[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.
____________________