[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9743-9772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 JOBS AND ENERGY PERMITTING ACT OF 2011

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316 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. 2021.

                              {time}  1445


                     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. 2021) to amend the Clean Air Act regarding air pollution from 
Outer Continental Shelf activity, with Mrs. Emerson 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 Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, as we prepare to take up an important 
piece of legislation today, H.R. 2021, I would like to yield such time 
as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, 
the sponsor of this legislation; and the gentleman from Kentucky, Ed 
Whitfield, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for 
moving this legislation along.
  Madam Chair, the purpose of this bill is real simple. It is to 
streamline the permit process to allow us more domestic production of 
oil and gas. In this country, we consume about 19 million barrels a day 
of oil and we produce about 7 million, and the exploration on the Outer 
Continental Shelf has been delayed for years because of a broken 
bureaucracy. The regional EPA, they are going to approve exploration 
air permits, only to have them challenged again by EPA's Environmental 
Appeals Board. It has been a never-ending circuit of approvals, appeals 
and re-applications, and it has stalled exploration for nearly 5 years.
  So what does that mean? It means that these resources, which perhaps 
contain as much as 28 billion--yes, that's billion--barrels of oil and 
122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, have been stalled.
  We know that if production is allowed here, safe production, we could 
produce perhaps as much as 1 million barrels a day from these sites, 
and it would add about 54,000 American jobs. Yet 5 years after the 
original lease sales, not a single test well has been drilled, not a 
single barrel of domestic oil has been brought to market to reduce our 
reliance on Middle East oil, and not a single job has been created to 
develop the resources because the bureaucracy is standing in the way of 
exploration.
  This legislation changes that, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support this sensible, bipartisan legislation to streamline the 
permitting process and finally allow us to explore and develop the vast 
resources of our Nation. This bill was approved by the Energy and 
Commerce Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, and I look forward to 
the same result today.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation. The legislation is not 
about creating jobs. It is not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a 
giveaway to the oil industry that will increase pollution along our 
coasts.
  This legislation's supporters have promoted it as a narrow bill 
designed to address specific problems that Shell has faced in obtaining 
a clean air permit for exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska.

                              {time}  1450

  This legislation will have wide-ranging impacts beyond the Arctic 
Ocean. The States of California and Delaware have grave concerns about 
the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and 
welfare from air pollution. In fact, this bill could affect every State 
on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
  I agree that the provisions of the Clean Air Act that apply to the 
Outer Continental Shelf will have some ambiguities that could use 
clarification, but this legislation takes the wrong approach. Each of 
the so-called clarifications in this bill would have the effect of 
allowing more pollution and providing less public health protection for 
the nearby communities and limiting participation of affected 
stakeholders in the permitting process.
  The Republicans say that it shouldn't take 5 years to get a permit, 
and I agree with them. But the truth is it has not taken 5 years for 
Shell to get a permit. Shell has pulled permit applications and 
modified its proposed operations on numerous occasions. Each time, EPA 
has had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on air 
quality and public health. This is what EPA is supposed to do. No one 
should want EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting 
these major sources of pollution.
  There are many flaws in the legislation. It allows huge increases in 
air pollution from oil and gas drilling activities by moving the point 
of measurement from the drill ship to the shore. It threatens the 
ability of California and other States to regulate the emissions of 
support vessels. And it sets an arbitrary deadline of 6 months for 
final agency action on every offshore exploratory drilling permit, no 
matter the size or complexity of the proposed operations. The EPA 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation testified before the 
Energy and Commerce Committee that 6 months is too short to allow for 
adequate technical analysis, public participation, and administrative 
review. Witnesses for the States of California and Delaware agree this 
wouldn't work for their State programs. Yet these concerns have been 
ignored.
  The legislation eliminates the Environmental Appeals Board from the 
permitting process, even though it is a cheaper, faster, and more 
expert substitute for judicial review. And it requires all challenges 
to air permits to be raised before the Federal Court of Appeals in 
Washington, D.C., thousands of miles away from the affected 
communities.
  Claims that this legislation will reduce gas prices or the budget 
deficit are nonsense. They have no substantiation. There are sensible 
improvements we could make, but we aren't making them. Instead, this 
bill waives environmental requirements and short-circuits permitting 
reviews at the expense of public health.
  The administration opposes H.R. 2021 because it would curtail the 
authority of EPA to help ensure that domestic oil production on the 
Outer Continental Shelf proceeds safely, responsibly, and with 
opportunities for efficient stakeholder input. I agree with them.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2021.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the 
author of this bill, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee that brought 
this bill before the body today, and I thank the chairman, Mr. Upton, 
for his work on this piece of legislation. Energy security, job 
creation, working to reduce the pain at the pump, that is what H.R. 
2021 is about, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. I thank the 
chairman for bringing it to the floor today.
  This is an important bill for our country and a step in the right 
direction when it comes to weaning ourselves off of foreign, Middle 
Eastern

[[Page 9744]]

oil. It allows us to utilize the resources that we have in our own 
backyard--American energy for American jobs--responsibly and 
environmentally friendly.
  Gas prices are fluctuating near historic levels that can send our 
economy into yet another recession. Millions of Americans are out of 
work. The unemployment rate has ticked back above 9 percent. Unrest in 
the Middle East has highlighted our vulnerabilities that stem from 
dependence on oil half a world away and from many countries that seek 
to do us harm. In the face of seemingly intractable problems, it is our 
duty as elected representatives of the people of this country to pursue 
solutions that benefit our neighbors and our Nation as a whole. One 
such solution is unlocking America's vast energy potential. The Jobs 
and Energy Permitting Act is a bipartisan approach--a bipartisan bill--
to bring a massive domestic resource online and create tens of 
thousands of jobs.
  I am delighted to have my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green) as the coauthor of this legislation.
  In this bill, we move in a nimble and elegant manner to tie the loose 
ends in EPA's permitting process and the Clean Air Act, itself, to 
expedite decisions on EPA's issued air permits for offshore oil 
exploration. The needless red tape inherent in EPA's current permitting 
process has blocked access to a truly enormous reserve, a reserve in 
our own backyard, Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
  Taken together, we have been told that upwards of 1 million barrels 
of oil a day can be brought online as a result of the responsible 
development of these resources, entirely offsetting our imports from 
Saudi Arabia. Doing so will create and sustain over 50,000 jobs as 
massive projects get underway to bring this resource to American 
consumers. Such a vast amount of oil will not only reduce prices at the 
pump in the future, as testimony was given before the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, but keep us more secure by eliminating imports from 
hostile regimes abroad.
  For these reasons, the President agrees that we should be moving 
forward with permitting exploration off Alaska's coast. This bipartisan 
bill is the most efficient way to get the job done.
  Through two exhaustive hearings on this bill, we heard testimony from 
numerous stakeholders and citizens of Alaska. We believe we have 
created a solution that balances both environmental protection with 
public priorities, a balance that does not exist with current EPA 
procedures.
  During our subcommittee and full committee markups we debated 
numerous amendments, giving members the opportunity to propose 
substantive changes to the underlying bill. I'm glad that we had a very 
serious and thought-provoking discussion on this bill during those 
meetings, and I look forward to the debate today.
  The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a serious bill with serious 
implications for our economy and our energy security. I am delighted to 
be here today working with my Democratic colleague to move forward with 
an effective solution to regulatory problems experienced in Alaska and 
Alaska's offshore areas.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to our 
Democratic leader in the energy area, the ranking member of the Energy 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member from the full committee, 
my friend from California (Mr. Waxman), for yielding this time.
  Madam Chair, I'm not opposed to drilling in Alaska and I'm not 
opposed to streamlining the permitting process in a sensible and 
thoughtful manner, but I do object to cutting out input and 
participation from the very communities that would be most affected by 
this process or preempting States' authority in order to expedite the 
permitting process for one single company.
  Unfortunately, many of the less affluent communities who are 
ultimately being adversely affected by this permitting process do not 
have the resources of the oil industry to lobby Congress on their own 
behalf, and so it's up to us, those Members who represent those same 
people, to come to this floor to represent them.
  While this bill will benefit Shell, the repercussions and 
consequences, both intended and unintended, will have a much greater 
impact on many stakeholders.
  If the majority had been willing to work with our side on this bill, 
as we offered on many occasions we wanted to--we begged, we pleaded, we 
almost crawled to try to get bipartisan participation on this bill--if 
they had been willing to work together, we could have crafted a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that could move through the House and 
the Senate and ultimately become law.

                              {time}  1500

  However, this bill does not take into account some of the very real 
concerns that the minority has outlined to the majority on several 
occasions.
  In fact, yesterday, the White House issued a statement opposing this 
bill because ``H.R. 2021 would curtail the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to help ensure 
that domestic oil production on the Outer Continental Shelf proceeds 
safely, responsibly, and with opportunities for efficient stakeholder 
input. H.R. 2021 would limit existing EPA authority to protect human 
health and the environment. H.R. 2021 would increase Federal court 
litigation and deprive citizens of an important avenue for challenging 
government action that affects local public health.''
  Madam Chair, this bill is certainly not about creating jobs, and it's 
certainly not about lowering gasoline prices. It is a giveaway--a 
blatant giveaway, an unadulterated giveaway--to the oil industry that 
will increase pollution along our coasts. In fact, as the 
administration has pointed out, 70 percent of the offshore leases that 
oil companies currently possess are not even at this very moment in 
production. Again, 70 percent of the offshore leases that oil companies 
own are not now in production, and 29 million acres of onshore permits, 
as we speak, aren't being developed. So it is unnecessary for Congress 
to intervene by sacrificing public participation and air quality 
protections for the sake of expediency on behalf of Shell, as this bill 
does.
  Madam Chair, I hope--I sincerely hope--that we can find bipartisan 
support for the amendments that will be offered today, including my 
own, which will simply allow the EPA administrator to provide 
additional 30-day extensions if the same administrator determines that 
such time is necessary to provide adequate time for public 
participation and sufficient involvement by affected States.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I might just add here that the University 
of Alaska did a study on this legislation in oil and gas development in 
Alaska's arctic seas, and they concluded that the full development 
there would create 54,000 jobs.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, Shell Oil Company has spent 5 
years of time and $3 billion trying to drill one well in the Arctic 
Ocean--5 years and $3 billion. In that time period, worldwide and in 
other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf of the world, they have 
drilled and received permits for over 200 wells--200 and the rest of 
the world ``zero''--in the Arctic Ocean.
  All this bill does is set up a fair procedure so that any company 
that wishes to drill a well--and the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the EPA, should probably be renamed under the Obama administration the 
``energy prohibition administration''--can go through the permitting 
process and get a decision within an adequate time period.
  Our friends in Russia are drilling wells in the territorial waters in 
the Arctic Ocean up there. Our friends in Norway are drilling wells in 
the Arctic Ocean in their territorial waters. We in the United States, 
because of bureaucratic foot-dragging at the EPA, are refusing to even 
let one well be drilled.

[[Page 9745]]

  This bill changes that. It sets timetables. It sets standards. It 
determines where you measure the emissions. There will be some 
emissions when you drill a few wells in the Arctic Ocean, but they're 
not going to be extensive. This bill says that you determine the 
emissions at the shoreline, which in the case of this particular well 
is about 80 miles away, and you measure it there. Madam Chairwoman, 
there will be more emissions created from the EPA agency heads and 
staff assistants in their driving up to Capitol Hill to testify than 
there probably will be from the service supply ships that go out to 
service the handful of wells that will be drilled.
  This is a commonsense bill. It doesn't change the underlying 
statutory language at all in terms of standards. It does set 
timetables. It does define where you measure the pollution, and it does 
require that you actually make a decision. It is a good bill, H.R. 
2021. In blackjack, if you get a 20, that's almost a sure winner. If 
you get a 21, it's a sure winner. This bill is a sure winner, H.R. 
2021. Please vote for it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a very 
important member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the ranking member very much for yielding.
  The underlying legislation represents another attempt by the 
Republicans to gut the Clean Air Act. Shell Oil spent years changing 
its mind about how it wanted to drill, what ship it wanted to use and 
even which of the arctic seas it planned to drill in. They, themselves, 
dragged out this process interminably.
  This legislation prevents EPA from requiring emissions reductions 
from all drilling support vessels, from icebreakers to the drilling 
ship, itself, as part of the air permitting process. What that means is 
that--listen to this number--up to 98 percent of the total air 
emissions associated with Arctic Outer Continental Shelf drilling could 
not be regulated by EPA under the permitting process. So hear that 
again. Their bill says that EPA cannot regulate 98 percent of the 
emissions.
  That's not reasonable. That's not a compromise. That's not balance.
  EPA has informed Congressman Waxman that, as part of its permit 
negotiations, Shell has actually agreed to add technology to one of its 
icebreakers to reduce the icebreaker's NOX emissions by 96 
percent--to reduce them by 96 percent--and particulate emissions 
reduced by 82 percent. Shell has already agreed to use a cleaner 
burning fuel than what would otherwise be required by law. Shell agreed 
to take these measures so that it could receive its permit from EPA, 
and the net effect of all the measures Shell has agreed to take will 
reduce the NOX emissions for the entire drilling project by 
72 percent. But under this bill, EPA would no longer have the ability 
to require or to request measures such as these because the bill says 
that EPA can't require reductions in emissions from mobile sources 
using its stationary source air permitting authority.
  Several weeks ago, Bob Meyers, who led EPA's Air Office during the 
Bush administration, pointed out at the Energy and Power Subcommittee 
hearing, that, in fact, EPA can regulate icebreakers and other support 
vessels under title II of the Clean Air Act. He said that this is why 
these mobile sources' emissions could be exempted from being regulated 
as part of the stationary source air permitting process. That all 
sounds so reasonable, but what these guys are saying is maybe you 
shouldn't be regulated as both a mobile source and a stationary source 
under the Clean Air Act.

                              {time}  1510

  But there's just one problem. Shell's air permit says that all of its 
ice-breakers and other support vessels are foreign-flagged so they 
can't be regulated under title II of the Clean Air Act in the first 
place. And even if they were American vessels, they're all too old to 
have been subject to the most stringent Clean Air Act or international 
emissions requirements.
  So what they're saying is for all intents and purposes, they're 
neither mobile nor are they stationary so they're not regulated at all. 
It's like being a carnivorous vegetarian, or you know, Chevy Chase 
nightlife. There is no such thing. You know, you have got to have it be 
one or the other; you've got to pick one or the other here. And you 
can't wind up nothing being required from them.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  So while Republicans say that this bill just keeps the ice-breakers 
and the ice-breaker part of the Clean Air Act, the reality is that it 
effectively puts EPA's ability to reduce emissions from these sources 
on ice.
  My amendment to remedy the problem by ensuring that these vessels met 
the most stringent mobile source standards so that we would realize 
some emissions reductions from them was rejected by the majority in the 
committee. So instead of what the majority claims they want to do, 
which was to ensure that these vessels were not regulated as both 
mobile source and stationary source under the Clean Air Act, what this 
bill does is ensure that the emissions from these vessels aren't 
regulated at all. That's their goal, that 98 percent of emissions will 
go unregulated, and I don't think there's anyone listening to this 
debate that thinks that that's a good thing for the public health of 
our country.
  I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might remind our friend from Massachusetts that EPA 
actually approved the drilling permit, the exploratory drilling permit 
for Shell, in this case, on three separate occasions; but the delay has 
been the appeals by the opposing party to the Environmental Appeals 
Board, which is not even in the clean air statute. So this bill is 
simply designed to speed up the process and give people an adequate 
time to oppose the exploratory permitting.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry), who's a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, Mr. Gardner's bill addresses this 
country's need on energy and power. Mr. Gardner's bill prevents the 
government from going out of its way to stop the private sector from 
creating jobs. This job alone in the Chukchi Sea will create 54,000 
jobs sustained over 50 years. The economic report from Northern 
Economics and the University of Alaska I will submit for the Record.
  And with 1 million barrels per day going to our country's need of 
about 19 million barrels per day makes us more energy secure. So what 
we hear from the EPA and the minority is they will do everything they 
can to stop fossil fuels even though this is a fossil fuel economy. 
Yes, we need all of the above, but to stop all fossil fuels creates 
national insecurity, making us more dependent on foreign oil, sending 
more of our financial resources and jobs overseas; and that's what we 
need to stop, and that's what this bill takes a large step towards 
doing.
  Now, the EPA has made it impossible for new exploration off the coast 
of Alaska by continually changing the rules. The EPA has even testified 
before our committee that there is no anticipated human health risk at 
issue, and we've still been waiting 6 years and counting for this 
permit to be issued.
  Let's make it clear: Bureaucratic delays are blocking energy 
development. While the EPA's regional office has granted air permits to 
allow this deep sea drilling, the process has repeatedly been stalled 
when the administrator's Environmental Appeals Board rejects the 
permits already granted. Yes, it gets to Washington; they stop it. And 
this process repeats itself. We'll have a bill maybe in a couple of 
weeks where the EPA's done the same thing, where they change the rules 
to stop a project.
  The Federal Government's inability to issue viable permits to drill 
offshore Alaska is keeping resources and domestic jobs from the 
American people. The Gardner bill, H.R. 2021, aims to eliminate the 
uncertainty and confusion that has delayed oil exploration in deep

[[Page 9746]]

sea Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf, and I hope my colleagues will 
support this bill.

                        Economic Report Overview

  Potential National-Level Benefits of Oil and Gas Development in the 
                      Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea

       A new study on potential national-level benefits of Alaska 
     Arctic OCS development, by Northern Economics and the 
     University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and 
     Economic Research, builds on a previous study of potential 
     state-level benefits using the same methodology and 
     assumptions. Both reports are available for download from 
     www.northerneconomics.com.


                  Creates Significant Economic Effects

       Development of new oil and gas fields in the Beaufort and 
     Chukchi Seas resulting in production of nearly 10 billion 
     barrels of oil and 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 
     the next 50 years could create significant economic effects 
     nationwide.


                            54,700 New Jobs

       An estimated annual average of 54,700 new jobs that would 
     be created by OCS-related development are sustained for 50 
     years. The total ramps up to 68,600 during production and 
     91,500 at peak employment. These direct and indirect jobs 
     would be created both in Alaska and the rest of the United 
     States.


                          $145 Billion Payroll

       An estimated $63 billion in payroll would be paid to 
     employees in Alaska as a result of OCS oil and gas 
     development and another $82 billion in payroll would be paid 
     to employees in the rest of the United States. The sustained 
     job creation increases income and further stimulates domestic 
     economic activity.


                    $193 Billion Government Revenue

       Federal, state, and local governments would all realize 
     substantial revenue from OCS oil and gas development, with 
     the base case totaling $193 billion:
       $167 billion to the federal government
       $15 billion to the State of Alaska
       $4 billion to local Alaska governments
       $7 billion to other state governments


                    Sensitivity Cases Are All Higher

       The study's base case assumed long-term average prices 
     through the year 2030 of $65 per barrel (bbl) for oil and 
     $6.40 per million Btu (mmBtu) for natural gas. The estimated 
     total government revenue increases if energy prices remain 
     higher in the future.

                        Total Government Revenue
                          [Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case ($65/bbl, $6.40/mmBtu)........................            $193
Case 1 ($80/bbl, $7.80/mmBtu)...........................             214
Case 2 ($100/bbl, $9.80/mmBtu)..........................             263
Case 3 ($120/bbl, $11.80/mmBtu).........................             312
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Implications of the Study

     Critical Infrastructure Protection
       The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) delivers 
     approximately 14% of domestic oil production to refineries on 
     the West Coast and has been identified as critical 
     infrastructure for national security. Built at a cost of $8 
     billion in 1977, TAPS throughput has fallen from 2.1 million 
     barrels per day in 1988 to less than 650,000 barrels per day 
     as North Slope oil fields age. Without additional oil 
     development, the TAPS is anticipated to encounter operating 
     difficulty below about 500,000 barrels per day and shut down 
     when it reaches 200,000 barrels per day. Alaska OCS 
     development can help extend the operating life of this 
     critical infrastructure.
       Moreover, Arctic OCS development maximizes the value of 
     Alaska's and the Nation's oil and gas resources. Much of the 
     expected incremental revenue from OCS development for the 
     State of Alaska (55%) comes from enhancement of existing 
     onshore North Slope production, in both volume and value. 
     This results from reduced transportation costs (from 
     infrastructure operating at capacity), and from expanded 
     infrastructure enabling development of small satellite 
     fields. OCS development will also enhance the probability of 
     an Alaska gas pipeline due to increased certainty in the 
     available gas resource base.
     U.S. Energy Production and National Security
       Domestic energy production is important for the security 
     and prosperity of the United States. The money spent on 
     domestic energy cycles through in the U.S. economy, thereby 
     increasing domestic economic activity and jobs; while money 
     spent on imported energy leaves the U.S. economy.
       The majority (77%) of world oil reserves are owned or 
     controlled by national governments; only 23% are accessible 
     for private sector investment. The United States currently 
     imports over 60% of the crude oil we use. Arctic offshore 
     development could cut this by about 9% for a period of 35 
     years. Increasing domestic energy production would improve 
     the nation's trade balance.
     Potential Benefits Delayed
       When the first study of state-level economic impacts was 
     written in 2009, first oil was anticipated in 2019 and first 
     gas in 2029 for the Beaufort Sea (2022, 2036 for the Chukchi 
     Sea). This timeline assumed no major regulatory impediments 
     or delays.'' However, exploration has been slowed, thus 
     delaying the potential benefits of OCS oil and gas 
     development.


                                Sources

       Northern Economics, Inc. (NEI) and Institute of Social and 
     Economic Research (ISER) Potential National-Level Benefits of 
     Alaska OCS Development.
       NEI and ISER. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and 
     Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North 
     Aleutian Basin.
       Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, www.capp.ca.
       Shell Exploration and Production. Calculated from TAPS 
     throughput data and EIA Annual Energy Outlook data for 
     domestic oil production.
       US Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 
     2010.
       Minerals Management Service. 2006 Oil and Gas Assessment: 
     Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Alaska) and Chukchi Sea Planning 
     Province Summaries.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise today to 
support H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act; and I want to 
thank our Energy and Commerce ranking member for providing time.
  Representing a heavily industrialized area that's naturally sensitive 
to air quality issues, I appreciate how the EPA's enactment of Clean 
Air Act provisions has positively attributed to our goal of cleaner 
air. For that reason, I have remained hopeful that EPA's administrative 
air permitting barriers to exploring Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf 
would be addressed, but they haven't. As such, we continue to see air 
permits for offshore exploration wells perpetually go back and forth 
between the producer, the EPA, the Environmental Appeals Board, with no 
movement towards a final decision.
  That's why I am an original cosponsor of the Jobs and Energy 
Permitting Act, which would rectify several of those process questions 
so that we can safely and responsibly produce our natural resources in 
the Arctic Ocean. The EPA needs to have a permit approval system in 
place that is predictable, workable, and understandable.
  When I hear that in the last 5 years Shell has drilled over 400 
exploration wells worldwide while waiting for one single permit for 
Alaska, something's definitely wrong with the process.
  While the opponents of this legislation are saying that this bill 
guts the Clean Air Act, that's just not true, because all this bill 
does is match EPA's Outer Continental Shelf permitting process with the 
air permitting process employed by the Department of the Interior in 
the Gulf of Mexico, a Clean Air Act air permitting process that has 
been successfully used for decades.
  By doing so, we can rest assured that we have a strong, offshore air 
permitting process, but that these projects are not left in limbo like 
we have seen with the Environmental Appeals Board in recent years.
  I also want to remind my colleagues that this bill just addresses 
permits for exploration wells where activity typically only lasts for a 
few days, not production wells where activities last for months.
  I have long been a supporter of safe and responsible drilling on the 
Outer Continental Shelf as these resources are a vital source of energy 
for the United States. With skyrocketing fuel costs, it is imperative 
for the U.S. to diversify our energy sources by exploring this area, 
and this bill is the first step in that process.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I might just also remind everyone that 
this 5-year, 6-year period for this permit was for only an exploratory 
permit, not even a production permit.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2021 and 
appreciate Mr. Gardner bringing this to our attention.
  You know, this is not a bill about Shell Oil Company. This is about a 
system that is broken. Shell Oil Company has been trying for almost 5 
years to get a permit and still doesn't get the answer. In the 
meantime, they've drilled over 400 exploratory wells around the world, 
but they can't drill in the United States.
  I've recently spent time at gas stations talking to people, their 
frustration over our gas prices is why are they

[[Page 9747]]

so high here, why are the prices going up. This bill answers why 
they're going up. We have a government that has a war on American jobs 
and a war on American energy. We have a war on Western jobs because oil 
production is concentrated in the West.
  Every time a drill bit is stopped by its own actions, the price of 
gas will go incrementally up by just multiple percentages of very small 
amounts. But when it's stopped by bureaucratic action, then the 
market's going to assess that a government is going to be unfriendly to 
future production and the price begins to escalate because people get 
out of dollars and out of other investments into this because they know 
the price of gas and oil are going to go up because they can see the 
bureaucratic delays being played out.
  So understand that when we have high gas prices in this country it is 
because the government is making them high. It's making them high by 
moratoriums. It's making them high by delaying tactics in our 
administration's responses to these things like this permit.

                              {time}  1520

  The gentleman from Colorado's bill simply says we're going to simply 
unravel one piece of the delays that have been happening. It's a well-
thought-out bill, it's a well-thought-out process, and it's one which 
will result in lower prices for American consumers. There's absolutely 
no health hazard. Lisa Jackson herself has said that. They're going to 
give the permits.
  What we're doing today is passing a bill that won't help Shell at 
all, that will help future producers to understand that they can get 
regulatory certainty, that they can get answers when they're asking 
questions of the government. It's a reasonable request and one which we 
should do.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute to correct some of 
the statements that have been made that I don't think are accurate.
  Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said 
if they got a permit that was approved by the EPA, there would be no 
adverse environmental impact, but what the proponents of this bill are 
trying to do is to circumvent the EPA action and to have Congress 
shorten the ability of the EPA to act. There will be pollution 
problems. States will not be able to control the pollution off their 
coasts. That is why California and Delaware have expressed such great 
concern, but other States are going to be in the same situation.
  This bill does not deal with just the problem in Alaska. It tries to 
circumvent the orderly procedure by which those who are trying to get 
permits will come in and submit their permit and show that they're 
justified, unlike the situation with Shell, where they submitted a 
permit, pulled it back, submitted another one and pulled it back.
  At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021, the so-called 
Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.
  I oppose this legislation for several reasons.
  First, it gives oil companies a pass to pollute. It exempts offshore 
drilling companies from applying pollution control technologies to 
vessels like crew and supply boats, which actually account for most of 
the air pollution from drilling off my congressional district's coast. 
It also opens up a loophole for drill ships to pollute with no limits 
while the ship moves into place. And, instead of measuring pollution at 
the source, itself, H.R. 2021 allows oil companies to measure the 
impacts at the shore, with net results of more air pollution overall.
  Second, H.R. 2021 does away with proven processes that provide an 
expert, efficient, and impartial review of air permitting decisions. I 
would note that in 20 years, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control 
District has never denied an offshore drilling permit, and there is 
more drilling off my district than just about anywhere in this country. 
The local air permitting review process works. We don't need to change 
it.
  In addition, this bill's provision to remove all appellate action to 
Washington, D.C., is wholly unfair. This limits the rights of my 
constituents to participate in very important matters affecting their 
health. It forces cash-strapped local governments to travel thousands 
of miles to defend their permitting decisions, placing a serious burden 
on local taxpayers.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly to my constituents, H.R. 2021 
poses real health risks to the communities surrounding offshore 
drilling by weakening local air quality standards. Pollution from the 
nearly two dozen oil platforms and the vessels that supply them in the 
Santa Barbara Channel includes high levels of airborne pollutants. 
These pollutants can cause severe lung problems and other major health 
issues. That's why our State adopted rules to strengthen air quality 
standards and help protect coastal residents from this pollution. It 
makes no sense to block these rules that will help my community clean 
up its air.
  In sum, Madam Chair, H.R. 2021 is a bad bill.
  Let me also address a theme that's been repeated on the other side. 
Supporters of this bill continue to parrot the Shell Oil talking point 
that it has taken them 5 years to get a Clean Air Act permit for their 
proposed drilling in the Arctic Ocean. They cite this 5-year delay as 
the justification for this legislation. This claim might make a nice 
sound-bite, but it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
facts.
  Here are the facts. First, Shell has pulled its permit applications, 
modified its proposed operations, and changed its target drilling sites 
on numerous occasions over the past few years. Shell pulled the permit 
application for drilling in the Beaufort Sea for 2 years until going 
back to EPA with a brand new request in 2010. Every time Shell changed 
its plans, EPA had to adjust its assessment of the potential impacts on 
air quality and public health. That's what we expect EPA to do. No one 
wants EPA to take a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting these 
major sources of pollution.
  Second, Shell delayed final EPA action on its air permit for drilling 
in the Chukchi Sea by submitting insufficient permit applications. 
That's Shell's fault, not EPA's.
  Finally, EPA has prioritized Shell's permit applications and 
finalized them quickly. The two Shell permits at issue were proposed 
and finalized within 3 to 4 months of receiving completed applications. 
Both went from submission of a completed application to a decision by 
the Environmental Appeals Board within 1 year. EPA now says it is on 
track to finalize Shell's revised permits by the end of this summer.
  If this bill is about addressing Shell's so-called 5-year permitting 
delay, then I see no basis for this legislation. The truth is that this 
bill isn't about expediting the permit process. It's about rolling back 
air quality protections. This bill will create more problems than it 
purports to solve because it will allow oil companies to pollute more 
offshore and cut concerned stakeholders out of the very process itself.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would also like to clarify that this 
bill does not change the Clean Air Act in any way as it relates to 
monitoring stationary sources or mobile sources. I wanted to point that 
out.
  Second of all, the gentlelady from California mentioned additional 
drilling going on in the Pacific region. The government records show 
that since 1994, not one exploratory permit has been issued. There are 
production wells out there, but not one new exploratory permit since 
1994.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011.
  Every generation has an opportunity to excel in one area. Every 10 
years or

[[Page 9748]]

so, a country decides whether they're going to be a recipient of 
something or whether they're going to be a world leader.
  For too long, the United States of America has accepted that we are 
going to be a net importer of energy, that we are always going to be 
energy dependent, that we are always going to be reliant on foreign 
sources of energy.
  Ladies and gentlemen, two of Alaska's arctic seas contain up to 27.9 
billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This 
could deliver up to 1 million barrels of oil a day, beginning the 
process of getting us unaddicted to foreign oil, beginning the process 
of bringing us energy security, and getting America back to work.
  We have an opportunity here in the United States to get people back 
to work, but it is being limited and hamstrung by bureaucrats in 
Washington, D.C., and by those with a political agenda.
  We have the equivalent of a pile of cash under our mattress, but 
we're taking out loans from the Mafia to care for our energy needs. It 
is high time that we stand up and say we have resources in the United 
States, and we're not going to allow political agendas to drive us to 
continued energy dependence, and we're going to stand up and say 
produce it here in the United States of America and do it now.
  The American people, Madam Chairman, are beginning to understand that 
this administration and its agencies are having real consequences and 
real impacts on the unemployment rate, on the joblessness, and on the 
price we are paying for a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline, 
because every dollar that a gallon of gasoline increases, it is a 
regressive tax on Americans. Meanwhile, we sit around and we argue 
while bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., have their way.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Chairman, the legislation before us would repeal pollution 
standards for ships and oil rigs located offshore anywhere in America. 
It appears to be based on the belief that as a general principle, air 
does not move. This legislation endangers air quality from Alaska to 
Virginia while offering another token of appreciation to the oil 
companies that were so generous in creating a new majority in the 112th 
Congress.

                              {time}  1530

  The premise of this bill is that pollution generated offshore doesn't 
matter because it will not affect any humans onshore or humans working 
offshore. And I know that those of us who represent littoral States are 
most reassured by our colleagues from Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska 
in reassuring us that we won't negatively be affected by this 
legislation.
  Based on the content of this bill, apparently the majority believes 
that individuals employed on offshore oil rigs and ship servicing rigs 
do not breathe while they're working offshore. This bill would 
deregulate ongoing oil drilling in Alaska and prospective oil drilling 
off the coast of Virginia and all other coastal States. The majority is 
attempting to pass yet another bill to sacrifice the health and 
economic livelihoods of American citizens to pad the pocketbooks of Big 
Oil.
  This legislation, which presupposes that air does not move, is as 
dangerous as the previous Republican oil bills which denied the 
existence of global warming and enacted wholesale repeals of the few 
safety and environmental safeguards that still protect coastal 
communities from oil drilling.
  We keep hearing from across the aisle that this legislation will 
create 50,000 jobs. My friends, don't be misinformed. The study they 
referred to is a Shell Oil-funded study that simply estimates how many 
jobs could be created, all things being equal, like no pollution 
regulation, by offshore oil drilling in Alaska. Today's debate is not 
about whether to drill; it's about whether we will allow a massive 
increase in pollution when we do it. It is a false choice, and I urge 
my colleagues in the House to reject it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
would make it appear that we are abandoning all environmental 
protections, and I would say that under this bill, there are still five 
opportunities for public comment. The NEPA process is not changed in 
any way.
  At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for giving me this 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and 
Energy Permitting Act. This bill will help clarify and improve EPA's 
decisionmaking in air permitting off the coast of Alaska and restore 
much needed certainty to that regulatory process.
  Estimates show that the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas have the potential 
to produce up to 1 million barrels of oil per day while creating over 
54,000 American jobs. It is unacceptable that the bureaucratic 
permitting process has caused delays for 5 years and continues to block 
American energy resources from being developed. This bill would hold 
the administration accountable for its actions and provide the 
certainty so desperately needed by the private sector to grow jobs and 
get our economy back on track.
  At a time of record high gas prices, we should be committed to 
developing American energy resources, reducing our dependence on Middle 
Eastern sources of energy, and providing good-paying American jobs. 
Let's put America back to work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I would like to say that the American people expect the Congress to 
provide opportunities for us to fully explore our natural resources. 
This is a very modest bill that only changes one very small part of the 
Clean Air Act. It relates explicitly only to exploratory drilling 
permits, and it changes only appeals to the Environmental Appeals 
Board. The Environmental Appeals Board is not even in the statute of 
the Clean Air Act; it was put in by regulation.
  And what's happening here in the one issue that we're talking about 
today, the EPA has approved this drilling permit on three separate 
occasions, yet it's been appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board, 
and it's tied up and tied up and they will not make a final decision. 
And if you cannot exhaust your administrative remedies, you cannot even 
go to the court system. So this legislation simply expedites the 
process without removing protections for people concerned about the 
environment, as we all are. And I wanted to make that comment.
  I would also at this point like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
  We've heard all kinds of arguments today, red herrings that would 
make the Fulton Fish Market proud of this debate.
  This bill is not about jobs, my colleagues on the other side of this 
debate said. This bill is not about pain at the pump, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle said. This bill won't create jobs, I've 
heard in the arguments today. That it is a massive excuse for people to 
do incredible things to the environment, unthought-of things. Again, 
red herrings that the American people are tired of.
  The American people are asking for jobs. They are asking for relief 
at the pump. This bill is nothing more than creating economic 
opportunity for not only people in Alaska but throughout this country 
with the creation of 50,000 jobs. When we access our resources, 
evidently, there are some who believe it doesn't create jobs. When we 
create 1 million barrels of oil a day coming into our supplies, 
apparently that doesn't create jobs. When we build operations for our 
workers in the north shore of Alaska, the supply facilities in the 
lower 48 States, apparently that doesn't create jobs.
  Apparently we don't lose jobs when people are beginning to pay nearly 
$4 a

[[Page 9749]]

gallon for the price of gas. That seems to be the argument that I hear 
against this bill.
  My constituents are paying $3.50, $3.60 for a price per gallon of 
gas. And apparently, as energy prices increase, some believe that 
doesn't cut jobs, that doesn't hurt our economy. I have heard time and 
time again, through testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
through town meetings, constituent calls and letters, they are tired of 
paying $50, $60 every time they fill up the tank with gas. They are 
tired of paying their hard-earned money for rising gas prices because 
this Congress has failed to pass energy policies that rein in the 
bureaucrats and regulators.
  We have an opportunity with H.R. 2021 to create jobs, to create 
opportunities for energy security in this country. And I would remind 
my colleagues that these permits, the rights to explore have already 
been leased, paid for. I ask that Members support this bill, and I ask 
for a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I want to, first of all, say that this bill 
will not create jobs. This bill is not meant to create jobs. If the 
drilling is to create jobs, those jobs would be created regardless of 
whether this bill passes or not.
  This bill's supporters also claim that it will lower gasoline prices, 
that it will reduce the budget deficit, and that it will cut 
unemployment. Well, they might as well have said that it would cure the 
common cold as well.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
  This bill was written by Shell, for Shell, to address its 
frustrations with the permitting process in Alaska, a frustration that 
it was responsible for, Shell, itself. Ironically, the EPA has said on 
many occasions that it is working overtime to finalize Shell's permits 
by the end of this summer.
  This bill won't get a drop of oil to American markets for American 
consumers one millisecond faster.

                              {time}  1540

  Shell told the Energy and Commerce Committee they won't be able to 
produce oil from its Arctic operations for at least 10 years, at least 
another decade. Even if this bill increased the rate of offshore 
production, new drilling is unlikely to affect world oil prices.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. RUSH. In 2009 the Energy Information Administration looked at the 
difference between allowing full offshore drilling and restricting 
offshore drilling. The EIA found that there would be no impact on 
gasoline prices from full drilling in 2020, and only a slight impact by 
2030, with gas prices falling by a mere 3 cents a gallon.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jobs and 
Energy Permitting Act of 2011. If you want to talk about a jobs bill, 
you want to talk about a bill that will actually allow us to decrease 
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, this is it.
  Now, some of my colleagues on the other side say, oh, it's going to 
take 10 years to get that oil. The reason it's going to take 10 years 
is because for the last 4 years they've been trying to get their permit 
to go and drill where there's known oil, known reserves and the EPA's 
been combining with these radical environmentalist groups to block 
them. And so what they're saying is, those people don't want the energy 
in America. They want to go to places like Brazil, they want to go to 
Egypt, they want to go to some of these other Middle Eastern countries, 
many of whom don't like us, and get the oil there. But when we find 
known reserves in America, they are using our own Federal regulators to 
block American energy.
  So what we're saying is, let's pass the piece of legislation that's 
here on the floor now that's going to allow us to utilize our own 
American energy. This one find alone up in Beaufort and Chukchi Sea in 
Alaska, this one known reserve right here that we have the ability to 
put online is going to bring in a million barrels of oil a day. That's 
American energy. That's not oil that's going to be imported on tankers 
where 70 percent of your spills occur from Middle Eastern countries, 
where the billions of dollars we're sending them are going to countries 
who don't like us. That's American jobs, over 50,000 jobs that can be 
created by getting these bureaucratic hurdles out of the way.
  They've got to follow all the rules. They've got to play by the 
rules, but you can't keep using these bureaucratic agencies combining 
up with radical environmentalist groups who don't want any American 
energy to be used to block production of American energy. That's what 
this bill does. It creates American jobs. It allows us to say, okay, a 
million barrels a day we no longer have to import from Middle Eastern 
countries.
  So anybody that pays lip service and says they want to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, if they oppose this bill, then they're 
supporting foreign oil because this bill says a million less barrels of 
oil we have to bring in from these other countries because we have got 
it in America.
  We want to bring in our own oil. We want to create American jobs, and 
we want to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. This is how you do 
it. This is how you put more oil through that Alaskan pipeline, which 
is getting ready to dry up because they won't let them explore for 
energy in America. Let's explore for energy and create jobs.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I just want to take issue with the 
statements that have been made over and over again that this drilling 
in Alaska by Shell Oil will relieve our dependence on foreign oil.
  Let's look at the facts. This country consumes 25 percent of the 
world's oil. All the oil reserves in the United States amount to 2 
percent. We are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 
producing more oil. We don't have enough oil to produce to satisfy our 
demand.
  Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't produce more domestic oil. And I 
want us to produce more domestic oil.
  The gentleman from Louisiana said let's play by the rules and not let 
these radical environmentalist groups stop the permit. Well, I don't 
even know what he's talking about, and he may not know what he's 
talking about when he talks about radical environmental groups. There's 
no radical or other environmental groups that are opposing this 
drilling in Alaska. The people who are seeking the permit have put it 
in and pulled it back, and they've spent this additional time keeping 
EPA from acting on their permit.
  Now, there's been talk about this Environmental Appeals Board, that 
it's not in the Clean Air Act. Well, the Clean Air Act provides that 
administrator shall set up an energy board to review the environmental 
issues.
  Play by the rules? The Republicans want to repeal the rules. They 
don't want this appeals board, which has been in creation since 
President George H.W. Bush, which has worked well. They don't want them 
to review the application. They want to change the rules.
  Now, let me tell you what it does in California. And my colleagues 
from California, Democratic and Republican, you don't know what your 
districts are going to be yet, so pay attention because our State is 
going to be hurt.
  According to the State of California, which opposes this bill, in 
addition to increasing pollution, this legislation preempts local 
control and review. The bill short-circuits California's existing 
effective delegated permitting process, greatly increasing the 
likelihood of litigation, and removes all proceedings to Washington, 
D.C., imposing a substantial burden on the State and local governments 
and effectively disenfranchising local stakeholders.
  Now, we hear so much from the Republican side of the aisle: Why 
should we have Washington make the decisions? Instead, what they're 
trying to

[[Page 9750]]

 do is keep California from making its own decisions.
  Well, what does California have to do with drilling off the coast of 
Alaska? Nothing, except in this bill they drafted it in a way that 
prevents California and Delaware and Virginia and other States from 
taking charge of what is known within their purview.
  Let's let Shell get a permit under the regular procedures. If they 
need some help in clarifying ambiguity, we're glad to work on it.
  But Republicans want to repeal the laws that protect the public 
interest and environmental protection just to give Shell a special 
break. It's not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We won't 
even see that oil for another decade. It's a giveaway to Shell Oil, and 
they're using this as an excuse to repeal protections for other areas 
to control their own pollution sources.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. It is a 
power grab, and the bureaucrats, the radical bureaucrats on the 
Republican side have come up with this bill; and they're trying to 
impose it on the whole country to help the oil companies.
  I don't think that it's worthy of our support, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The gentleman, in his statement, noted that we consume 25 percent of 
the world's oil, but we possess only 2 percent of the world's reserves. 
And that's precisely why we're trying to pass this bill, because oil 
resources can only be counted as proven reserves if they've been fully 
explored, and we have not had the opportunity to fully explore.
  And so why should we continue to be dependent on foreign oil when we 
have not been able to even explore because we have a bureaucratic 
agency at EPA, the purpose of which is to deny the opportunity to fully 
explore?
  This is modest legislation. It simply clarifies that if you have a 
ship, that ship is going to be treated as a mobile source. If you have 
a drilling platform, that's going to be treated as a stationary source.
  If you're drilling, we're going to look at the ambient air quality 
impact onshore, not offshore. And then we're just going to ask the EPA 
to eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board for exploratory permits 
only, nothing else, and to make a decision within 6 months after the 
completed application is there.

                              {time}  1550

  I think that this graph adequately demonstrates what our problem is 
here in America. This is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In 1985 we were 
moving 2.1 million barrels a day through that pipeline. Today, we're 
down below 600,000 barrels a day. So if we have the reserves, the 
American people are simply asking us to restore some balance in these 
Federal agencies. We want to protect the environment, but we also want 
an opportunity to explore and use our own oil resources, and we have 
reason to believe that they are abundant.
  I want to thank Mr. Gardner for his leadership on this issue. And I 
would urge everyone in this body, just like we had five Democrats in 
committee who voted for this bill, I think it's imperative for the 
American people that we do so, and I would urge that we adopt H.R. 
2021.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, which 
undercuts Clean Air Act standards and would allow large oil companies 
to circumvent air pollution regulations. I strongly believe that 
America needs to ensure our energy security and reduce our dependence 
on imported oil, but this bill is not the way to accomplish this goal. 
I support safe and responsible resource extraction and further 
developing our renewable energy capacity. But energy independence will 
not be secured by curtailing the authority of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to protect the nation's 
air quality standards.
  H.R. 2021 would severely limit the EPA's authority to protect human 
health and the environment. It would allow companies to waive permit 
reviews by the Environmental Review Board and would exempt them from 
requirements to use pollution control technologies, despite the ready 
availability of these technologies. Removing these controls would allow 
damaging pollutants to be released into the air, including nitrogen 
dioxide, particles, and sulfur dioxide, which would have significant 
health, environment, and climate impacts. The regulations to prevent 
this pollution are reasonable, commonsense provisions, yet this bill 
would undercut them, allowing widespread damage to human health and the 
environment for benefit of few wealthy companies. The health and 
environmental damage would be seen on all coasts where drilling takes 
place.
  According to some estimates, Shell's proposed 2010 drilling plan for 
the Arctic alone would have released as much particulate matter as 
825,000 additional cars on the roads, traveling 12,000 miles each. This 
is only a single company's plan for a single drilling location; the 
full ramifications of this bill across all companies and all regions 
would be immense and disastrous.
  H.R. 2021 would also increase Federal court litigation, taking 
authority from local courts and giving it to the D.C. Court of Appeals. 
This replaces an established, inexpensive process for citizen 
challenges to government actions with a longer, more expensive review 
process by a court that may not be familiar with the local coastal and 
air quality conditions.
  In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Federal policy should 
be more diligent than ever in pursuing safeguards and regulations that 
make sure that such costly, destructive events are made less frequent, 
rather than commonplace. Stripping out the environmental protections 
that we already have is irresponsible and it puts not only the Oregon 
coast, but communities from Alaska to California and from Maine to 
Florida at unnecessary risk. H.R. 2021 does nothing to secure a clean, 
safe path toward energy security. I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Jobs and Energy 
Permitting Act. The duplicitous nature of the title itself should be 
sufficient reason to oppose it. This bill should actually be called the 
Shell Oil Exemption Act, because that is the intent and the effect of 
this legislation. Operating on the myth that the State and Federal 
Clean Air Act permits are blocking oil industry efforts to drill 
offshore, the legislation would grant them generous exemptions at the 
expense of the public's health and at needless harm to the environment.
  Shell, the world's second largest oil company, can't seem to get its 
act together. Rather than admit to its feckless effort to drill 
offshore in Alaska and invest in pollution control technology, it has 
invested in the political process to buy some regulatory relief. I 
guess it's cheaper. But claims it makes that its Clean Air Act permits 
have taken five years is simply false.
  EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy affirmed that and I quote, 
``every time Shell has applied for a permit, a permit has been issued 
by the agency within 3 to 6 months of that permit application being 
complete.'' She also noted that Shell ``has consistently revised the 
request, changed the project, changed what sea they want to drill in.'' 
Shell also pulled is application to drill in the Beaufort Sea for two 
years and submitted an incomplete application.
  There is no rational reason why Shell or any other oil company should 
be able to exempt their offshore operations from the Clean Air Act. 
Operations in the Gulf of Mexico aren't exempt.
  This proposal also affects the environment in areas other than Alaska 
including my home state of Virginia and other areas where future 
drilling may occur like California, and Florida that unlike Alaska face 
more serious challenges of bringing their non-attainment areas into 
compliance with the Clean Air Act.
  It's my understanding that exploration drilling can result in the 
release of as much particulate as 825,000 carts traveling 12,000 miles; 
as much CO2 as the annual household emissions of 21,000 
people; more than 1000 tons of NO2, a pollutant associated 
with respiratory illness; and more than 57 tons of particulate matter 
(PM)2.5, a pollutant linked to respiratory illness and climate change.
  Exempting offshore drilling would mean that other, land-based 
businesses would be subject to additional reductions to offset the 
pollution generated offshore.
  Madam Chair, this bill is bad news for the public's health, the 
environment and for businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021, the 
Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. Since the beginning of the 112th 
Congress, my Republican colleagues

[[Page 9751]]

have been relentless in their attempts to weaken offshore drilling 
regulations and to preserve wasteful and unnecessary subsidies to the 
most profitable oil corporations in the world. While Americans are 
facing serious pain at the pump, in the first quarter of 2011, the five 
biggest oil companies have made a total combined profit of $35 billion. 
Yet, as these companies break record profits, the Republican leadership 
insists that we continue to hand these companies billions of taxpayer 
dollars in subsidies.
  H.R. 2021 is just another blatant attack on human health and the 
environment in an attempt to shield outrageous Big Oil profits. This 
bill seeks to evade Clean Air Act standards intended to protect our air 
and health by allowing the oil companies to pollute as much as they 
want from their offshore operations. Secondly, this anti-environment 
piece of legislation would block the right of California and other 
states to enforce more rigorous emissions standards on vessels 
servicing an offshore operation. It seems ironic that my colleagues who 
are arguing against big government now want to take away states' rights 
to protect their residents from dirty local air.
  I strongly support the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign 
oil. However, H.R. 2021 is not the answer. I am extremely disappointed 
that my Republican colleagues continue to dismiss renewable sources of 
energy as part of the solution. The renewable energy sector has the 
potential to support hundred of thousands of jobs while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. The number of jobs in the solar industry, for 
example, doubled from 2009 to 2010. However, in the Fiscal Year 2012 
Energy and Water Subcommittee Appropriations bill, Republicans have 
proposed draconian cuts to programs that focus on energy efficiency 
research and renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. The 
proposed cut of $1.895 billion to the Department of Energy's Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy program is simply unacceptable. These 
cuts to alternative energy programs and the numerous pro-Big Oil bills, 
such as H.R. 2021, that have been introduced in the 112th Congress 
indicate that the Republicans do not support a comprehensive solution 
to rising gas prices, ending America's foreign dependence on oil, and 
creating jobs.
  My fellow Democrats attempted to improve H.R. 2021 by offering ten 
different amendments, but the Republicans rejected each and every one, 
including an amendment that would maintain California's ability to set 
its own emissions standards. Unfortunately this Republican desired top-
down approach will degrade air quality along the coast of California, 
causing health costs to soar with increasing incidence of respiratory 
illnesses.
  Madam Chair, the quality of the air we breathe and the health of my 
constituents is of utmost importance. For this reason, I do not support 
this legislation, and I voted ``no'' on H.R. 2021.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, the 
incorrectly named Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, which, aside 
from creating no jobs, merely permits major offshore oil companies to 
skirt reasonable clean-air standards, leading to greater health hazards 
and a poisoned environment for my constituents in California and others 
living on America's coastlines.
  Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, large, offshore projects that emit 
more than 250 tons of an air pollutant are subject to pre-construction 
air pollution permits, just like any on-shore installation, such as a 
factory. Oil rigs and their support ships are subject to regulations 
based on the amount of pollution they distribute into the air and the 
surrounding ocean.
  H.R. 2021 declares that pollution regulations shall apply ``solely 
with respect to the impacts in the corresponding onshore area.'' This 
means that the ocean and all the area from the oil rig to the breakers 
will not be properly taken into account when a company prepares its 
environmental impact reports. Near-shore areas with extensive human 
activity such as fishing and boating sites will not matter. Companies 
will be regulated according to how much they pollute at long distances, 
allowing them to pump more toxins into the air.
  We all know that air pollution contributes to adverse health effects 
and environmental degradation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in my 
home state of California where toxic air pollution is consistently 
linked to cancer and birth defects. According to the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the City of Los Angeles, where my 37th Congressional 
District is located, has some of the highest levels of cancer-related 
toxic air pollutants in the country. The Clean Air Act itself was a 
direct response to the issues of air quality in major American cities 
such as Los Angeles, and I cannot support a bill that undoes efforts 
which have improved the quality of life for so many of my constituents.
  As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
representing a major port city, I authored the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act, DERA, of 2010, which was passed in the 111th Congress. 
DERA provides economic incentives to retrofit commercial diesel 
engines, making them cleaner and more efficient without threatening 
trade. Instead of letting offshore drillers pollute more, we should 
focus on technologies and procedures that lessen their environmental 
impact.
  I believe that, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, 
offshore oil drillers should be held to the highest standards. To this 
end, I will soon introduce the Securing Health for Ocean Resources and 
Environment, SHORE, Act, which will ensure that offshore drilling 
operations prepare comprehensive disaster mitigation and clean-up plans 
before they ever begin operations.
  Under H.R 2021, the weak regulations the Republicans are attempting 
to establish would not even be in effect until ``the period between 
when drilling commences at a location and when drilling ends at that 
location.'' Support vessels, which produce the majority of emissions at 
these sites, would not have to apply any pollution controls or be 
factored into environmental impact statements. These provisions will 
effectively prevent the EPA and state authorities from addressing 
serious sources of pollution from offshore oil and gas sites.
  In addition to recklessly cutting critical safeguards to air 
pollutants, this legislation will remove any authority for EPA's 
Environmental Appeals Board to review permit decisions for offshore 
exploration activities. Stakeholders who wish to challenge an EPA 
permit would have to do so through costly litigation through the DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, it cuts down the time allotted 
for public review and places similar time constraints on state and 
local hearing boards.
  In summary, this destructive bill would remove basic safeguards to 
toxic pollutants and restrict procedures used to challenge oil 
companies who drill in sensitive areas. There are similar operations 
going on just off shore from my district, and I cannot tell my 
constituents that I sat idly by while Congress allowed more toxic 
substances to fill our air and threaten our environment. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the health of the American people and oppose 
this legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Jobs 
and Permitting Act.
  This legislation has nothing to do with lowering the price of 
gasoline--and even less to do with jobs. Instead, H.R. 2021 simply 
proposes to exempt significant offshore drilling activities from the 
Clean Air Act while eliminating or truncating appropriate permit 
review. Additionally, contrary to proponents' focus on Alaska, today's 
legislation threatens onshore air quality up and down the east and west 
coasts, including my home state of Maryland.
  Madam Chair, the current majority is somehow under the impression 
that you can't have jobs unless you have dirty air. The forty year 
history of the Clean Air Act proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
this simply isn't true. Rather than rolling back the clock on our 
environmental laws, we should be accelerating the deployment of clean 
energy technologies that will create jobs, grow our economy and make 
our nation more secure.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I voted against H.R. 2021, the so-called Jobs 
and Energy Permitting Act. H.R. 2021 is the latest piece of legislation 
from the Majority that puts Big Oil before public welfare.
  H.R. 2021 is yet another attack on the Clean Air Act. This harmful 
legislation would revoke Clean Air Act protections mandating that oil 
companies use pollution control technology for vessels used in offshore 
drilling. H.R. 2021 would allow oil companies to measure pollutants and 
toxics generated from offshore drilling rigs at onshore locations, 
effectively allowing for offshore sources to generate larger and larger 
amounts of toxic air pollution.
  While these permitting loopholes present clear dangers to public 
health and welfare, perhaps the most egregious affront to the Clean Air 
Act is the provision in H.R. 2021 that eliminates the Environmental 
Appeals Board at EPA. This board provides those citizens directly 
affected by coastal air pollution access to an impartial review of 
permitting decisions. To be clear, this misguided legislation puts oil 
companies before the health of the American public.
  For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing 
emissions into the atmosphere of pollutants and chemicals that kill 
people and endanger public health. Its success is due, in large part, 
to being enacted and strengthened based on the best science to find the 
most effective ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air. The 
Clean Air

[[Page 9752]]

Act should not be undercut to benefit large oil companies.
  If enacted into law, this bill would have far reaching consequences 
and damage public health in the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf 
Coasts. The world's most profitable oil companies should be held to the 
highest public health and environmental safety standards, not given a 
free pass to generate toxic air pollution. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this harmful and reckless legislation.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021.
  By overriding offshore air pollution rules H.R. 2021 dirties our 
coasts and oceans, endangers the health of our citizens and 
constituents, and keeps us trapped in the quagmire of the 20th century 
energy economy when we should be pressing towards the 21st.
  I am distressed that many of my colleagues, while consistently 
touting an increased role for local and state government, want to 
completely overrun existing state health and environmental regulations. 
As the California Air Resources Board expressed in testimony, this bill 
will ``quash local control, impose tremendous new costs on state and 
local government and taxpayers, and disenfranchise community groups and 
local stakeholders.''
  Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Clean Air Act is first and 
foremost about public health and protecting our citizens from dangerous 
pollution that directly threatens their health. Turning again to 
testimony from the California Air Resources Board, which is supported 
by the Boards of other states, this bill will severely limit existing 
protections for public health in coastal states. I would particularly 
note that, as allowed for in section three, ships involved in drilling 
activities would not have to use emissions control technology, even 
though these ships already comprise the vast proportion of pollution 
from drilling operations.
  Section two of this bill demands that the pollution being disgorged 
by offshore drilling projects be measured at the point of its impact 
with the shoreline. What some of my distinguished colleagues appear to 
have forgotten is that we in the coastal states actually engage in 
activities that extend past the shore.
  Let's forget for a moment the enormous implications that this measure 
has for climate change and environmental degradation. What section two 
essentially states is that the health and safety of our fishermen, 
boaters, and the workers engaging in the very projects that are the 
topic of the present debate are inconsequential. I oppose this bill so 
strongly because these are the people who deserve and need to be 
protected.
  For these reasons, I offer my complete support to my colleague from 
California, Representative Speier, one of the many Members here today 
whose constituents will suffer directly under this provision. Her 
amendment to cut section two from this bill represents at least a small 
step toward limiting the appalling health and environmental 
consequences of H.R. 2021, and I support that amendment 
unconditionally.
  My district is home to the Port of Oakland, the fourth busiest 
container port in the United States. Large container ships like the 
ones we're talking about here produce enormous amounts of pollution, 
and when loading and unloading at ports and docks can contribute 
drastic health consequences for the surrounding communities. These 
communities, like West Oakland in my district, are often home to poor 
communities and people of color, groups that remain under-represented 
in this body. Sacrificing their health and the health of coastal 
communities all around this country to increase the profits of big 
polluters like Shell Oil Company is flat-out wrong. I do not and will 
not support it.
  This bill would allow the world's largest oil companies to circumvent 
pollution standards that have protected our air and health for decades. 
Rolling back environmental protections hurts my constituents, and it 
hurts Americans all around the country.
  H.R. 2021 is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for 
our country. I stand firmly with my colleagues in opposing this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows

                               H.R. 2021

       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 ``Jobs and Energy Permitting 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT.

       Section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7627(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end of the second sentence the following: ``, except that any 
     air quality impact of any OCS source shall be measured or 
     modeled, as appropriate, and determined solely with respect 
     to the impacts in the corresponding onshore area''.

     SEC. 3. OCS SOURCE.

       Section 328(a)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7627(a)(4)(C)) is amended in the matter following clause 
     (iii) by striking ``shall be considered direct emissions from 
     the OCS source'' and inserting ``shall be considered direct 
     emissions from the OCS source but shall not be subject to any 
     emission control requirement applicable to the source under 
     subpart 1 of part C of title I of this Act. For platform or 
     drill ship exploration, an OCS source is established at the 
     point in time when drilling commences at a location and 
     ceases to exist when drilling activity ends at such location 
     or is temporarily interrupted because the platform or drill 
     ship relocates for weather or other reasons.''.

     SEC. 4. PERMITS.

       (a) Permits.--Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7627) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(d) Permit Application.--In the case of a completed 
     application for a permit under this Act for platform or drill 
     ship exploration for an OCS source--
       ``(1) final agency action (including any reconsideration of 
     the issuance or denial of such permit) shall be taken not 
     later than 6 months after the date of filing such completed 
     application;
       ``(2) the Environmental Appeals Board of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall have no authority to consider any 
     matter regarding the consideration, issuance, or denial of 
     such permit;
       ``(3) no administrative stay of the effectiveness of such 
     permit may extend beyond the date that is 6 months after the 
     date of filing such completed application;
       ``(4) such final agency action shall be considered to be 
     nationally applicable under section 307(b); and
       ``(5) judicial review of such final agency action shall be 
     available only in accordance with such section 307(b) without 
     additional administrative review or adjudication.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 328(a)(4) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``For 
     purposes of subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting ``For 
     purposes of subsections (a), (b), and (d)''
  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed 
in part A of House Report 112-111. 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 Ms. Speier

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 2 (and redesignate the subsequent sections 
     accordingly).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment 
which strikes section 2 of the bill.
  Section 2 of this bill would amend the Clean Air Act to force 
emissions from any offshore source to be measured only at the 
corresponding onshore location. Yes, you heard me correctly, the bill 
demonstrates willful ignorance of the fact that pollution is also 
harmful over water, not just on land. This dirty air loophole is so big 
you can float a Deepwater Horizon-sized oil rig through it.
  I know our philosophies differ here, but the fact is that even if we 
produced every drop of recoverable oil offshore today, it would only 
last us for 3 years at our current consumption rate. Then we would be 
right back where we started from without having reduced our demand on 
oil, except we would be about billions of dollars poorer after 
subsidizing the oil companies to turn the rest of offshore USA into the 
Gulf of Mexico. That does not sound like a deficit-cutting, jobs-
creating proposal to me.
  H.R. 2021 purports to simply reduce the amount of time it takes to 
get a

[[Page 9753]]

permit to drill, but it also gives Big Oil a free pass on having to 
properly account for the toxic pollution it releases on the Outer 
Continental Shelf. It moves the geographic point where emissions are 
measured from offshore, near the drilling location, to an onshore point 
many miles away.
  This change would clearly weaken public health protection for oil 
workers--are we interested in them?--fishermen--are we interested in 
them?--recreational boaters, not to mention all those who do business 
or make a living in our coastal communities. Apparently, it's the old 
out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach; what you can't see won't hurt you. 
After the BP oil spill just last year, such an approach should be 
dismissed as reckless.
  One year ago today, oil was gushing into the gulf and toxic emissions 
were streaming into the air. But if this bill passes, the same level of 
Clean Air Act protections that gulf oil workers, fishermen, and coastal 
residents relied on to fight BP for damages would no longer apply in 
the gulf or anywhere else.
  Let's be clear. In this bill, the rules don't apply to Shell. Shell 
wants to drill in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska without monitoring at the 
source. I get it. We all get it. But that isn't prudent; that isn't 
fair; that isn't safe.
  Here are the facts this bill would cover up:
  Shell's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic would dump as much 
particulate matter into the air as over 825,000 cars traveling 12,000 
miles; as much CO2 as the annual household emissions of 
21,000 people; and more than 1,000 times of NO2, a noxious 
pollutant that causes respiratory illness. This is according to Shell's 
own permit applications. The pollution may be emitted from rigs or 
vessels far offshore, but the effects are felt miles away by native 
populations with vibrant fishing communities by the coast.
  If Shell Oil or any other company wants to do business on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, they need to demonstrate that they can meet 
standards set forth in the Clean Air Act. I mean, that's just 
fundamental. Instead, they have succeeded in getting Republicans here 
in Congress to waste taxpayers' time by pushing bills granting them 
exemptions from the rules at the expense of public health and the 
environment. In fact, by creating this loophole, H.R. 2021 would 
actually further complicate the permitting process and increase 
expenses for all parties involved.
  The California Air Resources Board, which oversees oil and gas 
permitting in my State, testified on this very point in committee. This 
bill, they said, will require more time and expense to properly model 
onshore emission impacts. Districts may incur added cost and delay to 
deploy an adequate onshore monitoring network and obtain data 
sufficient to establish a baseline--costs that will be passed on to the 
permit applicants.
  As a ``jobs and energy permitting'' measure, therefore, this bill 
would fail on both counts while doing real harm to air quality in 
California and many of the 20 other coastal States. It will certainly 
achieve the goal of increasing oil company profits at the cost of 
everyone else.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and 
oppose this dirty air loophole.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would like to quote from Lisa Jackson, 
who was talking explicitly about the permitting issue here. She said: I 
believe that the analysis clearly shows that there is no public health 
concern here. And that's why EPA, on three separate occasions, approved 
this air quality permit, but on the appeal process it was denied by the 
Environmental Appeals Board.
  Now, if you look at the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it 
is very clear in that legislative history that, as it pertains to Outer 
Continental Shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore 
and the ability of onshore to attain and maintain their Clean Air 
National Ambient Air Quality standard requirements.
  And so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. We're not 
changing the ambient air quality standards. We're not changing the way 
they monitor stationary sources. We're not changing the way they 
monitor mobile sources. We're simply clarifying that that was the 
legislative history, that was the intent, and the full range of 
environmental protections are still in place.
  So I believe that this amendment is not necessary. We already have 
adequate monitoring in place.
  Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the balance of my time, in opposition, to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
  The issue that we are discussing here was actually brought up in 
debate at the time of the conference committee, this very language, the 
very title that we are discussing. I will read some language from the 
conference committee report.
  Of primary concern is the fact that OCS air pollution is causing or 
contributing to the violation of Federal and State ambient air quality 
standards in some coastal regions.

                              {time}  1600

  We are dealing with onshore. The debate is on onshore. The debate at 
the time was over onshore regulations, on coastal regulations.
  In addition, the testimony before the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee focused on this language in the regulations dealing with the 
rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of Federal and 
State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of the PSD 
program, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing 
exploration and development of the OCS, going directly--directly--to 
the interpretation that the focus on OCS requirements, as the 
regulations themselves state, is onshore, that the onshore air quality 
represents a rational relationship between OCS sources and obtaining 
and maintaining air quality standards.
  California, this was the language, this was the conversation. The 
debate took place during the very conference committee about coastal 
regions, about onshore regulations.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be 
postponed.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to the 
bill.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 19, strike ``but shall not be subject'' and 
     insert ``and shall be subject''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Chair, in the past I have made the 
statement regarding offshore drilling as a native Floridian that I will 
be the last person standing opposed. But it would seem to me there is 
ever-mounting evidence that Republicans are willing to expand offshore 
drilling regardless of cost to the environment.

[[Page 9754]]

  This particular iteration of what I describe as a near-criminal 
energy policy takes the form of a sellout of hard-working Americans' 
right to breathe clean air. In particular, this bill excludes Shell 
Oil's icebreaker ships in the Arctic from regulation under the Clean 
Air Act.
  Shell has and will continue to argue that since its icebreakers are 
regulated under title II of the Clean Air Act, the vessels don't also 
need to be regulated under title I. Yet the fact is that Shell's ships 
would not be regulated under title II due to the fact that they are 
foreign-flagged and predate the effective date of the regulations.
  Shell is asking Congress, and Republicans are obliging, to create a 
legal loophole so that Shell, their company, can pollute with impunity 
and not be bothered by complying with environmental regulations 
designed to minimize our desecration of the Earth.
  This loophole would create a dream scenario for Shell and the rest of 
the oil industry, currently taking in record profits as gas prices soar 
for the average American family. For its 2010 drilling operations, it 
was not the amount of emissions from the drill ship itself that 
triggered the application of the Clean Air Act regulations to Shell's 
operations, but the emissions from Shell's icebreakers.
  The exploration drilling proposed by Shell, as has been noted, would 
release particulate matter well in excess of 800,000 cars traveling 
12,000 miles. These kinds of support vessels are responsible for up to 
98 percent of the air pollution from drilling outfits, and Republicans 
are asking Congress to close our eyes to this matter.
  My amendment would bring the oil companies' dreamworld crashing down 
around them. My amendment eliminates the loophole created in this bill, 
giving EPA the authority to regulate the support vessels and the 
emission sources that they are.
  I was in the Rules Committee. I heard this argument about 5 years and 
Shell, and I also heard my colleague Mr. Rush clearly explain that 
Shell filled out applications that were not fully filled out, and then 
when they were sent back at some point they even pulled their 
application before sending it back incomplete. Now, you can't have it 
both ways.
  But, more important, I would ask every speaker that speaks in favor 
of this measure, tell the American public today how much this is going 
to reduce the cost of gasoline today, tomorrow, or next week, or next 
year.
  The fact is, Hilda Solis, the Labor Secretary, did something today 
about the next iteration of jobs. She announced grants for different 
segments of this country in the amount of $38 million in grants for the 
Green Jobs Innovation Fund program. That is where our head needs to be. 
Our heart may still be in the need to use fossil fuels, but this 
measure isn't going to make one whit of a difference with reference to 
the cost of gas.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment, which mixes two 
basic concepts of stationary title I issues and mobile title II 
sources. What we are talking about here is something akin to requiring 
the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he 
parks next to the factory. It is requiring a re-engining of service 
vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary 
source.
  So basically what we are talking about in the bill is saying that 
once a drilling ship starts to drill, that is when it becomes 
stationary. To require the vessels that service that drill ship, to 
require them to be stationary would be like requiring the UPS truck to 
fall under the same regulations as the factory that it is delivering 
to, or treating an emissions testing facility like it has wheels and 
ought to be moving around to everybody else because it is testing the 
emissions of a stationary source. So I rise to oppose this amendment, 
again, because of issues it is trying to deal with, mixing stationary 
and mobile sources.
  The issue of foreign-flagged ships is dealt with in international law 
under our treaties that we have in this country. It is dealt with in 
the MARPOL Treaty. If we want to increase those regulations on U.S. 
vessels, Congress can do that. However, to increase regulations on 
service vessels only because they were hired to service an OCS vehicle 
makes no sense.
  It was said in debate earlier too, I believe it was said we are not 
going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. I 
guess that argument means the same thing as we are not going to have 
more food by producing more food; we are not going to have more 
appliances in this country by producing more appliances. The arguments 
we have heard against this bill are off point, off subject, and are 
simply on claims that don't make any sense.
  So when it comes to this particular amendment, delivery trucks aren't 
regulated as stationary sources, nor should the service vessels to a 
stationary source, the drilling ship, as will be considered once this 
legislation becomes law
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to yield back the 
balance of my time and ask for a record vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. WELCH. 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, after line 9, insert the following (and redesignate 
     the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(1) such completed application shall include data on oil 
     subsidies provided by the Federal Government to the 
     applicant;

                              {time}  1610

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, oil companies, of course, benefit from 
significant subsidies. This amendment would require that applicant oil 
companies for permits to drill would disclose as part of their 
application the taxpayer-provided subsidies that they enjoy. They would 
make that specific as to the leases for which they're seeking 
permission to drill.
  Now, we've had a long debate, Mr. Chairman, in this body about the 
wisdom of subsidies to oil companies and we have a strong contingent in 
this body that favors those subsidies, making arguments that it's good 
for the economy, good for producing energy, and beneficial to the 
taxpayer. We have many in this body, myself among them, who believe 
that these subsidies are too rich and they're unnecessary.
  When oil company profits are a trillion dollars in the past year, 
when the price of oil has been hovering between $95 and $113 a barrel, 
when the companies have enjoyed record profits this year, the question 
arises by me and by many as to whether or not it makes sense to ask the 
taxpayers to reach into their pockets and to provide subsidies to a 
mature industry--an important industry, but a mature industry and a 
very profitable industry with a very high-priced product where they can 
generate and are succeeding in generating significant profits for that 
industry.
  This is not about whether they're doing good or they're doing bad--we 
have oil companies that are doing their

[[Page 9755]]

job--but it is about whether taxpayers should be, at the very minimum, 
made explicitly aware as to how much it is they're being asked to 
subsidize oil companies when they seek these leases.
  One of the challenges we have that has been a major point by the new 
majority is that we have a budget deficit and we've got to control 
spending. Spending is both on the direct appropriations side and what's 
called here the tax expenditure side. I think our constituents would 
know that as tax breaks. Why not take every action we can when it comes 
to spending and it comes to tax breaks to mobilize the awareness of the 
American people so they know what it is we're spending their money on, 
whether it's for a spending program or a tax break subsidy.
  So this is about disclosure. It's about unleashing the power of 
knowledge, making it available to the American people so they can tell 
their representatives, You know what? We think that subsidy is a pretty 
good idea, or, You know what? We don't have to continue to be shelling 
out money for that subsidy. We want to go in a new direction.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is about empowering the democratic 
objectives of this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. I rise in opposition to the Welch amendment and in strong 
support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, a piece of 
legislation that would create jobs in America and American energy for 
American consumers.
  The Welch amendment requires a company applying for a permit to 
provide data on ``oil subsidies provided by the Federal Government.'' 
Mr. Chairman, this is an absolute red herring. There's no definition of 
``oil subsidy.'' That's intentional. The gentleman who proffered this 
amendment is an attorney. He ought to know better. I don't know what 
oil subsidies to which he's referring.
  Section 199, manufacturing deduction, which goes to all businesses 
whether they produce oil or otherwise, so long as they're engaged in 
manufacturing. Maybe he's referring to the writing off of intangible 
drilling costs and claiming tax credits for employing American workers. 
If those qualify as American Government giveaways, that should 
absolutely be something that I would think that he would support. These 
folks are paying royalty taxes and giving great revenue to the United 
States Treasury.
  This piece of legislation, without this amendment, will create many 
jobs and revenue for the United States Treasury.
  What Mr. Welch is really interested in, Mr. Chairman, what this 
amendment really does is it attempts to punish oil companies for 
producing American energy and American jobs. This piece of legislation, 
H.R. 2021, will do just that, and this amendment attempts to stop it.
  If there were subsidies that applied only to the oil industry or 
specifically benefited folks who purchased traditional oil and 
petroleum, I'd be the first to rise and say, You're right; that's a 
subsidy. We ought to get rid of it. But that's not what this amendment 
attempts to do. Rather, this amendment attempts to stop a piece of 
legislation that will create energy; will lower the price of gasoline 
for American consumers; will, again, add jobs all over our country; 
and, once again, provide American energy so that American consumers may 
benefit.
  I'd like to urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Welch amendment 
and support the underlying Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. I would just say this to my colleague: You and I disagree, 
obviously, on the subsidies. We don't disagree that the oil industry 
does provide good jobs to a lot of American families and a product that 
we need to keep our economy going. But there's a reasonable basis for 
disagreement about whether a particular subsidy has outlived its useful 
life. It is real money out of the pocket of the taxpayer.
  While the suggestion is made that it would be tough to figure out 
what the subsidies are, these companies that enjoy these subsidies have 
accountants who scour the Tax Code to make certain that every legally 
available subsidy is one that they, in fact, do take. They actually owe 
that due diligence and that effort to their shareholders to make 
certain that they get maximum value for the shareholders, and that 
includes paying not a nickel more in taxes than they're legally 
required to pay by the rules that this House of Representatives sets.
  So this is not about whether you're for or against the tax subsidies 
as they exist--we disagree on that--but it is about saying to the 
American taxpayer, when the company is filling out this application, 
after they've done their tax filings, which they do every year, they 
can specify what the benefit is they are getting courtesy of the United 
States taxpayer. That's really what this is about.
  What is the problem with letting people know how their money is being 
spent?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELCH. 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 Vermont will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. KEATING. 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, after line 9, insert the following (and redesignate 
     the subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(1) such completed application shall include data on 
     bonuses provided to the executives of the applicant from the 
     most recent quarter;

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KEATING. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 2021.
  As constituents see soaring gas prices, soaring oil prices, oil 
companies have revealed record profits. The top five multinational oil 
companies earned over a trillion dollars in the past decade. In my 
district, where jobs and commerce depends on a coastal marine and 
tourism economy, I have constituents that are paying up to $4.50 a 
gallon. These oil firms, these conglomerates, are eating up more and 
more of our constituents' paychecks.
  And where is it going? Only a small portion--some estimate as little 
as 7 percent--are reinvested back into the economy to pay for 
efficiencies and research into alternatives to oil. Rather, oil 
companies are providing bumps for stockholders and high bonuses to 
their company executives--a pat on the back for high prices at the 
pump. Remember that up to 90 percent of the tax subsidy money given to 
executives and companies by the taxpayers went to buybacks for 
preferred stock purchases.
  My amendment would provide transparency to the U.S. taxpayer.

                              {time}  1620

  The amendment requires that all completed permit applications include 
data on executive bonuses distributed by the applicant company in the 
most recent quarter.
  In May I offered a similar amendment to H.R. 1231, which would have 
required the Secretary to make available to the public data on 
executive bonuses for any company that is given a drilling lease, and 
it received at that time

[[Page 9756]]

186 votes. We have an opportunity now to successfully pass this 
amendment, and the time is now to hold the largest oil companies 
accountable. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment 
in order to provide transparency to the American taxpayer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, once again, we are faced with the question 
of whether we want to focus on the issues that this bill is intending 
to address--the issue of job creation, the issue of energy security--
and whether or not we are going to take advantage of the resources that 
we have in our own backyard, which is American energy for the American 
people.
  This amendment presents, once again, one more distraction from the 
very purpose of this bill. It is a distraction for our colleagues. I 
understand that they want to oppose this bill, but I believe they ought 
to oppose the bill on its merits. If they want to oppose the bill, vote 
``no'' on the bill. If they want to offer constructive amendments, then 
introduce amendments to try to improve the bill, but presenting red 
herring amendments in amendment after amendment ought to be defeated.
  Aside from the distraction that this amendment creates, there is no 
real need for this amendment from a practical perspective. If an 
interested person wants to know the amounts of bonuses paid to an oil 
company executive, the information is available. As it is a publicly 
owned company, it's already available. I don't believe we require bonus 
disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. When a staffer 
helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the 
bill, I don't believe that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer. 
Again, this is a red herring on a bill that focuses on jobs and job 
creation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KEATING. I think the point is that environmental groups, marine 
jobs groups and groups that depend on tourism in my district don't have 
shareholders. They aren't the beneficiaries of this. The purpose of 
this amendment is to find out who really benefits.
  If you represent a district like mine, there is a great risk in 
this--a risk in jobs, a risk in commerce, a risk that is irreparable, a 
risk that is one that should be taken very seriously. If one is taking 
that very seriously, one has to look at who, indeed, is benefiting by 
this. It's clear, given some of the other alternatives that are there 
right now, that the people at the pump are not benefiting by this. The 
people in my district who are depending on jobs that could be risked as 
a result of failures from this drilling have a great deal to risk. It 
is not a red herring. In fact, if you're going to apply any kind of 
fish analogies, another important industry in my area, the fishing 
industry, is one that is assuming this risk as well. Now, all of these 
risks are there. Who is benefiting by this risk?
  The purpose of this amendment is to tell the public who, indeed, 
benefits by it. It is the executives who are getting these large 
bonuses, because this is about profits, and the profits go to those 
executives. They aren't there to help reduce costs for the people at 
the pump, and they certainly aren't there to help the people in my 
district who are bearing all the risk of this type of drilling.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Who benefits from this bill? The American people benefit 
from this bill.
  In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it was 
made very clear that the west coast could import less oil because of 
the development of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Testimony was 
received before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that this could 
reduce the price of gasoline when we create more supplies, particularly 
for areas along the west coast, because of the presence of the Beaufort 
and Chukchi Sea reserve. So the American people are the beneficiaries 
of increased American production.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KEATING. 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 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. RUSH. 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, line 13, insert before the semicolon ``, except 
     that the Administrator may provide additional 30-day 
     extensions if the Administrator determines that such time is 
     necessary to meet the requirements of this section, to 
     provide adequate time for public participation, or to ensure 
     sufficient involvement by one or more affected States''.
       Page 4, beginning at line 18, strike paragraph (3) and 
     insert the following:
       ``(3) no administrative stay of the effectiveness of such 
     permit may extend beyond the deadline for final agency action 
     under paragraph (1);

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would strengthen this 
bill by ensuring that we maintain an opportunity for State and 
community input even as we seek to streamline the permitting process, 
as this bill attempts to do.
  My amendment would simply allow the EPA administrator to provide 
additional 30-day extensions if the administrator determines that such 
time is necessary to provide adequate time for public participation and 
sufficient involvement by affected States. Mr. Chairman, input by those 
most affected by drilling is a vital and necessary part of the 
permitting process.
  There was a time not too long ago when my Republican colleagues 
valued local participation and States' rights; and now that they are in 
the majority, they are attempting to strip away the power of States and 
the power of local communities to even participate in the decisions 
that will affect them the most.
  As Representative of the people, I do not believe that it makes sense 
for us to legislate away the ability of our citizens to comment on 
drilling decisions that will impact their health, impact their 
livelihoods, impact their well-being. I also don't think that our 
constituents will buy into the argument put forth by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle that we must make it easier for all 
companies to drill and also take away the public's ability to comment, 
even while they say this is for the public's own benefit. It's 
ludicrous.
  This bill's supporters have said that this is a narrow bill designed 
to address problems Shell Oil Company has faced in obtaining a Clean 
Air Act permit for exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska; but in 
fact, this legislation will impact every State on the Atlantic and 
Pacific coasts. The States of California and Delaware testified before 
the Energy and Commerce Committee that they have grave concerns about 
the impact of this bill on their ability to protect public health and 
welfare from air pollution.
  I truly believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is imperative that the States 
and the local communities that will be most affected participate in the 
process of awarding permits, and this amendment would ensure that 
adequate time is given for that purpose. I don't believe

[[Page 9757]]

that we should ever sacrifice the interests of the American public in 
order to expedite the interests of oil companies, so I hope that all of 
my colleagues will join me in supporting my amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I've had the opportunity to serve many 
years with the gentleman from Illinois, who's the ranking member of 
this subcommittee, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for 
him. But I would point out to him that this legislation does not in any 
way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express 
opposition or comment about a permit. We do not in any way change the 
comment period that EPA has to determine if they're going to issue, in 
this case, an exploratory permit.
  We do not in any way change the National Environmental Policy Act 
that provides four additional opportunities for communities, local, 
State, individuals, environmental groups to comment on an exploration 
permit. There are today five opportunities for people to comment about 
air permits. After this bill is passed, there will still be five 
opportunities for entities to comment.
  Today, individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the EPA 
and their actions. After this bill is passed, they can still file a 
lawsuit.
  This amendment basically gives the EPA Administrator the opportunity 
to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the Administrator 
deems it necessary; but it's not limited to one 30-day period, two 30-
day periods or three 30-day periods. In fact, it could go on ad 
infinitum, and that's the whole reason we have the bill here today, 
because I don't care what company it is out there trying to explore to 
determine if the oil is there, if you cannot even get an administrative 
decision, as in the case in point it has taken 4 or 5 years and there's 
still no decision, you can never get to the court system.
  So this bill is a commonsense bill that provides some balance, some 
checkpoints at EPA so that we have the maximum opportunity to explore, 
to determine how much oil we have off the coast of Alaska. And I might 
say, in the hearings Alaska government authorities came up and pleaded 
for us to do something to help get a decision from EPA.
  So I would oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Let us not be bamboozled by this argument that my friend on the other 
side is trying to perpetuate on the American people. There is one 
problem with this bill--well, there are actually two problems with this 
bill.
  One problem is that it gives the EPA and State permitting authorities 
just 6 months, 6 lousy months, to finalize an air permit for offshore 
exploratory drilling, which is not enough time to perform an adequate 
technical review while allowing for adequate public participation.
  Number two, it preempts State authority. It preempts the right of the 
State of California, the State of Delaware, and other States with 
designated authority to impose more stringent emission controls on 
vessels servicing an offshore drilling operation.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment attempts to cure a very serious problem 
with this bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  To close this debate, I would simply say that we think 6 months is 
totally adequate to make some decisions about air quality permits for 
exploratory purposes only, and I would remind everyone here that EPA 
had a 60-day comment period for its utility MACT regulation that was a 
1,000-page regulation imposed by EPA's own estimate of $10 billion on 
the American people and increased electricity costs, if it goes into 
effect, by 4 or 5 percent, and they did that in 60 days.
  Certainly, the 6 months that we give in this bill for an air quality 
permit for drilling purposes alone is adequate, and I would 
respectfully request that we oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 on line 14, strike paragraph (2) and 
     redesignate the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 2021, a bill that curtails the EPA's authority under the Clean Air 
Act to regulate pollution from offshore oil drilling and to limit the 
public's participation in decisions that directly affect our health.
  My amendment strikes the text which strips the ability of the 
Environmental Appeals Board to remand or deny the issuance of clean air 
permits for offshore energy exploration and extraction. Quite simply, 
this amendment allows the EAB to operate as it does today, saving 
taxpayer dollars and keeping unnecessary litigation out of the courts 
and in a place where unbiased and apolitical judges can make sound 
decisions with input from local constituencies who are most affected.
  It's worth noting that the EAB was established under George H.W. 
Bush, created in recognition of increasing levels of appeals from 
permit decisions and civil penalty decisions. Further, three of the 
four sitting judges were appointed by Republican administrations. The 
judges who sit on the EAB are not political appointees. They are 
critical EPA officials whose terms do not end at the end of an 
administration.
  The board takes approximately 5 months on the average from the time a 
petition is filed to receive and review briefs, hold oral arguments, 
and render a comprehensive written decision in a prevention of 
significant deterioration air permit case. Federal court review would 
likely take at least three or four times as long. Only four of the 
board's 100-plus air permit decisions have ever been appealed to a 
Federal court, and none of the board's air permit decisions have ever 
been overturned.
  The EAB is cost-effective and efficient and has proven to be the 
fastest, cheapest way to achieve a final permit. I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment to allow the EAB to continue to serve to protect 
the public health, to keep unnecessary lawsuits from the court system, 
and to take into account local community input.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 9758]]


  Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  So my colleagues can understand what this bill is about, this does 
not repeal the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board to hear 
issues relating to production, production permits. This simply 
addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the Environmental Appeals 
Board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits.

                              {time}  1640

  Let me say it again. Exploratory permits are for a very limited 
duration. We're talking an activity that may last 30 to 45 days.
  Unfortunately, what has happened, the EAB, which is by all accounts 
litigation with judges in robes in Washington, D.C., that are appointed 
lifetime bureaucrats, unaccountable, created by the administration, the 
EAB would still be able to hear appeals related to production. They 
will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. Why? 
Because we believe exploration of our resources is important, that it 
should not be delayed for 5 years.
  In the time that it has taken to reach this point, 400 wells have 
been drilled by the lessee around the world. That's job creation, but 
certainly not in the United States. That's energy production, but 
certainly not in the United States. This bill presents a solution, an 
up-or-down, yes-or-no answer to a permit within 6 months, without going 
to the EAB for a ping-pong delay back and forth, EPA, EAB, delay after 
delay, and says we are going to focus on an issue of national 
importance, developing our resources, getting exploration performed, so 
that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward 
energy security.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the numbers speak for themselves. What 
we're talking about with this legislation is really just two permits 
that folks were concerned about. The reality of the matter is the 
average is 5 months.
  Now, I understand what we're talking about is with just exploration, 
but we would like to get this right and not have amnesia about what 
happens when we get this wrong, because that's not just job-killing, 
it's ecosystem-killing. It destroys an entire region. There's a lot at 
stake here.
  These aren't unaccountable people. They're appointed by 
administrations, created by a Republican administration, three of the 
four appointed by Republican administrations. It is in fact, in a 
sense, the executive branch. And while the executive can't do all this, 
it's delegated to appropriate authorities to make sound, apolitical 
decisions that affect communities not just for months or years but 
conceivably for generations. There's a lot at stake.
  This is a simple amendment to deal with a critical problem, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm getting confused by some of 
the arguments I'm hearing against this bill, because I hear that 6 
months isn't enough time even though the average permitting time is 5 
months, some will say. I hear that this is only dealing with two 
permits, although I hear that California, Delaware, and Massachusetts 
are at risk with this legislation. I hear the argument that some say 
this is ecosystem-destroying.
  Let me read a quote from Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, 
testifying before the United States Senate:
  ``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no 
public health concern here.''
  ``I believe that the analysis will clearly show that there is no 
public health concern here.''
  Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator of the EPA, did not rebut 
this testimony that was given by the administrator herself, Lisa 
Jackson, before the Senate. Gina McCarthy didn't refute it before the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  The arguments seem to be confusing and grasping for straws. This is 
about energy security, about economic opportunity and making sure that 
we can deliver energy that's produced right here in the United States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. ESHOO. 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, line 21, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 4, beginning on line 22, strike paragraph (4) and 
     redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly.
       Page 5, line 2, strike ``such''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This bill, H.R. 2021, contains a rather extraordinary provision. It 
says that any appeal of an exploration permit decision can only be 
heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a fundamental 
change to longstanding law and precedent governing the venue for 
judicial review of challenges to EPA action.
  Over 40 years ago when Congress adopted the Clean Air Act in 1970 and 
established venue for judicial review, Congress made a very sensible 
distinction. That distinction was that local and regional EPA actions 
would be reviewed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the appropriate 
circuit. Nationally applicable actions would be reviewed in the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  This distinction has worked well for the past 40 years. If a major 
new industrial source will have significant local air pollution 
impacts, nearby communities will want to weigh in. Local businesses 
will want to ensure that a new source doesn't force more stringent 
cleanup requirements for existing sources. State and local authorities 
will have views. And the industrial source itself may disagree with 
EPA's decision. All of these stakeholders may want to appeal EPA's 
decision. Under the Clean Air Act, they can do so in the nearest court 
of appeals, without traveling to Washington, D.C. And for permits 
issued by States or localities, the decision is reviewed by State 
courts.
  But this bill creates a new regime for exploration permits. In fact, 
under this bill, even for an exploration permit issued by a State or 
local permitting agency, all appeals would have to go to the Federal 
court here in Washington, D.C.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to 
criticize centralized government; bash Washington, D.C.; Washington, 
D.C. lawyers. They extol the virtues of local control. They cite the 
10th Amendment. But this legislation centralizes control in Washington, 
D.C. In fact, it's a boon for Washington, D.C. lawyers.
  This provision makes it far more difficult for regular folks to 
appeal a decision that can directly affect them. It took one of our 
Energy and Commerce Committee witnesses from the North Slope of Alaska 
16 hours to travel to Washington, D.C., at a cost of at least $1,000 
for that ticket.
  This provision forces State and local authorities to fly to 
Washington, D.C. to defend a challenged permit decision. That's a huge 
burden in terms of money, and particularly so in these tough economic 
times.
  The premise of this bill is that the oil industry needs faster permit 
decisions. Moving review from one Federal circuit court to another does 
not expedite

[[Page 9759]]

permit decisions, and the committee that I'm a part of received no 
testimony identifying any actual problems with review in the relevant 
circuit courts.
  I encourage Members to support this amendment, which would preserve 
local control, which would preserve community participation and really 
speaks to some fiscal common sense.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, our friend from California's amendment 
sort of makes a lot of sense. There are a couple of issues that I would 
like to point out about it.
  First of all, under her proposal, you would appeal the decision of 
the EPA at the local district court, wherever the project might be, 
let's say California. So you go through that appeals process through 
the U.S. District Court, and then if you don't like that decision, then 
you have to go to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

                              {time}  1650

  Well, today, if our bill did not pass, anyone could appeal a decision 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Environmental Appeals 
Board, which is located in Washington, D.C. So, today, any appeals to 
that board have to come to Washington, D.C., and it really is a 
judicial hearing. There are lawyers. There are judges. There is 
evidence. And so, today, that's the case.
  Our bill simply says that in order to curtail the length of time it 
takes to receive or to even get a decision for an exploratory permit 
only, nothing else--we're not changing any other aspect of the EPA or 
Clean Air Act. We're simply saying, for this one purpose, we want a 
decision within 6 months, yes or no, so that the administrative 
decisions are exhausted. And then once the decision is made by the EPA, 
any party can go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They don't even 
have to go through that extra layer at the Federal court but go right 
to the district court of appeals here in Washington, D.C.
  So this legislation does not in any way change the venue. As I said, 
if we did nothing, as it is today, if they appeal to the Environmental 
Appeals Board, they come to Washington, D.C., to have the hearing. So I 
have been sympathetic to her desire to save people money, not require 
them to come all the way to Washington, but that's the way the law is 
today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESHOO. 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 gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mrs. CAPPS. 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 5, line 8, strike ``subsections (a), (b), and (d)'' 
     and insert ``subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e)''.
       Page 5, after line 8, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. STATE AUTHORITY.

       Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7627) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) State Authority.--Any State with delegated authority 
     to implement and enforce this section may impose any 
     standard, limitation, or requirement relating to emissions of 
     air pollutants from an OCS source if such standard, 
     limitation, or requirement is no less stringent than the 
     standards, limitations, or requirements established by the 
     Administrator pursuant to this section.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I'm offering with Representatives 
Carney and Castor addresses one of several concerns we have about this 
bill: its harmful impact on State programs that today are working to 
issue permits while protecting local air quality.
  Last month, the Energy and Power Subcommittee heard testimony from 
officials of the States of Delaware and California. Both expressed 
serious concerns about the impact of this bill on local air quality. 
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources has this to say about the 
legislation: ``The constraints placed on States' rights and authorities 
will adversely affect our State's ability to protect public health and 
welfare from the harmful effects of air pollution.'' The California Air 
Resources Board also testified that this measure ``could have far-
reaching, unintended consequences on public health.''
  California and its local air districts in some cases require emission 
controls that go beyond Federal law, and that is to address our unique 
pollution problems. For example, emissions from commercial harbor craft 
and oceangoing vessels represent the largest source of smog-forming air 
pollution in the entire Santa Barbara County. These emissions account 
for over 40 percent of our local air pollution. In response, the 
California Air Resources Board adopted rules to help coastal areas like 
California come into attainment with ozone and particulate matter air 
quality standards. But H.R. 2021 would nullify some of these State 
requirements, and it would increase pollution by preventing our local 
air quality district from incorporating them into their air permits for 
offshore drilling production and processing.
  It's very critical to our local air quality and to public health that 
emissions from these marine vessels and offshore drilling are subject 
to commonsense regulations, and that is why this simple amendment is 
before us today. It says that if a State with delegated authority wants 
to enact more stringent air quality protections for offshore drilling, 
it can continue to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about giving flexibility to our local air 
quality districts so that they can apply the technologies that work 
best for them--they've been doing so for 20 years--so they can continue 
their work protecting our air quality and the health of our 
communities. This amendment says that a one-size-fits-all approach that 
comes from Washington politicians and giant multinational oil companies 
is the wrong approach.
  I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward amendment. It's 
common sense. It will allow State and local air districts to continue 
to do their job to protect the air quality of coastal communities like 
the central coast of California--nothing more, and nothing less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California for 
being a part of this debate today.
  We had, I believe, this amendment or a similar amendment in 
committee. We discussed this amendment. As I mentioned, we've had two 
separate committee hearings on this particular piece of legislation. We 
had a markup where a number of amendments were offered. A tremendous 
amount of debate took place, and I believe debate took place on this 
very amendment.
  One of the concerns I have with this amendment is the practical 
impact it would have in what could best be described as a balkanization 
in the regulation of Federal waters, creating a patchwork quilt, so to 
speak, of regulations as it applies to the Federal areas in the OCS. 
The amendment allows States to promulgate any regulation for the OCS as 
long as it can be deemed no less stringent. This will result in

[[Page 9760]]

chaotic regulation of Federal waters, many of which may conflict with 
interstate commerce.
  But perhaps even more important is the dramatic expansion of State 
jurisdiction that this amendment would have. And this was also an issue 
that was discussed back and forth during our markups both at the 
subcommittee level and at the full committee level, whether or not this 
would create challenges for the expansion of State jurisdiction.
  The current law only allows for the delegation of the exact 
authorities of the administrator and not the flexibility to create the 
State's own laws to implement the act. I think that's one of the 
distinctions that we have sort of walked over during this debate.
  It's also important to recognize that the Federal OCS is different 
from onshore State borders, where the States do have this type of 
flexibility in setting their State implementation plans. We talked in 
committee, once again, about the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act. They were enacted for this very reason: to 
federalize and provide harmony in the offshore.
  So State regulations of the OCS will be used, I believe, 
unfortunately, by those who would try to obstruct and stop domestic 
energy production. The policy of this bill, of the Jobs and Energy 
Permitting Act, is to provide a clear process so that resources can be 
explored, and I am afraid this amendment would cause the opposite.
  The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bill that was brought forward 
because of significant delay in a bureaucratic process through an 
Environmental Appeals Board that was not created by Congress but was 
created as an administrative construct; something that was designed, 
I'm sure, with good intentions. But unfortunately, in its 
applicability, in the way it is working, the way people have used it, 
it is now being part of a great delay.
  In the time that it has taken for the EAB to work on this bill, 5 
years, the company that has the lease in the Beaufort-Chukchi Sea area 
right now has drilled over 400 wells around the world, not in the 
United States, not creating U.S. jobs here, not creating U.S. energy, 
but working abroad.

                              {time}  1700

  And if we are going to set this country on a path toward energy 
security, I've said it before and will continue to say it, if we are 
going to set this country on a path to energy security, then we have to 
recognize the national importance of allowing exploration to occur, 
exploration permits activities that will take 30 to 45 days.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to make one additional comment. I think 
you have a very good point on the balkanization. We have these Federal 
waters, the Outer Continental Shelf. We have a lot of oil reserves, and 
we're trying to explore, trying to produce more oil. And if this 
amendment is adopted, different States can have different rules, so 
that would complicate things.
  And we already have a situation where we have different agencies of 
the Federal Government issuing these permits. In some areas we have the 
Department of the Interior. In other areas we have EPA. If you take 
that, on top of the balkanization, it's going to take a lot longer than 
5 years. We may never get a permit.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Reclaiming my time, it's frustrating too because we continue to hear 
statements from the administration, from others who wish to pursue a 
vibrant energy policy for our country that they too agree that we need 
expanded resource development in the United States, expanded U.S. 
energy opportunities. But it's almost like lip-synching. They are 
talking about it, but not actually doing it. And, unfortunately, what 
we are seeing is conversations by the administration without the action 
to back up that conversation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
colleague from Colorado, the author of the bill.
  Section 328 of the Clean Air Act is what is at issue here today in 
this amendment. It was created more than 20 years ago, largely at the 
insistence of California officials. In fact, my Republican predecessor, 
Congressman Lagomarsino, introduced this legislation because residents 
were unhappy about uncontrolled air pollution from offshore drilling, 
as well as local industry and business groups who were upset that 
offshore sources were basically free to pollute, while onshore sources 
bore the burden of heavier regulation to try to make up for the 
degraded air quality. Only two States now have this permission.
  I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Delaware (Mr. 
Carney).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
will submit this letter from the Delaware Department of Natural 
Resources for the Record.
  While I oppose the underlying bill, I will only speak to this 
amendment. It addresses what I think is a nonpartisan issue and, 
frankly, it appeals to States' rights, which my Republican friends 
typically support.
  Delaware is in nonattainment with Federal clean air standards, mainly 
due to emissions that come from outside our State borders. In order to 
comply with Federal law and protect public health, Delaware has the 
ability to implement pollution control strategies beyond EPA's 
requirements.
  Last year Delaware was given Clean Air Act authority for the Outer 
Continental Shelf, meaning that the State, rather than EPA, regulates 
emissions there. Delegated authority is working. The one OCS permit 
requested of Delaware was granted within weeks, not months. Disputes go 
through a quick administrative review, rather than costly litigation. 
It does not mean a delay, as my Republican colleague alleged.
  In fact, this delegated authority is working so well that other 
States are actively looking into it. Maryland, Virginia and Alaska have 
each asked Delaware for its documents on delegated authority.
  A one-size-fits-all approach like H.R. 2021 is not in the best 
interest of our States. Our amendment simply preserves delegated 
authority to the States that want it, enabling our States to oversee 
pollution control as they see fit. This is not balkanization; it's 
common sense.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve States rights by supporting this 
amendment.

         State of Delaware,


                               Department of Natural Resources

                                    and Environmental Control,

                                         Dover, DE, June 21, 2011.
     Hon. John C. Carney,
     United States Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Carney: I write to you today to express 
     State of Delaware's opposition to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and 
     Energy Permitting Act of 2011. Our concerns with this bill 
     are outlined below:
       (1) The proposed bill will impede states' authority to 
     regulate emissions and create unnecessary burdens on state 
     agencies;
       (2) By restricting the consideration of air quality impacts 
     solely to an onshore location in the corresponding onshore 
     area, the proposed bill does not sufficiently protect human 
     health and the environment;
       (3) The proposed bill shields a potentially significant 
     portion of emissions from OCS activities from emission 
     control requirements; and
       (4) The proposed bill subverts our state's established 
     procedures for due process and replaces them with a 
     potentially cumbersome and costly judicial review.
       Delaware's air quality is so severely impacted by 
     transported air pollution from the Southwest and the West 
     that Delaware can no longer produce a plan to meet the 
     National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone even if it 
     eliminated all in-state emissions. This bill will open a new 
     Eastern front in the assault on our air quality and at the 
     same time removes available and much needed tools to address 
     these emissions. Delaware's citizens and those living on the 
     East coast deserve clean air and need the continued 
     protection afforded them by the Clean Air Act.

[[Page 9761]]

       I urge you to reject this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Collin P. O'Mara,
                                                        Secretary.

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Capps 
amendment to H.R. 2021.
  I thank my colleague, the gentlelady from California for bringing 
this amendment to the floor.
  The Capps amendment corrects a glaring flaw in this legislation by 
maintaining the rights of states who have already been delegated 
authority to continue to regulate and monitor air pollution from 
offshore oil and gas operations that will ultimately affect their 
residents.
  H.R. 2021 seeks to degrade state permitting powers by cutting time 
frames, restricting citizen engagement, and shifting responsibilities 
back to the Environmental Protection Agency.
  I find it interesting that some of my colleagues who campaign on 
small government have decided to fight regulation by stripping 
authority from local agencies and handing it over to a federal 
bureaucracy!
  Under the Clean Air Act, states have the right to issue permits and 
regulate emissions according to their own criteria, which either meet 
or exceed national standards.
  States and localities should take the lead in regulating pollution 
because they are most responsive to the concerns of their citizens and 
familiar with the dynamics at work on the ground.
  In my home state of California, cities such as Los Angeles, where my 
37th Congressional District is located, have struggled with air 
pollution for decades.
  Thanks to the efforts of state regulatory agencies, such as the 
California Air Resources Board, the region has seen a marked 
improvement in air quality and other environmental indicators. The 
number of air quality alerts has fallen from over 200 per year in the 
1970s to less than 10 per year today.
  For 17 years, the Air Resources Board has regulated and monitored oil 
and gas operations near my district. The standards they employ were 
developed over nearly 5 decades of experience, and, most importantly, 
they remain directly accountable to the people and communities of 
California.
  Mr. Chair, I believe that if a state invests time and money towards 
establishing high standards and creating innovative solutions to a 
problem, they ought to enjoy the full support of the law.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. 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 gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hochul

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. HOCHUL. 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 5, after line 8, add the following new subsection:
       (c) Reporting.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report that 
     details how the amendments made by this Act are projected to 
     increase oil and gas production and lower energy prices for 
     consumers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Hochul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Chair, I stand here today to ask one simple question: 
How will the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 reduce the cost of 
gasoline for consumers?
  I think this is a fair question, one that my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle should want the answer to.
  The price of gasoline is soaring in our country, and across the 
Nation Americans are paying too much at the pump. The average gasoline 
right now is $3.63, up over a dollar from a year ago. Diesel, which our 
struggling farmers have to pay, has gone up a dollar per gallon in the 
same timeframe.
  However, as I've stated on this floor before, the people in my 
district are paying much more than that. In the past, western New 
Yorkers have paid some of the highest gas prices in this Nation. Rising 
fuel prices have hurt our small businesses. They hurt our farms, and 
they hurt our families at a time when money is far too scarce. And that 
is why we must know how the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 will 
increase oil and gas production, and we need to know that this will 
decrease the cost of energy for our consumers.
  Under this bill, American people are supposed to put their trust in 
the same oil companies that have consistently betrayed that trust. They 
tell us we need to drill more, and they tell us they need to get more 
permits on an expedited basis in order to do so.
  Well, I agree. I agree we need to reduce our dependency on foreign 
oil. But I'm asking for the proper oversight. How do we know that the 
permits we're issuing so oil companies can drill in our waters will 
result in that production of oil and gas? How do we know they simply 
won't secure permits and not choose to drill to keep oil and gas off 
the market, or even worse, just to drive up the price of oil by 
manipulating supply?
  The amendment I'm offering today is quite simple and straightforward. 
In one line it gives the EPA administrator 60 days to submit a report 
dealing with how this bill will increase oil and gas production, while 
lowering the price of energy for consumers. It has nothing to do with 
the merits of the bill, which I'm not weighing in on at this time. But 
I think that asking for a report within 2 months of passing this act is 
not unreasonable, which is why I ask all my colleagues to join with me 
today in supporting this amendment.
  Today the people back home in my district and all across this Nation 
are still fed up with high gas prices, and they want to know what we 
are going to do about these problems. This amendment, in a bipartisan 
way, can be a step toward finding that solution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. WHITFIELD. We certainly want to thank the gentlelady from New 
York for introducing this amendment.
  To answer the question about how is this bill going to help oil 
prices and provide more oil for the marketplace, obviously it can't do 
it overnight. But the reason that we're here is because it has taken 
EPA 5 years and they still have not even rendered a decision on a 
simple exploratory drill permit request, which is not even a long-term 
activity. It's simply to explore to determine is oil there and can we 
use it.
  Now, in America we're using around 20 million barrels of oil a day, 
and the vast majority of that is being imported into the U.S. from 
other sources. And so all we're attempting to do in this bill--we're 
not changing any aspect of the Clean Air Act, we're not changing mobile 
source rules, stationary source rules, national ambient air quality 
standards. We're not changing that. We're not changing the 
Environmental Appeals Board from hearing appeals on any other permit 
other than an exploratory permit, and that's all this bill does.
  And we want to do it because we're trying to find additional oil in 
America, and we know we have it. And we also know that if we have more 
oil, obviously we can't get it produced tomorrow. We've been trying 5 
years just to get the permit, and we don't have that yet. But we want 
any company to have the ability to go out and drill and to get an 
expedited answer from EPA. We're not even directing EPA to approve the 
permit. We're simply saying make a decision. And then if the other side 
does not like the decision, they have an opportunity to go to court. 
Under the way it's operating today, we can't get a final decision to 
even go to court. So here we are in limbo.
  I might also say that on the gentlelady's amendment, she does not 
give

[[Page 9762]]

any time for this report to be issued. And knowing EPA's track record, 
we could be here 10 years waiting for a report.
  But more important than that, EPA really does not perform economic 
analyses of energy markets. The Energy Information Administration does 
that. They have the modeling to do it, they have the technicians to do 
it, they have the information to do it. EPA really does not even do a 
very good job on their regulations of thinking about the impact on jobs 
in America.
  So I understand the gentlelady's intent; I think it's a very good 
intent. But as I said, one of the real weaknesses here is she doesn't 
even set a timeline for this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner.)
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
  This issue of studies, this issue of blue ribbon commissions, it 
doesn't address the actual fact that price is very much dependent on 
supply. That's the testimony that we have received. If we have 1 
million barrels of oil coming into this country from our own resources, 
American resources, we know from testimony at the hearing that it will 
impact price, testimony at the hearing that said the west coast of this 
United States would have to import less, that it would reduce the price 
at the pump in California.
  We don't have time to create commissions that don't actually relieve 
the American consumers' pain at the pump. They're paying for it now. I 
too represent farmers, businesses that are paying $3.50 a gallon--they 
were paying higher just a few weeks ago--and none of them have come to 
me and said, you know, I wish you could study whether or not high 
prices are impacting me or not. I wish you could study whether American 
production will actually reduce the price at the pump because they know 
intuitively that increased supply--American energy resources, when we 
develop them, will add to our supply, and it's a function of supply and 
demand.
  We have the opportunity in this country to create American jobs. I 
ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hochul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. HOCHUL. 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 gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. SCHRADER. 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:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DRILLING OFF THE COAST OF OREGON.

       No permit may be issued under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7401 et seq.) for an Outer Continental Shelf source (as 
     defined in section 328(a)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7627(a)(4))) in connection with drilling for oil or natural 
     gas off the coast of Oregon.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, co-sponsored by the coastal members of the Oregon 
delegation. This amendment is very simple; it protects 63 miles of 
fragile Oregon coastline and many of the communities that depend on its 
health.
  This amendment would prevent any permits required under the Clean Air 
Act for oil or natural gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off 
the coast of Oregon. It respects Oregon State's right to decide what is 
best for its coast without Federal interference.
  Our Oregon coastal communities depend on the health and natural 
vitality of the Pacific Ocean. They already face tremendous pressure 
both in the fishing arena and in our tourism economy. They cannot 
afford an environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.
  While Oregon has operated under a congressionally supported 
moratorium on drilling since 1982, this had expired in 2008. Oregon's 
citizens and its businesses deserve certainty to be able to invest in 
our fishing and tourism infrastructure.
  We respect other States' rights to do what they need to do and 
suggest what they want. Oregon is leading the way in renewables. We 
have a State energy portfolio that highlights hydro, solar, wind, wave, 
biomass, and waste-to-energy technologies, not oil or coal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from the north coast 
of Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment to prohibit oil and gas drilling off the Oregon coast.
  As an Oregonian, I question why we would risk our pristine coast to 
support an energy industry of the last century rather than of the next 
century, why we would subject our fisheries and visitor-based coastal 
economy to the dangers of a BP-style disaster in Oregon waters.
  We should focus on generating local jobs, not profits for far-off oil 
companies. We could create these local jobs by investing in the energy 
industries of the next century that are uniquely suited to the Oregon 
coast--waste energy and next-generation offshore wind. Oregon can be 
the Saudi Arabia of renewable wave energy. Wave energy depends on two 
things, big waves and seabed contours suited to exploit those waves; 
and Oregon has both. Oregon is the best place in the world where these 
two factors come together.
  As for wind energy, next-generation technology will allow floating 
wind farms to be operated 100 miles offshore. These are the jobs of the 
future. These are the technology and the energy of the future.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that you have to 
get an air permit for the energy production that my colleague was just 
discussing. You have to get an air permit for the offshore wind 
development, for the wave development. So I believe opposition to this 
bill actually hurts the very projects that he is promoting.
  And so, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it 
basically puts this country in a situation where you can go get a 
lease, you can achieve an energy lease, but you can't then get a permit 
for it. So does that create additional liability for this country? Are 
we going to end up entering into an area where we can get sued because 
we've issued a lease but then said you can't get a clean air permit--
not only for oil and gas development, but for the very projects that my 
colleague was addressing?
  So here we are in a situation that gets back to the fundamental 
question at issue: Are we going to allow a bureaucratically created 
board in Washington, D.C., wearing robes and hearing basic judicial 
proceedings--are we going to allow them to stall an issue of national 
importance?

                              {time}  1720

  Five years it has taken. Five years it has taken in this one 
particular instance. Access to Federal offshore areas is not determined 
by the EPA-issued air permits. It is determined by the President of the 
United States when through the Department of the Interior lease sales 
are or are not held for Federal lands and waters.
  This is once again an attempt to shut off exploration activity in the 
Pacific. The matter is not to be decided through air permits. It is to 
be decided when and if lease sales are proposed for those waters. If 
lease sales are proposed in the future, Oregon's interests

[[Page 9763]]

and concerns will no doubt be represented by our colleagues who are 
proposing this amendment, by the opportunities that remain to debate 
and provide comment through the NEPA process, through the leasing 
process.
  There are five opportunities for public comment to provided on 
exploration activity, 30 to 45 days' worth of activity. There are five 
opportunities for the public to comment.
  We have got to get this country into a position where we recognize 
that it is a good thing for American-produced energy to have 
opportunities to be developed.
  We heard testimony from the State of Alaska. This bill has bipartisan 
support. It is an effort to say, you know what, we have resources and 
reserves. We have facilities like the Trans-Alaska pipeline that right 
now has 650,000 barrels of oil going through a day when it was designed 
to bring in 2 million barrels of oil a day. If it gets any lower, it is 
going to create mechanical problems transporting the oil. If it gets 
below 200,000 barrels a day, it will be decommissioned, torn apart. The 
potential to bring 2.1 million barrels of oil a day into this country 
will be gone if the Trans-Alaska pipeline is removed.
  The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021, gives this body the 
chance to say we are going to utilize our resources in a responsible 
manner. We are going to tell the EPA that they have got 6 months to do 
the analysis. Approve it or don't approve it, but make a decision 
because the American people deserve a decision.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from 
southern Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You are either for States' rights or you're not. It seems on the 
other side of the aisle, when it is convenient to their agenda, they 
are for States' rights. But when it is not convenient to their agenda 
or their generous campaign contributors, the oil and gas industry, they 
are not for States' rights.
  My State voted, the legislature, just last year for a 10-year 
moratorium on their lands as an expression of interest not only to ban 
the leasing of the lands within the coastal waters, but beyond that. We 
are serious about protecting our fisheries, we are serious about our 
very profitable tourism industry, and, yes, we are serious about wind 
and wave development. The gentleman made no sense. He said somehow this 
would preclude wind and wave development. Not at all. You don't need a 
clean air permit for something that doesn't potentially pollute the 
air.
  So at this point I would just suggest that let's be consistent. If 
the State of Alaska wishes to push ahead, the gentleman from Alaska has 
the bill before us. The Republican Party controls the House. Great. He 
also had a rule that people from local districts and local States, the 
gentleman from Alaska, get to have their prerogative. This is our 
prerogative, representing the people of the State of Oregon.
  Mr. GARDNER. May I inquire how much time remains.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1 minute remaining, 
and the gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GARDNER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield 1 minute to the Congressman from the largest 
port in our great State, Congressman Earl Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this. I appreciate all my colleagues who represent the 
Oregon coast for bringing this forward. Now, my district may not 
actually touch the Oregon coast, but my constituents and I spend time 
there, value its beauty, the ecosystem, and the economic benefits it 
brings to the United States. The underlying bill could bring all of 
these at risk, allowing expedited drilling for offshore drilling, a 
process that is expedited for those who would drill, but a process that 
is much worse for citizens who may object.
  We need to continue to respect the wishes of Oregonians to keep oil 
rigs off our shores, prohibiting sources from obtaining permits to 
drill off the coast of Oregon. This amendment is an appropriate 
safeguard to protect our coastal environment and communities.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a point when I was seeking 
the opportunity to ask the gentleman to yield, section 328 applies to 
any offshore project authorized under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act. So under the OCSLA, all offshore energy projects must have a 
permit.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHRADER. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, Oregonians don't want or need drilling off 
our coast. This amendment is supported by all three Members of the 
entire Oregon coastline and our State legislature. We respect, and I 
hope this body would respect, Oregonians' right to determine their own 
destiny. We are not talking about Alaska, we are talking about the 
State of Oregon, and we are only talking about oil and natural gas 
permits.
  House Members representing this coast are very passionate about its 
health and future vitality. We urge this body to pass this amendment 
and respect Oregon's destiny.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, I oppose the amendment. We have an 
opportunity with the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act to get this country 
on a path toward a secure energy future. It is a matter of national 
interest. It is not just a matter of Oregon or just a matter of 
Colorado or just a matter of Alaska. Everyone who is suffering through 
the pain at the pump realizes that the resources we have been blessed 
with in this country, when used responsibly, can be used for the 
benefit of our country and the benefit of all.
  The 112th Congress has continued to focus on job creation, just like 
the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, job creation and long-term economic 
well-being. It was said before, somebody on the other side said we are 
not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more 
oil. That doesn't make any sense at all.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHRADER. 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 Oregon 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 A of House Report 
112-111 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Speier of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Eshoo of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Capps of California.
  Amendment No. 9 by Ms. Hochul of New York.
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
  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 Ms. Speier

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 9764]]

  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 176, 
noes 248, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     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
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     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
     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

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     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
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     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
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Stark
     Stearns
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Lummis
     Stivers
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1759

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Ms. FOXX, Messrs. DOLD, BACA, and STARK changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 254, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               AYES--167

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     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 (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--254

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble

[[Page 9765]]


     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     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
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boustany
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Labrador
     Lummis
     Paul
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Graves of Georgia) (during the vote). There are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1806

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


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Welch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) 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 183, 
noes 238, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 469]

                               AYES--183

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

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Doggett
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hurt
     Kucinich
     Lummis
     Paul
     Stivers
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1813

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


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) on which further proceedings

[[Page 9766]]

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 167, 
noes 258, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 470]

                               AYES--167

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

                               NOES--258

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Lummis
     Stivers
     Watt
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1820

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


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rush) 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 172, 
noes 253, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 471]

                               AYES--172

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     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)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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

                               NOES--253

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert

[[Page 9767]]


     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     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
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Perlmutter
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Lummis
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1826

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


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Quigley

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Quigley) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 251, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 472]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     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)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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

                               NOES--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     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
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     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)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Lummis
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Tiberi
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1832

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


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms.

[[Page 9768]]

Eshoo) 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 183, 
noes 240, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     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)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     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

                               NOES--240

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Butterfield
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Lummis
     Meeks
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1838

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


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps) 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 180, 
noes 242, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 474]

                               AYES--180

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     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
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     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--242

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

[[Page 9769]]


     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     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 (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Capuano
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1845

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


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hochul

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Hochul) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 238, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 475]

                               AYES--186

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     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
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     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

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     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
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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)
     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 (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Lummis
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1851

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


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded

[[Page 9770]]

vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Schrader) 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 160, 
noes 262, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 476]

                               AYES--160

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--262

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Carson (IN)
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Jackson (IL)
     Lummis
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1858

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Graves of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Latham, 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. 
2021) to amend the Clean Air Act regarding air pollution from Outer 
Continental Shelf activities, and, pursuant to House Resolution 316, 
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. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KEATING. I am opposed to it in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Keating moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2021 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       After subsection (d) of section 328 of the Clean Air Act, 
     as proposed to be added by section 4 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       ``(e) Determination of Lower Gas Prices at the Pump.--In 
     conducting analyses relating to requirements for pollution 
     controls pursuant to this section, the Administrator shall 
     determine whether the controls under review will result in 
     lower gasoline prices in the United States, including the 
     retail price charged at service stations.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this final amendment that I 
believe will greatly increase economic and job safeguards for the 
American people.
  Simply put, the underlying legislation is about risk versus reward. 
We know what the reward is: trillions of dollars of profit over the 
last decade for oil companies and preferred stock buybacks and bonuses 
for executives. We know what the proponents of this bill say the reward 
will be: lower gas prices at the pump.
  Now, what is the risk that we're looking at?
  The risk is existing jobs: existing jobs in the marine industry, the 
fishing industry, the tourism industry--industries that are among the 
most job-producing in my State and in the States of so many other 
people in this Chamber.
  My amendment requires the administrator to determine whether or not 
this

[[Page 9771]]

will lower gas prices for American citizens. I believe we need a 
safeguard for the American public, who should not bear the burden of 
the risk with no guarantee of the reward. I'm sure the many small 
businesses in the gulf and in my district which rely on the marine 
economies and tourism would agree with this. This final amendment is a 
commonsense compromise, and regardless of how the Members feel about 
the underlying legislation, this is something that we should all be 
able to support.
  When I offered my amendment earlier, my colleague from across the 
aisle said it was irrelevant because it dealt with exposing executive 
bonuses and that it, thus, did not deal with the heart of what this 
bill is supposed to do, which, according to him, was to increase 
domestic oil production that would translate into decreased gas prices 
at the pump. Now, if it's not for lower gas prices for consumers, then 
the only rationale for this must be that it's for higher profits for 
oil companies. All day, proponents have said the reason for the bill is 
to lower gas prices.
  This amendment, simply put, asks them to mean what they say. I ask 
all of my colleagues to please support this final amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Energy security and job creation, that's what the Jobs 
and Energy Permitting Act is about. The amendment, the motion to 
recommit that has been offered, is something that we talked about 
today: whether or not a study actually results in lower prices at the 
pump.
  Colleagues, I don't think our constituents will appreciate it if we 
put a big sign on the pump at the gas station that reads ``you're going 
to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas; you're going to pay $4 a gallon for 
gas'' while we study it, while a blue ribbon commission proceeds.
  This bill will allow our domestic resources to be accessed in a 
responsible manner, in a timely manner to help relieve the price at the 
pump. Americans are tired of overregulation. Americans are tired of 
job-killing regulations. Americans are tired of the pain at the pump 
that they face each and every day. This bill presents an opportunity to 
create 54,000 jobs. In the time that it has taken to get a permit 
approved in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 400 wells have been drilled 
around the world. They created jobs in other countries; they created 
energy in other countries, but they didn't do it in our own backyard. 
This is our opportunity to get American resources online in a 
responsible manner.
  This amendment is one more stall, one more study, one more way to 
tell the American people that we're not interested in helping relieve 
the pain at the pump. We're going to study it. We're going to 
commission it. Then we're not going to do anything. This is 54,000 jobs 
and 1 million barrels of oil a day brought online from Alaska, creating 
jobs not just there but throughout the 48 States.
  The other day, I heard people talking about making it in America. 
``Make It in America.'' Do you know what we need to make it in America? 
We need an energy policy that allows an abundant, affordable energy 
resource. To make it in America, we need opportunities to secure 
policies that don't overregulate and kill jobs. If you want to make it 
in America, reject this motion to recommit; develop American resources; 
put America back to work; and vote ``yes'' on the underlying 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. KEATING. 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 177, 
noes 245, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 477]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     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)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     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

                               NOES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     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
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Owens
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce

[[Page 9772]]


     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
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Dicks
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Landry
     Lummis
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1923

  Mr. OWENS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 166, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 478]

                               AYES--253

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     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)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     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
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--166

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Carson (IN)
     Cole
     Dicks
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Granger
     Lummis
     Moore
     Murphy (PA)
     Pelosi
     Stivers
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1930

  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 against:
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 477 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________