[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1624-1661]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       PROTECTING INVESTMENT IN OIL SHALE THE NEXT GENERATION OF 
            ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND RESOURCE SECURITY ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3408.

[[Page 1625]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 547 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. 3408.

                              {time}  1435


                     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. 3408) to set clear rules for the development of United States oil 
shale resources, to promote shale technology research and development, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Natural Resources, and 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which contains 
the energy provisions in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs 
Act. This is an action plan to create jobs that will vastly expand 
American energy production, lower gasoline prices, strengthen our 
national and economic security, and generate new revenue to help pay 
for infrastructure, and, Mr. Chairman, all without raising taxes or 
adding to the deficit.
  In this year's State of the Union speech, President Obama proclaimed 
his support for expanding American energy production with an all-of-
the-above energy strategy. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the President's actions 
while he has been in office have been anything but pro-energy. In fact, 
his rhetoric--and I don't say this lightly, Mr. Chairman--is 180 
degrees from his actions.
  Since taking office, this administration has repeatedly blocked U.S. 
energy production. The offshore drilling moratorium and the Keystone 
pipeline are just the tip of the iceberg. He has canceled and withdrawn 
scheduled lease sales, shut off promising areas to new drilling, 
blocked mining in mineral-rich areas, and issued countless job-
destroying regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, actions do speak louder than words. The bill we are 
considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President 
Obama's anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs 
policies of Republicans.
  While President Obama has closed off new areas for offshore drilling, 
this bill will open areas known to contain the most oil and natural gas 
resources in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. As a result, 
economic analysis has shown that well over 1 million jobs--long-term 
jobs, long-term American jobs--can be created.
  While President Obama opposes energy production in ANWR, this bill 
will open less than 3 percent of the total area to responsible and safe 
drilling. That issue has been around a while, Mr. Chairman. ANWR 
represents the single greatest resource of onshore area production in 
the United States. This is one of the reasons that way back in 1980, 
when Jimmy Carter was still President and the Democrats controlled the 
Congress, they specifically set aside the north slope of ANWR for 
energy production.

                              {time}  1440

  Safe and responsible energy production in ANWR will protect the 
environment while creating tens of thousands of jobs and providing 
upwards of 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. By the way, this is 
more than the U.S. imports daily from Saudi Arabia.
  While the President has delayed leases and withdrawn over a million 
acres in the Rocky Mountains to oil shale development, this bill will 
set clear rules and require additional oil shale leases to be issued. 
According to the government estimates, this region may hold--and, Mr. 
Chairman, this is a significant number. This region may hold more than 
1\1/2\ trillion barrels of oil equivalent. That's six times Saudi 
Arabia's proven reserves and enough to provide the United States with 
energy for the next 200 years. And I'm just talking about oil shale. 
Robust oil shale development could also create hundreds of thousands of 
jobs, and that should be self-evident.
  Finally, while the President refused to approve the Keystone XL 
pipeline, this bill would require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, or FERC, to approve it within 30 days. The Keystone XL 
pipeline will create more than 20,000 American jobs and displace less 
stable energy imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure North 
American oil.
  Since this President took office, Mr. Chairman, gasoline prices have 
climbed by 91 percent. Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to close off the 
Strait of Hormuz, which is responsible for transportation of almost 17 
million barrels of oil a day, or 20 percent of all oil traded. Prices 
will only climb higher if we don't take action now to increase our 
energy independence and develop our own energy resources.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, Republicans are moving forward with a plan to 
create more jobs and create more American energy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Budget Office, these 
drilling measures the Republicans are bringing out on the House floor 
today, together, would only raise $4.3 billion over 10 years, less than 
one-tenth of the revenue shortfall needed to fund our highways.
  In reality, this bill amounts to little more than a giveaway of our 
public lands to Big Oil under the guise of funding our Nation's 
transportation projects, and most estimates are that no new revenue 
will be produced that is usable for this transportation bill.
  Across the United States, oil production is at its highest level in 
nearly a decade. Natural gas production has reached levels we have 
never seen before in the United States. Oil production on public lands 
offshore is higher than it was during each of the last 3 years of the 
Bush administration.
  According to industry analysts, by this summer, there will be nearly 
30 percent more floating rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than 
there were prior to the BP spill. Yet the Republican bill would 
threaten the tourism and fishing economies of coastal States byallowing 
drilling off of our beaches in Florida, in California, up and down our 
east and west coasts, and, as well, in an area extensively used by the 
military where even Secretary Rumsfeld said ``drilling structures and 
associated development would be incompatible with military activities'' 
in this area.
  This Congress has not enacted a single safety improvement since the 
BP spill. The bill would allow for drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, ripping out the heart of the crown jewel of 
our National Wildlife Refuge System. The Arctic Refuge is America's 
Serengeti. It is one of the natural wonders of the world, like the 
Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, or the Great Barrier Reef, and it should 
be protected.
  If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, it will set a precedent 
that will allow the oil and gas industry to place a bull's-eye on each 
of the 540 wildlife refuges across this country. And this legislation 
would rush to give away 125,000 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, 
and Wyoming to Big Oil for oil shale development. However, there is

[[Page 1626]]

no commercially viable oil shale technology, and oil shale development 
could have significant impacts on water quality and quantity in the 
West if there were a commercially viable technology available, which 
Shell Oil and the Department of the Interior says does not yet exist.
  In fact, the Government Accountability Office has said that the 
impacts of oil shale development on water could be significant but are 
unknown. What's more, this provision has been included by the majority, 
despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says that it 
would not raise any revenue over the next 10 years to fund our 
highways. So understand that.
  This is a provision which CBO says raises no revenue in the next 10 
years, but it's just stuck in here. The oil and gas industry would like 
to see it, so they just tossed it in. Nothing to do with funding 
transportation.
  And the majority's drilling bills wouldn't even ensure that American 
natural gas stays here in America to help our consumers. Natural gas 
prices are six times higher in Asia than they are right here. They are 
more than three times higher in Europe than they are right here.
  Low natural gas prices have been driving the economic recovery of the 
United States. We have far more natural gas in our country--and it's 
very low-priced--then we have oil. What the Republican bill will allow 
to happen is for this natural gas to be exported around the world, and 
exporting our natural gas would eliminate our competitive edge by 
driving prices up by as much as 54 percent, according to the Department 
of Energy.
  Not ensuring that the natural gas stays here in the United States 
ensures that the majority, the Republicans, are imposing a de facto 
natural gas tax on American agriculture, manufacturing, chemicals, 
steel, plastics by allowing our gas to be exported.
  Here's what T. Boone Pickens says about the idea of exporting 
American natural gas. Here's what he says:

       If we do it, we're truly going to go down as America's 
     dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural 
     gas.

  Our natural gas is six times cheaper than Asian; it is three times 
cheaper than European. What are we doing exporting it? We should keep 
it here for our own farmers, for our own industries, for our own 
consumers. That's how we begin to put ourselves on a path of energy 
independence.
  I agree with T. Boone Pickens. We should keep our natural gas here. 
We should not be following the Republican energy plan of drill here, 
sell there, and pay more. If we sell this natural gas around the world, 
the Department of Energy says the price is going up 57 percent here 
because we'll have less of it. That's how supply and demand works.
  The same dynamic exists in the Keystone portion of the bill, where 
Republicans have failed to include any assurances that even a drop of 
the oil or the fuels will stay in this country.
  When I asked the president of TransCanada, the pipeline company from 
Canada, whether he would be willing to commit to keeping the oil that 
passes through this pipeline in the United States, he said no. And why? 
Because the oil companies and the refineries want to export the fuels 
to the highest bidders around the world, leaving the American people 
with all of the environmental risk and little or none of the energy or 
economic benefit.
  So drill here, sell there, pay more, that's not the Republican 
mantra. Drill here, drill now, pay less. Now they've morphed into what 
the oil and gas industry want, and all of the economic indicators point 
to the conclusion that our consumers will be harmed by that.
  On the question of the totality of the economic benefits for our 
country, they are simultaneously proposing to kill the tax breaks for 
the wind industry, which is now creating 85,000 jobs in our country, in 
the face of the wind industry, saying that they will have to lay off 
40,000 people over the next year unless the production tax break for 
the wind industry stays on the books.

                              {time}  1450

  So all of this is basically upside down as an energy policy. My 
strongest admonition to the Members who are listening to this debate is 
to vote ``no'' on this Republican proposal.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and the former 
chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3408.
  I'm really here to talk about ANWR. You know, I just wrote a little 
poem. It's not too good:

     Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch a barrel of 
           oil.
     Lo and behold, none was there.
     Lack of action by this Congress, beware.
     ANWR still lays bare.
     Time to drill for the people of America.

  We have argued this battle over and over again. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts says no use for atomic power, no use for ANWR, we're in 
good shape. But look at the prices of gas, Mr. and Mrs. America. It 
will go to $5. You say this won't solve the problem. I've heard this 
before.
  If you want to have money for transportation, think for a moment. I 
passed this bill out, got it to the Senate side, this is the 12th time. 
One time it got to the President, and President Clinton vetoed it. We 
would have saved $4 trillion if we had had ANWR open at that time. 
Think of the highway bill we would have had then. That's something I 
think the American people should recognize.
  We do have the fossil fuels in America. We do have the oil, we do 
have the gas. But we haven't had the will to develop them because we 
brought them from overseas. We got them in here, and now we're 
dependent upon the Mideast, and, yes, Venezuela, our good neighbor 
Venezuela, Chavez.
  It's time for America to wake up. We need this supply of fossil 
fuels, and it's going to stay here. Not wind, not solar, because fossil 
fuels are still the cheapest way to move an object. It is the commerce 
of this Nation. It moves our trains, our planes, our automobiles, our 
trucks, and our ships, and it will continue to do that. That's what 
keeps us moving in this country. It keeps our economy strong. As long 
as we will have that fossil fuel within the United States, it is 
criminal to continue to rely upon the foreign countries.
  We talk about Big Oil. Pick on Big Oil. Big Oil this, Big Oil that, 
Big Oil this. The truth of the matter is Big Oil does help the United 
States of America. Little oil helps the United of America. It keeps our 
trucks and our planes flying. It keeps our economy strong.
  So I'm urging you to vote on this aspect of ANWR. Open ANWR. Let's 
vote on it. Let's provide for this Nation. Let's do what's right for 
the people in this Nation. It only covers an area as big as Dulles 
airport. Out of 19 million acres, less than 3,000 acres will be 
developed. Less than 3,000 acres will be developed to divide us from 
probably 39 billion barrels of oil, 74 miles away from the pipeline, a 
pipeline that can deliver 2 million barrels of oil a day to the United 
States of America, as we have done in the past.
  We've had one shipment of oil go overseas, heavy oil. All of the rest 
has gone to the United States of America. It's gone to the refineries. 
It's time for us as a Congress to act responsibly.
  With all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts, he's against 
nuclear power. He's against oil. In fact, I question the wind power 
because one time he was against that. I'm saying, wait a minute. What 
are we doing to run this country for power? How do we get our economy 
going again? That is the key to our economy: energy, good cheap energy.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  When the Democrats controlled the Congress in 2009, we passed a bill 
out here on the House floor that created an advanced energy technology 
bank that included $75 billion that the nuclear industry could have 
qualified for, $60 billion for the coal industry for clean coal 
technology. Although we also built in incentives for wind and for solar 
and

[[Page 1627]]

for energy efficiency, we did it all. We gave everyone a running head 
start. We didn't say ``nothing'' to nuclear. No.
  What have the Republicans done over the last year? They passed out 
here on the floor a bill that zeroed out the money for loan guarantees 
for wind and solar, but they left in the loan guarantees for the 
nuclear industry. That's not an all-of-the-above strategy, and you all 
voted for it unanimously.
  No. Here's where we are. This oil-above-all strategy that you have, 
not all-of-the-above, this is basically at the heart of what this whole 
debate is all about.
  Last year, the oil industry in the United States made $137 billion. 
This year, they're going to blast right past that $137 billion. Every 
person watching this debate is looking at the pump right now at $3.50, 
$4, $4.50 that they're paying, and it's going straight up.
  They're going to be reporting profits of upwards of $200 billion. The 
Republicans continue to keep in the $4 billion-a-year for tax breaks 
for the oil industry. Over 10 years, that's $40 billion that would pay 
for the transportation bill.
  Subsidizing the oil industry in 2012 to drill for oil is like 
subsidizing fish to swim or birds to fly; you don't have to do it. The 
consumer is already doing it at the pump. They're being tipped upside 
down.
  So, there's an easy funding mechanism here. It's just taking away the 
oil company tax breaks.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  That is the only way that we can substitute the money that stays 
within that sector.
  These guys are going to cut back on the pension plans of Federal 
retirees in order to pay for a transportation bill when we should be 
keeping the funding stream within this energy sector because that's why 
we have cars on the road, in order to use this petroleum.
  The oil industry right now is having it both ways. They're getting 
tax breaks from the taxpayers at the same time that they're taking the 
other pocket of every American as consumers, and they're taking money 
out of that pocket as well. That's really at the heart of what this 
debate is all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, Dr. 
Hastings.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3408. This legislation does three vital 
things: it will open up land in the West to oil shale development; open 
up one of our most promising areas for energy development in the United 
States, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and increase offshore 
production as well.
  These provisions will create hundreds of thousands of American jobs 
and ensure the continued production of new domestic increases in our 
energy security and decrease our reliance on foreign oil--a goal the 
administration has professed to support time and time again.
  Oil shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made 
energy. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Western United 
States holds more than 1.5 trillion, with a ``t,'' barrels of oil--six 
times Saudi Arabia's proven resources and enough to provide the United 
States with energy for the next 200 years. Opponents to this 
legislation will argue that this legislation attempts to promote 
technology that isn't proven.
  However, while the American oil shale industry is forced overseas due 
to regulatory uncertainty and burdensome Federal regulations here, 
other nations are profiting right now from this technology, countries 
like Jordan, China, and Estonia.
  Just this morning we heard from Secretary Ken Salazar who expressed 
the administration's support of emerging technologies. You would think 
that that would include oil shale. Unfortunately, the Obama 
administration's support amounts to offering leases with such extremely 
restrictive terms that it attracts hardly any industry support at all.
  As a result, countries overseas, which get over 90 percent of their 
total energy supply from oil shale, like Estonia, have robust oil shale 
industries.
  I asked Secretary Salazar how this administration can say it promotes 
new energy while stifling research and development of this tremendous 
energy potential, oil shale, and he had no good answer.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, this legislation also opens up energy in Alaska, specifically in 
the less than 3 percent of ANWR that the bill deals with. This area was 
set aside by President Carter in 1980 precisely for oil and gas 
development. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge holds the single 
greatest potential for a new domestic energy source within the United 
States. Offshore, this legislation would increase drilling in Federal 
waters while ensuring the protection for our offshore military 
operations as well as fair and equitable revenue sharing for all 
coastal States. This energy legislation will create consistent policies 
to move the domestic energy industry forward and will create good-
paying American jobs for thousands of Americans.
  People say all the time to me, Why don't we have a better energy 
policy in this country? This legislation does exactly that.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3408.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on either side.
  The CHAIR. Both sides have 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. My good friend and colleague just asked a very good 
question: Why don't we have a good American energy policy?
  You won't get it with this bill. This may be the worst American 
energy policy I've ever seen.
  Oil shale, are you kidding me? There is no way that you're going to 
see oil shale developed within the United States at any time probably 
in our lifetimes. It didn't work in the 1980s. It's not likely to work 
in the next two decades. So what's this all about? And by the way, if 
you happen to be from Colorado, Utah, Arizona, California or New 
Mexico, you'd want to go, Whoa, wait a minute. Oil shale? That takes a 
lot of water. We don't have enough water, and you're going to use it 
for that? I don't think so.
  Come on. Let's get real here. We do need a real energy policy.
  You're going to open up ANWR? There are some very special places in 
this world, and ANWR happens to be one of them. The Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge happens to be one of those places. You're not going to 
open it up. And by the way, as for those of us from California, my good 
friends on the Republican side are always talking about states' rights. 
They're always talking about states' rights. Your little piece of 
legislation here strips away the right of California to take care of 
its own coastline. It's not just authorizing the offshore drilling. You 
take away California's coastal zone management powers, stripping away 
from Californians--all 38 million of us--our ability to take care of 
our own coast. Something is terribly wrong with this piece of energy 
legislation.
  You're going to fund the transportation with this while stripping 
money away from the Land and Water Conservation Fund? How does that 
work? How does that work? And by the way, the money won't be there 
anyway.
  This is not an energy policy--this is a stupid policy--and there 
ought to be 435 reasons. Each and every person in this House is 
affected in a negative way by this piece of legislation. There are 435 
of us who ought to say, Put this aside just as we have discovered the 
underlying bill on transportation has found little support and has to 
go back and be reworked because of its insufficiencies.
  This is no way to fund a transportation bill. This is no way to treat 
California. This is no way to have an energy policy for America. Yes, 
we do

[[Page 1628]]

need an energy policy, and we do need to have many different elements 
to it; but we don't sacrifice those special places like the California 
coast, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, like Bristol Bay, like 
the coast of Florida, like the east coast of the United States. We do 
not sacrifice that for an energy policy that doesn't solve the problem 
that this is purported to solve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this very 
important bill.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  This administration, Mr. Chairman, has a Secretary of Energy who told 
The Wall Street Journal that we should be paying the same price for 
gasoline as they're paying over in Europe. At the time he said that, 
they were paying $8 to $9 a gallon. Well, I know that most 
environmental radicals come from very wealthy or very upper-income 
families, and perhaps they can afford gasoline at $8 or $9 a gallon, 
but most people can't. In fact, Mr. Chairman, many experts are 
predicting we're going to be at $5 a gallon as soon as this summer. I 
can tell you that's going to hurt a lot of poor and lower-income and 
working people if we go to even $5 a gallon, and it's going to hurt a 
lot of small towns and rural areas because people in those places 
generally have to drive longer distances to go to work.
  I represent, Mr. Chairman, a large part of the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park. That national park is slightly under 600,000 acres. We 
get between 9 million and 10 million visitors a year. ANWR--and I 
happen to be one of the very few Members who has been to ANWR twice--is 
the most barren place I've ever been to. Chairman Young estimated that 
there are 100 miles without a tree or a bush on it. ANWR is 19.8 
million acres, which is 35 times the size of the Great Smoky Mountains. 
Time magazine said they get about 200 to 300 visitors a year, and you 
have to be a survivalist to go in there.
  Now we want to expand our energy production there with just a few 
thousand acres--a minuscule portion of ANWR--to help our own people. If 
we don't do that, who we're helping are foreign energy producers; but 
we're hurting a lot of poor and lower-income and working people in this 
country.
  When we passed ANWR in the mid-90s and when it was vetoed by 
President Clinton, it was said at that time that it would produce 1 
million barrels a day coming down into this country, but President 
Clinton vetoed it. They said at that time that it wouldn't help right 
away. Well, it would sure be helping now if it hadn't been vetoed. In 
addition to that, if we would start developing more of our natural 
resources now, some of these foreign energy producers would have to 
start bringing their prices down. I think--in fact, I'm convinced--that 
this legislation would start helping right away or it would, at least, 
in a very short time.
  We need to start putting our own people first, once again, instead of 
just helping out foreign energy producers.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Here is the reality. The Republicans need money to build roads, so 
they want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which 
Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has already made clear doesn't have the 
votes to pass in the Senate. The same thing is true for California and 
Florida and off the coast of Massachusetts and New Jersey. They want to 
drill there as well, and it's very clear that the votes aren't there in 
the Senate to accomplish that goal either. As the gentleman from 
California just said, the likelihood of finding any revenues from oil 
shale is at least two decades away, so there are no revenues there.
  There is another bill, by the way, that's going to come out here on 
the floor. And in order to find the revenues, do you know where they're 
going to drill? They're going to drill into the pensions of FBI agents; 
they're going to drill into the pensions of the researchers for cancer 
out of the National Institutes of Health; and they're going to drill 
into the pensions of the Border Patrol agents, who are protecting us 
right now down on the Mexico border. That's where they're going to find 
almost all of the money for this bill--in the pensions of those people.
  Is that really the way we want to build the roads of our country?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is clearly an interesting position from our 
Democratic colleagues. They say we need roads; they say we need jobs; 
they say we need an energy policy. But not here, not now, not anywhere.
  When we look at the challenges that we face from overseas in terms of 
creating American certainty for energy, it's something for which we 
must all stand together. We're looking at developing oil shale as a 
potential resource for this country, right here in America, in order to 
be able to create American jobs on American soil while using American 
energy resources.
  Let's explore this.

                              {time}  1510

  From the Republican side, we've clearly stood for an all-of-the-above 
policy. Why is there such reluctance from our Democrat colleagues to 
embrace developing the technology to be able to create certainty for 
America's energy future, to be able to help struggling young families, 
senior citizens on fixed incomes make sure that their utility bills, 
their gas bills don't continue to rise? That's what we're proposing.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman.
  When we're talking about protecting Colorado, many of our Democrat 
colleagues joined the amendment that I put forward, stating that the 
Secretary wouldn't consider but shall address local concerns. If you 
understand Colorado water, you can't just take it. It's a priority-
based system. You have to actually own that water to be able to develop 
it.
  We have a reasonable plan that we're trying to put forward to develop 
American energy certainty; but our Democratic colleagues, their 
solution of having ``no, not here, not now, not anywhere'' is not a 
solution that will work for America. Let's get our people to work. 
Let's create certainty for America and stand up for the American 
consumer for a change.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, just 2 weeks ago, President Obama stood right here in 
this Chamber; and he said that he was going to propose opening up 75 
percent of the oil and gas resources off the coast of the United 
States. That's a great plan. He doesn't want to drill off the 
California beaches. He doesn't want to drill off Florida beaches or off 
the New Jersey or Massachusetts beaches. But the rest of it, he's 
pretty much saying he's open to. But they're not happy with it over 
here. The President has a real plan and a plan that can be implemented.
  What they are doing is they bring out proposals here that try to 
build real highways with fake oil revenues that are never going to 
materialize. So rather than working here in the real world, where the 
real transportation needs of our country are dealt with with real 
revenues that are coming in, they talk about oil shale which Shell says 
is at least another 10 years away. Shell Oil, that is, not some shell 
collector along the beaches.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
  We are talking Shell Oil who says it's 10 years away. Jim Inhofe in 
the Senate says the votes aren't there to drill in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. So that's zero dollars as well. And the likelihood of 
them drilling off the coast of California or Florida or Massachusetts 
for oil is zero. So rather than

[[Page 1629]]

going through this facade of trying to pretend that real highways can 
be built with fake oil revenues, we should be taking up the offer of 
President Obama where he says he'll open up 75 percent of all the 
drilling possibilities off the coastlines of our country. That is what 
this debate should be all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee 
for the courtesy of speaking in support of H.R. 3408.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3408, the PIONEERS 
Act, and by doing so, I'm standing up for American innovation, American 
jobs, and renewed American prosperity. Shale oil is a game-changer. You 
don't have to look any further than the Eagle Ford shale in my home 
State of Texas to see the economic benefits of this stable American 
energy resource.
  This past Sunday when I went to the Eagle Ford shale, there were 171 
oil rigs and 93 natural gas rigs drilling thousands of wells. More rigs 
are coming, and major pipeline projects are under way to support 
production that will grow to 420,000 barrels per day. Let me say that 
again: 420,000 barrels of oil per day. One of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle said, Oil shale, no way. I've seen with my own eyes 
at Eagle Ford shale; and I say, Oil shale, yes way.
  Eagle Ford shale job creation is now in full swing with scores of new 
businesses opening up to support the boom. More than 10,000 jobs have 
already been created, and 58,000 more are on the way. The economic 
recession is a thing of the past in this part of our country and in my 
State.
  The world, as we've known it, is literally changing in front of our 
eyes. Our long-established dependence upon imported energy could be a 
thing of the past if we unleash America's energy resources. H.R. 3408 
will get us one step closer.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute at this time.
  The Republicans, over the past year, have betrayed their agenda. They 
have pretty much voted out on the House floor to gut the budget for 
wind, gut the budget for solar, gut the budget for plug-in hybrid 
vehicles and, at the same time, kept in the money for the nuclear 
industry, kept in the tax breaks for the oil industry. So that is 
pretty much what the debate is all about. It's about the past versus 
the future.
  In our country right now, the American people want to know that we're 
embracing a future-oriented, technology-oriented, advanced-technology-
oriented agenda for our country. That's what all the Republicans keep 
voting against out here, all of the new technologies that allow us to 
move on from this fossil-fuel era.
  And it would be one thing if they just didn't vote for it, but then 
they have the temerity to stand up and to say they believe in all of 
the above. No, they do not. They believe in oil above all because 
otherwise they would not vote to kill wind and solar out here on the 
House floor over the last year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe's quote has been thrown around here 
recently. Let me give another quote by Senator Inhofe:

       As I have said, we can make great strides toward increasing 
     North American energy independence by developing our own 
     domestic resources. We can do this and support millions of 
     American jobs, produce affordable energy for consumers, and 
     reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

  He said that in March 2010. I think that's important.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make one other point. There's been an 
implication here that it has been the policies of this administration 
that have increased oil and gas supplies; but if you look at the 
President's own budget that came out this week, there are two aspects 
of revenue coming in from oil and gas production. You have the lease 
sales, and you have the royalties. If you look at the President's own 
budget that came out just 2 days ago, you will see that this year and 
in the out-years, money coming in from lease sales decreases. That 
means that the policy of this administration is not more energy 
production on public lands. It's less.
  He has taken advantage of the situation that's going on on State and 
private lands and is taking credit for it with what's happened in North 
Dakota. This plan here puts together a solid footing for American 
energy production on public lands.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I think it would be helpful for both sides to understand 
what the time situation is for the conclusion of the debate.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his 
next speaker?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. My intent, Mr. Chairman, is to hold that 
1\1/2\ minutes at the end of the overall debate in case the gentleman 
says something that needs to be responded to.
  Mr. MARKEY. In that case, I will yield myself the balance of my time 
so that I can utter the sentences that will need responding to by the 
chairman of the committee.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. Chairman, let's go back a little bit to this issue of natural gas 
and what this Republican bill calls for--more drilling for natural gas 
in our country. Okay, we can look at that.
  We support natural gas. We think that natural gas is the best story 
that's happened in our country in the last 10 years. We love natural 
gas. Democrats love it. It's half the pollutants of coal. It's 
domestically produced. We have to make sure that when we're extracting 
it we don't shoot chemicals down into the surface so that we pollute 
the water that our children drink, but we think that we can work 
through those issues if people of good faith are willing to work 
together.
  Otherwise, it's a fantastic story. Why is that? Because natural gas 
is not a world market. The world market is for oil. If it's $116 a 
barrel in China, it's $116 a barrel in the U.S. It's a global market. 
And that's what allows OPEC to hold us hostage, because they control 
all of that oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. They control all 
that oil so that they can basically hold the rest of the globe's 
economy hostage. But natural gas, not true.
  Here we've seen a 30 percent increase in our natural gas reserves 
over the last 5 years. What does that mean? Well, in China it's $16. 
Japan, $16 per million cubic feet of natural gas. What is it in the 
United States? It's $2.42. So it's six, seven times cheaper in the 
United States. That means it is cheaper for every manufacturer, cheaper 
for every retailer, cheaper for every farmer, cheaper for every 
consumer.
  What are the Democrats saying? We love natural gas; let's keep it 
here. Let's not be setting up terminals all across our country to 
export the natural gas across the planet with the Department of Energy 
saying, if we did that, the price of natural gas in the United States 
would rise 57 percent. How can that be good for consumers? Isn't that 
our advantage? Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of oil. We are the 
Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Why don't we use that to our advantage? 
Why don't we use that to inoculate ourselves against what Saudi Arabia 
of oil does to us by jacking the price of oil up and down? Why don't we 
become independent of them? Why don't we move to all natural gas 
vehicles? Why don't we use natural gas in the generation of 
electricity? Why don't we use natural gas in the production of all of 
our products? And why don't we use natural gas in the homes of our 
country, in the factories of our country, in the industries of our 
country at a price that's six times lower than China and Japan, three 
times lower than Europe?
  That's what we are calling for here, an energy strategy that is all-
American. And if we can get to that with this debate today, I think 
that the American people will be the winners.

[[Page 1630]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my remaining 1\1/2\ minutes 
until the end of the overall debate.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3408, which is known as the 
Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of 
Environmental, Energy, and Resource Security Act.
  This is primarily about the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone pipeline 
has been a topic of discussion in America for the last 3 or 4 years. 
When it came to the attention of Congress that this pipeline, which 
promises to create tens of thousands of jobs and increase our access to 
safe and secure supplies of oil, was experiencing an unreasonable level 
of delay, Congress decided that we needed to step in.
  We have, in Keystone pipeline, a company willing to invest $7 billion 
in private funds at no expense to the taxpayer. That would ultimately 
bring nearly a million barrels of oil per day from Canada to the U.S.--
additional oil per day.
  Even the President's Jobs Council agrees. Their report specifically 
suggested the pipeline is a win-win-win for job creation, modernizing 
the Nation's infrastructure, and helping ultimately to lower gasoline 
prices in America. I would also like to point out that five major labor 
unions support the building of the Keystone pipeline.
  A few years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in San 
Francisco giving a speech at the Commonwealth Club. In response to a 
question about Keystone pipeline, whether or not they would issue the 
permit to build it, Secretary of State Clinton said: We are inclined to 
do so.
  This project has now been studied for over 40 months by seven or 
eight agencies of the Federal Government. And normally, to build an oil 
pipeline in America, it takes on the average of 24 months. When the 
Department of State issued their final environmental impact statement 
back in August 2011, they concluded that there were not any significant 
environmental issues. And they also said that when they look at the 
option of either, one, building a pipeline, or, two, not building a 
pipeline, that the preferable option was to build the pipeline. And of 
course the rationale for that is that if you don't build the pipeline 
and you bring oil in from other countries, you either have to do it by 
truck or by rail, which certainly emits a lot into the atmosphere.
  But despite all of these positive reasons to build this pipeline, 
President Obama made a blatantly political decision when he said: I 
don't want to decide until after the Presidential election. And that's 
when Congress got involved and said we'd like a decision by February of 
2012. And the President said: Well, I don't have enough time to study 
it, so I'm not going to allow it--even though it has been studied for 
40 months. This is a 1,700-mile pipeline. The only issue left relates 
to about 60 miles in the State of Nebraska, and the Governor of 
Nebraska supports building this pipeline.
  So this is a win-win-win situation for the American people, and I 
would urge my fellow Members to support this legislation to require 
FERC to make a decision on this pipeline.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation.
  Last week, the Republicans filed this bill, this transportation bill 
that the Secretary of Transportation called the worst transportation 
bill he had ever seen. The Republican leadership realized that not even 
Republican Members would vote for this monstrosity of bad policy, so 
they've chopped the bill up into three parts and hope to get a separate 
majority on each part. This way, House Republicans hope they can pass 
the bill and give their Members deniability at the same time. Now, 
that's not a transparent process or a fair one. It's a way to hide 
what's really going on from the American people.
  Some Republicans don't want to vote for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge; others don't want to vote for the money for 
the highways because some of the right-wing groups in this country are 
against it. So we've got this shell game going on.
  The bill before us, H.R. 3408, contains the text of a very bad bill 
that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We considered that 
bill earlier this month. The bill provides a legislative earmark that 
would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to 
issue a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline within 
30 days of receipt of an application.

                              {time}  1530

  Now, existing law requires the President to make a determination 
whether this pipeline is in the national interest. Serious questions 
have been raised about whether this pipeline is in our national 
interest. It is being built with steel imported from South Korea and 
pipes from India. The oil it transports, I believe, will be exported to 
China. Meanwhile, the risks of spills from that pipeline that could 
contaminate drinking water will be borne by American families.
  These are factors the President should take into account. But this 
law ties his hands. It mandates that the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission approve the pipeline without addressing any of these issues. 
In fact, it requires approval before we even know the route that the 
pipeline will take.
  Now this follows some Keystone Kops activities on the Republican side 
of the aisle. They've worked themselves up about this pipeline. So in 
order to get unemployment insurance or middle class tax breaks, they 
put in the extension for 2 months of those areas, a requirement that 
the President decide the issue within 2 months. And the President said, 
I don't have all the information, I can't make that decision. So he 
said, I'm not going to approve it within 2 months. I'll consider it 
later, but I'm not going to approve it.
  Suddenly, the Republicans realized they were outsmarted, hoisted by 
their own petard. They forced the President to make a decision, and he 
made a decision against them. They don't want to take that chance 
again.
  This bill would put in an exemption from all the laws for one pet 
project, from the ordinary permitting requirements that apply to every 
other oil pipeline crossing our borders.
  During the committee process, we asked a simple question: Who 
benefits from this unprecedented congressional intervention into the 
regulatory process? Many media reports said that a private oil company, 
Koch Industries, is one of the ``big winners.'' But the committee 
refused, even though the Democrats asked them, to even inquire from the 
company, Koch Industries, whether it had a direct and substantial 
interest in the pipeline. They wouldn't even ask that question. Could 
you imagine? They talk about they're against earmarks, then when there 
is an earmark that they want, they won't even tell us who benefits from 
it?
  Under this bill, the oil industry gets a conduit for exporting tar 
sands products from Canada to China. India gets the opportunity to 
provide pipes to build it. South Korea gets a market for its steel. But 
what do we get? Midwestern farmers and ranchers will have their land 
seized through eminent domain and may lose their vital water supplies 
to a pipeline spill into the Ogallala Aquifer. Oil prices in parts of 
the United States will increase as fuel supplies come into their area, 
and we are left with a dirtier fuel supply and higher emissions of 
carbon pollution, worsening the climate change that is already starting 
to afflict our Nation.
  I urge all Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, the language that we're discussing at this 
current time is allowing the Keystone pipeline a path forward. It's 
based on a bill I introduced back in September, which is H.R. 3548. 
Keep in mind that the President of the United States killed the 
Keystone pipeline. We think that was kowtowing to the environmental 
extremists, some of which may

[[Page 1631]]

be in the House of Representatives, or represented here today. But the 
reality is that it was a wrong decision. It is in the best interests of 
our Nation to have the Keystone pipeline bringing oil from Alberta oil 
sands into the United States, where it can be refined and used in the 
United States, offsetting imported oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
  Keystone pipeline would take these supplies from Canada and use them 
in the United States, creating tens of thousands of jobs over a 2-year 
to 2\1/2\ year construction phase with permanent jobs thereafter to 
maintain the pipeline and its hubs along the 1,700-mile pipeline.
  Now, as far as the environmental objections to the project are 
concerned, I wish more people would have read the administration's own 
final environmental impact study. It found that not building the 
Keystone XL would lead to more oil being transported by riskier means, 
such as tankers, trains, and trucks. For this reason, the 
administration's folks concluded that the building of the pipeline is 
environmentally preferable to not building the pipeline and that its 
route was safe. Then the Nebraska Governor requested that, just for a 
little bit of Nebraska, that they do a 30- or 40-mile loop. The path 
was set, except for this little loop.
  Now, it would take a long time to dispel all the myths that have been 
perpetuated by the opponents in the environmental community. But it's 
worth noting that these are intrastate issues well on their way to 
being resolved and, in fact, were carved out in the previous bill 
mentioned by the gentleman from California, but the President ignored 
the Nebraska exemption giving Nebraska time to work through its change 
of route for about 40 or 50 miles of the 1,700. He never mentioned that 
and killed the pipeline.
  So we give a pathway forward to TransCanada to re-file its permit 
with all of the environmental documents that it has gathered over the 
last 3 years, presented to the administration last year, and give time 
to Nebraska to resolve their issue.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. TERRY. So, politics of the extreme put us in this position. But 
let's ask, who benefits from this oil coming into the United States 
from our partner, Canada, and being refined and used in the United 
States of America? If we have this, everyone benefits in our Nation. If 
we don't have this pipeline to displace the oil, who wins? Venezuela, 
which continues to send us 900,000 barrels per day, and Saudi Arabia. 
Our reliance just grows for these nations' oil supplies. That's who 
wins, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the 
Energy Subcommittee,
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the ranking member for this time, and I 
thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it remarkable that we are here today debating a 
bill that is essentially a regulatory earmark for just one company, and 
that company is called TransCanada. And we're here debating whether to 
build a pipeline through the heart of our country without even allowing 
the appropriate State and Federal agencies to completely conduct their 
due diligence and their oversight responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislative gift wrapped in fine gift-wrapping to 
TransCanada on behalf of my Republican colleagues will completely 
circumvent the State Department and the other State and Federal 
agencies, those agencies that have the know-how and the expertise, to 
thoroughly examine this process, and Mr. Chairman, they will require 
that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, issue a permit for 
the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline within 30 days of the 
receipt of the application.

                              {time}  1540

  If FERC does not act on the permit application within the meager 30 
days, the permit shall be considered approved automatically.
  Mr. Chairman, how insane can insanity get? How ridiculous can 
ridiculous be when we are telling an agency that if they don't pass 
this permit within 30 days, if they don't do all their investigations 
within 30 days, then this permit will automatically be approved?
  Mr. Chairman, the Keystone XL project is too big, too consequential, 
too important to the American people for this Congress to completely 
ignore all the established protocols that have existed prior and exist 
now and set a precedent of bypassing State and Federal oversight 
procedures. The very people whose lives will be most affected by this 
pipeline deserve to have the responsible agencies complete their review 
process to ensure the American people that this project has been 
thoroughly examined and vetted.
  Mr. Chairman, even my colleagues who may support the merits of the 
Keystone XL pipeline are appalled--and they should be appalled--at the 
majority party's attempt to hijack the process and circumvent the 
appropriate State and Federal agencies in order to hastily, 
irresponsibly green-light this project.
  This sentiment can be summed up best by a letter sent to me on 
February 9 by a citizen of this Nation, a Nebraskan rancher by the name 
of Randy Thomas, who said:

       The short circuiting of the process leaves those of us who 
     live and work along the proposed pathway of this project with 
     many lingering doubts about its safety, and the impacts it 
     could have on our livelihoods.

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better than this 
shoddy attempt to provide TransCanada with a regulatory earmark that 
allows them to bypass the established rules and procedures we have in 
place. I cannot support this, and I ask my colleagues to join me in not 
supporting this particular bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds if 
he would yield to me for further comment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California only has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. We heard debate from the other side about refining oil. I 
think we ought to refine our debate because, on the other side of the 
aisle, a comment was made that extremists are pushing opposition to 
this pipeline. From what I heard from Mr. Rush and what I understand 
the case to be is that those who ordinarily make this decision should 
have all the facts, and I don't think that is an extreme position at 
all.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we're here today because it's time to decide. President 
Obama and his administration have made a decision not to decide, even 
though his own Secretary of State, in their final economic 
environmental impact statement, made the decision that if you looked at 
two options--one, build the pipeline, or two, not build the pipeline--
the preferable route was to build the pipeline; 1 million more barrels 
of oil a day coming to America, ultimately. We're facing ever-
increasing gasoline prices.
  There's only 60 miles at issue at all in this pipeline out of 1,700. 
Five major labor unions support this pipeline. There's not one dime of 
Federal dollars in this pipeline, unlike the millions and billions that 
this administration have given to wind power and solar power and 
battery companies--many of which are in bankruptcy, just like Solyndra, 
which received $538 million from the taxpayers of America. This is a 
private company willing to put in $7 billion to bring 100,000 more 
barrels of oil a day, willing to provide 20,000 additional jobs to 
construct this pipeline.
  So I think the decision here is very easy for the American people, 
and that's what Mr. Terry's legislation

[[Page 1632]]

does. Since the President won't make a decision, Mr. Terry directs the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to make the decision. We have all 
of the data necessary. It's the right decision to make.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong opposition to the so-
called Protecting Investment in Oil Shale the Next Generation of 
Environmental, Energy and Resource Security Act, which is purported to 
help finance the transportation bill.
  I agree with my colleagues' concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline 
provision that forces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
approve the project. The permitting process for Keystone XL has become 
a political spin war and I urge my colleagues to oppose my colleague 
from Nebraska's proposal. We should allow the original permitting 
process to be completed fairly and without interference.
  However, I come to the Floor today to talk about another huge problem 
with the oil shale provisions: CBO estimates they would have no 
significant net impact on the federal budget from 2012-2022.
  Oil shale has yet to be produced in commercial quantities despite 100 
years of research and development. The oil shale provisions found in 
H.R. 3408 are being promoted by the Majority as a funding mechanism for 
the surface transportation reauthorization package despite the fact 
that the Congressional Budget Office last week concluded that opening 
up 2 million acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for oil shale 
speculation would generate negligible revenue over the next decade.
  Speculators have swept through Colorado throughout our state's 
history to try and make a quick buck off oil shale. The last time 
around, in the early 1980s, Federal legislation much like H.R. 3408 
ushered in a boom-bust cycle that devastated communities on the Western 
Slope when it became clear production was not profitable. 85 million 
dollars in annual payroll disappeared in Garfield and Mesa counties 
over two years.
  Oil shale is still not commercially viable--in fact, Shell 
Corporation estimates it could be 2020 before a company could be ready 
to develop a Federal oil shale lease.
  We need real solutions for funding our nation's crumbling 
transportation infrastructure. Using H.R. 3408 as a funding source for 
the surface transportation reauthorization is not a good faith effort 
to create the jobs Americans so desperately need.
  Mr. Chair, I hope every member of Congress realizes what an economic 
mistake H.R. 3408 is. I urge every member to oppose the PIONEERS Act 
and to support the amendment to strike all oil shale provisions.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  I do not even know where to start: Keystone XL; Drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Drilling of the coast of California; 
Throwing money at oil shale, an unproven technology with a horrible 
track record and no clear path to responsible development that will not 
create jobs or revenue for the Treasury. All of that is in this bill.
  Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation bill should be a 
noncontroversial exercise that invests in roads, highways, bridges, 
tunnels, and waterways throughout the country. Bipartisan efforts in 
the past saw this reauthorization as a key jobs creator and 
reinvestment tool for America to reinvest in its physical 
infrastructure and regain its competitive advantage. For the first time 
since the creation of the Interstate Highway System in 1956, this 
Transportation bill does not contain a single high priority 
infrastructure project.
  Instead, this bill intends to pay for reauthorization of the 
transportation bill with some of the most controversial, partisan, and 
special interest-driven pieces of legislation considered by this 
Republican-controlled House.
  This bill would open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to onshore 
oil extraction. Home to elk, caribou, gray wolves and polar bears, the 
refuge is one of the most pristine pieces of wilderness anywhere on 
Earth. It was set aside as a refuge on a bipartisan basis. Now, the 
majority wants to throw that away and allow large oil companies to suck 
massive profits out of our Nation's public resources.
  Even with expanded drilling in some of the most sensitive ecosystems 
in North America, this proposal would only generate less than 2 percent 
of the revenue needed to support the transportation projects the bill 
authorizes over the next 5 years.
  With the President's wise decision to wait on the controversial 
Keystone XL pipeline, Republicans are now trying anything they can move 
it through without review or public support. This bill would shift 
authority for approval from the State Department to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC), even though FERC is not responsible for 
overseeing or regulating oil pipeline siting or safety.
  This bill would not ask FERC to review the pipeline; it would mandate 
that FERC authorize the construction of Keystone XL. If they refuse to 
approve it, the project would move ahead, ignoring important 
environmental protocol.
  Despite our Nation's recent investments in clean, homegrown, energy 
choices for Americans, we are rushing through a pipeline that will 
import dirty oil from Canada to a port in Texas so it can be exported 
to other countries. This is not the way to make this sort of decision.
  At the beginning of last year, the Republican majority promised an 
open and transparent Congress that would include single item bills, 
sufficient time for review, and bills under an open rule. Today, we are 
on the House floor debating a 200-page section of a 900-page 
transportation bill.
  We were promised a Congress focused on jobs and continued efforts to 
bolster our Nation's economic recovery. Instead, we have been given a 
year of political games and a paralyzed legislative branch.
  Let's start over and work on a bill that will make our roads safer, 
modernize our highways and create real, long lasting jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote NO.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the surface 
transportation bill before the House of Representatives this week and 
the partisan and contorted process the Republican Leadership is using 
to ram this bill through the House.
  For as long as I have served in the House, transportation bills have 
always been bipartisan. That's because every one of our states confront 
unmet transportation needs, and infrastructure investments are critical 
to jobs, economic growth, and competitiveness.
  But this bill throws bipartisanship out the window. Secretary of 
Transportation LaHood--himself a former Republican House Member from 
Illinois--recently said that this is, and I quote, ``the most partisan 
transportation bill that I have ever seen.'' Secretary LaHood also 
declared that this is ``the worst transportation bill I've seen during 
35 years of public service.'' That's quite an indictment coming from a 
man who is respected on both sides of the aisle.
  Some of our constituents may be watching and wondering why Speaker 
Boehner decided to take the transportation package and divide it into 
three separate bills. The reality is that the bill probably can't pass 
as a single, stand-alone piece of legislation. So the Leadership has 
broken the bill into pieces that will move separately through the 
House. Later, the clerk will be directed to sew all the pieces back 
into one bill and it will be deemed passed without a single member of 
the House voting for it.
  Today we're considering the portion of the bill that opens up vast 
swaths of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Eastern Gulf 
of Mexico and the pristine Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. The 
bill also approves the controversial Keystone Pipeline and there is not 
even a guarantee that any of the oil that it transports to the Gulf of 
Mexico will remain in the country to benefit Americans. What does 
handing out more goodies to the oil companies have to do with 
transportation policy? The oil industry made record profits last year. 
They don't need the special interest provisions contained in this bill.
  Although this portion of the transportation package is not before the 
House today, I want to state my complete opposition to the provision of 
the larger package that undercuts mass transit. This provision 
undermines the very structure of the highway trust fund by eliminating 
guaranteed funding for transit and replacing it with monies from the 
general fund. The loss of dedicated revenue will make it impossible for 
public transit systems across the country to plan for long-term 
investments. I will continue to strongly support efforts to correct 
this unnecessary and harmful attack on mass transit.
  I urge defeat of the bill before the House. We need to go back to the 
drawing board and craft a bipartisan transportation bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3408, the so-
called ``PIONEERS Act.'' The Republican majority is bringing this bill 
to the floor under a procedural charade that has us voting on three 
separate bills that will magically become a transportation bill at some 
point in the future when the Speaker is able to twist enough arms to 
pass the other pieces.

[[Page 1633]]

  An obvious question to ask about H.R. 3408 is: what does it have to 
do with transportation? Not much. Although this bill is a grab bag of 
goodies for the oil and gas industry, it will do virtually nothing to 
repair our crumbling roads and bridges.
  The legislation requires drilling off the coast of Southern 
California and overrides current law to forbid the State of California 
from haying any input into where, when, and how the drilling will 
occur. So much for states' rights. In their drive to hand out drilling 
leases to oil companies, Republicans are preventing my constituents in 
California from having any say on an issue that could have profound 
consequences on our state's economy and environment.
  In the unlikely event that this bill becomes law, the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge would be opened to oil drilling and the Keystone XL tar 
sands pipeline will be approved despite the fact that the President 
found the pipeline is not in the national interest. This legislation 
also mandates oil shale production on millions of acres of taxpayer 
owned lands in the West without environmental review. Producing oil 
from oil shale is an unproven process that requires massive amounts of 
water and energy and produces equally massive amounts of waste. That's 
why the Obama Administration continues to study the process and conduct 
research and development on the feasibility of oil shale extraction 
prior to opening up federal lands. Instead of following this reasonable 
approach, Republicans are ignoring science and pushing ahead.
  Republican leaders claim that all of this new drilling might raise 
some money in the future that can then pay for transportation projects. 
Instead of relying on fictional revenues, we could simply end the $4 
billion in yearly tax subsidies that the big oil companies enjoy. These 
companies raked in $137 billion in profits last year, yet taxpayers are 
still forced to subsidize them. Let's end those handouts to pay for 
transportation projects not provide yet more giveaways to the oil 
industry.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against this dirty energy bill.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, in the aftermath of the BP 
Deepwater Horizon disaster, President Obama, lawmakers from both sides 
of the aisle, a national commission, businesses and environmentalists 
reached consensus that 80% of the fines and penalties that BP is 
required to pay for violating the Clean Water Act be devoted to Gulf of 
Mexico recovery and research. All have urged Congress to act, but 
unfortunately, the Congress has not done so.
  As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Gulf Coast Caucus, I ask my colleagues 
not to let the effort languish any longer. The House should act 
expeditiously to do so and devote 80% of the Deepwater Horizon fines 
and penalties to the Gulf of Mexico.
  Unfortunately, the Scalise amendment could be interpreted as an 
endorsement of a particular piece of legislation, such as the RESTORE 
Act. While the RESTORE Act does devote 80% of the Clean Water Act fines 
to the Gulf States, it is flawed in its current form and does not 
achieve meaningful recovery of the Gulf of Mexico.
  So while I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment, the time is 
now for the Congress to pass an 80% bill and focus on the economic and 
environmental health of the Gulf of Mexico.
  Extensive review of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the 
historic degradation of the Gulf of Mexico was conducted by the 
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Secretary of 
the Navy Ray Mabus Report, and the EPA Gulf Restoration Task Force is 
appreciated. All recommended recovery and research strategies to be 
funded in large part by 80% of the fines and penalties under the Clean 
Water Act. Although the RESTORE Act purports to follow the recommended 
strategies, it does not and is flawed.


   RESTORE should focus on a Gulf-wide research and recovery strategy

  As currently drafted, the RESTORE Act does not promote a Gulf-wide 
research and recovery strategy. Under the formulas contained in the 
bill that divide the 80% resources, Gulf-wide research and recovery 
efforts would be disjointed and receive short-shrift. The formulas 
currently contained in the bill appear to be based upon Senate dynamics 
rather than a Gulf-wide recovery and research strategy based upon sound 
science. The RESTORE Act fails to make a large enough investment in 
Gulf-wide solutions to the ``dead zone,'' red tide outbreaks that 
threaten tourism, and the health of the Gulf overall. Where is the 
overarching science advisory component that is necessary for such an 
important research and recovery strategy?
  This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address critical systemic 
issues that have plagued the Gulf for decades. We must not waste it.


RESTORE should devote greater resources to long term research and Gulf 
                               monitoring

  RESTORE should be improved to ensure that adequate Gulf research and 
monitoring are conducted for decades to come. Many of the impacts from 
the catastrophic disaster are currently impossible to discern to the 
naked eye and in the short-term. The blowout wreaked havoc on 
fisheries, marshes, seagrasses, oyster beds, coasts, and aquatic life. 
In addition, over past decades, science gathering and sharing in the 
Gulf has been neglected. While RESTORE does carve out some dollars for 
long-term research and monitoring, the investments are inadequate to 
ensure a long-term, sustained research and recovery effort.


Do not duplicate Natural Resource Damage Assessments $ Billions flowing 
                           to impacted areas

  Any legislation that devotes 80% of the Clean Water Act fines and 
penalties to the Gulf of Mexico research and recovery effort should not 
duplicate the billions of dollars going to the impacted areas under the 
Oil Pollution Act and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment. One 
billion dollars already have been directed to oiled areas and states 
for cleanup and restoration.


                           Jobs and Economics

  The Gulf is rich in natural resources that support many jobs and 
economic stability for millions of families. The Gulf ecosystem 
produced thirty percent of the United States' gross domestic product in 
2009. If our five Gulf States were one country it would rank seventh in 
global gross domestic product. Our abundance of natural resources is 
critical to our economic health, as those resources dwindle so do our 
livelihoods and our financial stability. Investing in long-term 
environmental restoration and addressing environmental issues present 
prior to the BP oil disaster is critical to achieving comprehensive 
economic restoration.
  I am encouraged to see bipartisan support to direct 80% of the Clean 
Water Act fines to the Gulf of Mexico. However, the RESTORE Act as 
currently drafted falls far short of the coordinated, long-term, 
science-based effort that is needed to protect such a valuable national 
resource. Therefore, I look forward to working with all Members on an 
improved national strategy for the Gulf of Mexico and its communities.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, like a broken, outdated record player, with 
this legislation the Republican Majority in the House shows itself to 
be out of touch with America's energy needs and energy future. The 
Congress should be encouraging innovation in our energy sector and 
natural resource preservation. Instead, H.R. 3408 shirks environmental 
stewardship and ignores all lessons from past drilling and spill 
related disasters. Almost two years after the Deepwater Horizon oil 
spill disaster there are still no new safety measures or reforms in 
place to prevent and mitigate a future catastrophe. Rather than 
meaningful efforts to prevent loss of life and loss of habitat, the 
Republican Majority chooses to open up nearly every coastline of the 
U.S. for development of oil and gas drilling.
  This bill threatens our nation's most pristine wilderness, the 
beautiful Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Opening this area to oil and 
gas drilling is not projected to lower gas prices in the near future or 
by any significant amount--less than two cents per gallon 20 years from 
now. But this is not the only area that would be opened up for offshore 
drilling under this bill. The Majority wants to mandate that broad 
swaths of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts be made available for 
drilling leases. I thank my colleague in the New York Delegation, Mr. 
Bishop, for his amendment that would prevent oil and gas leases in the 
Northeast region. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
the Amendment 12 offered by Mr. Deutch.
  The grievances continue. The Majority repeats itself by again 
attempting to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. Throughout 
the 112th Congress they have refused to allow for a thorough review and 
study by the State Department. Seeking to direct the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to approve the pipeline within 30 days without 
conditions is wholly irresponsible and does nothing to ensure the 
safety and security of workers, residents, and communities impacted by 
the pipeline.
  The Republican Majority has tried to say opening up these lands to 
drillings will pay for a transportation package but that is false. This 
legislation would cover less than one percent of the overall cost of 
their transportation proposal.
  For reasons listed above, I oppose this misguided and dangerous 
legislation.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page 1634]]

  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of titles XIV and 
XVII of Rules Committee print 112-14 shall be considered as adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3408

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

                    TITLE XIV--KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE

     SEC. 14001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``North American Energy 
     Access Act''.

     SEC. 14002. RESTRICTION.

       (a) In General.--No person may construct, operate, or 
     maintain the oil pipeline and related facilities described in 
     subsection (b) except in accordance with a permit issued 
     under this title.
       (b) Pipeline.--The pipeline and related facilities referred 
     to in subsection (a) are those described in the Final 
     Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline 
     Project issued by the Department of State on August 26, 2011, 
     including any modified version of that pipeline and related 
     facilities.

     SEC. 14003. PERMIT.

       (a) Issuance.--
       (1) By ferc.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     shall, not later than 30 days after receipt of an application 
     therefor, issue a permit without additional conditions for 
     the construction, operation, and maintenance of the oil 
     pipeline and related facilities described in section 
     14002(b), to be implemented in accordance with the terms of 
     the Final Environmental Impact Statement described in section 
     14002(b). The Commission shall not be required to prepare a 
     Record of Decision under section 1505.2 of title 40 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations with respect to issuance of the 
     permit provided for in this section.
       (2) Issuance in absence of ferc action.--If the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission has not acted on an application 
     for a permit described in paragraph (1) within 30 days after 
     receiving such application, the permit shall be deemed to 
     have been issued under this title upon the expiration of such 
     30-day period.
       (b) Modification.--
       (1) In general.--The applicant for or holder of a permit 
     described in subsection (a) may make a substantial 
     modification to the pipeline route or any other term of the 
     Final Environmental Impact Statement described in section 
     14002(b) only with the approval of the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission. The Commission shall expedite 
     consideration of any such modification proposal.
       (2) Nebraska modification.--Within 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission shall enter into a memorandum of understanding 
     with the State of Nebraska for an effective and timely review 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 of any 
     modification to the proposed pipeline route in Nebraska as 
     proposed by the applicant for the permit described in 
     subsection (a). Not later than 30 days after receiving 
     approval of such proposed modification from the Governor of 
     Nebraska, the Commission shall complete consideration of and 
     approve such modification.
       (3) Issuance in absence of ferc action.--If the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission has not acted on an application 
     for approval of a modification described in paragraph (2) 
     within 30 days after receiving such application, such 
     modification shall be deemed to have been issued under this 
     title upon expiration of the 30-day period.
       (4) Construction during consideration of nebraska 
     modification.--While any modification of the proposed 
     pipeline route in Nebraska is under consideration pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the holder of the permit issued under 
     subsection (a) may commence or continue with construction of 
     any portion of the pipeline and related facilities described 
     in section 14002(b) that is not within the State of Nebraska.
       (c) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--Except for 
     actions taken under subsection (b)(1), the actions taken 
     pursuant to this title shall be taken without further action 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

     SEC. 14004. RELATION TO OTHER LAW.

       (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding Executive Order 13337 (3 
     U.S.C. 301 note), Executive Order 11423 (3 U.S.C. 301 note), 
     section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and any other 
     Executive Order or provision of law, no presidential permits 
     shall be required for the construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of the pipeline and related facilities described 
     in section 14002(b) of this Act.
       (b) Applicability.--Nothing in this title shall affect the 
     application to the pipeline and related facilities described 
     in section 14002(b) of--
       (1) chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code; or
       (2) the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to regulate oil pipeline rates and services.
       (c) Final Environmental Impact Statement.--The final 
     environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of 
     State on August 26, 2011, shall be considered to satisfy all 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

                     TITLE XVII--NATURAL RESOURCES

                     Subtitle A--Oil Shale Leasing

     SEC. 17001. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Protecting Investment 
     in Oil Shale the Next Generation of Environmental, Energy, 
     and Resource Security Act'' or the ``PIONEERS Act''.

     SEC. 17002. EFFECTIVENESS OF OIL SHALE REGULATIONS, 
                   AMENDMENTS TO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND 
                   RECORD OF DECISION.

       (a) Regulations.--Notwithstanding any other law or 
     regulation to the contrary, the final regulations regarding 
     oil shale management published by the Bureau of Land 
     Management on November 18, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 69,414) are 
     deemed to satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under 
     any law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall implement those regulations, including the 
     oil shale leasing program authorized by the regulations, 
     without any other administrative action necessary.
       (b) Amendments to Resource Management Plans and Record of 
     Decision.--Notwithstanding any other law or regulation to the 
     contrary, the November 17, 2008 U.S. Bureau of Land 
     Management Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/
     Record of Decision for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to 
     Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 
     and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement are 
     deemed to satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under 
     any law, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act 
     of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall implement the oil shale leasing program 
     authorized by the regulations referred to in subsection (a) 
     in those areas covered by the resource management plans 
     amended by such amendments, and covered by such record of 
     decision, without any other administrative action necessary.

     SEC. 17003. OIL SHALE LEASING.

       (a) Additional Research and Development Lease Sales.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall hold a lease sale within 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act offering an 
     additional 10 parcels for lease for research, development, 
     and demonstration of oil shale resources, under the terms 
     offered in the solicitation of bids for such leases published 
     on January 15, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 10).
       (b) Commercial Lease Sales.--No later than January 1, 2016, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall hold no less than 5 
     separate commercial lease sales in areas considered to have 
     the most potential for oil shale development, as determined 
     by the Secretary, in areas nominated through public comment. 
     Each lease sale shall be for an area of not less than 25,000 
     acres, and in multiple lease blocs.

     SEC. 17004. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING 
                   FOR AMERICA.

       (a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) this subtitle will support a healthy and growing United 
     States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to 
     reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and 
     service sectors by employing the vast talents of United 
     States workers to assist in the development of energy from 
     domestic sources;
       (2) to ensure a robust oil shale industry and ensure that 
     the benefits of development support local communities, under 
     this subtitle, the Secretary of the Interior shall make every 
     effort to promote the development of oil shale in a manner 
     that will support the long-term commercial development of oil 
     shale, and shall take into consideration the socioeconomic 
     impacts, infrastructure requirements, and fiscal stability 
     for local communities located within areas containing oil 
     shale resources; and
       (3) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel 
     and material onshore to encourage the development of American 
     technology and manufacturing to enable United States workers 
     to benefit from this subtitle through good jobs and careers, 
     as well as the establishment of important industrial 
     facilities to support expanded access to American resources.
       (b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall when 
     possible, and practicable, encourage the use of United States 
     workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in 
     all construction related to mineral resource development 
     under this subtitle.

                Subtitle B--Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing

     SEC. 17101. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Energy Security and 
     Transportation Jobs Act''.

[[Page 1635]]



             PART 1--EXPANDING OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 17201. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM.

       Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and 
     conduct lease sales including--
       ``(i) at least 50 percent of the available unleased acreage 
     within each outer Continental Shelf planning area considered 
     to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil 
     and gas resources (on a total btu basis) based upon the most 
     recent national geologic assessment of the outer Continental 
     Shelf, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically 
     prospective parts of the planning area; and
       ``(ii) any State subdivision of an outer Continental Shelf 
     planning area that the Governor of the State that represents 
     that subdivision requests be made available for leasing.
       ``(B) In this paragraph the term `available unleased 
     acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf 
     that is not under lease at the time of a proposed lease sale, 
     and that has not otherwise been made unavailable for leasing 
     by law.
       ``(6)(A) In the 2012-2017 5-year oil and gas leasing 
     program, the Secretary shall make available for leasing any 
     outer Continental Shelf planning areas that--
       ``(i) are estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000 
     barrels of oil; or
       ``(ii) are estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000 
     cubic feet of natural gas.
       ``(B) To determine the planning areas described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document 
     entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of 
     Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of 
     the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.

     SEC. 17202. DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION GOAL.

       Section 18(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production Goal.--
       ``(1) In general.--In developing a 5-year oil and gas 
     leasing program, and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall determine a domestic strategic production goal for the 
     development of oil and natural gas as a result of that 
     program. Such goal shall be--
       ``(A) the best estimate of the possible increase in 
     domestic production of oil and natural gas from the outer 
     Continental Shelf;
       ``(B) focused on meeting domestic demand for oil and 
     natural gas and reducing the dependence of the United States 
     on foreign energy; and
       ``(C) focused on the production increases achieved by the 
     leasing program at the end of the 15-year period beginning on 
     the effective date of the program.
       ``(2) 2012-2017 program goal.--For purposes of the 2012-
     2017 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the production goal 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an increase by 2027, 
     from the levels of oil and gas produced as of the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, of--
       ``(A) no less than 3,000,000 barrels in the amount of oil 
     produced per day; and
       ``(B) no less than 10,000,000,000 cubic feet in the amount 
     of natural gas produced per day.
       ``(3) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually, 
     beginning at the end of the 5-year period for which the 
     program applies, to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate on the progress of the 
     program in meeting the production goal. The Secretary shall 
     identify in the report projections for production and any 
     problems with leasing, permitting, or production that will 
     prevent meeting the goal.''.

             PART 2--CONDUCTING PROMPT OFFSHORE LEASE SALES

     SEC. 17301. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 216 IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 216 under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) as 
     soon as practicable, but not later than 4 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease 
     sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-2012 5 
     Year Outer Continental Shelf Plan and the Multi-Sale 
     Environmental Impact Statement are deemed to satisfy the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

     SEC. 17302. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 220 ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 
                   OFFSHORE VIRGINIA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the inclusion of Lease 
     Sale 220 in the Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas 
     Leasing Program 2012-2017, the Secretary shall conduct 
     offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 220 under section 8 of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as 
     practicable, but not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Requirement to Make Replacement Lease Blocks 
     Available.--
       (1) In general.--For each lease block in a proposed lease 
     sale under this section for which the Secretary of Defense, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, under the 
     Memorandum of Agreement referred to in subsection (c)(2), 
     issues a statement proposing deferral from a lease offering 
     due to defense-related activities that are irreconcilable 
     with mineral exploration and development, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     shall make available in the same lease sale two other lease 
     blocks in the Virginia lease sale planning area that are 
     acceptable for oil and gas exploration and production in 
     order to mitigate conflict.
       (2) Virginia lease sale planning area defined.--In this 
     subsection the term ``Virginia lease sale planning area'' 
     means the area of the outer Continental Shelf (as that term 
     is defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)) that is bounded by--
       (A) a northern boundary consisting of a straight line 
     extending from the northernmost point of Virginia's seaward 
     boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United 
     States exclusive economic zone located at 37 degrees 17 
     minutes 1 second North latitude, 71 degrees 5 minutes 16 
     seconds West longitude; and
       (B) a southern boundary consisting of a straight line 
     extending from the southernmost point of Virginia's seaward 
     boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United 
     States exclusive economic zone located at 36 degrees 31 
     minutes 58 seconds North latitude, 71 degrees 30 minutes 1 
     second West longitude.
       (c) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--
       (1) Joint goals.--In recognition that the Outer Continental 
     Shelf oil and gas leasing program and the domestic energy 
     resources produced therefrom are integral to national 
     security, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall work jointly in implementing this section in 
     order to ensure achievement of the following common goals:
       (A) Preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness 
     through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf.
       (B) Allowing effective exploration, development, and 
     production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy 
     resources.
       (2) Prohibition on conflicts with military operations.--No 
     person may engage in any exploration, development, or 
     production of oil or natural gas off the coast of Virginia 
     that would conflict with any military operation, as 
     determined in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement 
     between the Department of Defense and the Department of the 
     Interior on Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf 
     signed July 20, 1983, and any revision or replacement for 
     that agreement that is agreed to by the Secretary of Defense 
     and the Secretary of the Interior after that date but before 
     the date of issuance of the lease under which such 
     exploration, development, or production is conducted.

     SEC. 17303. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 222 
                   IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct offshore oil 
     and gas Lease Sale 222 under section 8 of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) by as soon as 
     practicable, but not later than September 1, 2012.
       (b) Environmental Review.--For the purposes of that lease 
     sale, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-2012 5 
     Year Outer Continental Shelf Plan and the Multi-Sale 
     Environmental Impact Statement are deemed to satisfy the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

     SEC. 17304. LEASE SALE OFFSHORE CALIFORNIA WITH NO NEW 
                   OFFSHORE IMPACT.

       (a) Southern California Lease Sale.--The Secretary shall 
     offer for sale leases of tracts in the Southern California 
     Planning Area in the Santa Maria and Santa Barbara/Ventura 
     Basins in accordance with section 8 of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) as soon as practicable, but 
     not later than July 1, 2014.
       (b) Use of Existing Structures or Onshore-based Drilling.--
     Leases offered for sale under this section shall include such 
     terms and conditions as are necessary to require that 
     development and production may occur only from existing 
     offshore infrastructure or from onshore-based drilling.
       (c) Relationship to Leasing Program.--Areas shall be 
     offered for lease under this section notwithstanding the 
     omission of the Southern California Planning Area from any 
     outer Continental Shelf leasing program under section 18 of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).
       (d) Relationship to State Coastal Zone Management 
     Program.--Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
     of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)) shall not apply to lease sales 
     under this section and activities conducted under leases 
     issued in such sales, including exploration, development, and 
     production.
       (e) Environmental Impact Statement Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Before conducting the first lease sale 
     under this section, the Secretary shall prepare an 
     environmental impact statement for the lease sales required 
     under this section, under section 102 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
       (2) Actions to be considered.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 102 of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332), 
     in such statement--
       (i) the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing 
     alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental 
     effects of such alternative courses of action; and
       (ii) the Secretary shall only--

[[Page 1636]]

       (I) identify a preferred action for leasing and not more 
     than one alternative leasing proposal; and
       (II) analyze the environmental effects and potential 
     mitigation measures for such preferred action and such 
     alternative leasing proposal.

       (B) Deadline.--The identification of the preferred action 
     and related analysis for the first lease sale under this 
     subtitle shall be completed within 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Consideration of public comments.--In preparing such 
     statement, the Secretary shall only consider public comments 
     that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action 
     and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an 
     environmental analysis.
       (4) Compliance.--Compliance with this subsection is deemed 
     to satisfy all requirements for the analysis and 
     consideration of the environmental effects of proposed 
     leasing under this section.

     SEC. 17305. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 214 
                   IN THE NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN OFFSHORE ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct the lease sale formerly known as Lease Sale 214, for 
     the tracts located in the North Aleutian Basin Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Area, not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Relationship to Leasing Program.--Areas shall be 
     offered for lease under this section notwithstanding 
     inclusion of areas referred to in subsection (a) in the 
     Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 
     2012-2017.

     SEC. 17306. ADDITIONAL LEASES.

       Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Additional Lease Sales.--In addition to lease sales 
     in accordance with a leasing program in effect under this 
     section, the Secretary may hold lease sales for areas 
     identified by the Secretary to have the greatest potential 
     for new oil and gas development as a result of local support, 
     new seismic findings, or nomination by interested persons.''.

     SEC. 17307. DEFINITIONS.

       In this part:
       (1) The term ``Environmental Impact Statement for the 2007-
     2012 5 Year Outer Continental Shelf Plan'' means the Final 
     Environmental Impact Statement for Outer Continental Shelf 
     Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012 (April 2007) prepared 
     by the Secretary.
       (2) The term ``Multi-Sale Environmental Impact Statement'' 
     means the Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Western 
     Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease 
     Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218, and Proposed Central Gulf 
     of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales 
     205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222 (September 2008) prepared by 
     the Secretary.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

                 PART 3--LEASING IN NEW OFFSHORE AREAS

     SEC. 17401. LEASING IN THE EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO.

       Section 104 of division C of the Tax Relief and Health Care 
     Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432; 120 Stat. 3003) is repealed.

     SEC. 17402. REFORMING OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE EASTERN GULF 
                   OF MEXICO.

       (a) Reforming Administrative Boundaries.--Effective July 1, 
     2012, for purposes of administering the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) the boundary between 
     the Central Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning 
     Area and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area shall be 86 degrees, 41 minutes west longitude.
       (b) Extending the Moratorium.--Effective during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending 
     June 30, 2025, the Secretary of the Interior shall not offer 
     for leasing, preleasing, or any related activity any area in 
     the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning 
     Area except as required under subsection (c).
       (c) Limited New Leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the Proposed Outer 
     Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 2012-2017, the 
     Secretary shall conduct planning and leasing for one lease 
     sale in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 
     Planning Area in each of 2013, 2014, and 2015. Each lease 
     sale shall only consist of 50 contiguous Outer Continental 
     Shelf lease blocks in those areas the Secretary considers to 
     have the greatest potential for oil and gas after issuing a 
     request for, receiving, and considering public comment. In 
     reviewing potential areas for such leasing, the Secretary 
     shall focus on those areas for which there are known 
     quantities of hydrocarbons that can be conventionally 
     produced using existing or reasonably foreseeable technology, 
     and for which oil and gas exploration, development, 
     production, and marketing could be carried out in an 
     expeditious manner.
       (2) Lease conditions.--In addition to such requirements as 
     otherwise apply, each lease sale under this subsection shall 
     be subject to the following:
       (A) The Secretary may include limits on permanent surface 
     occupancy on any lease block if surface occupancy is 
     incompatible with military operations.
       (B) The Secretary may include limits on drilling schedules 
     and surface occupancy to accommodate defense activities on a 
     short-term or seasonal basis. Such limits shall be treated as 
     administrative suspensions of a lease term.
       (C) The Secretary may limit permanent surface 
     infrastructure on any Outer Continental Shelf lease block 
     that is closer than 12 nautical miles to the coast of any 
     State, unless that infrastructure is approved by the State.
       (d) Requirement to Make Replacement Lease Blocks 
     Available.--For each lease block in a proposed lease sale 
     under this section for which the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, under the 
     Memorandum of Agreement referred to in subsection (e)(2) 
     issues a statement proposing deferral from a lease offering 
     due to defense-related activities that are irreconcilable 
     with mineral exploration and development, the Secretary of 
     the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     shall make available in the same lease sale two other lease 
     blocks in the same Outer Continental Shelf planning area that 
     are acceptable for oil and gas exploration and production in 
     order to mitigate conflict.
       (e) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--
       (1) Joint goals.--In recognition that the Outer Continental 
     Shelf oil and gas leasing program and the domestic energy 
     resources produced therefrom are integral to national 
     security, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall work jointly in implementing this section in 
     order to ensure achievement of the goals of--
       (A) preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness 
     through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf; 
     and
       (B) allowing effective exploration, development, and 
     production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy 
     resources.
       (C) recognizing the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 
     leasing program is an integral part of the Nation's energy 
     security program to develop domestic oil and gas resources.
       (2) Prohibition on conflicts with military operations.--No 
     person may engage in any exploration, development, or 
     production of oil or natural gas in the Eastern Gulf of 
     Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area that would 
     conflict with any military operation, as determined in 
     accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior on 
     Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf signed July 
     20, 1983, and any revision or replacement for that agreement 
     that is agreed to by the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of the Interior after that date but before the date 
     of issuance of the lease under which such exploration, 
     development, or production is conducted.

     SEC. 17403. AREAS ADDED TO CENTRAL GULF OF MEXICO PLANNING 
                   AREA.

       The Secretary shall conduct an offshore oil and gas lease 
     sale under section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1337) for the areas added to the Central Gulf of 
     Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area as a result of 
     the enactment of section 17402(a) as soon as practicable, but 
     not later than the first lease sale under such section after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act in which any area in 
     such planning area is made available for leasing.

     SEC. 17404. APPLICATION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT 
                   WITH RESPECT TO TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       Section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1331) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (a), by inserting after ``control'' the 
     following: ``or lying within the United States' exclusive 
     economic zone and the Continental Shelf adjacent to any 
     territory of the United States''; and
       (2) in paragraph (p), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (q), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) The term `State' includes each territory of the 
     United States.''.

            PART 4--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUE SHARING

     SEC. 17501. DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES 
                   TO COASTAL STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended--
       (1) in the existing text--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``All rentals,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Disposition of Revenue Under Old Leases.--All 
     rentals,''; and
       (B) in subsection (c) (as designated by the amendment made 
     by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph), by striking ``for the 
     period from June 5, 1950, to date, and thereafter'' and 
     inserting ``in the period beginning June 5, 1950, and ending 
     on the date of enactment of the Energy Security and 
     Transportation Jobs Act'';
       (2) by adding after subsection (c) (as so designated) the 
     following:
       ``(d)  Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' includes a 
     territory of the United States.
       ``(2) New leasing revenues.--The term `new leasing 
     revenues'--
       ``(A) means amounts received by the United States as 
     bonuses, rents, and royalties under leases for oil and gas, 
     wind, tidal, or other energy exploration, development, and 
     production on areas of the outer Continental Shelf that are 
     authorized to be made available for leasing as a result of 
     enactment of the Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act; 
     and

[[Page 1637]]

       ``(B) does not include amounts received by the United 
     States under any lease of an area located in the boundaries 
     of the Central Gulf of Mexico and Western Gulf of Mexico 
     Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas on the date of the 
     enactment of the Energy Security and Transportation Jobs Act, 
     including a lease issued before, on, or after such date of 
     enactment.''; and
       (3) by inserting before subsection (c) (as so designated) 
     the following:
       ``(a) Payment of New Leasing Revenues to Coastal States.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of 
     the amount of new leasing revenues received by the United 
     States each fiscal year, 37.5 percent shall be allocated and 
     paid in accordance with subsection (b) to coastal States that 
     are affected States with respect to the leases under which 
     those revenues are received by the United States.
       ``(2) Phase-in.--Paragraph (1) shall be applied--
       ``(A) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases 
     awarded under the first leasing program under section 18(a) 
     that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Energy 
     Security and Transportation Jobs Act, by substituting `12.5 
     percent' for `37.5 percent'; and
       ``(B) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases 
     awarded under the second leasing program under section 18(a) 
     that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Energy 
     Security and Transportation Jobs Act, by substituting `25 
     percent' for `37.5 percent'.
       ``(b) Allocation of Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of new leasing revenues 
     received by the United States with respect to a leased tract 
     that are required to be paid to coastal States in accordance 
     with this subsection each fiscal year shall be allocated 
     among and paid to coastal States that are within 200 miles of 
     the leased tract, in amounts that are inversely proportional 
     to the respective distances between the point on the 
     coastline of each such State that is closest to the 
     geographic center of the lease tract, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Minimum and maximum allocation.--The amount allocated 
     to a coastal State under paragraph (1) each fiscal year with 
     respect to a leased tract shall be--
       ``(A) in the case of a coastal State that is the nearest 
     State to the geographic center of the leased tract, not less 
     than 25 percent of the total amounts allocated with respect 
     to the leased tract;
       ``(B) in the case of any other coastal State, not less than 
     10 percent, and not more than 15 percent, of the total 
     amounts allocated with respect to the leased tract; and
       ``(C) in the case of a coastal State that is the only 
     coastal State within 200 miles of a least tract, 100 percent 
     of the total amounts allocated with respect to the leased 
     tract.
       ``(3) Administration.--Amounts allocated to a coastal State 
     under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall be available to the coastal State without 
     further appropriation;
       ``(B) shall remain available until expended; and
       ``(C) shall be in addition to any other amounts available 
     to the coastal State under this Act.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     a coastal State may use funds allocated and paid to it under 
     this subsection for any purpose as determined by the laws of 
     that State.
       ``(B) Restriction on use for matching.--Funds allocated and 
     paid to a coastal State under this subsection may not be used 
     as matching funds for any other Federal program.''.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--This section and the 
     amendment made by this section shall not affect the 
     application of section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 
     109-432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)), as in effect before the 
     enactment of this Act, with respect to revenues received by 
     the United States under oil and gas leases issued for tracts 
     located in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Areas, including such leases 
     issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                    PART 5--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 17601. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING 
                   FOR AMERICA.

       (a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) this subtitle will support a healthy and growing United 
     States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to 
     reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and 
     service sectors by employing the vast talents of United 
     States workers to assist in the development of energy from 
     domestic sources; and
       (2) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel 
     and material onshore and offshore to encourage the 
     development of American technology and manufacturing to 
     enable United States workers to benefit from this subtitle 
     through good jobs and careers, as well as the establishment 
     of important industrial facilities to support expanded access 
     to American resources.
       (b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall when 
     possible, and practicable, encourage the use of United States 
     workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in 
     all construction related to mineral and renewable energy 
     resource development on the Outer Continental Shelf under 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. 17602. REGULATIONS.

       Section 30(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1356(a)) is amended by striking ``shall issue 
     regulations which'' and inserting ``shall issue regulations 
     that shall be supplemental to, complementary with, and under 
     no circumstances a substitution for the provisions of the 
     Constitution and laws of the United States extended to the 
     subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf by section 
     4(a)(1), except insofar as such laws would otherwise apply to 
     individuals who have extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
     arts, education, or business, which has been demonstrated by 
     sustained national or international acclaim, and that''.

          Subtitle C--Alaska Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing

     SEC. 17701. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Alaskan Energy for 
     American Jobs Act''.

     SEC. 17702. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Coastal plain.--The term ``Coastal Plain'' means that 
     area described in appendix I to part 37 of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       (2) Peer reviewed.--The term ``peer reviewed'' means 
     reviewed--
       (A) by individuals chosen by the National Academy of 
     Sciences with no contractual relationship with, or those who 
     have no application for a grant or other funding pending 
     with, the Federal agency with leasing jurisdiction; or
       (B) if individuals described in subparagraph (A) are not 
     available, by the top individuals in the specified biological 
     fields, as determined by the National Academy of Sciences.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'', except as otherwise 
     provided, means the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary's designee.

     SEC. 17703. LEASING PROGRAM FOR LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL 
                   PLAIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     are necessary--
       (1) to establish and implement, in accordance with this 
     subtitle and acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management in consultation with the Director of the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a competitive oil 
     and gas leasing program that will result in the exploration, 
     development, and production of the oil and gas resources of 
     the Coastal Plain; and
       (2) to administer the provisions of this subtitle through 
     regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions, 
     prohibitions, stipulations, and other provisions that ensure 
     the oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
     activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no significant 
     adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, 
     subsistence resources, and the environment, including, in 
     furtherance of this goal, by requiring the application of the 
     best commercially available technology for oil and gas 
     exploration, development, and production to all exploration, 
     development, and production operations under this subtitle in 
     a manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the 
     public for the mineral resources to be leased.
       (b) Repeal of Existing Restriction.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3143) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1 of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 1003.
       (c) Compliance With Requirements Under Certain Other 
     Laws.--
       (1) Compatibility.--For purposes of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et 
     seq.), the oil and gas leasing program and activities 
     authorized by this section in the Coastal Plain are deemed to 
     be compatible with the purposes for which the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge was established, and no further findings or 
     decisions are required to implement this determination.
       (2) Adequacy of the department of the interior's 
     legislative environmental impact statement.--The ``Final 
     Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on 
     the Coastal Plain prepared pursuant to section 1002 of the 
     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3142) and section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is deemed to 
     satisfy the requirements under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 that apply with respect to prelease 
     activities under this subtitle, including actions authorized 
     to be taken by the Secretary to develop and promulgate the 
     regulations for the establishment of a leasing program 
     authorized by this subtitle before the conduct of the first 
     lease sale.
       (3) Compliance with nepa for other actions.--Before 
     conducting the first lease sale under this subtitle, the 
     Secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with 
     respect to the actions authorized by this subtitle that are 
     not referred to in paragraph (2). Notwithstanding any other 
     law, the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing 
     alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental 
     effects of such courses of action. The Secretary shall only 
     identify a preferred action for such leasing and a single 
     leasing alternative, and analyze the environmental effects 
     and potential mitigation measures for those two alternatives. 
     The identification of the preferred action and related 
     analysis for the first lease sale under this subtitle shall 
     be completed within 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act. The Secretary shall only consider public comments 
     that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action 
     and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an 
     environmental analysis. Notwithstanding any other law, 
     compliance with this paragraph is deemed to satisfy all 
     requirements for the analysis and consideration of the 
     environmental effects of proposed leasing under this 
     subtitle.

[[Page 1638]]

       (d) Relationship to State and Local Authority.--Nothing in 
     this subtitle shall be considered to expand or limit State 
     and local regulatory authority.
       (e) Special Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with the 
     State of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope 
     Borough, may designate up to a total of 45,000 acres of the 
     Coastal Plain as a Special Area if the Secretary determines 
     that the Special Area is of such unique character and 
     interest so as to require special management and regulatory 
     protection. The Secretary shall designate as such a Special 
     Area the Sadlerochit Spring area, comprising approximately 
     4,000 acres.
       (2) Management.--Each such Special Area shall be managed so 
     as to protect and preserve the area's unique and diverse 
     character including its fish, wildlife, and subsistence 
     resource values.
       (3) Exclusion from leasing or surface occupancy.--The 
     Secretary may exclude any Special Area from leasing. If the 
     Secretary leases a Special Area, or any part thereof, for 
     purposes of oil and gas exploration, development, production, 
     and related activities, there shall be no surface occupancy 
     of the lands comprising the Special Area.
       (4) Directional drilling.--Notwithstanding the other 
     provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may lease all or 
     a portion of a Special Area under terms that permit the use 
     of horizontal drilling technology from sites on leases tracts 
     located outside the Special Area.
       (f) Limitation on Closed Areas.--The Secretary's sole 
     authority to close lands within the Coastal Plain to oil and 
     gas leasing and to exploration, development, and production 
     is that set forth in this subtitle.
       (g) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subtitle, 
     including regulations relating to protection of the fish and 
     wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and 
     environment of the Coastal Plain, by no later than 15 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Revision of regulations.--The Secretary shall, through 
     a rule making conducted in accordance with section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, periodically review and, if 
     appropriate, revise the regulations issued under subsection 
     (a) to reflect a preponderance of the best available 
     scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and obtained 
     by following appropriate, documented scientific procedures, 
     the results of which can be repeated using those same 
     procedures.

     SEC. 17704. LEASE SALES.

       (a) In General.--Lands may be leased under this subtitle to 
     any person qualified to obtain a lease for deposits of oil 
     and gas under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall, by regulation and no 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     establish procedures for--
       (1) receipt and consideration of sealed nominations for any 
     area of the Coastal Plain for inclusion in, or exclusion (as 
     provided in subsection (c)) from, a lease sale;
       (2) the holding of lease sales after such nomination 
     process; and
       (3) public notice of and comment on designation of areas to 
     be included in, or excluded from, a lease sale.
       (c) Lease Sale Bids.--Lease sales under this subtitle may 
     be conducted through an Internet leasing program, if the 
     Secretary determines that such a system will result in 
     savings to the taxpayer, an increase in the number of bidders 
     participating, and higher returns than oral bidding or a 
     sealed bidding system.
       (d) Sale Acreages and Schedule.--
       (1) The Secretary shall offer for lease under this subtitle 
     those tracts the Secretary considers to have the greatest 
     potential for the discovery of hydrocarbons, taking into 
     consideration nominations received pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (2) The Secretary shall offer for lease under this subtitle 
     no less than 50,000 acres for lease within 22 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) The Secretary shall offer for lease under this subtitle 
     no less than an additional 50,000 acres at 6-, 12-, and 18-
     month intervals following offering under paragraph (2).
       (4) The Secretary shall conduct four additional sales under 
     the same terms and schedule no later than two years after the 
     date of the last sale under paragraph (3), if sufficient 
     interest in leasing exists to warrant, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, the conduct of such sales.
       (5) The Secretary shall evaluate the bids in each sale and 
     issue leases resulting from such sales, within 90 days after 
     the date of the completion of such sale.

     SEC. 17705. GRANT OF LEASES BY THE SECRETARY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may grant to the highest 
     responsible qualified bidder in a lease sale conducted under 
     section 17704 any lands to be leased on the Coastal Plain 
     upon payment by the such bidder of such bonus as may be 
     accepted by the Secretary.
       (b) Subsequent Transfers.--No lease issued under this 
     subtitle may be sold, exchanged, assigned, sublet, or 
     otherwise transferred except with the approval of the 
     Secretary. Prior to any such approval the Secretary shall 
     consult with, and give due consideration to the views of, the 
     Attorney General.

     SEC. 17706. LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--An oil or gas lease issued under this 
     subtitle shall--
       (1) provide for the payment of a royalty of not less than 
     12\1/2\ percent in amount or value of the production removed 
     or sold under the lease, as determined by the Secretary under 
     the regulations applicable to other Federal oil and gas 
     leases;
       (2) provide that the Secretary may close, on a seasonal 
     basis, portions of the Coastal Plain to exploratory drilling 
     activities as necessary to protect caribou calving areas and 
     other species of fish and wildlife based on a preponderance 
     of the best available scientific evidence that has been peer 
     reviewed and obtained by following appropriate, documented 
     scientific procedures, the results of which can be repeated 
     using those same procedures;
       (3) require that the lessee of lands within the Coastal 
     Plain shall be fully responsible and liable for the 
     reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain and any other 
     Federal lands that are adversely affected in connection with 
     exploration, development, production, or transportation 
     activities conducted under the lease and within the Coastal 
     Plain by the lessee or by any of the subcontractors or agents 
     of the lessee;
       (4) provide that the lessee may not delegate or convey, by 
     contract or otherwise, the reclamation responsibility and 
     liability to another person without the express written 
     approval of the Secretary;
       (5) provide that the standard of reclamation for lands 
     required to be reclaimed under this subtitle shall be, as 
     nearly as practicable, a condition capable of supporting the 
     uses which the lands were capable of supporting prior to any 
     exploration, development, or production activities, or upon 
     application by the lessee, to a higher or better use as 
     certified by the Secretary;
       (6) contain terms and conditions relating to protection of 
     fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and 
     the environment as required pursuant to section 17703(a)(2);
       (7) provide that the lessee, its agents, and its 
     contractors use best efforts to provide a fair share, as 
     determined by the level of obligation previously agreed to in 
     the 1974 agreement implementing section 29 of the Federal 
     Agreement and Grant of Right of Way for the Operation of the 
     Trans-Alaska Pipeline, of employment and contracting for 
     Alaska Natives and Alaska Native corporations from throughout 
     the State;
       (8) prohibit the export of oil produced under the lease; 
     and
       (9) contain such other provisions as the Secretary 
     determines necessary to ensure compliance with this subtitle 
     and the regulations issued under this subtitle.
       (b) Negotiated Labor Agreements.--The Secretary, as a term 
     and condition of each lease under this subtitle, shall 
     require that the lessee and its agents and contractors 
     negotiate to obtain an agreement for the employment of 
     laborers and mechanics on production, maintenance, and 
     construction under the lease.

     SEC. 17707. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING 
                   FOR AMERICA.

       (a) Congressional Intent.--It is the intent of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) this subtitle will support a healthy and growing United 
     States domestic energy sector that, in turn, helps to 
     reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and 
     service sectors by employing the vast talents of United 
     States workers to assist in the development of energy from 
     domestic sources; and
       (2) the Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel 
     and material onshore and offshore to encourage the 
     development of American technology and manufacturing to 
     enable United States workers to benefit from this subtitle 
     through good jobs and careers, as well as the establishment 
     of important industrial facilities to support expanded access 
     to American resources.
       (b) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Interior shall when 
     possible, and practicable, encourage the use of United States 
     workers and equipment manufactured in the United States in 
     all construction related to mineral development on the 
     Coastal Plain.

     SEC. 17708. COASTAL PLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

       (a) No Significant Adverse Effect Standard To Govern 
     Authorized Coastal Plain Activities.--The Secretary shall, 
     consistent with the requirements of section 17703, administer 
     this subtitle through regulations, lease terms, conditions, 
     restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, and other 
     provisions that--
       (1) ensure the oil and gas exploration, development, and 
     production activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no 
     significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment;
       (2) require the application of the best commercially 
     available technology for oil and gas exploration, 
     development, and production on all new exploration, 
     development, and production operations; and
       (3) ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage 
     covered by production and support facilities, including 
     airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for 
     support of pipelines, does not exceed 10,000 acres on the 
     Coastal Plain for each 100,000 acres of area leased.
       (b) Site-Specific Assessment and Mitigation.--The Secretary 
     shall also require, with respect to any proposed drilling and 
     related activities, that--
       (1) a site-specific analysis be made of the probable 
     effects, if any, that the drilling or related activities will 
     have on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence 
     resources, and the environment;

[[Page 1639]]

       (2) a plan be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
     (in that order and to the extent practicable) any significant 
     adverse effect identified under paragraph (1); and
       (3) the development of the plan shall occur after 
     consultation with the agency or agencies having jurisdiction 
     over matters mitigated by the plan.
       (c) Regulations To Protect Coastal Plain Fish and Wildlife 
     Resources, Subsistence Users, and the Environment.--Before 
     implementing the leasing program authorized by this subtitle, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and promulgate regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, 
     and other measures designed to ensure that the activities 
     undertaken on the Coastal Plain under this subtitle are 
     conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes and 
     environmental requirements of this subtitle.
       (d) Compliance With Federal and State Environmental Laws 
     and Other Requirements.--The proposed regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, and 
     stipulations for the leasing program under this subtitle 
     shall require compliance with all applicable provisions of 
     Federal and State environmental law, and shall also require 
     the following:
       (1) Standards at least as effective as the safety and 
     environmental mitigation measures set forth in items 1 
     through 29 at pages 167 through 169 of the ``Final 
     Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on 
     the Coastal Plain.
       (2) Seasonal limitations on exploration, development, and 
     related activities, where necessary, to avoid significant 
     adverse effects during periods of concentrated fish and 
     wildlife breeding, denning, nesting, spawning, and migration 
     based on a preponderance of the best available scientific 
     evidence that has been peer reviewed and obtained by 
     following appropriate, documented scientific procedures, the 
     results of which can be repeated using those same procedures.
       (3) That exploration activities, except for surface 
     geological studies, be limited to the period between 
     approximately November 1 and May 1 each year and that 
     exploration activities shall be supported, if necessary, by 
     ice roads, winter trails with adequate snow cover, ice pads, 
     ice airstrips, and air transport methods, except that such 
     exploration activities may occur at other times if the 
     Secretary finds that such exploration will have no 
     significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain.
       (4) Design safety and construction standards for all 
     pipelines and any access and service roads, that--
       (A) minimize, to the maximum extent possible, adverse 
     effects upon the passage of migratory species such as 
     caribou; and
       (B) minimize adverse effects upon the flow of surface water 
     by requiring the use of culverts, bridges, and other 
     structural devices.
       (5) Prohibitions on general public access and use on all 
     pipeline access and service roads.
       (6) Stringent reclamation and rehabilitation requirements, 
     consistent with the standards set forth in this subtitle, 
     requiring the removal from the Coastal Plain of all oil and 
     gas development and production facilities, structures, and 
     equipment upon completion of oil and gas production 
     operations, except that the Secretary may exempt from the 
     requirements of this paragraph those facilities, structures, 
     or equipment that the Secretary determines would assist in 
     the management of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 
     that are donated to the United States for that purpose.
       (7) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on access by 
     all modes of transportation.
       (8) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on sand and 
     gravel extraction.
       (9) Consolidation of facility siting.
       (10) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on use of 
     explosives.
       (11) Avoidance, to the extent practicable, of springs, 
     streams, and river systems; the protection of natural surface 
     drainage patterns, wetlands, and riparian habitats; and the 
     regulation of methods or techniques for developing or 
     transporting adequate supplies of water for exploratory 
     drilling.
       (12) Avoidance or minimization of air traffic-related 
     disturbance to fish and wildlife.
       (13) Treatment and disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes, 
     solid wastes, reserve pit fluids, drilling muds and cuttings, 
     and domestic wastewater, including an annual waste management 
     report, a hazardous materials tracking system, and a 
     prohibition on chlorinated solvents, in accordance with 
     applicable Federal and State environmental law.
       (14) Fuel storage and oil spill contingency planning.
       (15) Research, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
       (16) Field crew environmental briefings.
       (17) Avoidance of significant adverse effects upon 
     subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping by subsistence 
     users.
       (18) Compliance with applicable air and water quality 
     standards.
       (19) Appropriate seasonal and safety zone designations 
     around well sites, within which subsistence hunting and 
     trapping shall be limited.
       (20) Reasonable stipulations for protection of cultural and 
     archeological resources.
       (21) All other protective environmental stipulations, 
     restrictions, terms, and conditions deemed necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Considerations.--In preparing and promulgating 
     regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions, 
     prohibitions, and stipulations under this section, the 
     Secretary shall consider the following:
       (1) The stipulations and conditions that govern the 
     National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leasing program, as set 
     forth in the 1999 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 
     Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 
     Statement.
       (2) The environmental protection standards that governed 
     the initial Coastal Plain seismic exploration program under 
     parts 37.31 to 37.33 of title 50, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (3) The land use stipulations for exploratory drilling on 
     the KIC ASRC private lands that are set forth in appendix 2 
     of the August 9, 1983, agreement between Arctic Slope 
     Regional Corporation and the United States.
       (f) Facility Consolidation Planning.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, after providing for 
     public notice and comment, prepare and update periodically a 
     plan to govern, guide, and direct the siting and construction 
     of facilities for the exploration, development, production, 
     and transportation of Coastal Plain oil and gas resources.
       (2) Objectives.--The plan shall have the following 
     objectives:
       (A) Avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities and 
     activities.
       (B) Encouraging consolidation of common facilities and 
     activities.
       (C) Locating or confining facilities and activities to 
     areas that will minimize impact on fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment.
       (D) Utilizing existing facilities wherever practicable.
       (E) Enhancing compatibility between wildlife values and 
     development activities.
       (g) Access to Public Lands.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) manage public lands in the Coastal Plain subject to 
     section 811 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3121); and
       (2) ensure that local residents shall have reasonable 
     access to public lands in the Coastal Plain for traditional 
     uses.

     SEC. 17709. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Filing of Complaint.--
       (1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), any complaint 
     seeking judicial review--
       (A) of any provision of this subtitle shall be filed by not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) of any action of the Secretary under this subtitle 
     shall be filed--
       (i) except as provided in clause (ii), within the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date of the action being challenged; 
     or
       (ii) in the case of a complaint based solely on grounds 
     arising after such period, within 90 days after the 
     complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the 
     grounds for the complaint.
       (2) Venue.--Any complaint seeking judicial review of any 
     provision of this subtitle or any action of the Secretary 
     under this subtitle may be filed only in the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
       (3) Limitation on scope of certain review.--Judicial review 
     of a Secretarial decision to conduct a lease sale under this 
     subtitle, including the environmental analysis thereof, shall 
     be limited to whether the Secretary has complied with this 
     subtitle and shall be based upon the administrative record of 
     that decision. The Secretary's identification of a preferred 
     course of action to enable leasing to proceed and the 
     Secretary's analysis of environmental effects under this 
     subtitle shall be presumed to be correct unless shown 
     otherwise by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
       (b) Limitation on Other Review.--Actions of the Secretary 
     with respect to which review could have been obtained under 
     this section shall not be subject to judicial review in any 
     civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement.
       (c) Limitation on Attorneys' Fees and Court Costs.--No 
     person seeking judicial review of any action under this 
     subtitle shall receive payment from the Federal Government 
     for their attorneys' fees and other court costs, including 
     under any provision of law enacted by the Equal Access to 
     Justice Act (5 U.S.C. 504 note).

     SEC. 17710. TREATMENT OF REVENUES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 50 percent of 
     the amount of bonus, rental, and royalty revenues from 
     Federal oil and gas leasing and operations authorized under 
     this subtitle shall be deposited in the Treasury.

     SEC. 17711. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall issue rights-of-way 
     and easements across the Coastal Plain for the transportation 
     of oil and gas produced under leases under this subtitle--
       (1) except as provided in paragraph (2), under section 28 
     of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185), without regard to 
     title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.); and
       (2) under title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (30 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.), for access 
     authorized by sections 1110 and 1111 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3170 and 3171).
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in 
     any right-of-way or easement issued under subsection (a) such 
     terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure that 
     transportation of oil and gas does not result in a 
     significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, 
     subsistence resources, their habitat, and the environment of 
     the Coastal Plain, including requirements that facilities be 
     sited or designed so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
     roads and pipelines.

[[Page 1640]]

       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall include in 
     regulations under section 17703(g) provisions granting 
     rights-of-way and easements described in subsection (a) of 
     this section.

     SEC. 17712. CONVEYANCE.

       In order to maximize Federal revenues by removing clouds on 
     title to lands and clarifying land ownership patterns within 
     the Coastal Plain, the Secretary, notwithstanding section 
     1302(h)(2) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3192(h)(2)), shall convey--
       (1) to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation the surface estate 
     of the lands described in paragraph 1 of Public Land Order 
     6959, to the extent necessary to fulfill the Corporation's 
     entitlement under sections 12 and 14 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611 and 1613) in accordance 
     with the terms and conditions of the Agreement between the 
     Department of the Interior, the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the 
     Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation dated January 22, 1993; and
       (2) to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation the remaining 
     subsurface estate to which it is entitled pursuant to the 
     August 9, 1983, agreement between the Arctic Slope Regional 
     Corporation and the United States of America.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part A of House Report 112-398. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-398.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 14003(a), add at the end the following:
       (3) Ensuring public safety.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), a permit shall not be issued or deemed to have been 
     issued under this subsection until the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission examines and determines the relevance 
     to the Keystone XL pipeline of the report issued by the 
     Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
     pursuant to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and 
     Job Creation Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-90), describing the 
     results of its review of hazardous liquid pipeline 
     regulations and whether such regulations are sufficient to 
     ensure the safety of pipelines used for the transportation of 
     diluted bitumen.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. Last year, in the bipartisan pipeline safety bill that was 
signed into law, I worked with Chairman Upton to include language which 
requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 
which is called PHMSA, to complete a comprehensive review of hazardous 
liquid pipeline regulations. This review will determine whether the 
current regulations are sufficient to ensure the safety of pipelines 
used for the transportation of diluted bitumen or tar sands oil. 
Everyone agrees that this review makes sense. The House and the Senate 
both passed the pipeline safety bill without a single Member of 
Congress voting against it. What doesn't make sense is directing the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a permit for the Keystone 
XL pipeline before we know whether our safety standards are adequate.
  Last year, Cynthia Quarterman, the Administrator of PHMSA, testified 
before the Energy and Commerce Committee, stating the agency had not 
done a study to analyze the risks associated with transporting diluted 
bitumen. We've heard concerns that pipelines carrying tar sands oil may 
pose greater safety risks and may be more corrosive than pipelines 
carrying conventional crude. According to a recent whistleblower who 
worked as a safety inspector for the first Keystone pipeline, he said:

       This oil has the consistency of peanut butter and is 
     similar to sending heavy grit sandpaper down the steel pipe.

                              {time}  1550

  So we're not talking about a theoretical risk. In July 2010, a 
pipeline carrying tar sands oil ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. Over 
800,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Talmadge Creek and then flowed 
into the Kalamazoo River. A year and a half after the spill, the 
cleanup continues and is expected to cost hundreds of millions of 
dollars. Oil tar sands, unlike conventional crude oil, sinks to the 
bottom of a river, making it especially difficult to clean up.
  TransCanada's first Keystone pipeline doesn't really inspire 
confidence either. This is a brand-new, supposedly state-of-the-art 
pipeline. It was predicted to spill no more than once every 7 years; 
but in just a year and a half of operation, it's reported 14 separate 
oil spills. In North Dakota, over 21,000 gallons of tar sands oil have 
been spilled, and these spills are a warning to all of us that we need 
to get this right.
  This is not a subject to be taken lightly. We've seen in my neck of 
the woods, in the northern part of the county where I live, in San 
Bruno, California, an explosion, natural-gas pipeline explosion that 
killed eight people. It injured dozens, and it destroyed 38 homes.
  The Federal Government has been regulating pipelines since 1968, and 
we're still seeing explosions like the one in San Bruno, California. I 
think it's dangerous, Mr. Chairman, to move forward with a tar sands 
pipeline before we have the proper safety knowledge and procedures in 
place.
  So my amendment is really quite simple. It requires the FERC, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to review the results of the 
PHMSA study before issuing a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. I 
think this review is important for the safety of Americans who will be 
living near this pipeline for decades to come and who rely on the 
rivers and the streams and the aquifers it will cross.
  This approach makes sense. It's also far less costly to build 
pipelines correctly than to try to fix or replace a line that's already 
built.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I do so reluctantly because we all have such great 
respect for Ms. Eshoo of California. She is a hardworking member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and provides great leadership.
  But we oppose this amendment for a couple of simple reasons. Number 
one, this study by the Department of Transportation is going to be made 
anyway. We're not stopping that at all.
  Number two, Keystone will transport a grade of crude oil that has 
been in our Nation's pipelines for decades. There's nothing really new 
about this substance. Venezuelan oil has about the same density. 
Certain Saudi Arabian oils have basically the same density.
  Studies by the Canadian Government and private sector engineers in 
this country have demonstrated that heavy oils and diluted bitumen are 
not more dangerous or corrosive than regular grades of oil. We have not 
found any evidence to the contrary of those studies.
  The reason that we're opposing this amendment is because this 
amendment would say you cannot begin this pipeline until this study is 
completed, and our position is we want this study to go forward. We've 
waited over 40 months to get the approval to build this pipeline. The 
American people need this pipeline. America needs this additional oil.
  If the study comes back and comes up with significant, or any, safety 
issues, I can assure you that Congress is ready to act to address 
those. But there's no indication that there will be a problem.
  So for that reason, we feel quite confident that this pipeline should 
be built. We want the study to go forward, but we want the permit to be 
issued to

[[Page 1641]]

build it now, as the Department of State recognized in their final 
environmental statement back in August of 2011.
  I would urge the defeat of the Eshoo amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, 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. Markey

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. MARKEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 903, after line 22, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Energy security.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall require every 
     permit issued under this Act to include provisions that 
     ensure that any crude oil and bitumen transported by the 
     Keystone XL pipeline, and all refined petroleum fuel products 
     whose origin was via importation of crude oil or bitumen by 
     the Keystone XL pipeline, will be entered into domestic 
     commerce for use as a fuel, or for the manufacture of another 
     product, in the United States. The President may provide for 
     waivers of such requirement in the following situations:
       (A) Where the President determines that such a waiver is in 
     the national interest because it--
       (i) will not lead to an increase in domestic consumption of 
     crude oil or refined petroleum products obtained from 
     countries hostile to United States interests or with 
     political and economic instability that compromises energy 
     supply security;
       (ii) will not lead to higher costs to refiners who purchase 
     the crude oil than such refiners would have to pay for crude 
     oil in the absence of such a waiver; and
       (iii) will not lead to higher gasoline costs to consumers 
     than consumers would have to pay in the absence of such a 
     waiver.
       (B) Where an exchange of crude oil or refined product 
     provides for no net loss of crude oil or refined product 
     consumed domestically.
       (C) Where a waiver is necessary under the Constitution, a 
     law, or an international agreement.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the purported benefits of the Keystone pipeline have 
achieved mythic status. We have been told that this pipeline will lower 
gas prices, even though TransCanada says gas prices will go up. We've 
been told tens of thousands will be hired to build it, even though only 
about 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will be created.
  And in a particularly egregious descent into Fairyland, we have been 
told that the oil coming through this pipeline would enable us to 
reduce our dependence on oil imported from unfriendly Middle Eastern or 
Latin American nations.
  Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper even said, when 
you look at the Iranians threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, I 
think this just illustrates how critical it is that supply for the 
United States be North American.
  But under this bill, the Republican bill, there is no guarantee that 
even a drop of the tar sands oil and fuels will stay here in this 
country. They keep saying how great it would be if we had a million 
barrels of oil coming into the United States from Canada. There's no 
guarantee in this bill, and that's because many of the refineries where 
the Keystone crude will be sent plan to re-export the refined fuels.
  This is the map of what the oil industry plans on doing with this 
oil. It comes right through the United States, and then it heads off to 
Asia, South America, over to Europe. And Valero, one of these 
refineries, says in its investor presentation that it plans to refine 
the Canadian crude at the same facility it is building in Port Arthur, 
Texas, an export zone, because doing so leverages its export logistics.
  Our amendment will say this oil coming through this pipeline from 
Canada stays here in the United States and doesn't head off to China. 
That's what the amendment is all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is one of those myths that we must try to dispel. I guess if you 
say it enough times, some people will start believing it. But the 
reality is, why would you build a pipeline 1,700 miles, branching off 
to several refineries along the way, to our main refineries in Texas 
and Louisiana, simply to put it on a boat, send it through South 
America over to China, when they're already discussing, because the 
President denied this permit and set off a little bit of an 
international fury, sending a message to the rest of the world that 
we're going to kowtow to the environmental extremists as our energy 
policy in the United States, they are now talking about, or have been 
for some time, of just building a pipeline straight from the Alberta 
tar sands up here, all the way to Vancouver coast.
  Now, let me just read some of the article, since Prime Minister 
Stephen Harper went to China last week to court them to buy the oil 
that the United States just rejected when the President denied the 
Keystone XL permit.

                              {time}  1600

  This is from an article from Ottawa.ctv, referring to the Prime 
Minister:

       He also made a subtle dig at environmentalists who helped 
     block TransCanada's planned Keystone XL pipeline, which would 
     have carried Canada's oil to refineries in the United States.
       ``We uphold our responsibility to put the interests of 
     Canadians ahead of foreign money and influence that seek to 
     obstruct development in Canada in favor of energy imported 
     from other, less stable parts of the world,'' he told the 
     dinner.

  By the way, he was referring to Saudi Arabia, Middle East, and 
Venezuela where we're getting our oil now and will continue to do so 
unless this Keystone pipeline is built offsetting up to a million 
barrels per day.
  In Bloomberg on February 10, Harper said he is committed to 
``profoundly'' diversifying the country's energy exports that will 
facilitate construction of new infrastructure needed to ship the 
country's oil to China.
  He's not talking about Keystone pipeline. He's talking about the new 
one along the west to Vancouver.
  The article continues:

       Canada, which holds the third largest oil reserves, is 
     seeking to reduce its reliance on the United States after 
     President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.'s $7 
     billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf 
     Coast.
       ``We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our 
     energy.''

  That's why he went to China because obviously it's not the United 
States.
  Oil and Gas Journal states:

       Harper's visit was described as an open warning to 
     Washington after President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone 
     pipeline.
       ``It's not a subtle warning. It's an open warning. Harper 
     has said Keystone was a wake-up call,'' said Wenran Jiang, an 
     energy expert at the University of Alberta.

  Now, next, Washington Post:

       Chinese state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in a proposed 
     Canadian pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would 
     substantially boost Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands.

  From today, February 15, Kinder Morgan pipeline--this is from the 
Houston Business Journal--the chief of Port Metro Vancouver, the city's 
port authority, said the port would be willing to undertake the 
dredging and infrastructure work necessary to allow the bigger ships 
into the port that could carry crude shipped to the coast from Alberta 
oil sands.
  The reality is if you want this oil to go to China, kill the XL 
pipeline, the

[[Page 1642]]

Keystone pipeline, and let this one be built in Canada, which Canada is 
already preparing to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Keystone is not the energy future that advocates claim it is. But if 
in fact the Keystone pipeline is built, then this amendment says that 
that oil in fact should be used in the United States to reduce our 
dependence on oil. It appears right now that if this pipeline is built, 
it will be for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil from Canada 
down to Houston for refining and then export to Latin America and 
China. That's very much what is on the mind of many people.
  You can't have both--have that pipeline be essentially a conduit for 
export and claim that it's going to reduce American dependence on 
overseas oil. This amendment speaks directly to that it and it allows 
those who claim that Keystone will allow us energy independence to 
guarantee in law that that will happen.
  Mr. MARKEY. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either 
side?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, oil companies are running a multi-million dollar 
lobbying campaign to approve the Keystone pipeline, a pipeline the 
owner itself says the price of oil in middle America to go up, not 
down.
  Here's what the oil company, TransCanada, said in its own 
application:

       Additional producer revenues are possible if the Keystone 
     pipeline also relieves the oversupply situation in the 
     Midwest.

  It goes on to say:

       The market prices of Canadian heavy crudes should rise in 
     the Midwest.

  This gives new meaning to the phrase ``voodoo economics.''
  Only in a party bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers would 
politicians have the audacity to claim that raising oil prices in 
America will lower gas prices help consumers or improve national 
security.
  Our amendment prevents oil companies from gouging American consumers 
by requiring that any oil pumped through the Keystone pipeline stay in 
America which is, ostensibly, the avowed purpose of the pipeline.
  Mr. TERRY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Again, could we get a review of the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 minute. The 
gentleman from Nebraska has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Could you inform me as to who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska has the right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.
  The gentleman from Nebraska says, What's the problem? All the oil's 
going to stay in the United States. It's not going to China.
  That's what will happen if we don't build the pipeline. So they 
should vote for the Markey amendment because the Markey amendment could 
only be guilty of redundancy saying all the oil stays here in America.
  So if that's your purpose, that's what the Markey amendment says. 
We'll hold you to your word when we have the vote.
  But here's the real plan. TransCanada puts the dirtiest oil on the 
planet into the brand new pipeline Republicans are giving it; two, 
TransCanada sends that oil to the gulf coast where it can make billions 
more than where it currently sells it in the Midwest; three, refineries 
in the gulf coast re-export it to other countries at world oil prices 
and don't pay any taxes to the U.S. for doing so; four, Americans get 
higher gas prices and no increased energy security; five, TransCanada, 
Hugo Chavez, and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia laugh all the way to the 
bank.
  Please vote ``yes'' for the Markey-Connolly-Cohen-Welch amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This amendment just defies logic in the sense that the refined 
product of gasoline is going to be used in the United States. Now, the 
fallacy of this amendment here is it says all of the refined products. 
Well, there's stuff that's left over after the process that we can't 
even use in the United States that's commonly exported today for 
decades.
  We actually don't use all of the diesel, and we trade with Europe to 
bring in more gasoline.
  So what this amendment is trying to do is, A, start a trade war 
because it violates all trade rules and regulations. But the reality is 
it's a misnomer. If you really want this oil to go to China and us to 
have to continue to import from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, then vote 
``yes'' on this amendment because evidently you're more concerned about 
jobs in China than you are 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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. 3 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  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 903, after line 22, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (3) Restriction on use of eminent domain.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), a permit shall not be issued or 
     deemed to have been issued under this subsection absent a 
     condition that prohibits the permit recipient from initiating 
     or threatening to initiate proceedings to invoke the power of 
     eminent domain for the purpose of taking ownership, rights-
     of-way, easements, or other access or use of private property 
     in the United States, for purposes of constructing or 
     operating the Keystone XL pipeline, against the will of the 
     property's owner.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, why is it that the proponents of this bill 
are smiling and smirking while walking around this Capitol?
  It's because this bill requires the hasty approval of an 
unprecedented permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. They're smiling and 
smirking because their friends, the Big Oil companies, are big winners 
with this bill while the little people, the private property owners 
along the path of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, will be the big 
losers.
  Mr. Chairman, people might be surprised to learn that TransCanada has 
been bullying the American people--American landowners--and has been 
pressuring them to allow the company to build a pipeline through their 
land. In fact, during the subcommittee hearing, we heard testimony from 
witnesses who live along the path near the proposed route of this 
pipeline that TransCanada is doing just that--bullying them. They don't 
even have a permit to build the pipeline, yet we are told that they are 
threatening American citizens with eminent domain, basically telling 
people, If you don't give us access to your land, if you don't give us 
your land, then we're going to take it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Why are we 
rewarding a private foreign company that is trying to intimidate and 
coerce American citizens with this regulatory earmark?

[[Page 1643]]

  In order to protect private property owners along the path of this 
pipeline, I am offering an amendment that will restrict the use of 
eminent domain. My amendment requires that a permit for this pipeline 
would only be issued if it prohibits the use of eminent domain to take 
someone's private property against his will.
  Mr. Chairman, my office was in contact with a Nebraska rancher by the 
name of Randy Thompson, who wrote me a letter dated February 9, and I 
want to read an excerpt of it for my colleagues.
  He wrote:

       Dear Congressman Rush, I would like to express to you, sir, 
     my concerns about the bill introduced by Representative Terry 
     to fast-forward the permitting process for the Keystone XL 
     pipeline. It seems inherently wrong to me that a foreign 
     corporation can actually force American citizens to 
     forfeit their individual property rights through the use 
     of eminent domain. With the denial of a permit, 
     TransCanada has, for the time being, suspended their land 
     acquisition process in the State of Nebraska. I can assure 
     you, however, that they will be back on our doorsteps with 
     a vengeance once a new route has been determined and a 
     permit has been granted. It appears to me that some 
     Members of Congress are all too eager to subsidize the Big 
     Oil companies, not only with our tax dollars, but now with 
     land that belongs to American citizens.

  Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to protect our citizens from being 
bullied into giving up their land against their will for the gain of 
private foreign companies. Let us wipe the smiles and the smirks off 
the faces of the proponents of this bill. Pass this amendment. Protect 
the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. None of us are smiling over the fact that the President 
killed the pipeline that would have created 20,000 jobs and that would 
have provided us a newer level of energy security. This amendment, in 
essence, is a way of killing this pipeline. Let's be clear about this.
  The pipeline is 1,700 miles, and through each State this proposed 
pipeline would pass, the pipeline company would negotiate with the 
landowners on the proposed routes. So, if you have one person who 
objects, then he can ostensibly kill the pipeline. In every State, 
there is a mechanism in its own State laws that resolves any disputes 
for a right-of-way. We've heard some language here about taking 
people's property. This is for use of a property and a right-of-way, a 
small strip of land, okay? So their rights are protected. The States' 
rights are protected.
  What this amendment would do is to strip the States of their rights 
here, and it would send them off to an unknown area that has no rights 
to resolve any disputes. They only need one landowner to kill a 1,700-
mile project. The gentleman that the gentleman from Chicago mentioned 
is one of those people. He belongs to BOLD Nebraska, an organization of 
environmentalists that wants to kill the pipeline.
  At this point, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
yielding.
  I am actually here to speak on Mr. Markey's amendment, the previous 
amendment. I do want to oppose the amendment of my good friend from 
Chicago, Mr. Rush, but I think Mr. Terry eloquently made the case as to 
why it is not in order at this point in time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the previous amendment that Mr. 
Markey offered, which would restrict the use of both crude oil and 
refined products that come in from the Keystone pipeline to have to be 
sold in the United States. It goes without saying that if it's crude 
oil it would make absolutely no sense to transship it through the 
Keystone pipeline to the gulf coast and then put it in a tanker to go 
overseas. If you're going to export crude oil, it makes much more sense 
to export it directly from Canada.
  On the refined product end of it, you have to know one thing, which 
is that this crude oil that we would be importing from Canada is a 
heavy crude oil. We have some of the best refineries in the country 
that have been upgraded by billions and billions of dollars so that we 
can handle not just the light sweet crudes, like West Texas 
Intermediate or Saudi Light, but so we can handle these heavy crudes, 
like the Canadian crude oil, that would come down.
  When you have a barrel of crude oil, you can't just say, I want to 
make it all gasoline. You can make a lot of gasoline, but you're going 
to end up having to make diesel oil and asphalt and a lot of other 
products. Our refineries are the best in the world at cracking these 
heavy crudes. As they come down through the Midwest to the Louisiana 
and Texas refineries, most of the refined products would be sold in the 
United States, but the United States is primarily a gasoline market. 
The European market, on the other hand, is primarily a diesel market. 
So, as our refineries have become better and more competitive, it makes 
sense not to put a restriction on the refined products but to let the 
market allocate it. It would actually create jobs in the United States. 
We could ship some of these refined--primarily diesel, but some of the 
distillates could go to the European market. You'd get a better margin, 
create jobs, and protect jobs here in the United States. The primary 
market will always be the United States. Currently, about 75 percent of 
the crude oil that's refined on the gulf coast is used in refined 
products that are sold in the United States, but somewhere around 20 to 
25 percent has been going to Europe, primarily the distillates and the 
diesel.
  The Markey amendment would turn that market on its head. It would be 
counterproductive to our economy, counterproductive to our consumers, 
and counterproductive to the general oil markets in the world.
  I know Mr. Markey is trying to do what he thinks is the right thing, 
but in actuality, we defeated his amendment in the committee, I think, 
34 14 or something like this. We got eight Democrats--about 40 percent 
of the Democrats--to vote with us against the Markey amendment in 
committee. We ought to defeat it by that same margin here on the floor 
of the House of Representatives.
  At this point, I also want to thank Mr. Whitfield for his excellent 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that as Members of this Congress, we 
were elected to this body to protect the American people, to protect 
our citizens, to protect their property.
  And, Mr. Chairman, the action that's occurring by the Republican 
majority is going to pass. But it's also going to turn that 
responsibility, that obligation, the reason for our existence here in 
this Congress upside down. It's going to make it just meaningless for 
the protection of the American people.
  Why don't you protect the landowners, the private landowners?
  Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield so I can answer the question?
  The answer to that question would be that each State has set up a due 
process law----
  Mr. RUSH. Why don't we protect the landowners, the property holders 
in our Nation? We are elected here to protect them and not let a big 
oil company, TransCanada, a foreign company, come in and just take----
  Mr. TERRY. They don't take. * * *
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska will suspend.
  The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members should not interject remarks after the 
Member under recognition has declined to yield.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).

[[Page 1644]]

  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. 4 Offered by Mr. Doyle

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. DOYLE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 906, after line 10, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 14005. USE OF AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL.

       Notwithstanding section 14003(a)(1) and (2), a permit shall 
     not be issued or deemed to have been issued under this title 
     unless the permit applicant certifies and provides adequate 
     documentation to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     that at least 75 percent of iron and steel to be used in the 
     construction of the domestic portion of the pipeline and 
     related facilities described in section 14002(b) is produced 
     in North America.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, despite all the controversy surrounding this pipeline, 
I think this is a good opportunity for us to examine some of the claims 
that the applicant for the Keystone XL pipeline has made.
  Now let me say at the onset, I support building this pipeline in a 
way that protects the environment and helps create American jobs. I 
don't support the rushed 30-day manner that this bill would have us do, 
but I do support the pipeline.
  When I started reading about the 800,000 tons of steel to be used in 
the Keystone XL pipeline, like everyone else, I was pretty excited 
about the prospects for our U.S. manufacturers, and especially coming 
from Pittsburgh, our steel manufacturers. So I have to tell you, I was 
a little confused when I talked to my friends in the U.S. steel 
industry and they told me they weren't making any of the steel for this 
project. Now, I knew this had to be a mistake because TransCanada had 
told us that there would be 7,000 direct manufacturing jobs created by 
this project, so surely someone somewhere in the United States has to 
know what these jobs are.
  I've also heard folks talking about the wonderful jobs being created 
at steel mills in southwestern Pennsylvania. The trouble is I can't 
find a steel mill in southwestern Pennsylvania that's making steel for 
the Keystone XL pipeline. In fact, I'm having trouble finding a single 
U.S. steelmaker that has any orders for any of this pipe.
  Now, I've reached out to the permit applicant, TransCanada, and 
several other sources for some clarifying information regarding their 
claim that 75 percent of the steel used in the Keystone XL pipeline 
will be sourced from North America. Unfortunately, the best I seem to 
get is that there's a single pipe manufacturer in Little Rock, 
Arkansas, that is providing much of the steel pipe for the pipeline. 
The trouble is that manufacturer doesn't actually use U.S. or North 
American steel to make the pipe. In fact, the Little Rock plant very 
clearly told me that they make their pipe out of foreign steel imports. 
They also told me they have imported and are housing on their site 140 
miles of ready-made pipe that they got from India to be used in the 
Keystone pipeline.
  So all my amendment does is ask for some truth in advertising. 
TransCanada has told us that they make every effort to source as much 
steel from U.S. mills as they can. I'm simply asking the applicant to 
certify their claims.
  Along with other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have 
sent a letter to TransCanada asking for this information, but I have 
yet to receive a response. I think Members deserve this information. If 
there is, in fact, a U.S. steelmaker out there that is making all or 
some of the steel for the Keystone XL pipeline, I think we have a right 
to know about it.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  First of all, I would like to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
who is a very hardworking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and provides great leadership, that we reluctantly oppose his 
amendment.
  His amendment is very simple, and it is very direct. It simply says 
the permit will not be issued until the permit applicant certifies and 
provides adequate documentation that at least 75 percent of the iron 
and steel used in the construction of the pipeline is produced in North 
America, which is a goal that many of us have.
  I would like to point out a couple of facts here:
  Number one, this is a private company that's putting up $7 billion of 
its own money;
  Number two, in order to keep costs down, it has already acquired all 
of the steel and iron that it is going to use in this pipeline.
  Now, some people will say, well, why in the world would it spend over 
$2 billion buying this material when they didn't have a permit? Well, 
they filed this permit 40 months ago, and all of the information coming 
out from the Secretary of State, the Department of State in their final 
environmental impact statement would indicate that the pipeline was 
going to be approved. So they bought this material many months ago to 
try to keep costs down.
  And I will tell you, from the information that we have, 74 percent of 
the pipe was milled here in North America. In fact, it's milled in four 
different locations. Not all of them are in North America. The steel 
comes from seven different sources. Some of it from America and some of 
it not from America. But the reality is that, if we adopted this 
amendment, the permit would not be issued because the applicant cannot 
certify that 75 percent comes from America because it bought this 
material a long time ago. And, I might add, there's not one dime of 
taxpayer money in this project.
  So our feeling is that, the practical aspect is that, if you would 
basically stop the building of this pipeline, we would lose all those 
jobs, we would lose all the additional oil that we would be getting, 
and we believe that there would be more negatives from it than there 
would be positives.
  And one other comment that I would make is that the American Iron and 
Steel Institute, which represents many of the companies that Mr. Doyle 
is concerned about, is supporting our legislation. We have the letter 
that they support this legislation, and they support building the 
pipeline.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Five of the major labor unions in America support this legislation 
because they recognize the additional jobs that will be available to 
them in the construction of the pipeline. So for that reason, 
reluctantly, I oppose Mr. Doyle's amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Doyle, for your leadership. This is a 
great amendment. It's a commonsense amendment. Now we don't know if the 
XL pipeline will be built. Many have strong opinions on whether or not 
it should be built at all. But one thing that we should all agree on 
is, if it is built, it should be built with materials made right here 
in America.
  You see, when we talk about producing energy in America, that doesn't

[[Page 1645]]

just mean oil, gas, wind, nuclear, and other sources that power our 
homes and businesses. It means materials used to extract, refine, and 
transport that energy. And why does it have to happen that it needs to 
be American-made materials? Because it means jobs, good-paying jobs 
that can help to strengthen our middle class. It means stronger 
communities and a stronger economy at a time when we need that now more 
than ever. And it means a future with more security and more certainty 
for the next generation.
  This pipeline is going to run through America; it should be made of 
American iron, steel, and manufactured goods. I ask all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment and 
supporting the American middle class and in supporting American jobs.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. DOYLE. I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the Keystone 
pipeline, but I found out this last Monday, and I've asked, and I know 
the chair of our Energy Committee has heard me ask about a project 
labor agreement that's for the whole pipeline but it doesn't cover 
Texas. The largest State along the route does not have a project labor 
agreement with TransCanada. TransCanada maybe didn't deceive me, but 
they sure didn't answer the questions when I asked them in our 
committee. I've talked to them about that. I know our labor support 
nationwide, they have a project labor agreement from the Canadian 
border to the Oklahoma border, but not for the biggest part of it, in 
the State of Texas, and I'm going to work with them because it's 
important to see that the job be done safely.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My good friend from Kentucky, and he is my good friend, more or less 
has just said that the amendment can't go through because it's 
impossible for TransCanada to certify what they said was true. They've 
misled us. I think we just ought to be honest with the American people. 
It's obvious from the discussion today and from past discussion that 
this steel is not being manufactured in North America. It may be 
finished in North America at some of these plants, but no steel was 
made in North America. Congress has been misled. This is not a way for 
a company to do business. They're a private company. They can use 
anybody they want. What they can't do is lie to Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I might reiterate once again, this is a private 
company spending $7 billion of their own money. Before any of this ever 
became an issue, they acquired this material. They spent over $2 
billion acquiring this material. Everybody is talking about jobs. One 
of the reasons they're offering this amendment is because of jobs. 
Well, there's nothing we can do about the material that's already been 
acquired. It's already purchased. So all we would do if we pass this 
amendment is we would make sure that the permit for this pipeline would 
not be issued. This material, all this $2 billion worth of steel, would 
be moved to Canada. They would build the pipeline to the west coast and 
move all of the oil to China, and they would get the construction jobs. 
So we would end up with no jobs.
  I know the gentleman's intentions are the very best, and we all are 
concerned about the issue, but there are no taxpayer dollars involved 
in this. It is a private company. They have already acquired this 
material. This never became an issue until, I suppose, about a month 
ago, and the material was even acquired at that point.
  So I would respectfully request that Members oppose this amendment. 
Let's build this pipeline and let's help America be less dependent on 
foreign oil, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOYLE. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. POLIS. 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:

       Beginning at page 926, line 3, strike subtitle A of title 
     XVII.
       Page 976, line 20, strike ``50'' '' and insert ``51''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets to the heart of what 
sustains our western communities from Colorado to California to New 
Mexico to Montana--our water and our land.
  My amendment is the answer to concerns from my constituents in 
Colorado, outcries from farmers, from ranchers, local communities, from 
sportsmen, from recreationists, and from many others who know this bill 
threatens their livelihoods, and my amendment corrects that component.
  This bill contains a troubling oil shale provision. Now, it was 
originally included to help pay for the bill's overall cost, but it was 
found to provide no revenue. So how can something help pay for a bill 
when it provides no revenue? With the CBO score confirming it receives 
no revenue, there is, therefore, no reason to include it. We might as 
well simply take up any random natural resources bill. And, in fact, 
the whole discussion of oil shale certainly deserves its own 
discussion. And since it is not going to help pay for our highways, I 
would urge my colleagues, even if they are supportive of this end 
product, to remove this from this bill.
  Let me be clear, my amendment has nothing to do with one form of 
energy over another. You'll probably hear people from both sides of 
this argument talk about the potential for oil shale in the future. 
It's not about dirty or clean forms of energy; it's simply about common 
sense. If the technology doesn't exist and it won't bring in revenue, 
why is it being considered as a revenue provision for an unrelated 
infrastructure bill?
  We've all heard of former Presidential candidate Herman Cain's 9-9-9 
plan, but the oil shale section of this bill is a zero-zero-zero plan--
no revenue, no jobs, and no energy. It mandates we lock up land at 
fire-sale prices to those who are connected enough to make bids for a 
technology that doesn't even exist and would threaten jobs, would 
threaten water in western Colorado, and threaten our western way of 
life.
  My amendment simply strikes that section, leaving revenue for the 
overall bill unaffected, and keeps our western lands and waters as they 
currently are, outside of what's supposed to be an infrastructure and 
transportation bill.
  Now, you might hear some hold up Estonia as an example of oil shale 
development, but by all accounts, Estonia oil shale has been an 
economic disaster. Even Jim Bartis with the RAND Corporation said: ``To 
our knowledge, oil shale in Estonia is not even used to produce 
transportation fuels.''
  You'll also hear that we're the Saudi Arabia of various energy 
resources.

[[Page 1646]]

Now, I continue to question the wisdom in looking to Estonia and Saudi 
Arabia for leadership in energy independence for our country. Even 
industry insiders know that a provision like the one contained in this 
bill is simply the wrong thing to do.
  Jeremy Boak, a professor who heads the industry-sponsored Center for 
Oil Shale Technology at the Colorado School of Mines, said that he's 
doubtful that any firm would even bid on commercial leases, leaving 
them to speculators. He also said: ``It isn't obvious to me yet that we 
need to be putting a bunch of commercial leases out there because no 
one has a commercial process yet.''
  That's something that industry admits. There's no feasible, cost-
effective commercial process for extracting oil from shale. We're 
talking about a potential technology, one that will have profound 
implications on water, profound implications on land use, and, yes, 
profound implications on national energy policy, but it's a technology 
that doesn't exist.
  This component of the bill, if we don't remove it, will simply remove 
speculators rather than those who can actually play a meaningful role 
in providing for our energy independent future. I strongly encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It would 
strike a key provision of the bill that would provide American jobs and 
tap into a potential natural resource, American oil shale.
  This amendment also increases the Federal take from drilling in ANWR 
from 50 to 51 percent, leaving the State of Alaska with that much less.
  Now, proponents of this amendment will argue that we should get rid 
of the oil shale provisions because the technology is not proven. 
Estonia does get a sizable amount of energy from oil shale currently. I 
would like to ask why is the proponent of this amendment so concerned 
that this is going to be a big thing in the future and affect the 
western way of life if he thinks it's never going to take off and 
amount to anything. You know, he can't have it both ways.
  So why don't we let the companies experiment at their own expense, on 
their own dime, and see if they can find a commercial, viable process 
that works to extract this hugely potential source of energy.

                              {time}  1640

  The USGS has estimated that there are 1.5 trillion--with a ``T''--
barrels of oil equivalent in these oil shale formations. I think it's 
worth at least experimenting to see if it can be commercially extracted 
because that would be a huge relief from having to get foreign oil, and 
it would create money for the treasuries of States and the Federal 
Government and create American jobs as well as the security aspect.
  So I just don't see why there's such opposition to this when they say 
it's not going to work. That just doesn't make sense. They can't have 
it both ways. I say, let the companies experiment at their own expense 
and at no cost to the taxpayer.
  So, I strongly urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Perhaps my friend and colleague from Colorado isn't aware that there 
already is extensive experimentation about the potential of oil shale 
to meet our energy needs. In fact, there are millions of dollars spent 
every year in research that industry itself has invested in this 
technology.
  Furthermore, there are 3 million acres of oil shale lands in 
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that are under State, private, or tribal 
leadership and have been for decades. In fact, several large companies 
alone already control 200,000 acres of oil shale lands. There are a 
couple of sites in Colorado where they're looking to try to develop 
cost-effective methods. In fact, by the end of 2012, there will be nine 
active Federal research and development leases. No one has figured out 
a cost-effective way to develop these areas.
  Again, this is not about the research. In fact, after the second 
round of bids in early 2009, when the Obama administration affirmed the 
Bush administration's decision regarding a second round of R&D leasing, 
there was a significant reduction in industry bids. Industry itself was 
even less interested in trying to figure out this because it's been a 
nut that they've been unable to crack for nearly 100 years.
  This amendment is not about the environment. It's about common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I inquire how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
strongly support this commonsense amendment to preserve our land, our 
jobs, and our water in the West.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this 
is one more example of the Obama administration stifling the production 
of domestic energy in this country. They put out restrictive 
regulations that made it so untenable for commercial companies to even 
go into the research and development leases after President Obama took 
office that there was little interest in pursuing under the new format.
  So we need to go back to the previous way of offering these leases so 
there is at least interest on the part of industry, at their own 
expense, to see if this technology is commercially viable.
  So, once again, I would just ask the question, why is there 
opposition to something that they say is not going to work? We don't 
know if it's going to work or not. And with the possibility of 1.5 
trillion barrels' equivalent of oil, let's at least let that happen to 
see if that can be feasibly explored, developed, and produced.
  We have nothing to lose. This is a great win for the American 
consumer, especially should a commercial application and scalable 
venture be produced. It would create energy, jobs, and money for the 
Treasury.
  I urge strong opposition to this amendment. I have to disagree with 
my friend and colleague from Colorado on this particular issue, and I 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 935, line 7, strike ``two other lease blocks'' and 
     insert ``1 other lease block''.
       Page 937, after line 13, insert the following:
       (3) National defense areas.--The United States reserves the 
     right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense, 
     with the approval of the President, national defense areas on 
     the Outer Continental Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).
       Page 941, beginning at line 1, strike ``1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act'' and insert ``December 31, 
     2015''.
       Page 945, line 8, strike ``two other lease blocks'' and 
     insert ``1 other lease block''.
       Page 946, after line 22, insert the following:
       (3) National defense areas.--The United States reserves the 
     right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense, 
     with the approval of the President, national defense areas on 
     the outer Continental Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman

[[Page 1647]]

from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a technical manager's amendment 
making changes agreed to with the Armed Services Committee in order to 
ensure that we are fully respecting the needs of our Nation's military.
  It adds further protections to those already included through the 
bill to ensure any production and our Nation's national defense 
cooperatively coexist in our Nation's offshore areas.

                               NOES--276

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     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
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     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
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     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
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Doggett
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Westmoreland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1821

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


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Doyle

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 234, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 58]

                               AYES--193

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     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 (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)
  This amendment also includes a slight adjustment to the timing of the 
leasing of one offshore area off the coast of Alaska. In fact, it moves 
it back to 2015.
  So these have been talked over with the minority. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman claim time in opposition?
  Mr. MARKEY. I claim the time of the minority.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chairman.
  I will say that this amendment marginally improves the bill, but it 
does not change our fundamental opposition to it. But progress on any 
front is welcomed, even if we cannot make progress on every front.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would totally agree with you. Progress 
in any way is beneficial. So I appreciate the gentleman's accepting the 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. We do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

[[Page 1648]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 938, line 3, strike section 17304.
       Beginning on page 948, line 3, strike part 4.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, 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 is a straightforward amendment, and it is 
overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, so I hope we can all agree 
to it.
  The amendment strikes a harmful and unnecessary provision in the 
underlying bill that mandates new drilling--mandates new drilling--in 
the sensitive waters off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties in 
California.
  The majority says this new drilling is necessary to help fund the 
transportation bill. But according to CBO, any new drilling off 
southern California would, at best, generate tens of millions of 
dollars in revenue, while the gap in transportation funding is measured 
in the tens of billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, leaving aside the specious funding arguments that the 
authors of the bill have made, the people most affected, my 
constituents, don't want new drilling. My colleagues have heard me 
invoke Santa Barbara's devastating 1969 oil spill before. And that's 
because it galvanized central coast residents and virtually the whole 
State of California against more offshore drilling. We were outraged by 
the damage to the environment, the wildlife, and to our economy. And we 
understood the havoc that similar blowouts would wreak upon our 
economy, especially tourism and fishing industries.
  It's why California permanently banned new oil and gas leasing in 
State waters in 1994. It's why Californians fought to pass 
groundbreaking environmental laws like the National Environmental 
Policy Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It's why some 24 city 
and county governments, including both Santa Barbara and Ventura 
counties, have passed measures requiring voter approval before any new 
onshore facilities to support offshore drilling could be built. And 
it's why in 2008 then Republican Governor Schwarzenegger told President 
Bush and Congress to oppose new drilling off the west coast.
  More recently, an oil company in Santa Barbara thought it could 
capitalize on the high gasoline prices by placing a measure on the 
ballot to allow slant drilling from the shore.

                              {time}  1650

  That plan was rejected by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of 
the voters in the community that was affected by it, Carpinteria, 
California. That was just in 2010.
  We're also aware of the Pentagon's concerns with new drilling in our 
area so close to Vandenberg Air Force Base. In a 2008 letter to an oil 
company proposing to slant drill from the shore, the Air Force 
replied--and I have a copy of the letter to submit with my statement:

       A drilling and production facility would present a wide 
     range of significant operational constraints, inconsistent 
     with Vandenberg Air Force Base's national space launch 
     mission.

  Mr. Chairman, Californians have spoken loud and clear: we do not want 
more drilling off our shores. We want to protect our coastline from the 
devastation that the 1969 oil spill brought to Santa Barbara. Now, 
because of this legislation, these communities are at risk again. It's 
not just the new drilling mandate in this bill, but also because the 
bill would gut critical environmental laws like CZMA and NEPA, the very 
laws passed in response to the 1969 spill off the Santa Barbara coast.
  It's outrageous. This bill specifically denies California--and only 
California--any role in new offshore drilling decisions under the 
Coastal Zone Management Act. It also removes California citizens' 
ability to voice their concerns about new drilling during the 
environmental review process.
  I find it ironic that some of the same people in this body who decry 
an overarching Federal Government seem to have no qualms about forcing 
new drilling upon a local population which is directly against its 
wishes. This heavy-handed, know-it-all approach rubber-stamps 
destructive drilling, cuts out environmental reviews, and closes down 
the public input. Might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad 
policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our Nation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, American families want us to pass a balanced 
transportation bill that creates jobs, fixes our roads and bridges, and 
ensures that they have a safe way to get to work and back home again. 
They don't want more politics, especially the kind that puts our 
coasts, our communities, and our very way of life at risk. So I urge my 
colleagues to join me in striking these harmful, unnecessary provisions 
from this bill.

                                      Department of the Air Force,


                            Office of the Assistant Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.
     Mr. Ray G. Charles,
     ExxonMobil Exploration Company,
     Houston, TX.
     Mr. Robert E. Nunn,
     Sunset Exploration, Inc.,
     Brentwood, CA.
       Dear Messrs Charles and Nunn: We have evaluated your 
     proposal to leverage your option to lease on-shore, sub-
     surface mineral rights beneath 7,780-acres of South 
     Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) to establish oil and gas 
     drilling and production facilities on 25-acres near Space 
     Launch Complex (SLC) 5 for directional drilling into off-
     shore reserves.
       I believe it would be premature to proceed with the 
     National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Environmental Impact 
     Statement (EIS) evaluation of your desired location for the 
     reasons stated below. A drilling and production facility at 
     your proposed location would present a wide range of 
     significant operational constraints, inconsistent with VAFB's 
     national space launch mission. Most significantly, your 
     proposed location is within the Impact Limit Lines of all of 
     our active SLCs; it is within the SLC-5 explosives safety 
     clear zone, eliminating SLC-5 as an optional platform for the 
     approximate 40 year life of the Vahevala project; and in the 
     event of a natural disaster or catastrophic mission failure 
     at any of the SLCs, the presence of the facility would 
     severely complicate emergency response. Consistent with these 
     concerns, the Air Force cannot provide you access to your 
     desired 25-acre location on South VAFB.
       We do understand that if you exercise the option to lease, 
     you will be entitled to reasonable access to onshore, 
     subsurface minerals. Any drilling and oil or gas production 
     on South VAFB would still hamper execution of space launches 
     and create operational impacts. However, there are areas 
     which may present less operational impact than your proposed 
     25-acre site west of SLC 5. They are generally in the 
     northern and eastern portions of South VAFB, within the 
     7,780-acre option to lease.
       We recognize the Air Force's discussions with you regarding 
     the Vahevala project have been protracted. Please accept my 
     personal assurance that this has been due to diligent 
     examination of the proposal at the several levels of command 
     that support the space launch mission at VAFB. As a result of 
     this diligent examination, our military commanders have 
     decided it is simply not consistent with their most 
     fundamental mission responsibilities.
       As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
     Energy and the Environment, I am keenly aware of the crucial 
     contributions of your industry to our nation, and to the 
     national defense. I salute you for your initiatives to 
     enhance the energy security of America, and look forward to 
     the possibility of collaborating with you on projects that 
     might be synergistic with the Air Force mission.
           Sincerely,
     Kevin W. Billings,
       Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy, Environment, Safety and 
     Occupational Health.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to this amendment.

[[Page 1649]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the U.S. Census, the State of California's 
largest import is petroleum. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of California's largest 
import is petroleum. So I guess it's a good thing that private 
geologists estimate that over 1.6 billion barrels of American-made 
energy are ready and waiting to be developed from existing 
infrastructure in southern California.
  What does existing infrastructure mean? Well, there are currently 
about 23 oil and gas platforms located offshore in southern California 
which account for about 24 million barrels of oil and 47 billion cubic 
feet of gas annually. The lease sale proposed in this legislation 
allows drilling from existing platforms or, to put it in another 
vernacular, those that are already in place. If we are going to have a 
serious discussion about offshore drilling, it makes perfect sense to 
drill not only where there is already drilling going on, but from where 
the platforms already exist, which is why this bill specifically 
states: ``no new infrastructure.''
  We need to drill where there are known resources, and this California 
lease sale is a commonsense way to limit the drilling footprint while 
accessing our resources that are known in southern California. In fact, 
Mr. Chairman, the State of California is already working with the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on a permit to allow a company to 
drill from an existing platform in Federal waters into State waters for 
State resources.
  Let me say this: the State of California has entered into the same 
concept that's embodied in this bill. So let me repeat here one more 
time. It's Governor Brown's administration that is pursuing drilling 
off these same platforms closer to the coast.
  Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States 
and U.S. territories from receiving fair and equitable income for 
drilling that would occur potentially off their shores. This means 
States like Florida and Virginia will not receive any portion of any 
revenues for drilling that will occur off their coasts under this bill 
if this amendment were to be adopted.
  The underlying bill is a drill-smart plan that directly focuses on 
those offshore areas where there are known resources. That includes the 
vast resources of southern California. This amendment would lock away 
significant resources that belong to the American people. It would keep 
our country shackled to the foreign powers upon whom we rely for oil 
and gas imports. It would also hinder our Nation's energy security.
  This amendment also ignores the soaring gas prices that American 
families are facing at the pump right now. Many of those families don't 
have room in their budget to pay hundreds more dollars just to drive to 
work or drive their kids to school. And by the way, I might add, Mr. 
Chairman, I think if there is an epitome of an area in the country that 
does a lot of driving, it's in California.
  We need to get America producing energy again. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this amendment and vote for the underlying legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I would just comment to remark that the very project that 
my colleague from Washington, my friend, described is the project that 
the local constituents rejected by 70 percent, the project that was 
mentioned. We are interested, in California, in ending drilling, not 
just stopping leasing.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation should be investing our time, our energy and 
creativity into real solutions that put us toward the path for clean-
energy solutions for our future. We've seen time and time again that 
our congressional district doesn't want to be known for chasing after 
yesterday's energy solutions, but for leadership towards the renewable 
energy solutions of today and tomorrow.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote for my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have left, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate once again--and this is 
understanding that people in our great country have different views--I 
certainly understand what happened in southern California some 40 years 
ago. Listen, that picture is indelibly in everybody's mind. But nobody 
can argue there have not been advances in oil exploration in this 
country, and certainly in the OCS. But as a recognition of that, in 
this bill we didn't say just go anywhere you want to go in southern 
California. We said go to the existing platforms where you're drilling 
and existing infrastructure where there has been drilling.
  Now, that seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable way to utilize the 
resources that we have--by the way, in Federal waters, not in State 
waters, in Federal waters--so that we can make ourselves less dependent 
on foreign energy.
  The last thing I would say is the State of California is pursuing 
precisely the same thing that's embodied in this underlying bill, only 
in State waters.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose my good friend's amendment from 
southern California.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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. 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 Mr. Bilirakis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. 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 944, after line 22, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (D) The Secretary shall conduct, and take into 
     consideration the results of, an economic impact survey to 
     determine any adverse economic effects that such lease sales 
     within 100 miles of the western coast of Florida may have on 
     the Florida Gulf coast fishing industry and tourism industry.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  With the national unemployment rate hovering around 8 percent--in my 
home State of Florida, its rate is close to 10 percent--there is no 
question that our Nation is hurting for economic growth. This year, the 
focus of efforts here in the House of Representatives has centered on 
creating a framework for the private sector to innovate and grow, to 
create the jobs we desperately need. To that end, Mr. Chairman, my 
amendment seeks to take all prudent steps to ensure that jobs and the 
economy are the focus.

                              {time}  1700

  My amendment simply requires the Secretary to conduct an economic 
impact survey to assess any effect lease sales would have on the 
Florida tourism and fishing industries.
  People from all over the world flock to the gulf coast of Florida 
specifically

[[Page 1650]]

to visit our spectacular beaches, our parks, our waterways, and other 
recreational opportunities. More than 80 million tourists, Mr. 
Chairman, per year stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and 
create many economic opportunities for Floridians.
  The tourism industry is a multibillion-dollar industry for Florida 
and the national economy, Mr. Chairman. Florida's seafood and 
recreational fishing industries also contribute thousands of jobs and 
billions of dollars to the local economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge this House to adopt a commonsense 
measure to ensure that the Federal Government consider all 
ramifications of lease sales, and to ensure that the promotion of jobs 
and the economy remain the focus of any actions of our Federal 
Government.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise to claim the time in the minority.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair very much.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, just a point. The issue is 
not claiming time in the minority or majority. The time is in 
opposition, and with that in mind, I would rise to claim time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
  Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there's no question that the gentleman from 
Washington State is correct, and a master of parliamentary rules, 
having stood up there or sat up there hundreds of hours, so he is an 
absolute correct dissector of language used here of seeking recognition 
from the Chair.
  So I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, if those 
are the technical words of art that the gentleman would prefer for me 
to use.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts, a true opponent 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank you.
  This amendment would require a study to investigate potential 
economic impacts from a variety of risks that oil development in the 
Outer Continental Shelf poses to local tourism and fishing economies in 
Florida.
  Well, we actually had a real-world study for 87 days during the BP 
spill. As we saw in 2010, with the BP oil spill, oil can wreak havoc on 
a coastal community, meaning a disaster for tourism and fishing, 
seafood industries. These disasters can and do happen, putting hundreds 
of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at stake.
  It is important for the public to know the risks associated with 
allowing oil companies to drill off of our coast. But we should be 
protecting our beaches in Florida and California and New Jersey and 
Massachusetts, not just requiring a study of how huge a disaster a 
spill would be for these States.
  We should be protecting the lives and the livelihoods of the people 
of the gulf by taking the lessons of the BP spill and turning them into 
new laws. But nearly 2 years after the BP spill began, this Congress 
has not enacted a single new law to improve the safety of offshore 
drilling. That is indefensible when the BP Commission found that we 
have a fatally flawed rate of accidents and fatalities in our country. 
Compared to the rest of the world, ours is four times higher than that 
in Europe, that is, the fatalities on our oil rigs. So that's the 
issue.
  We have yet to increase the fines because only we can do that here in 
Congress. Right now, a lot of these oil companies think it's just the 
equivalent of a parking ticket. You know, if you could pay a parking 
ticket for a whole day on the main street of any one of the cities in 
the United States, you'd pay that $1 parking ticket because it would be 
cheaper than paying 20 bucks to put it in a garage. And that's what we 
have right now. We have the equivalent of $1 parking tickets that are 
assessed against oil companies that despoil the ocean, that result in, 
because of their faulty safety rules, the highest fatality rate in the 
world in terms of people who work on oil rigs.
  At this point, I have completed my statement, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), our distinguished chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman's amendment will conduct this economic impact study 
only for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS Planning Area, as defined in 
the bill. I understand and appreciate the gentleman's interest in 
protecting the multiple use of the OCS, and I join him in that 
interest. For decades, tourism, fishing, and oil and gas drilling have 
been compatible in the Gulf of Mexico, and there's no reason that the 
new areas opened up under this bill would not operate in the same way.
  While I understand the interests of the gentleman to have this study 
for those areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, I wish that he could 
have expanded the study to jobs that could have been created by new 
drilling and the support that comes with that activity.
  While that's not embodied in the gentleman's amendment, I would only 
have to think that because you're having the study on that, there may 
be some residual, and I would look forward to that residual potentially 
also.
  So I thank the gentleman and congratulate him for offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I'd like to close briefly. Of course I urge passage of 
this reasonable, commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. 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 948, beginning on line 3, strike part 4.
       Page 954, after line 19, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 176__. PROHIBITION ON LEASE SALES IN CERTAIN AREAS.

       No oil and gas lease sale may be conducted for any area of 
     the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)) 
     for which any of the States of New York, New Jersey, 
     Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or 
     Maine is an affected State under section 2(f)(1) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1331(f)(1)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits oil and 
natural gas lease sales off the coast of Northeast States, including 
New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire and Maine. Furthermore, my amendment is paid for by striking 
language in the bill related to Outer Continental Shelf revenue sharing 
in Section 17501.
  I appreciate the Rules Committee making my amendment in order because 
this amendment will protect the coastline of New York and other 
Northeast States. I also thank my cosponsors, including Mr. Crowley, 
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Capuano, and Ms. Pingree.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the last 70 miles of eastern Long Island, 
where the primary industries are travel and tourism, everything to do 
with the second home market, agriculture, and the fishing industry. 
Thus, in my district, the environment is the economy in many respects. 
It can ill-afford a disaster like Gulf Coast States endured during the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Oil-soaked beaches would devastate 
Long Island's economy, let

[[Page 1651]]

alone the environment, and there is no reasonable person who can 
disagree with me on this point.
  The Republican drilling proposals to offset the highway bill would 
raise less than $4.3 billion over 10 years, according to CBO, or less 
than one-tenth of the revenue actually needed.
  Combine this with the other funding mechanisms for the highway bill, 
and Republicans are paying for their reckless legislation on the backs 
of middle class families. For example, the Republican spending package 
will require Federal employees to increase their pension contributions 
while reducing their benefits.
  Worse, as of this moment, they are using Federal employees' pension 
contributions to offset costs in two completely separate proposals: the 
highway bill and the payroll tax cut package for unemployment benefits 
and the doc fix.
  This isn't being honest with the American people. I would ask the 
Republican leadership to check their numbers again.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Outer Continental Shelf and the resources it 
contains are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and 
therefore it belongs to all of the people of the United States as a 
whole. These Federal offshore resources are unlike Federal lands and 
onshore resources outside the borders of the States. Each individual 
State controls several miles offshore of their coasts, and that varies 
State by State. But beyond that point, the Federal lands are owned by 
the Federal Government and its resources.
  This bill, underlying legislation, is a drill-smart plan that 
directly focuses on those offshore areas where there are known 
resources. Federal assessments estimate that the North Atlantic 
contains nearly two billion barrels of oil and nearly 18 trillion cubic 
feet of gas. Using modern technology, it's highly likely that the find 
could be even more than what is estimated.
  This amendment, then, would lock away those resources from the 
American people who, as I mentioned a moment ago, own them.
  Not too long ago, the entire OCS was under moratoria. Offshore 
drilling in this country was prohibited. When the gas skyrocketed past 
$4 a gallon in 2008, the American people collectively said, No more. 
The American people cried out and demanded that Congress act, and we 
did by lifting the moratoria.
  In fact, what the American people found out, Mr. Chairman, at that 
time is that we had tremendous potential resources here that we weren't 
utilizing. That's why they cried out and said, Okay. Let's end the 
several moratoria.
  Now, this amendment proposes to reverse the will of the American 
people, to ignore the high cost of gas at the pump, to ignore that 
prices are again climbing towards $4 a gallon, and to ignore that our 
Nation's security is strengthened when we get our energy from here in 
this Nation and not from hostile foreign nations.
  The American people want to increase American energy production and 
jobs, not stifle American energy production. Let's not forget that we 
are creating American oil and gas that can be refined and used here. 
Some of the States that want to shut down production off their coasts 
are the highest consumers of these fuels that they would have shut 
down.
  Additionally, this amendment completely eliminates all coastal States 
and U.S. territories from receiving a fair and equitable revenue for 
drilling that would occur off their shores. That means States like 
Florida and Virginia and others that would like to participate could 
not receive a portion of the revenues for drilling that would occur off 
their States under this bill.
  Finally, I would like to say this because we have had a long 
discussion today in debate, and I've heard my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle say, We love natural gas. I'm not sure if it was said 
with that same cadence, but the message was there.
  Listen, Mr. Chairman, nearly 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas 
lies off the Atlantic Coast. Can you imagine how much easier it is to 
get that to market than shipping it from someplace else?
  So I would urge rejection of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time I have left.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maine 
(Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Bishop, thank you for allowing me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any oil and gas drilling 
on the Outer Continental Shelf in the northeast, including my home 
State of Maine. An accident or a spill off our coast would be 
devastating to our working waterfronts. We don't have to look any 
further than the Deepwater Horizon disaster to see the damage an 
accident can do to a coastal economy. Not only that, but it would be 
decades before any oil that is discovered would ever make it to market, 
decades that should be spent researching and investing in new sources 
of clean energy and breaking our dependence on oil.
  The Republican proposals of this bill would not only carelessly 
expand the permitting for current gas and oil leases but also encourage 
expanded drilling.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense 
amendment and voting against this ill-conceived bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve 
the balance of my time since I have the right to close.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close as well, 
so I will yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would say to my friend from Washington that I would find his 
argument and I would find the statistics that he cited somewhat more 
persuasive if this Congress had enacted any reforms, any safeguards to 
protect our coastline from the kind of disaster that affected the 
Louisiana and the Florida coast in the wake of the BP oil spill.
  We have not put in place a single piece of legislation that would 
make offshore drilling safer. We have not put in place a single piece 
of legislation designed to prevent the kind of disaster that took place 
in the gulf. We are continuing to rely on the sort of slipshod 
environmental reviews that preceded the granting of leases in the gulf, 
and I think to expose certainly my region, Ms. Pingree's region, to the 
kind of disaster that the gulf was exposed to without putting in place 
those safeguards is simply unwise, not worth $4.3 billion to fund a 
bill that most of us feel is a very flawed bill to begin with.
  So I would urge adoption of my amendment. As I say, I would urge 
defeat of the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Two points, Mr. Chairman: first of all, the gentleman suggests that 
this Congress and this House, led by Republicans, have not done 
anything as far as safety offshore. I would just remind the gentleman 
that through the appropriations process there has been a tremendous 
increase in precisely what the Obama administration was asking for 
safety. The Obama administration has said essentially that it is safe, 
although I would argue they should be more aggressive; but they say 
it's safe to drill. So that argument I don't think really has a great 
deal of bearing.
  But more importantly, I would say this: the port of Boston has a 
liquid

[[Page 1652]]

natural gas terminal, and they are importing natural gas from Trinidad 
and Yemen, hardly a stable community or country in the Middle East. 
Right now, right off the coast of Nova Scotia, just north of this area 
that we're talking about, there is natural gas drilling going on.
  So certainly, if we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and 
foreign energy and we like natural gas, like a lot of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle have talked about, then we should reject this 
amendment and adopt the underlying bill.
  With that, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Mr. Bishop's 
amendment, of the Bishop/Crowley/Rangel/Pascrell/Pingree Amendment 
(#43) to strike sections of this bill that would open parts of the 
Atlantic coast, including the shores of my home state of New Jersey, to 
offshore drilling.
  Setting aside the precedent we are setting here by funding a 
transportation authorization with revenues from energy development 
instead of user fees, House Republicans have clearly failed to learn 
the lesson from the catastrophic economic and environmental 
consequences of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of 
Mexico. For one, this bill fails to introduce any comprehensive new 
safety standards, such as the commonsense steps recommended by the 
President's bipartisan Oil Spill Commission in the wake of the 
Deepwater Horizon spill.
  In light of that, I am especially concerned that this bill could 
result in new drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, including off of the 
shore of my home state of New Jersey. The people of New Jersey strongly 
oppose opening our shores to offshore drilling. A whopping 63% of New 
Jersey residents oppose oil and gas drilling off the coast of our state 
according to a 2010 Monmouth University poll, and through this 
legislation, the Tea Party wants to force the people of New Jersey to 
hand over our beaches to the oil companies.
  New Jerseyans oppose offshore drilling because they understand the 
potentially devastating effects it could have on our economy in the 
event of a spill. The tourism and fishing industries support hundreds 
of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity 
across the state and region. In fact, tourism is New Jersey's second 
largest industry, supporting jobs for over 500,000 people and 
generating over $50 billion in economic activity for the state each and 
every year. The people who make their livings in this industry depend 
on the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts for their 
livelihoods. Risky new drilling could put these jobs in jeopardy, 
potentially destroying more jobs than it would create.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is 
fully paid for, and reject opening the northeast to new offshore 
drilling. Instead, we should be supporting and encouraging alternative 
energy development off our shores, as I have tried to do by introducing 
H.R. 3238, the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act. New Jersey is 
primed to be a leader in the offshore wind industry, and this bill will 
create jobs and increase renewable domestic energy production in the 
Garden State.
  Instead, by continuing to invest in further digging and drilling for 
oil rather than searching for new sources of energy, as the bill in 
front of us proposes we do, we will only end up digging ourselves a 
deeper hole.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Richmond

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. RICHMOND. 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 952, beginning on line 17, strike ``Federal program'' 
     and insert ``Federal program, except in the case of a project 
     for coastal wetlands conservation, coastal restoration, or 
     hurricane protection, or an infrastructure project directly 
     impacted by coastal wetland losses''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment simply does is it 
allows those Gulf Coast States to invest their oil and gas into their 
States in terms of coastal restoration.
  I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Louisiana, since 1950, has 
contributed over $160 billion to the Federal Treasury; and, in return, 
Louisiana has received some of the same benefits as other States have 
received. However, one unique thing that we've received is a tattered 
coast line.
  Louisiana loses almost a football field an hour in terms of our 
wetland laws. What this amendment would do is allow us to take some of 
those revenues that we receive and invest that back into restoring our 
coast.
  I will tell you also, Mr. Chairman, that restoring Louisiana's coast 
is a very monumental task; and the people of Louisiana, the people of 
all of the gulf coast communities are willing to step up and take not 
only their own resources but resources they receive from the Federal 
Government in terms of any revenues or royalties they will receive and 
put those back into coastal restoration, making sure that we have 
wetlands.

                              {time}  1720

  Because when we talk about the damage that has been done to Louisiana 
by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, that event cost us 11 Louisiana 
citizens. Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike cost the gulf coast community 
the lives of almost 1,600 of its citizens. When we talk about our 
wetlands, that's our first line of defense in preventing the damage of 
a hurricane. So, while we are willing to sacrifice our coast and those 
things so that we can have a stable energy sector in this country, we 
also recognize that we should invest back in it to make sure the 
citizens are safe.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I claim time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The proposal of the gentleman from Louisiana has merit. I commend him 
for proposing it, and I do urge its adoption.
  The goal of revenue sharing in the bill is to allow States the 
flexibility to use the money they want with their local States. If this 
is what the gentleman's State wants to use its money for, I have no 
problem, and I certainly agree with him. In fact, I would emphasize one 
other point:
  Since I've had an opportunity to visit the gentleman's State and to 
see firsthand what it has done with the initiative, I think that it is 
a tremendous template for other States, which is precisely why, in the 
underlying bill, we have the component of revenue sharing. It is for 
other States to, maybe, emulate what Louisiana has always done.
  So I think the gentleman's amendment is certainly compatible with 
what we're trying to do. It is a good amendment, and I commend the 
gentleman for that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply close by thanking the 
gentleman and by saying that what the amendment does is really allow 
the gulf coast communities to invest in their own futures while 
continuing to invest in the energy future of America.
  Mr. Chair, Louisiana has contributed over $160 Billion to the Federal 
Government through offshore oil and gas revenues--primarily from oil 
and gas exploration off of Louisiana's coast. From the 1950s until 
2006, Louisiana didn't receive any royalties. We have received funding 
from the Federal government like other states, but our royalty over 
those 56 years was a tattered coastline.
  Louisiana loses 25 square miles of coastal wetlands every year or 1 
football field every

[[Page 1653]]

hour. Our state has 40 percent of the nation's wetlands, but 
experiences 80 percent of all wetland loss. Part of the reason is 
nature, but besides blocking off the natural flow of the Mississippi 
River, oil and gas canals are big culprits.
  The bill before us creates a revenue sharing scheme for east and west 
coast states but does not allow the states to use these royalties as 
matching funds for federal programs.
  I can tell you that right now, because gulf coast states are 
receiving a very small amount of money from oil and gas production off 
their shores, much of the time, the Gulf states use these funds as 
their required cost share of Corps of Engineers and Department of 
Interior projects for coastal restoration, hurricane protection, 
wildlife restoration, and other disaster mitigation projects.
  My amendment would give states the option to use oil and gas revenues 
as their state cost share of federal projects for ``coastal wetlands 
conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, or 
infrastructure projects directly impacted by coastal wetland losses.''
  I think that coastal states like California, Alaska and Virginia 
which are embarking on offshore energy production will want the 
flexibility to spend their revenues on projects that strengthen and 
protect their coastline. Without this amendment, revenues derived from 
offshore oil, gas and renewable energy could not be used for these 
critical projects.
  This amendment would help the coastal states help themselves without 
tapping into the Federal Treasury. We don't want to be dependent on 
Federal Fund. We want to invest in our own future while we protect 
America's energy future.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Landry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part A of House Report 112 398.
  Mr. LANDRY. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 952, line 19, strike section 17501(b) and 
     insert the following:
       (b) Limitation on Application.--Subsection (a) and the 
     amendment made by subsection (a) shall not affect the 
     application of section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 
     109-432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)), as in effect before the 
     enactment of this Act, with respect to revenues received by 
     the United States under oil and gas leases issued for tracts 
     located in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Areas, including such leases 
     issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer Continental Shelf 
     Revenues.--Section 105(f)(1) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 
     109-432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)) is amended by striking 
     ``2055'' and inserting ``2022, and shall not exceed 
     $750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2055''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Landry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment offered in 
cooperation with my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Cedric Richmond.
  As the gentleman said earlier, Louisianians invented offshore oil 
exploration, and it has been drilling off its coast ever since the mid-
1940s. Yet, for the first 60 years of drilling off the coast of 
Louisiana, our State and other Gulf Coast States had received no 
money--not a dime--from the revenue derived from these wells.
  Starting in 2007, Congress passed an act called the Gulf of Mexico 
Energy Security Act. This act provided that a small portion of offshore 
revenues would finally start to trickle in to our Gulf Coast States. 
Those of us in the Gulf Coast States will continue to receive a small 
portion of those revenues through 2017 when, at that time, we will 
start to receive the 37.5 percent of the offshore revenue of each of 
those wells producing at that time. However, in GOMESA, it included a 
cap so that, collectively, those four Gulf Coast States could never 
receive more than a collective amount of $500 million.
  As the current bill is now going to provide revenue sharing without a 
cap for additional States, we are simply asking for fundamental 
fairness here in that the cap of $500 million be raised to $750 
million. That's what this amendment does. This amendment simply raises 
the collective cap amongst those four States from $500 million to $750 
million, reminding everyone that there will be no cap on the additional 
States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. If this amendment passes, Mardi Gras will come on the 
Wednesday before Fat Tuesday this year. That's because the Landry 
amendment delivers up to $6 billion in a financial King Cake to 
Louisiana and to the other Gulf States at the expense of the other 46 
States in the Union.
  In 2006, the Republican Congress passed legislation that will divert 
$150 billion over the next 60 years from offshore drilling on public 
lands to the four Gulf Coast States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
and Texas. That bill set up what amounts to a new entitlement program 
for these four States, which will result in a massive transfer of 
wealth from the Federal Government. This amendment would send $6 
billion to these four States on top of that $150 billion they will 
already be getting.
  These oil and gas resources on public lands belong to all of the 
American people, not just to those of the adjacent States. They are 
public resources that belong as much to someone living in Kansas, 
Massachusetts, or Hawaii as they do to someone living in Louisiana or 
Texas. These are resources that should help every American, not just a 
select few. The revenue generated from these public resources goes to 
the Federal Treasury to help pay for Medicare and Medicaid. It helps to 
pay for our national defense. We can no longer afford to continue this 
diversion of taxpayer funds to these four States. We need this revenue 
to reduce our deficit and to get our fiscal house in order.
  I had offered an amendment that would have recovered the $150 billion 
we are going to be sending to these four States, which the majority did 
not make in order, and now this amendment would take us in the complete 
opposite direction.
  So I commend the gentleman from Louisiana. I can't blame him for 
trying to get even more Federal money directed to his home State under 
this program. Yet, if you come from one of the 46 States that is not--
and let me enumerate them again--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or 
Texas, you would have to be crazy to vote for this amendment, because 
they're going to take money away from your States, away from your 
Medicare beneficiaries, away from your contributions to the defense 
budget. It will be higher in all of those other States because this 
money is going to be sucked out of the Federal Treasury, as though 
through a straw, right into the States of Louisiana, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Texas. If you vote for this amendment, you are voting 
to send that money--$6 billion--directly from your State to the 
gentleman from Louisiana's State.
  I urge all members of the Louisiana delegation to vote against the 
Markey amendment, and I would give a similar recommendation to the 
other Members from the other three States. But if you don't come from 
one of those four States, why would you send $6 billion to those 
States, money which should be in the Federal Treasury, when it should 
be used for all of the citizens of our country?
  At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANDRY. How much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LANDRY. I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, the

[[Page 1654]]

underlying bill vastly expands the number of States that would be 
eligible for revenue sharing to far beyond those four States that the 
ranking member mentioned.
  But when our committee held a markup on this legislation 2 weeks ago, 
I pledged to work with the gentleman from Louisiana and Gulf Members to 
help bring parity to the differences between the existing revenue 
sharing currently enjoyed in the four Gulf States and all the other 
coastal States, which, up until this legislation today, as I mentioned, 
were not entitled to a share of the revenues from oil and gas 
production off their shores. Let me repeat that again. Under this 
legislation, more States will have an opportunity to share this.
  But this amendment seeks to bring existing revenue sharing in the 
Gulf more in line with the plan that was included in the underlying 
bill. And I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this amendment to 
the floor. I support it.
  Mr. LANDRY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Richmond).
  Mr. RICHMOND. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an understanding different from my good friend 
and colleague from Massachusetts. He is absolutely right when he says 
the resources are everyone's. The resources are everyone's. But the 
sacrifices that you make to get those resources come from those Gulf 
States. We lost 1,836 lives in Katrina. We lost 11 lives in the BP oil 
spill. We've lost 328 square miles of marsh. And in this bill, we give 
royalties to all the other States immediately.
  What we're asking from Louisiana is that, without a cap, is that in 
2023 when we start to give us the 37.5 percent. However, we're willing 
to cap it at $750 million as opposed to the unlimited amount that all 
the other States under this bill would do.
  And then I think in 2006, Congress recognized that the Gulf Coast 
States were bearing the brunt of our energy production in this country, 
the lands that we lose. We produce 90 percent of the Nation's offshore 
oil and gas. So that's a sacrifice that we make for people in Kansas, 
people in California to be able to turn on their lights in the 
afternoon or at nighttime.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to vote for the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I will just close with this: As the 
gentleman from Louisiana just indicated, 30 percent of all oil and gas 
produced in this country comes from Louisiana shores. A quarter of all 
the seafood is caught in Louisiana. In Louisiana, we have made it a 
constitutional amendment that any revenue we receive from the Federal 
Government or offshore royalties goes to coastal protection and the 
building of the coast that we are so rapidly losing. And again, this is 
not an amendment whereby we're asking for more of our share. We are 
simply asking to raise a cap when other States will have no cap. This 
is only fundamental fairness here, and I certainly would urge all 
Members to consider that and to please support this amendment when it 
comes to the floor.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part A of House Report 112-398.
  Mr. DEUTCH. 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 954, after line 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 17603. ESTIMATE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WORST-CASE 
                   DISCHARGE OF OIL.

       A person shall not be eligible for a lease issued under 
     this subtitle (including the amendments made by this 
     subtitle) unless the person includes in the application for 
     the lease an estimate of the economic impact, including job 
     losses, resulting from a worst-case discharge of oil from 
     facilities operated under the lease.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, nearly 2 years ago, an explosion on the BP 
Deepwater Horizon drilling vessel unleashed a steady gush of crude oil 
into the Gulf of Mexico that went unstopped for 3 full months. The 4.9 
million barrels of crude oil spewed into the gulf and jeopardized an 
ecosystem that is home to over 15,000 species and claimed the mantle as 
the worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history.
  Yet the BP Deepwater Horizon spill was also an economic disaster. 
And, Mr. Chairman, that is the issue addressed in the amendment I 
present to this body today. My amendment simply provides that no one 
shall be eligible for a lease issued unless there is, first, an 
estimate of the economic impact, including job losses resulting from a 
worst-case discharge of oil from facilities operated under that lease.
  Right now under current law and under this legislation, as drafted, 
companies applying for new oil drilling leases are not required to 
project the toll on local economies resulting from a worst-case 
scenario spill.
  In my home State of Florida and in other Gulf Coast States, like 
Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, the economic consequences were 
enormous. Forced closures of fishing areas led to shuttered businesses. 
Fewer tourists led to job losses. The powerful economic ripple effect 
was felt by millions of Americans in States whose coastal towns, 
cities, and businesses depend on the livelihood of tourism, fishing, 
restaurants, shrimping, and other industries.
  The bill before us today would open large areas of the Gulf of 
Mexico, the east and west coasts of the United States, and areas in 
Alaska to oil drilling. Opening these areas to drilling exposes the 
coastal communities and coastal States to significant economic impact 
and job losses should a large-scale oil spill like BP Deepwater Horizon 
occur.
  And while BP created a $20 billion recovery fund to assist 
communities devastated by this bill, litigation over the total cost of 
the disaster continues today. As BP seeks financial contributions from 
Deepwater Horizon contractors for payout of claims, estimates of the 
spill's total economic impact are upwards of $40 billion and more. The 
Federal Government has a real interest in ensuring that companies 
applying for new oil drilling leases are aware of and are prepared for 
the potential economic impact and job losses resulting from a worst-
case scenario spill. It only makes sense that these applications 
require an economic, in addition to the environmental, estimate of such 
disasters.
  My amendment, therefore, would require the person to include in their 
application this estimate of economic impact arising from a worst-case 
discharge of oil from the facilities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in safeguarding our economy from 
tragedies like the Deepwater Horizon spill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement have put forward significant regulatory measures governing 
offshore drilling. This is very important, Mr.

[[Page 1655]]

Chairman, because existing Federal regulations--specifically, 30 CFR 
254.26--already require a worst-case discharge scenario in all lease 
applications, which includes an evaluation of economic resources that 
may be impacted. So that's in the law already, Mr. Chairman.
  So I find it interesting that we have an amendment before us that we 
are debating on essentially legislation and regulatory issues that are 
already currently in place.
  Let me make another point to hopefully point out the disconnect of 
what we are talking about because one of the issues that we are talking 
about here is the creation of American energy, American jobs, American 
security, less dependence on foreign sources of our energy.
  This last January, for example, the State Department expelled the 
consul general of Venezuela in Miami for plotting a cyberattack on the 
U.S. Government. And yet here we are, debating an issue that could 
affect our getting to be less dependent on foreign energy sources and 
ignoring what is the obvious. We, obviously, ought to be trying to be 
less dependent on foreign oil, and yet that debate isn't even going on. 
We are talking about a debate on an amendment that is simply redundant 
of current law.
  I don't know why we are having this debate, but I think that the 
redundancy of it here--we always have a worst-case discharge scenario 
in current law. We simply don't need this.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington I respect a 
great deal, but to say this is redundant of current law is just 
incorrect. The gentleman knows, and in fact told us, that the 
requirement he referred to is in regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, for anyone who has watched what's gone on in this body, 
in this Congress, it has been this House of Representatives that has 
brought to the floor bill after bill after bill to give this Congress 
the ability to repeal regulations and to block regulations. I don't 
want to have to rely on what's in regulations. If we believe in 
American jobs, and the suggestion that somehow the American jobs in the 
energy industry are more important than the American jobs in the 
tourism industry and the shrimpers and the people in tourism who 
realize every day the opportunity to provide for their families because 
of the beautiful, pristine coastline that we have in Florida and 
because of all that surrounds the environment in the other States in 
the gulf, to suggest that those are somehow less important than energy 
jobs is inappropriate.
  But more than that, I don't want to have to rely on regulations, Mr. 
Chairman. If we are committed to ensuring that there is an analysis of 
what would happen in the worst case, then let's put it in the law. 
Let's put it in the statute. Let's not rely on the regulations that my 
friends so often blame on these bureaucrats for writing. Let's not rely 
on them. Here's an opportunity for us to stand together and not want to 
rely on regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join with me, as they've already 
acknowledged that this is an important issue, to not have to rely on 
regulations any longer. Let's make this a part of the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, since I have the right to 
close, I will reserve.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, there are lots of amendments that are 
controversial. Simply requiring that companies do what the regulations 
require them to do, which my colleague from Washington acknowledges 
that they are already required to do, but making it a part of the law 
instead of requiring regulations that may change from time to time is 
the appropriate step. I think we should all be in agreement on that, 
and I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, from time to time there shows, really, progress in the 
course of debate. The gentleman from Florida correctly pointed out that 
my side of the aisle has some real heartburn on a lot of regulations. 
I'll be the first to admit that. Apparently he does, too, by his 
acknowledgement that we have that acknowledgement, and he doesn't want 
to be governed by regulations. So I think we're making progress, at 
least in that way, and I congratulate him.
  But here's the point. On this specific issue, this Congress has 
responded, and to their credit, this administration has responded, not 
probably to the extent that I would like, seeing that the regulatory 
oversight on potential spills in the gulf or any place in the OCS will 
be responded to in a timely manner. That was done through the 
appropriation process by a Republican-led Congress. I congratulate the 
chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations for doing 
precisely that.
  But I will repeat again, in my view, in this particular case this 
amendment is redundant to what the law, through regulations, already 
is; and I would urge rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTCH. 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.


                    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 
112 398 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Eshoo of California.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mrs. Capps of California.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Bishop of New York.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Landry of Louisiana.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Deutch of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 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. 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 249, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 55]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio

[[Page 1656]]


     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     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)
     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)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     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
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     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
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonner
     Campbell
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Lewis (CA)
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1812

  Messrs. YOUNG of Indiana, GOHMERT, and GRIMM changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BLUMENAUER and OLVER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 55, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 254, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     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)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--254

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     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
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clarke (MI)
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck

[[Page 1657]]


     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     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 (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1817

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DICKS and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 3 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 276, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                               AYES--149

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     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
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     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
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--234

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1825

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


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Polis) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 265, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                               AYES--160

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen

[[Page 1658]]


     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--265

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     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
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     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
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     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
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brady (TX)
     Campbell
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1829

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


                 Amendment No. 7 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 267, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--160

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     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
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                               NOES--267

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     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
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     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
     Gingrey (GA)
     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
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline

[[Page 1659]]


     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     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
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1833

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


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Bishop) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 257, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--169

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     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)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Graves (GA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     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.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                               NOES--257

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     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)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Cleaver
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1837

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


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Landry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Landry) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266, 
noes 159, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               AYES--266

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann

[[Page 1660]]


     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--159

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gibson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Campbell
     Cleaver
     Gingrey (GA)
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1841

  Ms. EDWARDS and Mr. CARNEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Deutch) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               AYES--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     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
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     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)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez

[[Page 1661]]


     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     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
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Cleaver
     Himes
     Maloney
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Serrano
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 30 seconds remaining.

                              {time}  1845

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


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote numbers 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 56, 57, 
58, 59, 60, 61, and 63. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 
number 62.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cassidy) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, 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. 3408) to 
set clear rules for the development of United States oil shale 
resources, to promote shale technology research and development, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________