weeks through October, and the following March and 
     June, to find out how many calves survived. Calves were 
     captured, weighed and measured when they were three and nine 
     months old. Over the course of the study, 58 cows were fitted 
     with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars that provided 
     locations for them every five hours from May through October, 
     and every two days from November through April.
       The work was exciting, but it wasn't easy. The team had to 
     hope for good flying weather during what could be a somewhat 
     wintry and blustery June. It was important, Arthur says, to 
     measure calves within a couple of days of their birth. Having 
     some older than others would make it difficult to compare 
     data. Also, at three days old, calves can run pretty fast, 
     making them difficult to catch. The newborns were caught by 
     hand--the helicopter landed, Arthur or Del Vecchio jumped 
     out, grabbed a calf, collared and measured it, and then left 
     as quickly as possible so its mother, watching from nearby, 
     could return.
       Netting rather than drug-darting was used to capture older 
     caribou because animals from the herd are an important food 
     source for residents of the area. Skilled net-gunners leaned 
     from low-flying helicopters to release the nets. Caribou 
     caught in the nets were then hobbled and blindfolded to calm 
     them and again, the process of collaring, weighing and 
     measuring took just a few minutes before the caribou were 
     released.
       In their recently published interim research technical 
     report, ``Effects of Oil Field Development on Calf Production 
     and Survival in the Central Arctic Herd,'' Arthur and Del 
     Vecchio compare what happened to calves that were born in two 
     different calving areas, an area that is in a mostly 
     undeveloped area east of Prudhoe Bay, and an area west of 
     Prudhoe Bay that has seen increasing development since the 
     late 1980s. In the western area, calving has shifted south 
     since development began, though the researchers point out 
     that it is unclear if the shift resulted from development, 
     increased herd size, or other factors.
       The researchers found that newborns from the western area 
     on average weighed a little less and were slightly smaller 
     than those from the eastern area, and that these differences 
     persisted through at least the first nine months of life. 
     They also found that calves that were heavier in September 
     were more likely to survive the following winter. However, 
     statistically, survival rates did not differ between the 
     areas--depending on the year, 53 to 87 percent of calves that 
     were alive at the end of the calving period survived to the 
     end of their first year. The researchers say it is hard to 
     detect small differences in survival rates, and other 
     research has shown that small differences can have 
     significant effects on caribou population trends.
       Arthur and Del Vecchio conclude that the differences in 
     size and mass of calves may be largely influenced by the 
     quality of habitat and forage available to cows during the 
     calving period. ``Thus, displacement of caribou cows from 
     preferred calving habitats may reduce fitness and survival of 
     calves,'' they wrote.
       As oil exploration and production continue, the approach 
     set out in this research may help to provide solid answers to 
     the question of whether development does or does not 
     adversely affect caribou populations. Arthur and Del Vecchio 
     explain it this way in their interim report: ``If further 
     increases in levels of anthropogenic disturbance cause 
     caribou to reduce their use of preferred habitats, it should 
     be possible to detect effects of these changes by measuring 
     birth weights and growth rates of calves. If similar changes 
     do not occur in less-disturbed areas, then this may be taken 
     as evidence of possible effects of disturbance.''
       Del Vecchio is headed back to the field this June to take 
     final measurements on calves born in 2006, and to recover 
     radio collars used in the study. Then, she and Arthur will 
     take another look at the data and write their final report.
       The study collected lots of data. So, when they're finished 
     with the project report, Arthur, Del Vecchio and others will 
     look at other ways to use that data. Arthur says the 
     techniques to analyze GPS data have not kept up with the 
     ability to gather it, so they may be developing new 
     techniques. They hope to look more closely at where caribou 
     move and what habitat they use in relation to oil field 
     infrastructure.
       Dave Yokel, wildlife biologist with the Bureau of Land 
     Management, said he's looking forward to that sort of 
     analysis. ``We hope we can use the results to mitigate any 
     impacts on the Teshepuk (caribou) herd from development in 
     the NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve Alaska),'' he said. To 
     do that, the BLM needs to know more about the impacts on 
     caribou of movement through infrastructure.
       Looking back over his experiences in the field, Arthur says 
     he is struck by the resilience of the calves. ``The thing 
     that impresses me is how these little calves are so helpless 
     and weak and they're born in these really harsh conditions--
     and yet most of these little guys still make it.'',
                                  ____


                   [From the ANWR Information Brief]

                      Do the Caribou Really Care?

       Are caribou affected by oil development on the North Slope? 
     It would appear not, based on the growing population of herds 
     that use land in the existing oil fields in northern Alaska. 
     The population of the Central Arctic caribou herd, which 
     migrates north each summer into the oil fields near Prudhoe 
     Bay, has been growing about 8.5 percent per year. Alaska 
     Dept. of Fish and Game biologists counted 31,857 caribou in 
     aerial surveys of this herd in July 2002. In July 2000, fish 
     and game biologists counted 27,128. In 1997, the count was 
     19,730.
       Caribou herd populations rise and fall with natural cycles, 
     but one explanation biologists have for the increasing 
     population of the Central Arctic Herd is good calf production 
     and survival, and high survival of adults.
       Pregnant caribou cows in the Central Arctic herd bear their 
     calves on lands within or near operating oil fields. Some 
     calves are born within a few hundred meters of oil field 
     roads.
       The Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game findings are backed by 
     the Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne found no evidence 
     that oil development harmed the Central Arctic Herd in the 
     lab's work on the Environmental Impact Statement for an 
     extension of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System federal right-
     of-way.

[[Page H7685]]

  



                          Arctic caribou herds

       Caribou herds rise and fall in natural cycles, and it is 
     interesting that while populations have been rising in the 
     Central Arctic Herd (see chart) which use lands in the North 
     Slope oilfields, populations have been declining in the 
     Porcupine herd (see chart) which do not use lands where there 
     is oil and gas development. The Central Arctic Herd increased 
     to 32,000 animals in 2002, up from 27,000 in 2000. The 
     Porcupine herd was estimated at 123,000 in 2001, 129,000 in 
     1998 and 152,000 in 1994. In 1989, the population was counted 
     at 178,000. Most recent survey taken in 2002.


                Central Arctic, Porcupine caribou mingle

       There is now evidence that caribou mix between all of the 
     North Slope caribou herds, the Porcupine, Central Arctic and 
     Western Arctic herds. Using analysis of DNA, researchers from 
     the University of Alaska, Texas A&M University and the U.S. 
     Dept. of Agriculture found that caribou in the three herds 
     are genetically related. This reflects migration of animals 
     between the herds over many generations.


                      The truth on Arctic Caribou

       Caribou use of the 1002 Area of ANWR varies dramatically 
     from year to year. In 1995, 92% of the Porcupine Caribou Herd 
     used this area to calve. In 2000 none did so.
       In some years, the Porcupine Herd calves only in Canada.
       Choice of calving area depends on snow melt and early 
     growth of forage plants.
       Caribou live a boom and bust cycle, due to predation, 
     weather, and overhunting.
       During the summer, caribou frequently use oil field roads 
     and gravel pads as insect relief habitat: they stand on the 
     elevated gravel pads because fewer mosquitoes and flies 
     harass them there.
       North slope oil facilities are specifically designed to 
     allow caribou migration with elevated pipes to allow caribou 
     to freely walk underneath and limited use of service roads.
       With 30 years of contact with oil development to go by, the 
     industry has shown that caribou and oil fields can 
     successfully co-exist. The Central Arctic Herd, which calves 
     in the vicinity of the Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, and Milne Point 
     oil fields, has increased 900% from an estimated 3,000 
     animals in the early 1970s to 32,000 in 2002.


                              ANWR Facts:

       Refuge totals 19.6 million acres.
       8 million acres designated Wilderness;
       Coastal Plain, 1.5 million acres, set aside by Congress for 
     study of oil potential;
       Only a small percentage of Coastal plain, about 2,000 
     acres, would be impacted by oil development;


            The coastal plain is not a pristine wilderness:

       About 40 guide outfits offer hunting and recreation 
     services in the coastal plain; A community, Kaktovik, exists 
     in the Coastal Plain; Military installations operate on the 
     Plain now and in the past.

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, once again, we see the caribou herds that have 
been associated with oil and gas drilling actually expanding from 5,000 
to 32,000.
  Facts are hard to come by when they don't benefit you in the 
discussion. It is simply untrue what they have been trying to narrate 
in this respect.
  This truly shows that you can work hand in hand, being 
environmentally friendly and having energy independence, empowering 
local communities and Tribes, looking at this in a comprehensive 
fashion.
  This is a commonsense amendment. This is not about delay. This is 
about proper orientation, whether it be jobs associated with it or 
whether it be the numbers of critical habitat and numbers of 
populations within that critical habitat.
  The facts just don't stand up for the other side.
  Mr. Chair, once again, this is a very good amendment. Once again, 
when we want to start talking about facts, facts that are exploited by 
the other side that are truly false, we have to start looking at, 
didactically, the facts.
  When a herd goes from 5,000 caribou to 32,000 when it is associated 
with oil and gas drilling in that area, where a herd declines by one 
third where there is no drilling there, there has got to be some kind 
of a prospect here.
  Heat doesn't just rise. It is associated with the protection.
  So, when you start looking at what industry and the individuals have 
done to promote these herds, this is a stellar amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I hope that everybody votes for this, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, well, again, this canard that oil and gas 
drilling is good for caribou is right out of the ``thank you for 
smoking'' playbook. It is just not true.
  And rather than subscribe to these alternative facts, we need look no 
further than the latest credible science that we have--it is from the 
2018 Arctic Report Card--which found that caribou populations across 
the Arctic have actually declined by 56 percent over the last two 
decades. Yet, there is one exception to that trend, and that is the 
Porcupine caribou herd, which has shown strength.
  This is good news. It shows the importance of the National Wildlife 
Refuge system and the wisdom of protecting this area in the first 
place.
  There is one place in the Arctic where caribou are thriving. It is a 
place where we haven't done oil and gas development.
  Let's not wreck the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge. If we care 
about caribou, then, by all means, absolutely vote ``no'' on this 
amendment and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part D of House Report 116-200 on 
which further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Young of Alaska.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 3, as modified, by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in the series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Young

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 230, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 526]

                               AYES--193

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     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)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry

[[Page H7686]]


     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     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 (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     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
     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
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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
     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
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Abraham
     Castro (TX)
     Clyburn
     Collins (NY)
     Correa
     Cummings
     Duffy
     Gabbard
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yoho

                              {time}  1119

  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ and Mr. TED LIEU of California changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LONG changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 237, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               AYES--184

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     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
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     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
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     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
     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
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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
     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
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Abraham
     Beyer
     Castro (TX)
     Clyburn
     Collins (NY)
     Correa
     Cummings
     Duffy
     Gabbard
     Huizenga
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Rice (NY)
     Turner
     Wilson (FL)
     Yoho

[[Page H7687]]


  



                       Announcement by the Chair

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

                              {time}  1126

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 3, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment, as modified.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 237, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 528]

                               AYES--187

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     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
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Steil
     Steube
     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
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     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
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     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
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     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--14

     Abraham
     Castro (TX)
     Clyburn
     Collins (NY)
     Correa
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Harder (CA)
     Huizenga
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Rice (NY)
     Yoho

                              {time}  1133

  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 528.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Butterfield). There being no further 
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Casten of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Butterfield, 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. 1146) to amend Public Law 115-97 (commonly known as the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act) to repeal the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas 
program, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 548, 
he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CURTIS. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Curtis moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1146, to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 2 of this Act shall take effect on the date the 
     President certifies that the enactment of this Act will not 
     result in a net increase of Russian oil and gas imports into 
     the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, we are all familiar with the famous line 
from Thomas Jefferson, ``The government closest to the people serves 
the people best.'' So how is it that we are here today considering a 
bill that has been opposed by every member of the Alaskan delegation 
since 1980? Not just the Alaskan delegation, but every Governor of 
Alaska since 1980 and even the gubernatorial candidates last year, two 
Republicans, an independent, and a Democrat, opposed this bill.

[[Page H7688]]

  This week, many of my friends across the aisle sought to protect 
their coastlines by banning offshore energy development. They know what 
is best in their States. Apparently, the same standard of local control 
does not apply to Mr. Young, who is the only person in this body 
elected by the residents of Alaska.
  Not only is this bill opposed by the entire Alaskan delegation, it is 
opposed by the local Alaska Native population and written without their 
consultation.
  As a Member who represents Bears Ears, I hear from my colleagues all 
the time how important it is to have Native American consultation, and 
they are right. However, with local Alaska Native opposition to this 
bill and no consultation, there seems to be a double standard.
  In fact, just 3 days ago, I sat in a hearing where BLM was criticized 
for not working with the Native population. They held 11 hearings, 7 
listening sessions--apparently, not enough.
  Unless I missed 18 trips of my colleagues to Alaska, we are working 
with a double standard.
  Those of you from States with very little Federal ownership have a 
difficult time understanding what it is like being from a State or 
county with 90 percent Federal ownership. Imagine being a local elected 
official maintaining roads, police, fire, sewers, and parks when only 
10 percent of your property generates property tax.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Young and the native Alaskans, not the 
rest of us, should be determining the fate of Alaska.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the argument that this development will 
contribute to climate change. Really? I am listening. This is one 
Republican who believes the climate is changing and man is influencing 
it, but I am baffled why so many of my colleagues will give a pass to a 
human rights-violating dictator in China and deny the local native 
Alaskans the right to have a living off the land.
  If we were serious about climate change, I have an idea. Let's take 
all the natural gas we are putting back into the ground in ANWR and 
send it to China and India. We would do more to reduce global carbon 
emissions than by implementing the entire Green New Deal.
  I have heard the term ``science denier'' tossed around, but I ask, 
who is denying science the most? Those who ignore 85 percent of carbon 
coming from outside the United States, or those who think that 
impacting 0.01 percent of ANWR will destroy the Alaskan environment?
  Let's put this in perspective. ANWR is less than 5 percent of Alaska. 
This project is less than 0.01 percent of ANWR. For perspective, that 
is like taking a janitorial closet in the Capitol of 175 feet and 
putting HVAC in it to keep us warm and cool. That is the perspective.
  When the other side is ready to fight climate change, Republicans 
stand ready. This is not one of those times.
  To start, my friend   Greg Walden and his colleagues on the Energy 
and Commerce Committee seem to have the ability to generate a bill 
almost daily that would truly impact the true problems with climate 
change.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit will prevent the bill from 
taking effect until the President certifies that it will not result in 
a net increase of Russian oil and gas imports into the United States.
  The answer to climate change is not making the U.S. more reliant on 
foreign fossil fuels. A vote for this MTR is a vote to support local 
Alaska Natives.
  I repeat, the answer to climate change is not making the U.S. more 
reliant on foreign fossil fuels. The last time I checked, Ryan Zinke 
was the only one riding a horse.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the motion to recommit, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, for those who have flights to catch and 
would like to get out of here, I think I have some good news. I think 
we can keep this pretty short and pretty simple because this is a very 
simple bill. It reflects the proposition that there are some places 
that are simply too special, that are too unique, that are too 
environmentally vital, and that are too sacred to indigenous people to 
wreck them with oil and gas development. Surely, that is something that 
most Americans and even most people in this body, regardless of their 
party, could agree upon.
  In fact, we saw bipartisan votes yesterday that reflected the same 
proposition that the pristine coasts of the Atlantic, the Lowcountry in 
South Carolina, and the beautiful California coast are places too 
special to wreck them with new oil and gas development. If my 
colleagues believe in this simple proposition, then, surely, it must 
apply to America's largest wildlife refuge and to the beating 
biological heart of that refuge, the coastal plain of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. That is the simple thing that this bill is 
all about.
  Unfortunately, this motion to recommit is an attempt to distract us 
from that, to delay protections against this drilling, so that this 
administration can rush a lease plan forward. Frankly, by that time, it 
is too late. You can't go backward once you open a place like this up 
to drilling.
  Now, my friends' concern for the local voices, some of whom in Alaska 
want to see drilling, would be a lot more persuasive if, yesterday, we 
hadn't had a vote where my friends across the aisle thumbed their nose 
at the local voices in California, South Carolina, Florida, and other 
places that don't want offshore drilling. So let's be consistent about 
what local voices matter, and let's acknowledge the reality that the 
only voice they really are hearing is that of Big Oil.
  The truth is that this bill will not affect or impact our role in 
global energy markets in the slightest. The minority seems to believe 
that we can provide enough oil, if we just drill everywhere, to let 
everyone in the world break free of Russian gas or Saudi Arabian oil.
  The truth is that we are, right now, the largest oil producer in the 
world. We produce over 12 million barrels of crude oil every single 
day, and we are not going to be able to corner the market. I certainly 
don't think, in light of that fact, that we should put at risk 
America's coastal jobs or our biggest wildlife refuge in the Arctic 
under this misguided notion of so-called energy dominance.
  Now, I want to just close with two things. First, for those who may 
still have some fiscal sensibility, I think there are still a few in 
this House who would like to talk about fiscal issues. Last week, 
Taxpayers for Common Sense said in an op-ed: ``Drilling in the Arctic 
Refuge will be difficult and costs from mistakes high. Right now, oil 
and gas is plentiful and prices are low, so this isn't the time to 
develop marginal areas. It's not like the oil is going away. So without 
huge returns, this action will put taxpayers on the hook for a lot of 
risk with little potential reward. In the current fiscal and energy 
climate, if drilling proposals in the Arctic Refuge move forward, the 
joke's on us.''
  Let the joke not be on us, colleagues.
  Finally, I want to close by pointing out that there are some people 
who have traveled thousands of miles to be with us today, all the way 
from Alaska, the Gwich'in people, an indigenous community that since 
time immemorial have depended on the Porcupine caribou herd and its 
migratory route and its calving grounds that are absolutely in the 
heart of the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. Many of them are here 
today.
  And, ladies and gentlemen, none of us here on this floor have to 
worry about what our ancestors and what our family depend on for our 
way of life, for our culture, for what is sacred for them, depending on 
the outcome of this vote. For Gwich'in people, that is exactly what is 
at stake.
  So, colleagues, let's do the right thing for the environment. Let's 
recognize that some places are too special to wreck with oil and gas 
drilling. Let's do right by the Gwich'in people. Vote ``no'' on this 
motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

[[Page H7689]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189, 
nays 229, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 529]

                               YEAS--189

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     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
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     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
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--229

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amash
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     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 (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     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
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     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
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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
     Speier
     Stanton
     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--14

     Abraham
     Castro (TX)
     Clyburn
     Collins (NY)
     Correa
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Huizenga
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McEachin
     Rice (NY)
     Yoho

                              {time}  1154

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 529.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 193, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 530]

                               AYES--225

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     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 (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     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
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     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
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stefanik
     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
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--193

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa

[[Page H7690]]


     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Abraham
     Baird
     Castro (TX)
     Clyburn
     Collins (NY)
     Correa
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Huizenga
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Rice (NY)
     Yoho

                              {time}  1202

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VELA. Mr. Speaker, at the end of a long vote series today, I 
unintentionally voted nay for H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural and 
Coastal Plan Protection Act, on rollcall number 530. Had I been able to 
correct my vote at that time, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent from 
votes on Thursday September 12, 2019. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 526; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 527; ``nay'' 
on rollcall No. 528; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 529; and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 530.

                          ____________________