[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6702-6719]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              RESTARTING AMERICAN OFFSHORE LEASING NOW ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scalise). Pursuant to House Resolution 
245 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. 1230.

                              {time}  1106


                     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. 1230) to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain 
offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the national average price of gasoline has gone up 10 
cents in just the last week, and is now about 1\1/2\ cents nationally 
from $4 a gallon. By comparison, the price was $1.84 a gallon when 
President Obama was sworn into office.
  In my home district in Central Washington last week, I heard from 
farmers, the foundation of our region's economy, who are finding it 
harder and harder to pay these high energy prices. And I have no doubt 
that my colleagues from other parts of the country have heard similar 
stories from their constituents.
  The pain being felt today has been exacerbated by the actions of this 
administration, this administration which, for the past 2 years, has 
repeatedly blocked, hindered, and raised the cost to access to our 
American energy resources.
  The House Natural Resources Committee recently passed three bills, 
H.R.

[[Page 6703]]

1229, 1230, and 1231, with bipartisan support, all of which reverse 
specific actions taken by the Obama administration to block offshore 
energy production. These bills will increase American energy 
production. They will create jobs, and they will lower energy prices. 
These are the first of an array of bills that will be introduced by our 
committee as part of the American energy initiative that will focus on 
expanding renewable energy, onshore production, hydropower, coal, 
critical minerals, and address offshore drilling revenue sharing and 
other needed reforms.
  Today we are debating H.R. 1230, the Restarting America Offshore 
Leasing Now Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and 
offshore Virginia that have been delayed or canceled by this 
administration.

                              {time}  1110

  The Virginia lease sale, for example, was scheduled to happen this 
year; but due to the Obama administration actions, the earliest this 
lease sale could occur is now 2017.
  This bill will create thousands of jobs and, according to CBO, it 
will generate $40 million in new revenue to the Federal Government over 
the next 10 years.
  I will note that very soon after this bill passed out of committee, 
with bipartisan support, the Obama administration announced that it 
would move forward on one gulf lease sale. Prior to this sudden action, 
the Obama administration was on course to make 2011 the first year 
since 1958 that the Federal Government would not have held an offshore 
lease sale.
  Squeezing one conveniently timed offshore lease sale does not undo 
the Obama administration's long track record of blocking and delaying 
American energy production. This bill that we are considering today is 
necessary to hold their feet to the fire and to ensure that these lease 
sales move forward.
  Americans instinctively understand the pain inflicted by rising 
gasoline prices, but yet we continue to hear the same excuses on why we 
shouldn't act. And let me give you several examples.
  My colleagues across the aisle will say that expanding drilling will 
do nothing to lower gasoline prices. The truth is, and this is the 
important part, it will send a strong signal to the world markets that 
the U.S. is serious about producing our own resources and bringing more 
production, American production, online. Furthermore, this argument has 
been used by opponents to American energy production for decades. We 
can no longer delay and prevent access to our own American resources.
  My colleagues will also propose increasing taxes on American energy 
production. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. They will also propose 
increasing taxes on American energy production. I have to ask: When has 
raising taxes lowered the price of anything? And of course the answer 
to that is never. And it won't happen with energy. Whether it is taxing 
American energy producers or imposing a cap-and-trade national energy 
tax, the Democrats' plan will only further increase the price at the 
pump and ultimately cost jobs.
  We are also likely to hear my colleagues reiterate the old ``use it 
or lose it'' myth, claiming that there are thousands of acres of 
nonproducing leases. Mr. Chairman, in reality, ``use it or lose it'' is 
already the law of the land. The moment a company pays for and receives 
a lease, the clock starts ticking. Leases have a time line. If action 
doesn't occur on that lease, the lease is lost, according to the lease.
  In addition, and this is important, too, only about one-third of the 
leases contain oil or natural gas. Sometimes we think we are very 
powerful, but one thing we can't do is mandate production where there 
is no oil or natural gas.
  And, finally, my colleagues will undoubtedly attempt to claim that 
these bills ignore the need to ensure safety in offshore drilling. 
Nobody has forgotten the tragic Deepwater Horizon accident. And I hear 
that especially from Members of the gulf, and, Mr. Chairman, I heard 
that when I was down at the gulf at a hearing only 2 weeks ago. 
However, we must not forget the fact of the economic threat that high 
gasoline prices have to our economy and our need to move forward.
  The administration has slowly started to issue deepwater permits in 
the Gulf of Mexico, which is in direct recognition, by the way, that it 
can be done safely and responsibly or they wouldn't have done it. Yet 
my colleagues act as if nothing has changed at all as far as safety 
reforms. But by doing so, they are completely ignoring reality and the 
actions of their own party's administration.
  They are ignoring the facts that regulations have been enhanced and 
strengthened; that standards have increased; and that new technologies 
have been developed, tested, and deployed. And, I might add, Mr. 
Chairman, we heard this at the hearing that I alluded to a moment ago 
in Houma, Louisiana, 2 weeks ago.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1229, which we will debate next week, improves 
safety by making two reforms to current law. Number one, it requires 
that the Secretary issue a permit to drill; and, two, requires that the 
Secretary conduct safety reviews. Neither of those provisions are in 
current law today.
  In 2008, the last time gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon, Congress 
stepped up to the challenge and took bold action to end a decades-long 
ban on new offshore drilling. Although this administration has 
effectively reimposed that ban, the American people are once again 
calling on Congress to act. By passing H.R. 1230 today, Congress can 
show the American people that we have heard their concerns and that we 
are taking actions.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill that will create 
American jobs, lower gasoline prices, and strengthen energy 
independence.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One year ago today, we were 2 weeks into the BP oil spill in the Gulf 
of Mexico. We were 2 weeks into what would ultimately become the worst 
environmental disaster in our Nation's history, with more than 4 
million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf. And since that disaster, 
we have learned many things about the safety of offshore drilling.
  We learned that the blowout preventer that the oil industry touted as 
fail-safe could in fact be sure to fail if an actual blowout was under 
way. We learned that the only technology the oil industry had been 
relying upon in the event of a spill was a Xerox machine. The spill 
response plans for major companies were so similar that they contained 
plans to evacuate walruses from the Gulf of Mexico even though the 
walruses had not called the Gulf home in more than 3 million years. And 
they were such dead ringers for each other that they contained the same 
name and phone number of the same long-deceased expert.
  We learned that the oil companies had neither the resources nor the 
ability to stop a deepwater blowout. BP spill response included an 
attempt to shoot golf balls and bits of rubber into the well. When we 
were told that the industry was relying on the most sophisticated 
technologies, we assumed that they meant technologies developed by MIT 
and not the PGA.
  And we learned from an independent BP spill commission that the root 
causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster were ``systemic'' to the 
entire oil and gas industry.
  And yet here we are debating legislation that would do nothing to 
improve the safety of offshore drilling and could actually make 
drilling less safe. The legislation before us represents a return to 
the pre-spill mentality of speed over safety.
  H.R. 1230 would force the Interior Department to rush to hold new 
lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico by ``deeming'' the shoddy 
environmental analysis conducted by the Bush administration's Mineral 
Management Service before the BP spill as sufficient for future lease 
sales in the Gulf.
  Just looking at some of the conclusions contained within the Bush 
administration's 2007 environmental

[[Page 6704]]

analysis exposes the absurdity of deeming this work as sufficient for 
new leasing in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
  In its 2007 multisale Environmental Impact Statement completed in 
April of 2007, the Interior Department determined, ``The most likely 
size of an offshore spill greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels that 
is predicted to occur is 4,600 barrels'' of oil. The BP Deepwater 
Horizon disaster led to more than 4 million barrels spilling into the 
Gulf. That is 1,000 times the size of the largest spill this analysis 
concluded was likely to occur.
  In 2007, MMS analysis concluded that the total volume of oil that 
would be spilled from all spills in the central and western Gulf over 
the next 40 years would be roughly 47,000 barrels of oil. That is less 
than what was spilled in the Deepwater Horizon in 1 day.
  MMS concluded that, in 2007, a worst-case scenario, only 19 to 31 
miles of Gulf coastline would be impacted by a spill. The Deepwater 
Horizon disaster resulted in oil reaching over 950 miles of Gulf 
coastline.

                              {time}  1120

  And MMS determined that a deepwater blow-off would not present a 
cleanup problem because the oil would rise in the water column, 
surfacing almost directly over the source location, but in fact the oil 
spewing from the ocean floor remained in enormous subsurface plumes 
that spread across the Gulf.
  The Obama administration is already moving forward to hold these 
lease sales in the Gulf later this year and early next year, and they 
are going to be more responsible. Even the Congressional Budget Office 
analysis of H.R. 1230 concludes, ``CBO estimates that implementing the 
bill would have no significant impact on proceeds from lease sales in 
the Gulf of Mexico because the proposed schedule is similar to the plan 
included in the DOI's budget for 2011.''
  So, really, all the majority is accomplishing with this legislation 
is ensuring that we don't do any new environmental review of the 
impacts of these lease sales. Instead of actually reviewing the lessons 
of the BP spill, the majority wants to lessen the environmental review.
  In addition, this legislation would force the Department to move 
forward with a lease off of the coast of Virginia within one year. 
Well, I have very bad news for the majority. The overwhelming majority 
of the area that would comprise this lease sale would infringe on 
critical training areas for the U.S. Navy. The Department of Defense 
concluded that 78 percent of the area offered in the Virginia lease 
sale would occur where military operations would be impeded by drilling 
structures and related activities. Moreover, much of the remaining area 
is comprised of a major shipping channel.
  This bill is really a solution in search of a problem. The bottom 
line is that oil production is at its highest level in nearly a decade 
and natural gas production is at record levels. We should instead be 
debating legislation that would protect the lives and the livelihoods 
of the people in the Gulf and that could actually help consumers at the 
pump this summer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy.
  Chairman Hastings, as you know, I am committed to ensuring that 
revenue-sharing of the benefits of OCS development are returned to 
those coastal States where drilling is occurring or may occur, like 
Virginia. Can you share with me and other Members of this body whether 
this will be addressed by the committee?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The answer is that it will absolutely be a focus and a priority. When 
I first introduced the bill before us today, I stated that these are 
only the first steps in this Congress' efforts to increase American 
energy production.
  The committee will continue to move forward on an array of bills that 
will be introduced in advance as part of the American Energy 
Initiative. Coming soon will be bills focused on expanding renewable 
energy, offshore production, onshore production, hydropower, coal, 
critical minerals and revenue sharing.
  Today, only a few select States receive revenue sharing from OCS 
activities. This committee will be working to reform OCS revenues to 
ensure that there is a fair treatment to all States that produce oil 
and gas in the OCS. Revenue sharing will be a priority, and action will 
be forthcoming.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for his comments. I commend him 
for this legislation, and I support it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Most Americans understand the concept of supply and demand, and in 
fact a third of oil now comes from the gulf. The Department of Energy's 
information agency tells us that last year's production in the gulf was 
20 percent less than projected in 2007, and in 2012 we are going to be 
getting a half a million barrels a day decline in production from 2010.
  What happens when the production goes down and the demand goes up? 
The price goes up--way up. Add to that the uncertainty and the unrest 
in the Middle East, and there is no surprise that we have gas prices at 
$4 and $5 now in this country, and who knows where they are headed.
  This legislation, if we pass it today and get it enacted, helps turn 
the key to unlocking the door on domestic energy production. This 
legislation is not about new lease sales. It is simply catches up with 
the leases already approved.
  Let's pass it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1230.
  This is the first in the Republican ``amnesia acts'' that ignore what 
happened last year in the Gulf of Mexico. It would force the Department 
of Interior to rush into holding new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 
and off the coast of Virginia, not far from New Jersey, I might add, 
even though Congress has not enacted a single piece of legislation to 
improve the safety of offshore drilling.
  The President's spill commission reported that offshore drilling in 
U.S. waters is four times more deadly than drilling elsewhere in the 
world, even for the same companies. Clearly there is a safety problem 
that must be addressed.
  And I must emphasize, because they have talked about it again and 
again, they are talking about high oil prices, high prices at the pump. 
We feel it. Everybody in America feels it. Do they address it? No, they 
do not address gasoline prices. It actually accelerates handouts to Big 
Oil, this legislation does.
  In addition to being silent on safety concerns, this prohibits any 
further environmental review in the gulf based on the lessons learned 
from the Deepwater Horizon last year. That tragedy exposed the woefully 
inadequate ways in which the environmental reviews had been done in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  Need I remind the Speaker or the majority that there are no walruses 
to protect in the Gulf of Mexico? As you heard from Mr. Markey, that is 
the level of quality in the environmental review that they want to 
apply from here on out. The analysis assumed that blowout preventers 
were capable of preventing blowouts. We know now, we have learned, they 
are not. The post-spill investigations have clearly demonstrated that 
the assumptions of the environmental review are not sufficient. I will 
offer an amendment shortly to drop the language that would

[[Page 6705]]

deem this environmental review to be adequate.
  Despite the poor safety and environmental record accumulated in the 
gulf, H.R. 1230 recklessly puts the Atlantic coast at risk.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. HOLT. H.R. 1230 recklessly puts the Atlantic coast at risk of 
experiencing an oil spill such as what we have seen before. That is why 
I call this an ``amnesia act.'' There are two more bills we will be 
seeing here on the floor that are similar.
  This is not in the interest of the U.S. consumer, it is not in the 
interest of fishermen, it is not in the interest of coastal residents. 
This is not in the interest of America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the chairman of 
the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This bill is the first step for Republicans to bring a new energy 
policy to this country, the American Energy Initiative. Look at this 
chart. It says it all. Under Barack Obama and his regulators, the 
average price of gasoline in this country has gone up from $1.84 a 
gallon when he took office to just under $4. Under his watch, gasoline 
has more than doubled. We need more supply, and everyone agrees it 
should be our own energy, not foreign. Under the law of supply and 
demand, which my friends across the aisle have not found a way to 
repeal, more supply means lower prices, in addition to thousands of 
more jobs for Americans and billions of revenue dollars for the 
Treasury.
  H.R. 1230 requires that four promising lease sale areas, three in the 
gulf and one off Virginia, must be opened up for production. No more 
stonewalling by this administration and extreme environmentalists. 
After this bill came out of my committee and the full Natural Resources 
Committee, this administration belatedly said it would start action on 
one of these four lease areas. If the only way we can get action is to 
shame them into it, Republicans will do so. If the administration still 
refuses, we will do our best to force action by changing the law.
  This bill is the first step to get gasoline prices down. The American 
people deserve no less.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We are headed toward $4.25, $4.50 a gallon by Memorial 
Day, the usual oil company run-up when the driving season starts, 
crushing the dreams of American families, small businesses, and our 
economic recovery. But, hey, the profits are up. It's good.

                              {time}  1130

  Republicans say, It's just supply and demand. It's simple. So if we 
add a small increment to future domestic supply, 5 or 10 years from 
now, that will bring down the price.
  No, it won't. Remember, it's a world price commodity. In fact, supply 
is up. The U.S. has 12.6 million more barrels in storage than the 5-
year average. Demand is down. Americans can't afford the price and the 
economy is depressed. Libyan lost production has been made up by the 
Saudis. Every gallon of that has been made up.
  So what is really going on? Well, it's market manipulation, price 
gouging, profiteering and speculation. But the Republicans won't take 
on their benefactors from Big Oil and Wall Street. Even Goldman Sachs 
says that $20 a barrel is excessive speculation. Twenty dollars a 
barrel. That's 60 cents a gallon. We could stop that tomorrow. Put a 
tax on speculators. Or encourage the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission to regulate what you're trying to block. But you're not 
going to do that because, hey, that would upset the speculators on Wall 
Street who are making a fortune.
  On the NYMEX Exchange, 45 percent of the trades in one day were 
driven by computers. They traded twice the world's daily oil 
consumption, by computer, in one day, driving up the price, and the 
Republicans say, Oh, it's supply and demand.
  It's not supply and demand. It's market manipulation. It's price 
gouging. It's speculation. Do something about it. Those tools are 
before us.
  Yeah, if you want to have a debate about future domestic supply from 
natural gas or offshore drilling or biodiesel or whatever, let's have 
that debate. If you want to get people relief this year, save our 
economic recovery, save American families, then take on Wall Street, 
take on Big Oil, take on the speculators. Or I guess you're afraid they 
won't contribute to your next campaign.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, fortunately the vast majority of the American people 
and the majority of this House recognize that it is long past time to 
put American energy independence and prosperity first.
  By opening up these resources, we assure energy abundance for the 
next generation. We begin to arrest the ruinous increase in prices at 
the pump. We assure productive, high-paying jobs, not only for the 
thousands of American workers directly employed in the industry but for 
many times more the employees in support and spin-off jobs. We assure 
billions of dollars of oil royalties paid directly into this Nation's 
Treasury at a time when the Treasury is empty. We assure that our 
growing reliance on foreign sources is reversed.
  To those who are clamoring for more tax revenues, this is the healthy 
way to get them, by removing the impediments that have prevented a 
prosperous and expanding economy. It is prosperity and prosperity alone 
that creates tax revenues.
  With this measure, we begin to change the policies that have produced 
the pathetic and self-inflicted spectacle of the most energy rich 
nation in the world importing most of its energy.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Well, we certainly know that our constituents are paying 
too much at the pump, but we also know where that money's going. Almost 
$30 billion, just in the last 3 months, went to the top three oil 
companies, Exxon, Shell and BP. Remember BP? Over $7 billion just this 
quarter in profit, not revenue, pure profit. And that's after the 
American taxpayer, which we say we're so concerned about, shelled out 
$5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas companies. That's profit of 
more than $100 billion on an annual basis. That's where the money's 
going.
  And within that profit, not revenue, profit, we're talking about, 
what do they do with it? Ninety percent of it is used for stock 
buybacks and dividends to enrich the executives and the shareholders 
and to spend on TV advertising to convince the American public they're 
spending on just the opposite. Ten percent is going for drilling 
exploration.
  Now what this legislation would do is to bring us back to a period of 
even weaker regulation than we had before the gulf oil spill. Imagine, 
it just happened, 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf 
Coast waters, and now we want to make the governing regulations weaker 
than they were before the spill. And then we want to open up the area 
off the shore of Virginia where thousands and thousands of jobs are 
dependent upon the naval operations that take place in those waters 
which would not be able to be conducted if we go ahead and drill in 
these waters. Plus much of the remaining 22 percent is devoted to 
shipping lanes for two of our busiest commercial ports, Hampton Roads 
and Baltimore. Do we really want to jeopardize those thousands of jobs, 
not to mention the thousands of jobs in fishing and tourism in places 
like Virginia Beach?
  We should be about creating jobs, not jeopardizing jobs and 
protecting our environment, not despoiling it. Defeat this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would just note that the two Democrat 
Senators from Virginia and the Governor of this State are in favor of 
this legislation.

[[Page 6706]]

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act.
  Last night, I held a telephone town hall with hundreds of my 
constituents. The overwhelming concern was about the high price of gas. 
Seniors, students, working families and small business owners want to 
know what we're doing to help lower fuel costs. They want us to stop 
being dependent on foreign energy and start really developing America's 
resources. Today, we're doing that.
  Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle believe that raising 
taxes on oil companies will somehow lower the price of gas. This defies 
both logic and common sense. Not only would raising taxes ensure job 
losses in America but it would also result in the increase of America's 
dependence on foreign sources of oil. Raising taxes on American energy 
companies would give a competitive advantage to the Russian, Chinese 
and OPEC countries that are operating without anti-growth, anti-self-
sufficient energy policies.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents in southeastern and eastern Ohio 
understand the negative impact that these proposed tax increases would 
have on gas prices and they oppose these efforts. I strongly encourage 
all of my colleagues to support the Restarting American Offshore 
Leasing Now Act that will help put our country on the path to energy 
security.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Santa Barbara, 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this oil spill amnesia 
bill that threatens our coastal communities.
  H.R. 1230 is a collection of bad ideas. It mandates that the 
administration offer new lease sales, even though they say they're not 
prepared to properly oversee them. The bill sidesteps safety and 
environmental reviews, acting as if the Nation's worst oil spill in 
history never happened. And, it pushes a failed energy plan that pours 
billions of dollars into already overstuffed oil industry coffers.
  The only thing it adds up to, Mr. Chairman, is a false promise. The 
truth is the Republican majority is hoping to delude the public into 
believing that this rush to new offshore drilling will provide a quick 
fix to high gas prices, but the harsh reality is this: The U.S. is 
never going to have control over world oil supplies or gas prices 
through drilling. We simply don't have the oil reserves, no matter how 
much we drill. What we do have is the ability to control prices by 
lowering our consumption, and that's just what we're starting to do.
  For example, the EIA's latest report says we're lowering oil usage 
thanks in part to the President's fuel savings standards. We will get 
control over our energy future by making more cars that go further on a 
gallon of gas and bringing new types of fuel supplies to the table. If 
in 10 or 20 years oil and gas are still the focus of our energy debate, 
then we have miserably failed. We will have followed the path that 
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney charted, and we've seen where that 
leads: high gas prices and billions in oil company profits.
  It's about time we break free from our addiction to oil. I urge a 
``no'' vote on this misleading bill that accelerates new dirty and 
dangerous drilling.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
remains on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman from 
Washington has 16\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1230, a bill that 
will restart American jobs.
  The current 5-year lease plan would have allowed for the sale of four 
leases, one off the coast of Virginia and three in the Gulf of Mexico. 
The President and his agencies are continuing to block these sales. 
It's time to stop that blocking.
  We're talking about jobs. The Nation is faced with 8 to 9 percent 
continuing unemployment. The jobs offshore are good, high-paying jobs--
$400 a day, $50,000 per year. Recently, the President had strong 
rhetoric to Georgetown University, saying that he's going to increase 
oil and gas production in America. Yet the administration's actions are 
moving us the opposite direction.
  Tax increases kill jobs. That's an economic truth. Our friends across 
the aisle want to kill American jobs by raising taxes at a time when 
unemployment is too high, when we're dependent on too much foreign oil. 
In his speech last month at Georgetown, President Obama said, ``The 
fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, America is going to 
be still dependent on oil in making its economy work. We're exploring 
and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas developments from Alaska to 
the Mid- and South Atlantic States.''
  Mr. Chairman, we are with this bill giving the President the bill 
that he is saying that he's going to implement. Now let him sign it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Imagine what we could do for the American consumer at the pump if we 
stopped lobbing rhetorical grenades back and forth and decided to focus 
on the concrete things that it is within our power to do today that 
would lower the price at the pump. There's three things.
  One, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies? You do have to 
wonder. A trillion dollars in profits. Nothing wrong with that. But do 
they really need to reach into the pocket of the American consumer and 
get $40 billion on top of that? That's number one.
  Number two, have the futures market be about protecting the consumer, 
not enriching the hedge fund Wall Street speculator. It is astonishing 
what's going on. And it's so bad that even Goldman Sachs acknowledges 
that at least $27 on the price of a $110 barrel of oil is about 
speculation. Why in the world do we allow that? Because every time you 
and I go to the pump, our constituents go to the pump, they're paying 
for Wall Street and they're paying for tax breaks to oil companies.
  The third thing we can do, and we can do it short-term, is go into 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Two Republican Presidents and one 
Democratic President have done that with great effect--lowering the 
price 33 percent, 19 percent, and 9 percent. It gives immediate relief 
to the consumer at the pump.
  We can do this together if the agenda is about doing something for 
your constituent and mine and not just having this political food 
fight. End speculation, end the tax breaks, and go into that asset 
belonging to all of us, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and bring 
prices down immediately.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of 
the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
leadership on this issue.
  Our friends across the aisle here want us to use this debate today to 
demagogue this issue and demonize American energy producers. Let us 
refocus on what this debate is really about today.
  Mr. Chairman, this administration's policy of drill there, not here, 
has helped produce the record gas prices that we are facing today. 
Rather than fueling our economy with American energy independence, this 
administration has fueled overseas oil producers by shutting off 
domestic exploration. And now, today, we hear the other party tell us 
that raising taxes on American energy production will somehow make 
prices go down. This is insane, Mr. Chairman, as any economist can tell 
you.

[[Page 6707]]

  We need to end the de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico on the 
permits there. We need to reopen the West to exploration. We need to 
open up ANWR for exploration. We need to allow American entrepreneurs 
to do the work of the free market and get this economy moving again.
  Energy production is a segue to job creation. This bill will begin 
the process of releasing the potential of American energy. This means 
tens of thousands of American jobs producing American energy for 
American households and businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to help this economy. Pass this bill, and let's 
put Americans back to work producing American energy.
  God bless you. God bless America.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This is the wrong debate to be having here today. The Republicans are 
debating more drilling without more safety even though the BP spill 
commission that examined what went wrong last year concluded that there 
was a ``systemic'' failure in our country to deal with the safety 
issues that confront the offshore drilling industry. In fact, they 
concluded that there are four times greater fatalities in drilling for 
oil off the shores of the United States than there are in Europe--four 
times more fatalities. We should be number one in drilling but we 
should be number one in safety as well.
  What the Republicans are doing here today is they are saying that 
they believe in ``all of the above.'' But the truth is that with this 
bill they are saying once again it is really an agenda of ``oil above 
all.'' They have nothing out here on renewable energy resources--wind, 
solar, biomass, geothermal, plug-in hybrids, all-electric vehicles. 
None of that is part of their debate. They just go back to the same old 
agenda of oil above all.
  And do we need to give more to the oil industry? We have $10 billion 
in profits for ExxonMobil in January, February, and March--$10 billion 
they made. Shell, $8 billion; BP, $7 billion; Chevron, $6 billion; 
ConocoPhillips, $3 billion. Shouldn't we talk a little bit about safety 
as we're talking about new drilling off of our shorelines? But no, 
that's not the Republican agenda.
  Should we be talking about taking away the tax breaks from the oil 
industry, the $40 billion which the American taxpayer gives to the oil 
industry? Do we really need to have the oil industry in the consumers' 
pocket at the gas pump and then in their other pocket as taxpayers to 
give even more money to ExxonMobil? That's what the Republicans should 
bring out here for a debate. They do not do that.
  The New York Mercantile Exchange, that's where they trade for oil 
futures. Computerized Program Trading is now 45 percent of the oil 
futures trading on the commodities-futures trading floor of the New 
York Mercantile Exchange.
  What do the Republicans do to deal with the fact that it has turned 
into a crude oil casino where gambling is going on as the speculators 
of our country and the world look at Saudi Arabia, look at Libya, as 
the price of oil skyrockets, as Goldman Sachs concludes that $20 a 
barrel in the increase of the price of oil just comes from the 
speculation, from the gambling that's going on in the NYMEX? You might 
as well put ``Las Vegas'' over the New York Mercantile Exchange. It is 
a crude oil casino, ladies and gentlemen. What do the Republicans do? 
They have slashed the budget for the Commodities Futures Trading 
Commission, who are the cops on the beat. They're saying we need fewer 
cops to police these speculators. They slash the wind and solar budget 
by 70 percent in their budget that just passed last month.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  This is their agenda. Nothing on safety; nothing on wind and solar; 
nothing on corralling the speculators. And what do they say? What they 
say is they're going to in fact go into the Medicare budget of Grandma 
and Grandpa and cut their programs and then put an oil rig on top of 
Medicare to suck out the money like a pipeline out of the pockets of 
Grandma and Grandpa and put it into the profits of the oil industry 
with more tax breaks for them, even as they report the greatest profits 
in the history of any companies in the history of the world.
  Ladies and gentlemen, vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes I am absolutely baffled by the rhetoric that 
I hear here. Let me remind my colleagues that 2\1/2\ years ago, in 
2008, when gasoline prices went to $4 a gallon, we Republicans came 
into the House, even though we weren't in session, and talked about the 
potential resources that we have in this country to make America self-
sufficient. And the American people got it. They got it and they said, 
you know, we ought to utilize those resources. And they said we should 
drill; we should drill in the Outer Continental Shelf and we should 
drill onshore.

                              {time}  1150

  The American people get it. Yet the rhetoric we're hearing here is 
entirely different from the economic issues that we face. Here is the 
whole point:
  When America ended the moratoria on offshore drilling, the prices 
went down. See, that has never been explained by the other side, but 
it's pretty darned obvious. When you send a signal to the markets that 
you're serious about becoming less dependent on foreign energy, the 
markets respond. They responded 2\1/2\ years ago, and they will respond 
the same way. Yet all we hear from this side is you have to have a 
bogeyman. There has to be a bogeyman. Everybody is against us.
  Baloney. The market is what drives the price of oil, and it's in our 
best interest in this country to become less dependent on foreign 
energy, and that's what these three bills do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and 
for yielding me time.
  Let there be no doubt, Americans are worried about the price of 
gasoline; and its recent spike has, once again, put us on notice. Yet 
this bill that relieves regulation provides the wrong tools.
  Americans know we can do better. We cannot afford to mindlessly give 
billions of dollars to Big Oil companies while they make record 
profits. In the short term, we must ensure that speculators and Wall 
Street quit playing games with the price of oil. Finally, we must 
provide motorists with fueling options at the pump. It is 
unconscionable that we would give $4 billion of taxpayer money to Big 
Oil companies this year alone while they're on track to make nearly 
$100 billion in profits in 2011. With prices this high, does Big Oil 
really need even more money? Taxpayers know they don't, and taxpayers 
are hit twice with taxes on gasoline--once at the pump and once on tax 
day. This must end.
  We can help consumers at the pump by going after Wall Street 
speculators who drive up the cost of oil. We can increase mileage 
standards, and it's entirely reasonable that they could reach 60 miles 
per gallon by the year 2025. Also, we can invest in fueling options so 
that consumers can choose the lowest alternative.
  High gas prices are painful. They are painful to American families; 
they are painful to seniors living on fixed incomes; and they are 
painful to small businesses; and the Big Oil subsidies that accompany 
them are painful for our Nation's economy as it recovers from the Bush 
recession. Let's end these Big Oil giveaways to some of the most 
profitable companies in the world, and let's provide drivers with 
alternatives--fueling options, better vehicles--and create the clean-
energy jobs of the future.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a valuable member 
of the House Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, this morning, a gallon of gasoline in my 
hometown of Iron River, Michigan, was

[[Page 6708]]

$4.29. Unfortunately, most people are plagued with the fact of knowing 
that prices are going to go up even further in the next few weeks.
  I believe that we in Congress know that there is no silver bullet 
that is going to lower prices at the pump. However, we have a 
responsibility here to craft policy and to pass legislation that will 
increase the supply of crude oil that will be produced here at home. As 
Members of Congress, it is our duty to take these actions to help 
lessen the pain of these prices on our families in Michigan and 
throughout the country.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to find a long-term solution to high fuel 
prices. I believe that the full-day markup we held in committee last 
month was the first step and that passing this bill today will be the 
next step, but we have many further steps to take.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), one of the most thoughtful members of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I oppose the legislation, which would really open in a wholesale 
fashion very sensitive areas to offshore drilling. We have to take a 
lot of care when it comes to doing this offshore drilling, and I don't 
think that this bill exercises that care.
  During the committee's consideration of the bill, I put forward an 
amendment that would strike that section of the bill that authorizes 
drilling off the coast of Virginia. I did this because of my concern of 
the potential impact of a spill in the Chesapeake Bay, which, of 
course, is a treasure for Marylanders and for all those who live in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Bay is really the soul of my 
State of Maryland. It's a national treasure in so many ways.
  As for the Virginia parcel, which is called Lease Sale 220 and is a 
lease parcel that the Republicans would like to put back into play with 
their bill, when you look at it, about 78 percent of that parcel you 
have to immediately take off the table because it would occur in areas 
where military operations would be impeded.
  I want to thank my colleague, Gerry Connolly from Virginia, for 
putting forward an amendment on this bill which would shift the burden 
and say the Department of Defense has to affirmatively conclude that 
you will not impede these kinds of military operations in order to 
drill.
  So you take that out of the equation. Then when you take another 
chunk of it out because you need to keep commercial shipping lanes 
open, what you're left with is about 10 percent of the parcel that you 
could actually drill on, and what you could get from that would only 
supply the demand of the country for one day. So you'd be putting at 
risk this valuable, sensitive Chesapeake Bay and all of the surrounding 
areas for getting one day's worth of energy production.
  That just doesn't make sense, and I think it undermines the bill on a 
wholesale basis. It shows that this is not put forward in a way that is 
sensible. For that reason, I oppose the legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to another valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for 
his leadership and work and for making sure we are addressing the 
energy needs of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, Virginia has the opportunity to develop offshore energy 
in an environmentally friendly and responsible manner. Like any 
industrial or commercial activity, energy production has its risks. 
However, those risks have been significantly mitigated, and offshore 
energy production can be conducted in a safe and responsible manner. 
Unfortunately, the administration has halted any further oil and gas 
development in the Atlantic Ocean.
  Our economy continues to struggle, and any further increase in energy 
prices will exacerbate that struggle to regain its footing as 
unemployment hovers at 9 percent. The unrest in the Middle East and in 
North Africa continues to threaten this Nation's energy security. The 
failure to promptly address our energy needs could negatively impact 
the U.S. economy, could stall any recovery, and continue to affect 
national security.
  Energy production offshore of the Commonwealth would create thousands 
of jobs and generate much needed revenue to reduce the deficit. The 
Department of the Interior has calculated that Virginia could produce 
500 million barrels of oil and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 
natural gas being one of the most economically viable and 
environmentally friendly sources of fossil fuels. A recent study by ICF 
International concluded that offshore energy production in Virginia 
would create 1,888 new jobs and generate $19.5 billion in Federal, 
State, and local revenues.
  I can tell you, in Virginia, as we struggle to find dollars to clean 
up the Chesapeake Bay and as we struggle to find dollars for 
transportation, those dollars are much needed. Virginia can lead the 
Nation in improving our energy security and in reducing our reliance on 
foreign oil. To do that, we must reinstate the planned offshore oil and 
natural gas lease sale.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, I hate to say it, but what we're hearing here on the 
floor of the House of Representatives in defense of this legislation is 
snake oil. Somehow the hard-pressed commuters and consumers of gasoline 
in this country are supposed to believe that if today we unleash all 
possibility of oil drilling, gas drilling offshore the continental 
United States, we're going to be producing thousands of barrels of oil. 
False. We're going to reduce the price of oil today? Equally false. In 
fact, there's plenty of evidence that the market that drives oil is 
relatively inelastic.
  We heard earlier today on the floor of this House, driving is down, 
demand is down, supply is up, but so are prices. In fact, if you look 
at this chart, there's an eerie correlation between oil profits and the 
spike in the price of gasoline charged to our hard-pressed consumers in 
the United States.
  The other side wants you to believe in a smokescreen that somehow 
their tax subsidy being changed or lifted by our side of the aisle 
would, in fact, further increase the price of oil. They have low taxes. 
They have low royalties. They have record profits. How has that worked 
out for the average driver in America? It's produced record gasoline 
prices.
  The Republican policy that will be enshrined today in this 
legislation has produced these profits and those costs for the average 
consumer in America. It is wrong, and to argue otherwise is selling 
snake oil.
  I urge the defeat of this legislation on behalf of the consumers of 
America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State 
(Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, we should oppose this bill not because it is 
too strong, but because it is too weak. Americans do need relief from 
$4 a gallon gasoline, and they are not going to get it from this bill 
either in the short term or the long term. The reason they won't get 
relief in the short term is we're not drilling in the right places. We 
need to drill speculators, not just wells. Even Goldman Sachs 
recognizes that a significant portion of the huge spike in prices is 
due to rampant speculation in the market, but this bill doesn't do a 
single thing about that short-term reason for this short-term price. We 
need to drill speculators, not just wells.
  But, secondly, in the long term, this bill does not give us what we 
need. My friends across the aisle told us they were going to give us an 
all-of-the-above energy strategy. They haven't given us an all-of-the-
above strategy. They are just giving an all-of-the-

[[Page 6709]]

below strategy, because the only thing they are thinking about are 
these archaic technologies of drilling holes in the ground.
  We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We only have 3 percent of the 
world's oil supply, even if we drill in Yellowstone National Park. The 
dinosaurs just didn't die underneath our feet. We need new supplies of 
energy, of electricity, camalena-based biofuels from Targeted Growth in 
Seattle, advanced forms of algae-based biofuels from Sapphire Energy 
and General Atomic and other companies.
  We need new sources of energy, not just below our feet but above our 
feet, and in our minds where we get the intellect to invent these 
technologies. That's an all-of-the-above strategy. Let's do what we can 
do to give real short-term relief. Defeat this bill, and we will get a 
comprehensive energy policy for this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am very 
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I won't take 2 
minutes.
  I've been listening to part of the discussion here, and it just 
strikes me that when you see graphics with an oil rig sucking money out 
of Social Security or Medicare or whatever that was, you know that you 
have gone beyond the realm of what is logical for a debate or the real 
facts about what this legislation does.
  The bottom line is that it will make it easier for us to become more 
energy independent, not completely energy independent--it can't go that 
far--but it will make us more independent than we were before. It will 
create an environment where jobs can be created by the private sector. 
It will help, over time, to lower the price of gasoline because it will 
create more supply in the end. That's what it does. It doesn't put a 
big oil rig on the top of Medicare and suck money from our seniors. 
Come on.
  This is just a measure to help the situation, to make it better. 
We've locked off too many areas to oil drilling, and we've not 
exploited our own supply enough to help bring down price and to help 
consumers out there in the world.
  So that's all this does, and I commend the gentleman for bringing it 
forward. I urge support for it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend, Mr. Markey, for yielding.
  This is about Big Oil handouts, pure and simple. There are no lessons 
learned, no lessons applied with regard to safety or protection of the 
environment. You know, if these companies were energy companies, as 
they like to say, they would invest more in producing sustainable, 
clean energy alternatives.
  In the long run, we all know it. We've got to face the facts. We've 
got to break our addiction to oil; and if the majority, the authors of 
this legislation, really wanted to help the motorists, the consumers, 
they would address speculation. They would end the speculation. They 
would end the tax giveaways. They would use the strategic oil reserve 
to short-circuit speculation. The oil companies are not energy 
companies. They are fleecing machines.
  The greatest profits of any corporation in history--and you heard me 
say a few minutes ago--that the biggest of them, Exxon, had an 
effective tax rate of about 0.4 percent. This will not help the 
consumer.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I ran down here to thank my colleagues in this Chamber for finally 
doing what the American people have been asking them to do and to start 
the process of stopping to kick the energy problem can in this country 
down the road. Finally, we're going to take the steps necessary to put 
people back to work and to start America down a path of affordable 
domestic energy.
  Now, they say that we're robbing Grandma and Grandpa. Grandma and 
Grandpa hold stock in those energy companies. Down in Louisiana, 
Grandma and Grandpa's grandsons and grandchildren work in an industry 
that provides that energy. Right now, they don't have a job. They're 
being laid off, or they're being sent to Brazil or Africa or the Middle 
East to drill for oil out there, while we have spent over $1 trillion 
of taxpayer money funding the Department of Energy to wean us off 
foreign oil.
  I just rise to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to my 
colleagues who have come today in support of this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. I would defer to the chairman of the committee. If he is 
the concluding speaker on his side, I am prepared to close on our side.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I advise my friend I am the concluding 
speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  So here's where we are. Republicans take over, Republicans say 
they're ready to put together a plan for our country. It's 1 year after 
the BP catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental 
disaster in our Nation's history.

                              {time}  1210

  Last year, the Republicans blocked passage of any safety legislation 
that would learn the lessons of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. 
The BP spill commission has come back. They now say that fatalities on 
U.S. rigs are four times higher than those on European rigs. We should 
be number one in drilling, and we should be number one in safety. The 
Republicans refuse to deal with the endemic, systemic problems with 
safety that have been identified in the American oil industry.
  The oil industry is now garnering the largest profits any 
corporations in the world have ever been able to enjoy, but the 
Republicans refuse to bring out here legislation which will take away 
their tax breaks. Oil companies don't need to have tax breaks to do 
something they are doing anyway. It's like subsidizing a fish to swim 
or a bird to fly. We don't have to give them taxpayers' money. The Ryan 
budget slashes benefits for grandma and grandpa, then takes that money 
and gives it away in tax breaks to millionaires and to the oil 
industry. Do we really need to tell grandma we're cutting back on her 
medicare benefits and then taking that money and giving it in oil 
breaks to the biggest companies in our country? They don't need tax 
breaks.
  And finally, what we should be talking about is the deployment of the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was used 
by both President Bushes. It was used by President Clinton. It does 
work. The New York Mercantile Exchange is where oil futures are traded. 
It is a casino of crude oil right now. On one day back just 2 months 
ago, 45 percent of all of the oil futures trades were computer-
generated trades. Those trades were twice the value of all of the oil 
consumed in the world on a single day. That's what we need to do, to 
deal with those speculators. And the way to do it is what we have done 
in the past, deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, deploy it now. 
Send the fear of losing fortunes into the hearts of those speculators, 
and you will see the price of oil drop like a rock. That's what we need 
to do. That's what the consumers need as they are heading into the 
Memorial Day weekend. That's what people all across our country are 
wondering--what is going to happen to our economy?
  Ten of the last 11 recessions in our country are tied to the rise in 
the price of oil. That is 10 of the last 11 recessions, ladies and 
gentlemen. What we saw in 1990 was, President Bush won the war in Iraq 
in '90 and '91, but because he never deployed the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve until it was too late, a mini-recession went through our 
economy, and President Clinton was able to defeat him. Let's learn this 
lesson of the link between the rise in the price of oil and recessions 
that are created in our economy. Deploy the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. Ignore this agenda of the Republican Party.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 6710]]

  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate, and there's 
been a lot of rhetoric thrown around, some of which doesn't even apply 
whatsoever in any remoteness to the bill that's before us today. H.R. 
1230, which we are debating today, simply tells this administration to 
go through with the lease sales that were already authorized by a 
previous administration. In other words, all of these lease sales had 
gone through whatever process they had gone through. Three of them were 
in the Gulf of Mexico. One of them was off the coast of Virginia.
  We are simply saying with this legislation, let's send a signal to 
the international markets that America is serious about becoming less 
dependent on foreign oil. And we do that by saying, this administration 
should go through with these lease sales, which, I might add, Mr. 
Chairman, we have heard about loss of revenue from the other side of 
the aisle. These lease sales themselves would provide the general fund 
with $40 million over the next 10 years. So what we're doing is really 
kind of ironic: We are telling this administration to do something it 
should be doing by law anyway. That's what the scope is. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote on this bill. We can have other discussion on the 
other bills in the ensuing days.
  As far as the discussion talking about Big Oil, I could probably 
count the number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
didn't say something about Big Oil rather than those that did. But what 
is interesting, you would be led to believe that the only Big Oil in 
the world apparently are American companies. I would suggest that that 
is entirely not true. In fact, when you talk about Big Oil, Mr. 
Chairman, really who you should be focusing on is OPEC, because crude 
oil is an international product, or is a global product. There's no 
question about that.
  Yet OPEC controls 45 percent of the market. It is a cartel, Mr. 
Chairman; there is no question about that. We all know simple 
economics. If there is a cartel on any commodity, on any commodity, the 
way that you break the cartel is by increasing the supply. And that's 
what the combination of these three bills do. It simply sends a signal 
to the markets--and I have said this over and over--that we are serious 
about utilizing the resources we have. Several of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have said, The United States doesn't have any 
resources. Well, nothing could be further from the truth because if you 
look at government data on what the potential resources are in the 
Outer Continental Shelf--and I'm going to say onshore because it's all 
American potential resources--the potential resources of oil equivalent 
per barrel, when you combine OCS and onshore, the potential resources 
are in excess of 2 trillion barrels of oil. That far exceeds what one 
of my colleagues earlier, Mr. Fleming from Louisiana, said. It far 
exceeds what they have in Saudi Arabia. In fact, in other OPEC nations.
  This is rhetoric about trying to blame somebody when the issue is 
really something as basic as having a supply out there that consumers 
can utilize. What we are saying here is threefold. One of them relates 
directly to American jobs. Energy sector jobs are good-paying jobs. So 
let's encourage the energy sector in this country to expand so we can 
have those good-paying jobs. That's good to get the funk out of our 
economy. Secondly, we become less dependent on foreign sources because 
energy is an important part of our growing economy. And if we have a 
stable source of that in the future, our economy can grow with the 
surety we will have a stable source of energy.
  But probably more important in the long term, Mr. Chairman, the 
reason why we should pass these bills to send the signal to the market 
is a national security issue. I mentioned OPEC. There are some 
countries in OPEC that are outwardly hostile to the United States. One 
of them is in South America, Venezuela. Why are we relying on them for 
the supply of our energy when we have these resources that I just 
pointed out to you in excess of 2 trillion equivalent barrels of oil?
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is the first step. This is the first step of 
starting the process of becoming less dependent on foreign energy, and 
it is the first step to get our economy recovering by creating good 
American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1230.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, on April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon 
exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing eleven crewmen and causing over 
4 million barrels of oil to spill into the gulf. Now, barely a year 
after the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the majority is 
rushing three reckless offshore drilling bills to the floor as if the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster never happened.
  Under the guise of combating high gasoline prices, today's 
legislation proposes to mandate the sale of three leases in the Gulf of 
Mexico and a fourth lease off the coast of Virginia--whether or not 
appropriate safeguards are in place. Astonishingly, the Restarting 
American Offshore Leasing Now Act actually requires the Secretary of 
the Interior to rely on demonstrably unrealistic environmental reviews 
conducted under the Bush Administration for purposes of approving these 
four leases. For example, these pre-spill analyses assumed that the 
worst case scenario for a Gulf oil spill would involve 4600 barrels of 
oil--or about 1/1000 the actual amount of oil spilled by the Deepwater 
Horizon.
  Fortunately, the Obama Administration is taking a more responsible 
approach. Using the lessons we have learned from the Deepwater Horizon 
disaster, the Obama Administration has announced that it is prepared to 
move forward with the three Gulf lease sales by the middle of 2012--
after rigorous, post-spill safety and environmental standards have been 
put into place. Additionally, the Administration has in my judgment 
correctly concluded that the Virginia lease should be cancelled as 
posing too great a risk to the economies and environment of the mid-
Atlantic states.
  Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing to lower gasoline prices. It does 
nothing to end the billions in wasteful taxpayer subsidies going to oil 
companies already reporting record profits. It does nothing to invest 
in America's clean energy future or strengthen America's energy 
security. In fact, this legislation doesn't even contain a requirement 
that the oil produced from these leases be sold in the United States 
rather than exported. The only thing this bill really does is undermine 
the improved well design, workplace safety and environmental standards 
the Obama Administration is trying to put in place in order to avoid 
another Deepwater Horizon disaster.
  This legislation is irresponsible, and it deserves a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1230, ``Restarting American Offshore Leasing now Act'' which will 
require four specific offshore oil and gas lease sales within the next 
year. Three of these lease sales will be for locations in the Gulf of 
Mexico and one will be off the Coast of Virginia.
  Although I have reservations about certain aspects of this bill, I 
nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction for America in 
our efforts to achieve energy independence. The central issue is 
promoting oil and gas related American jobs in the Gulf Coasts and to 
fill our Nation's oil and gas needs as we search for alternative energy 
sources.


                   THE NEED FOR FAIRNESS AND BALANCE

  We must have fair and balanced discourse that considers our safety, 
national security, and our environment and does not place oil & gas 
producers at an unfair disadvantage when these very companies produce 
vital American jobs and contribute greatly to our economy. I am 
informed that there is an amendment or legislative proposal under 
consideration which will tax the top 5 oil and gas producers more 
heavily than other producers of such energy (who will receive a tax 
credit).
  We must ensure that we afford fair and equal tax treatment of oil and 
gas producers and that we do not unduly single out and punish the top 5 
oil and gas producers (three of which are U.S. companies: Exxon-Mobil, 
Chevron and Conoco Phillips). This discriminates against large oil and 
gas producers who provide valuable American jobs and contribute greatly 
to our national and local economies; while at the same time we give a 
tax break and preference to foreign oil companies who do not fall 
within the top 5 producers. This is neither fair nor balanced and 
allows oil companies owned by, for example Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, 
to receive better tax treatment than the top 3 U.S. companies. This 
hurts American jobs and our economy. I appeal for us to use common 
sense to avoid disturbing outcomes such as this as we consider oil and 
gas drilling, permitting and lease sale issues.
  Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially our local 
economies on the Gulf Coast. Producing more of energy leads to job

[[Page 6711]]

creation, cheaper goods and greater economic and national security. 
However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources 
of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago.
  Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this 
growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds 
of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and 
vulnerabilities in our national security.
  The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the current instability in the 
Middle East places further highlights our need for legislation that 
will lead to our energy independence. It has always been risky to rely 
on unstable and unfriendly nations as the source of so much of our 
domestic oil supply. Currently, offshore petroleum is a source for 
roughly a third of domestic oil production. Any increase in our own 
production will place us one step closer to decreasing our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Energy imports now make up one third of America's trade deficit. 
Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, 
lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own 
energy resources.
  According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, estimates, 
America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain up to 
115.3 billion barrels of oil and up to 565 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas (the U.S. consumes at least 23 TCF per year) and 86 billion 
barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even with all 
these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion (and 
countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can create 
at home.
  Given the aftermath of the BP Oil spill, it is easy to understand the 
importance of addressing all safety concerns prior to the issuance of 
oil and gas lease sales. Since the disaster, federal safety regulations 
have been tightened, spill containment response capability has been 
enhanced and lessons have been learned. The yearlong moratorium on 
offshore drilling activity gave the Administration the time they needed 
to carefully evaluate current practices and create an effective 
regulatory regime.
  We must make sure that as we effectively lift the offshore drilling 
moratorium that we properly fund that department of interior to do its 
job more quickly rather than cutting their budgets. I have offered an 
amendment to H.R. 1230 to provide for necessary and proper levels of 
staffing and training of technical engineers and other personnel as are 
necessary to review permits for drilling in the outer continental shelf 
land and offshore gas and oil leasing sales activities.
  It is the job of the Department of the Interior to ensure that all 
lease sales meet the highest reasonable standards for safety. My 
concern is that H.R. 1230 would require the Department of Interior to 
act more quickly in their review of lease sale applications than their 
current resources allow. If the Department of the Interior moves to 
quickly, no one will benefit from unsafe and inadequate standards.
  The Administration has already aggressively restarted drilling the 
outer continental shelf. To continue drilling safely, the Department of 
the Interior must be properly funded and staffed with technical 
engineers to review permits, examine lease sales, and ensure that each 
application is afforded proper consideration.
  As a Representative of an oil and gas producing District and state, I 
am aware that offshore drilling is an important component of the 
nation's energy supply and provides many Gulf communities with jobs and 
income.
  We can protect the environment while drilling the outer continental 
shelf. Providing adequate resources for review will prevent permits 
from being declined due to time constraints.
  Responsible offshore drilling with proper funding and staff for the 
DOI is a good solution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to compromise and help the hard working people in Gulf Coast 
communities get back to work.
  We must get the American Gulf Coast oil and gas community back to 
work. Many people in the oil and gas industry in my district and the 
people and businesses of the Gulf Coast rely on oil and gas industry 
jobs and this benefits local economies and our national economy.
  Through this bill, America could improve its energy supply and demand 
imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by permitting the 
United States to produce more of its own energy resources as we pursue 
forms of alternative energy for the stability of our national energy 
production and our national security itself.
  Mr. Chair, I believe it is very important to allow these oil and gas 
lease sales and properly fund the Department of the Interior to do its 
jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1230.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
H.R. 1230. Just over one year ago, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded 
and sank, taking the lives of 11 workers and releasing millions of 
barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of learning from the 
catastrophic economic and environmental consequences of last year's 
spill, H.R. 1230 would speed up leasing without introducing new safety 
standards and throwing environmental review to the wind.
  One of these leases would be located off the shore of Virginia, just 
75 miles from the shores of my home state of New Jersey. Drilling 
operations could potentially devastate the economy of New Jersey in the 
event of a spill, since the tourism and fishing industries support 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of economic activity across 
the state and region.
  Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to address rising gasoline 
prices. Instead of giving more handouts to Big Oil, we need to crack 
down on speculators and oil companies who post record profits on the 
backs of the American public. We should be investing in alternative 
energy sources such as wind power to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil, not subsidizing Big Oil.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, all Americans are concerned about high gas 
prices and the growing cost they are imposing on our families. We 
should also be concerned that those high prices might stall our 
economic recovery. So what can we do to reduce the burden, both for 
families and for our economy as a whole?
  I support safe, responsible drilling. So does President Obama: his 
administration has already set us on course to re-issue three out of 
four of the leases in question in this bill. Domestic drilling is 
definitely part of the solution to meeting our energy needs.
  But I also know that offering drilling as the only solution is simply 
not up to the scale of the challenge we face. Consider that the United 
States already produces about 1.5 million more barrels of oil per day 
than it did in 2005. And last year under President Obama's watch, 
domestic oil production rose to its highest level since 2003. If 
Republicans were right, that increased production would lower prices--
but in fact, oil reached a record of $147 per barrel during the same 
period.
  Consider the fact that Canada, unlike the U.S., produces about 1.1 
million more barrels of oil than it consumes each day. Canada produces 
far more oil than we do--and if Republicans were right, Canadian gas 
prices wouldn't be rising at the same rate as ours. But they are--
they're feeling the effects, just as we are.
  So while I am a strong supporter of drilling, and making use of our 
natural resources, the fact remains that the issuing of four leases, 
even in the very near term, will have little to no impact on gas prices 
today.
  In the wake of the devastating BP Gulf oil spill, we need to focus on 
responsible drilling as we work to increase production. We should not 
auction off more leases to oil companies without adequate consideration 
of whether offshore drilling in those locations is safe and without 
environmental consequences.
  That's a reckless course to take, especially when the effect on 
today's gas prices is essentially nonexistent. While the American 
people want us to do everything in our power to lower gas prices, they 
also don't want us to set up a process that could lead to another BP 
Gulf oil spill.
  I believe we can drill and do so responsibly, and we can expedite 
leases responsibly. Rather than Republicans' one-dimensional approach 
of simply issuing new leases, let's also ensure that oil and gas 
companies are diligent about producing on the leases they already own. 
Let's expedite leases without disregarding the environmental impacts. 
Let's invest in clean energy technology and efficiency to break our oil 
addiction--not defund those investments, as Republicans demand. Let's 
crack down on the financial speculation that drives gas prices up for 
American families.
  And--when even Speaker Boehner agrees that the oil companies ``ought 
to be paying their fair share''--let's end unjustifiable subsidies to 
some of the world's most profitable companies, subsidies that are only 
driving our nation deeper into debt.
  That's what a real, responsible energy policy would look like--not 
this bill. I would have supported it if amendments had passed to ensure 
environmental and safety reviews to prevent another oil spill, and to 
ensure that offshore drilling does not conflict with military training 
operations off our coasts. But because Republicans rejected those 
amendments, this bill remains flawed. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the three oil drilling 
bills reported by the Republican Majority on the House Resources 
Committee, including the one before the House today. I urge the House 
to defeat them.

[[Page 6712]]

  One year after the largest oil spill in U.S. history revealed huge 
safety and enforcement problems with ultra-deep offshore drilling, gas 
prices are going through the ceiling and the oil companies are raking 
in profits hand-over-fist. Exxon Mobil just posted a first-quarter 
profit of $10.7 billion, a 69 percent gain from the previous year. BP 
reported a first-quarter profit of $7.1 billion, a 17 percent increase. 
Royal Dutch Shell earned $6.3 billion, up 30 percent. Chevron's profit 
grew to $6.2 billion, a 36 percent increase. Conoco Phillips reported a 
first-quarter profit of $3 billion, up 44 percent.
  What is the Republican Majority's response? They want to reward the 
oil companies with additional offshore leases and reduce the ability of 
the Interior Department to review offshore oil drilling applications 
for safety.
  Proponents of this bill would have us believe that gas prices will go 
down if we only open up more coastal areas to ultra-deepwater drilling 
and reduce safety oversight of the oil companies. This is not true. 
None of these bills will do anything at all to reduce gasoline prices. 
Even if we threw caution to the wind and opened up these new offshore 
areas tomorrow, it would take years for them to produce any oil.
  Before opening up new offshore areas, it's fair to ask what the 
industry is doing with the leases they already have. A new report by 
the Department of Interior reveals that more than two-thirds of 
existing offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico and more than half of 
onshore leases on federal lands are unused. Tens of millions of acres 
that have already been leased to industry sit idle. The industry should 
either use the leases they have or give them up.
  At a time when our constituents are feeling the pain of rising gas 
prices, it is unjustifiable that our tax code subsidizes Big Oil to the 
tune of billions of dollars a year. The Big Five oil companies reported 
a combined profit of $32 billion in the first quarter of 2011 alone. 
Repealing the three largest tax breaks for the Big Five oil companies 
would save taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Instead of rewarding 
the oil companies, we should at last end these unwarranted subsidies to 
Big Oil.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 1230.
  It appears to me that the Republican energy plan is higher gas prices 
and lower safety standards. This fits nicely with their overall agenda 
for the 111th Congress: end Medicare to pay for tax breaks for Big Oil.
  Yesterday, the Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked my 
amendment that would require oil and gas companies to publicly disclose 
their environmental and worker safety record before drilling on the 
Outer continental shelf.
  Earlier this year, Republicans voted to gut the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission--the consumer watchdog agency charged with 
overseeing oil speculators.
  And earlier today, even though BP is now reporting $7.1 billion in 
quarterly profits--17 percent increase--every Republican in the House 
voted to block consideration of our Democratic bill, the Big Oil 
Welfare Repeal Act of 2011, to stop the billions of dollars in tax 
giveaways to the biggest oil companies who don't need taxpayer help to 
get their job done.
  Under the Republican budget that the House approved earlier this 
year, people in their 40s and 50s now will be forced to pay more for 
health care when they retire than under current law--at least $6,400 
per year more.
  But consider this: in the past three months, the top five oil 
companies made $30 billion in profits and Republicans in Congress want 
to give them billions more in tax benefits and subsidies. The same 
Republicans who voted to end Medicare are now refusing to hold a vote 
on repealing the generous tax breaks for the largest and most 
profitable corporations in world history.
  Make no mistake about it. Their bill on the floor today won't bring 
down the price at the pump. It won't end the massive taxpayer giveaways 
to Big Oil. It won't lead to more fuel-efficient cars. It won't crack 
down on oil speculators. And it won't improve the safety of offshore 
drilling--and in fact it will require the Interior Department to accept 
the very same flawed NEPA documents that helped lead to the BP spill in 
the Gulf.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1230 because it ignores the lessons of 
the BP spill and it does nothing to help families or consumers. I don't 
think Americans want Congress to take money away from seniors only to 
give that very same money to oil giants.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1230.
  Gas prices continue to rise. The instability in the Middle East is 
threatening our supply, and we already import much of our oil from 
countries that are hostile to our interests. We need to safely and 
responsibly produce our domestic resources offshore in order to reduce 
this reliance on foreign imports and in turn, increase our economic 
growth.
  We cannot forget that just one production rig equals 500 jobs--100 
workers on the rig, plus 400 workers supporting drilling operations 
onshore. This industry comprises not only oil and gas companies, but 
also a network of suppliers and contractors that purchase goods as 
diverse as forgings, valves, computers, chemicals and helicopters from 
suppliers in all 50 states.
  That is why I support H.R. 1230, which would force lease sales in the 
Gulf of Mexico and offshore Virginia that were delayed or cancelled 
following the Macondo spill.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I also want to mention that 
two members of the House, Congressman Gerlach and Congressman Culberson 
had wanted to cosponsor this bill but because we had to file the 
reports on the bills on Monday, they were unable to. I appreciate their 
support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1230

       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 ``Restarting American Offshore 
     Leasing Now Act''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 216 IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 216 under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as 
     soon as practicable, but not later than 4 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease 
     sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-2012 5-
     Year OCS Plan and the Multi-Sale Environmental Impact 
     Statement are deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 218 IN THE WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 218 under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as 
     soon as practicable, but not later than 8 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease 
     sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-2012 5-
     Year OCS Plan and the Multi-Sale Environmental Impact 
     Statement are deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 220 ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 
                   OFFSHORE VIRGINIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 220 under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as 
     soon as practicable, but not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Prohibition on Conflicts With Military Operations.--The 
     Secretary shall not make any tract available for leasing 
     under this section if the President, through the Secretary of 
     Defense, determines that drilling activity on that tract 
     would create an unreasonable conflict with military 
     operations.

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 222 IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 222 under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as 
     soon as practicable, but not later than June 1, 2012.
       (b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease 
     sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-2012 5-
     Year OCS Plan and the Multi-Sale Environmental Impact 
     Statement are deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-
     2012 5 Year OCS Plan'' means the Final Environmental Impact 
     Statement for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 
     Program: 2007-2012 (April 2007) prepared by the Secretary of 
     the Interior.
       (2) The term ``Multi-Sale Environmental Impact Statement'' 
     means the Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Western 
     Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas

[[Page 6713]]

     Lease Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218, and Proposed Central 
     Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales 205, 206, 208, 
     213, 216, and 222 (September 2008) prepared by the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those 
printed in part B of House Report 112-73. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, 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. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, beginning at line 6, amend sections 2 and 3 to read 
     as follows:

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 216 IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct offshore oil 
     and gas lease sale 216 under section 8 of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as 
     practicable after compliance with the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 218 IN THE WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct offshore oil 
     and gas lease sale 218 under section 8 of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as 
     practicable after compliance with the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       Page 5, beginning at line 1, amend section 5 to read as 
     follows:

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 222 IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct offshore oil 
     and gas lease sale 222 under section 8 of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as 
     practicable after compliance with the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       Page 5, beginning at line 15, strike section 6.

  The Acting CHAIR pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. HOLT. The authors of this bill are so eager to accelerate the 
giveaways to Big Oil, rather than protect the consumers, the 
environment and workers, that they, in their legislation, deem that the 
shoddy environmental analysis conducted 4 years ago, in other words, 
years prior to the gulf oil blowout, to be sufficient for all future 
lease sales in the gulf, despite their glaring deficiencies. They 
deem--in other words, assume, declare--that this is sufficient. Look, 
this environmental impact statement was not adequate then, and we know 
it's not adequate now.
  ``Deem'' is a dangerous word in legislation, especially legislation 
that could jeopardize worker safety and imperil the economic structure 
of coastal communities.
  My amendment would strike the language deeming the pre-spill 
environmental work to be sufficient and it, therefore, would require a 
new, updated analysis. And the administration says they intend to and 
are prepared to apply a strengthened environmental analysis 
incorporating the lessons learned.
  This amnesia bill before us learns no lessons from the worst 
environmental oil spill in our history. Just look at some of the 
conclusions contained in the outdated environmental analysis.
  The EIS determined ``the most likely size of an offshore spill 
greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels would be 4,600 barrels.'' So, in 
other words, the pre-BP spill analysis concluded that the most likely 
size of the largest spill that we would see in the Gulf of Mexico would 
be 4,600 barrels of oil. The Deepwater Horizon produced 4 million 
barrels spilling into the gulf.
  In addition, the analysis concluded that the total volume of oil that 
would be spilled from all spills over 40 years would be roughly 47,000 
barrels of oil. That's less than what spilled from the Deepwater 
Horizon in 1 day.
  The EIS concluded that, in the worst-case scenario, something like 
several dozen miles of gulf coastline would be affected by the spill. 
In reality, it affected 950 miles of coastline, across all the Gulf 
States.
  The earlier EIS review that they would say should apply for all 
future drilling determined that a deepwater blowout would not present a 
clean-up problem because the oil would rise in a water column, 
surfacing almost directly above, that's their words in the EIS, that 
they would deem to apply, surfacing almost directly over the source 
location. In fact, we know the oil spewing spread in subsurface plumes 
for miles and miles and miles across the gulf.
  For commercial fisheries, the environmental statement said ``a 
subsurface blowout would have a negligible effect on the Gulf of Mexico 
fish resources or commercial fishing.'' In reality, the BP spill closed 
88,000 square miles of the gulf to fishing.
  These are just a few examples of how this is an inadequate 
environmental statement. Have we learned nothing from the largest oil 
spill in gulf waters?
  It is so thoughtless and so boilerplate that it talks about 
protecting walruses in the Gulf of Mexico. This was a thoughtless 
environmental impact statement, surely not worthy of the people who 
live along the coast. This environmental impact statement is surely not 
worthy of those who make their living either in the oil business or the 
fishing business or any other business.
  The fact is, we have far more information now than we did in 2007. 
And after immense cost, really hard-earned knowledge, we certainly 
should not proceed as if nothing has happened without reassessing our 
assumptions and our analyses. The Department of the Interior is working 
to hold these sales mandated by this bill, but in a reasonable 
timeframe.
  Any leases should reflect the lessons learned from the BP spill. In 
other words, it should reflect reality, not some dream world. They live 
in a dream world economically; they live in a dream world 
environmentally. It is clearly a world where walruses live in the Gulf 
of Mexico.
  My amendment, I think, is a reasonable way to proceed. It would 
require that we do new environmental work that builds on the hard-
earned lessons that we learned from the largest oil spill in the gulf 
waters. It ensures that future leasing in the gulf fully considers the 
environmental impact of drilling.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. The EIS work 
conducted thus far for the lease sales, and keep in mind, these lease 
sales were already okayed, is complete, thorough and sufficient to 
safely and responsibly conduct these lease sales.
  It is important to note that this is only one of many environmental 
analyses that these leases will undergo before any drilling can start. 
At each of multiple stages, additional detailed environmental and 
safety reviews will be conducted.
  The language in this bill, underlying bill, allows the administration 
to move forward with these lease sales in a timely manner, but does not 
allow drilling until at least several more layers of thorough 
environmental assessments and reviews are conducted on each lease sale 
sold at these sales. I think that's what the gentleman was getting to. 
The underlying bill allows that to happen.

[[Page 6714]]

  These additional environmental studies will allow for the latest and 
best available information following the oil spill to be included in 
the studies and applied to any drilling that will take place.
  In totality, the library of environmental reviews will end up 
totaling tens of thousands of pages, Mr. Chairman, and hundreds of 
hours by environmental scientists, engineers, biologists, and other 
professionals.
  But this amendment isn't about environmental protection. This 
amendment is about removing the timelines in this bill to conduct these 
four lease sales. Keep in mind, these lease sales were already agreed 
to by a prior administration. The real effect of this amendment is to 
allow President Obama to block increased energy production by 
continuing to push these lease sales off past 2012 or 2017, in some 
cases. The real impact of this amendment is that we are right back 
where we started when the President canceled these lease sales, sending 
jobs and energy production overseas.
  This administration's actions to delay these lease sales and their 
long record of anti-energy roadblocks is why 2011, this year, may be 
the first year since 1958 that no lease sales will occur in the OCS. It 
is for this reason that OCS revenues in 2011 will fall by more than $9 
billion compared to 2008.
  By validating the existing EIS work, the bill ensures that these 
lease sales will move forward this year, generating revenue for 
taxpayers and ensuring that our leasing program continues in a timely 
manner, while also allowing for additional safety measures to be taken.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Here we go again. Delay, delay, delay. The poor people of 
my district will have to sit there, unemployed and wait again. We've 
gotten environmental study after environmental study after 
environmental study that will happen after these lease sales. This does 
not prevent the additional environmental studies that will take place 
anyhow. All it will do is force those companies to take up to three 
more years before we can get to our business of drilling so we can get 
to our business of providing for the American people affordable energy. 
Again, it's a delay tactic.
  How do I know that? Because I can tell you that this administration 
pulls delay tactic after delay tactic after delay tactic in permitting 
wells in the Gulf of Mexico. They lift the moratorium, and then they 
don't issue permits.
  So what do they do now, the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on 
the other side? They say, well, it looks like we have a piece of 
legislation in front of us that's going to finally start to open the 
gulf back up. So let's see how many roadblocks we can put in front of 
it.

                              {time}  1230

  I urge my colleagues, defeat this amendment. Let's get on with the 
business of providing this country with affordable energy and let's get 
this economy rolling and let's get back to creating jobs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 112-73.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, beginning at line 19, strike ``if the President, 
     through the Secretary of Defense, determines that drilling 
     activity on that tract would create an unreasonable 
     conflict'' and insert ``until the President, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that drilling 
     activity on that tract would not create a conflict''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment 
requires the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
to certify that moving forward with Lease Sale 220 will not impede 
naval or other Department of Defense operations off Virginia's coast.
  The Department of Defense issued a report which stated that 78 
percent of the area of Lease Sale 220 is currently used by the Navy for 
equipment testing, practicing with live ordnance, underwater training, 
and other critical operations.
  There may not be a readily available alternative for live ordnance 
testing. And, of course, we wouldn't want live ordnance being used near 
oil wells, now, would we?
  As you know, Norfolk is the largest naval base in America. It is 
critical for our national security and has beneficial side effects, 
obviously, for the regional economy. But billions of dollars have been 
invested in Norfolk and in that test bed area.
  Perhaps it is possible for offshore oil exploration or wind energy 
development to be compatible with continued naval operations. That is 
why we asked for certification. But if energy development forced the 
Navy to relocate, our national security would suffer, preparedness 
would suffer, and billions of dollars of extra cost in Federal 
expenditures would be incurred. Virginia's economy of course would also 
suffer, as we could lose more than $10 billion in annual contracting 
income derived from that base.
  This amendment ensures that energy development would not cripple 
naval operations by simply requiring the President with the Secretary 
of Defense to certify that moving forward with Lease Sale 220 won't 
impede naval operations and harm national security.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, the 
underlying bill already protects the Defense Department's 
responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf of Virginia. So this 
amendment is totally unnecessary.
  Because preserving the working relationship between the Department of 
Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great importance to 
the Virginia congressional delegation and to the Natural Resources 
Committee, H.R. 1230 already ensures the mutual goals of national 
security and energy independence by requiring that the lease sale be 
conducted with stipulations on surface use, as well as additional 
requirements to make certain that the leases issued in this area would 
not impact defense operations.
  I also want to point out that bipartisan support for energy 
production offshore of Virginia does exist. According to a study by the 
Southeast Energy Alliance, offshore energy development in Virginia 
could create nearly 2,000 jobs in Virginia and produce more than one-
half billion barrels of oil and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  This natural gas is important, because in the last few years the 
Dominion liquefied natural gas terminal in Baltimore, Maryland, 
received huge amounts of foreign natural gas. Developing energy 
production in offshore Virginia could displace foreign natural gas as 
well as mean more energy for Virginia.
  Now, in context, one-half billion barrels of oil is enough to fuel 
all 4 million cars in Virginia for more than 4 years,

[[Page 6715]]

and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could heat all 3.2 million 
Virginia households for more than 11 years. And, developing resources 
off Virginia's coast could generate nearly $19.5 billion in revenues to 
Federal, State, and local governments.
  Virginians, along with their Governor, both Democratic Senators, and 
a majority of the congressional delegation here in Congress, and the 
city council of Virginia Beach, off of which much of the development 
would take place, do support offshore leasing and development because 
they understand it can bring much-needed jobs and revenues to the 
State.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from Colorado for his 
remarks. But, frankly, if he is so certain of the protections contained 
in this legislation, then surely this extra special amendment to make 
sure that Virginia is protected would not find objection on the other 
side of the aisle.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Northern Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Atlantic fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval 
Base and operates in the same waters that this legislation proposes to 
sell for oil and gas development. Does the Republican majority really 
want to jeopardize those thousands and thousands of jobs that are 
identified with that naval base?
  According to a report issued by the Secretary of Defense, there 
should be no lease sales in 72 percent of the proposed lease area that 
this bill directs be sold to oil and gas companies because it is in 
conflict with live ordnance, air-surface missile, and gunnery 
exercises, shipboard qualification trials, carrier qualifications, and 
development and operational follow-on testing and evaluation, and an 
additional 5 percent would interfere with aerial operations and should 
not host permanent surface structures such as drilling rigs.
  In other words, more than three quarters of the area that this 
legislation directs be sold to oil and gas companies is in conflict 
with our national security interests, and a good deal of the remaining 
22 percent is within shipping lanes of the country's two busiest 
commercial ports, Hampton Roads and Baltimore.
  Mr. Chairman, our coastal waters are a shared resource that host a 
number of competing and sometimes incompatible uses. Clearly, direct 
national security interests should be weighed at least alongside the 
indirect benefit of unproven oil and gas developments that won't occur 
for many, many, many years to come.
  This amendment would ensure national security interests would 
prevail. But it also underscores the point that the majority seems too 
anxious to dismiss: The interests of our coastal fisheries and the 
tourism industry. Those industries generate billions in income and 
sustain the livelihood of millions of Americans. Their future is placed 
at risk when Congress passes laws that disregard the lessons past 
disasters have taught by mandating shortcuts to more drilling.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and reject the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I yield 1 minute to my friend from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  This amendment will ensure that necessary safeguards are in place to 
protect military training operations, NASA missions, and port access in 
certain offshore areas.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States Navy trains 
extensively in the Virginia Capes Operations Area off the coast of 
Virginia. Additionally, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's 
Eastern Shore requires a clear and unrestricted rocket and target 
launch range off Virginia's coast.
  I have long had reservations about drilling off the coast of 
Virginia. I believe the environmental, economic, and national security 
risks for that drilling far outweigh any potential benefits. But if 
drilling will occur, this amendment will ensure that commonsense and 
responsible processes will be in place to safeguard against obvious 
negative consequences to our military, to NASA, and to port operations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Before I yield back, I just want to say I 
appreciate again the reassurances from our colleague from Colorado, but 
many of us in Virginia want to be sure.
  Again, this amendment is simple. It does not stop oil production or 
oil drilling offshore. It simply requires, first, a certification that 
the all-important naval base at Norfolk is protected and that the 
testing bed offshore is not in jeopardy, given the billions of dollars 
we have invested in national security in that area and its importance 
to our regional economy. We think it is a reasonable protection, a 
reasonable measure.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that 
the Governor of Virginia supports this, the majority of the House 
Members from Virginia support this without the amendment, and the 
Democratic Senators from Virginia have in the past agreed to 
legislation identical in wording to what this legislation says about 
offshore activity. So because the offshore activities are adequately 
and responsibly dealt with in the bill as it is, I would urge a ``no'' 
vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
112-73 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Holt

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 240, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--174

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle

[[Page 6716]]


     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Crowley
     Emerson
     Engel
     Giffords
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Pompeo
     Rangel
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Weiner

                              {time}  1306

  Ms. JENKINS and Mr. ROSKAM changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. BONO MACK, and Mr. ELLISON changed their 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. Connolly of Virginia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 240, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                               AYES--176

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer

[[Page 6717]]


     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Crowley
     DeLauro
     Emerson
     Engel
     Giffords
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Rothman (NJ)
     Weiner

                              {time}  1313

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass of New Hampshire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, 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. 1230) to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain 
offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for other purposes, and, pursuant 
to House Resolution 245, reported the bill 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. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LUJAN. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lujan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1230 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 5, after line 14, insert the following (and 
     redesignate accordingly):

     SEC. 5. NO FOREIGN SALES.

       The leases offered for sale under this Act shall specify 
     that all oil and natural gas produced under such leases shall 
     be offered for sale only in the United States.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes in support 
of his motion.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, American families are 
hurting right now. When the cost of gas at the pump rises, that means 
that the cost of groceries goes up, the cost of goods goes up, and the 
cost of just getting to work goes up. The American people need relief; 
and the way this legislation is written, it will do nothing to decrease 
the price at the pump, and it will do nothing to lower the 
international price of oil.
  All day today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
suggested that drilling more is the solution to high gas prices. If my 
Republican colleagues really believe that increasing drilling in the 
U.S. will lower gas prices, then we should all be able to agree that 
oil produced in America should stay in America to help American 
families and American businesses.
  That's why I am offering this final amendment today--to ensure that 
oil resources that are produced through leasing under this act are kept 
here and sold here in the United States. Simply put, this means, if we 
produce it here, we should keep it here for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from a State that has oil and gas production, and 
we know how important domestic production is. We don't disagree that 
production in the United States is important. Personally, I favor a 
more comprehensive plan to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of 
oil, one that includes natural gas, wind, solar, one that grows new 
industries and creates jobs that cannot be outsourced out of the United 
States.
  While I disagree with my Republican colleagues' approach, I think 
that we can all agree that something must be done to reduce the price 
of gasoline for consumers. The American people want us to work together 
to lower gas prices, plain and simple. They know our country is far too 
reliant on foreign oil, and they want us to do something real about it, 
plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, some things deserve to be repeated, and 
I'll tell you that the American people want us to come together to 
lower gas prices, plain and simple.
  At a time when gas prices are at historic highs, if we're going to 
produce more from American drilling, we should keep it in America to 
help Americans. We've heard from the other side that the solution is as 
simple as producing more oil in the U.S., but that's not going to lower 
costs in international energy markets. That's not how it works.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. domestic oil production is already at its highest 
level in almost a decade, and that's a fact. In the last 2 years, oil 
production from the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf has increased by more 
than a third, and that's a fact. So, while we see our domestic 
production going up, the price at the pump is going up even higher, and 
that's hurting families.
  Without this amendment, there is nothing in the Republican bill that 
would guarantee that oil produced under this act would stay in the 
United States to offer relief for the American people. Yet, Mr. 
Speaker, we can change all of that, and we can do it together and do 
what's right for the American people. We can support this amendment 
that simply says that oil produced in the United States under these 
leases would stay in the United States.
  My Republican colleagues will tell us that this bill is about sending 
a message to OPEC and to the world that we are willing to produce our 
own oil. If we're going to send a message, Mr. Speaker, let's send the 
message that when we drill on the taxpayers' land that America's oil 
should stay right here in America to lower prices at the pump, plain 
and simple.
  To my colleagues, when you go home to your districts this weekend, 
ask your constituents if they think oil produced in the U.S. should be 
kept in the U.S. and refined in the U.S. for American consumers, 
American families, and American businesses or if they think it should 
be shipped out of the country.
  What do you think they'll say?
  Quite simply, that is the choice, and that is all this final 
amendment says. It will not kill this bill. If it is adopted, it will 
be immediately incorporated into the underlying bill, and the bill will 
be voted upon immediately. Let's do something for the American people, 
and plain and simple, let's support this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1320


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, 
and I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to 
recommit.

[[Page 6718]]

  Quite frankly, this amendment is redundant, unnecessary, and another 
attempt to divert attention from the real issue of increasing energy 
production in order to create jobs, lower energy costs, and improve 
national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
  First, Mr. Speaker, exports are already subject to the Export 
Administration Act. Before any oil or gas can be exported, the 
President must find that the exports will not diminish the total 
quantity or quality of petroleum available to the U.S. and the national 
interests and are in accord with the provisions of the Export 
Administration Act of 1969. If the President finds that exports are in 
violation of the Export Administration Act, an executive order can halt 
all these exports if Congress finds that the exports are in conflict 
with the national interests, and they can act accordingly.
  Now, having said it is covered under law, let's really get to the 
bottom line. This is another distraction from the same people that 
brought us cap-and-trade. Now, that should probably say everything 
right there because I find it absolutely ironic my good friend from New 
Mexico making this argument that if we went out and talked to our 
constituents if they would like to buy American-made energy, he 
suggested they would say overwhelmingly yes. Well, of course, they 
would. They would also say why aren't we drilling for sources here in 
the United States, offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and onshore; and 
that's what these three bills do.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and 
pass the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 238, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               AYES--171

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ackerman
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Emerson
     Engel
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Hirono
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Van Hollen
     Weiner

                              {time}  1339

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 297 had I been present I 
would have voted ``aye.'' I was unfortunately detained and unable to 
vote.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 297, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266, 
noes 149, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                               AYES--266

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack

[[Page 6719]]


     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--149

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Crowley
     Emerson
     Engel
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Meeks
     Nadler
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Rothman (NJ)
     Weiner

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. MILLER of North Carolina, SCHRADER, BUTTERFIELD, and PRICE of 
North Carolina changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 298, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________