[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12024-12041]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL REPLACEMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ENERGY-RESTRICTING AND 
                  JOB-LIMITING OFFSHORE DRILLING PLAN


                             General Leave

  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. 6082.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 738 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. 6082.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1643


                     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. 6082) to officially replace, within the 60-day Congressional 
review period under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, President 
Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing 
Program (2012-2017) with a congressional plan that will conduct 
additional oil and natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy 
development, job creation, and increased domestic energy production to 
ensure a more secure energy future in the United States, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Dold in the chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read 
the first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, under the shadow of the Supreme Court's ruling on 
ObamaCare, the Obama administration on June 28 quietly announced the 
President's proposed final offshore drilling plan for 2012-2017.
  Despite claims of their being proud of their energy record, the Obama 
administration deliberately chose to announce their plan on a day when 
it would get buried in the ObamaCare news coverage. This shows that 
even this administration is not proud of their plan that would place 85 
percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to energy production.
  Under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act, when any 
President proposes a new 5-year offshore drilling plan, it must be 
submitted to Congress for a mandatory 60-day review before it can 
become final and take effect. That 60-day clock is now ticking. It's 
now Congress' responsibility to take action and to reject President 
Obama's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan and to replace it with a 
robust, responsible plan to safely develop our offshore energy 
resources.
  According to analysis conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Office, the President has proposed fewer leases in his plan 
than any President since this process began--that goes back to 
President Jimmy Carter, so it's even worse than President Carter.
  President Obama's proposal doesn't open up one new area for leasing 
and energy production. It would set our Nation's energy production back 
to the days before 2008 when two moratoria that prohibited drilling of 
a vast majority of American offshore areas were in place. Both 
moratoria were lifted after the summer of 2008 due to the outrage of 
the American people over the cost of $4-per-gallon gasoline, and

[[Page 12025]]

they demanded that the Federal Government take action. President Obama 
proposes to effectively reimpose that moratoria.
  From nearly the day he took the oath of office, this President has 
put the brakes on new American energy production and job creation. In 
the first weeks of this administration, the Interior Department took a 
nearly complete new offshore lease plan and put it on hold for 6 
months, and then they tossed out that draft plan entirely and started 
over. It took them over 3\1/2\ years to get a new proposed plan in 
place. And along the way, they delayed and canceled multiple lease 
sales.
  For example, President Obama canceled the Virginia lease sale 
scheduled for 2011 last year and now refuses to include Virginia in his 
2012-2017 plan. He is responsible for closing an entire new area of 
drilling and cheating the Commonwealth out of thousands of jobs and 
another industry. If President Obama has his way, Virginia will be left 
out in the cold in until 2017 at the earliest.
  The bill being considered today, H.R. 6082, is entitled the 
Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and 
Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. In stark contrast to President 
Obama's plan, this bill represents a drill-smart plan that includes 29 
lease sales and focuses energy production in specific areas containing 
America's greatest known oil and natural gas resources. What a novel 
idea: go to where the resources are.
  The bill would replace the lease sales scheduled in the President's 
proposed plan and safely open new areas that were previously under 
moratoria--such as the Mid-Atlantic, southern Pacific, and the Arctic. 
It does this while ensuring that necessary and required environmental 
reviews are conducted.
  The congressional replacement plan would generate $600 million in 
additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new American jobs.
  Tomorrow there will be a direct up-or-down vote on the President's 
proposed plan when we consider, under suspension, H.R. 6168. There will 
also, obviously, be a direct up-or-down vote on this legislation. So 
Members can decide if the President's plan meets the standards expected 
by the American people or if we should replace it with a real plan that 
creates jobs and grows our economy.
  The House has taken action to replace the President's proposed plan, 
and I call on the Senate to do the same. If the Senate does nothing and 
lets the 60-day clock run out, that is an endorsement of the 
President's plan. It is an endorsement of the plan that reimposes the 
drilling moratoria, creates no new jobs and no new energy.
  I believe that we can do better than this proposed plan, and our 
Nation deserves better. By passing this bill, we are standing up for 
American energy and American jobs and moving our country forward.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome everyone back to yet another 
episode of the GOP Wheel of Giveaway game show here. Every week on the 
floor of the House of Representatives, the majority picks an industry 
to benefit from giveaways of our public lands.

                              {time}  1650

  One month ago, the Republican majority voted to turn over nearly all 
of our onshore public lands to the oil and gas industry in just a few 
short years.
  Two weeks ago, the majority voted to eviscerate proper environmental 
review for massive gold and silver and uranium mines on public lands to 
benefit the mining industry. And here we are on the House floor once 
again debating a Republican bill from the Natural Resources Committee 
intended to hand out even more industry giveaways.
  Well, it actually gets hard to keep track of which industry is 
getting the GOP giveaway each week, so let's consult our chart--the GOP 
Wheel of Giveaways--so that we can make sure that everyone at home can 
follow along to see whether it will be the oil, the gas, the mining, or 
the timber industries that will be the big winner in the giveaway of 
our public lands this week.
  Of course, we all know that it won't be the solar or the wind 
industries benefiting from the Republicans because in the Republican 
``oil above all'' game, if you land on renewable energy, you lose a 
turn. So which industry is getting the giveaway this week? We are back 
on the ``even more oil'' on the House floor today, even more oil 
giveaways.
  H.R. 6082 would place drill rigs right off our beaches in southern 
California, off our beaches in Maine, in New Hampshire, in 
Massachusetts, in Rhode Island, in Connecticut, in New York, in New 
Jersey--just put the drills right out there, right off the Maryland 
coast. And by the way, there will be millions of people, of course, out 
on those beaches saying get those oil rigs off the beaches, off the 
places where people go and have a good time during the summer, where 
the fishing industry is.
  My amendment will say, and by the way, if you do find any oil and gas 
out there, at least let's keep the oil and gas here in the United 
States. Let's not run the risk of spoiling the natural resources of our 
country--the beaches, the fishing areas--finding natural gas and then 
ship it to other countries; at least let's keep it here. And the 
Republicans are going to oppose keeping the natural gas that they would 
find off these beaches in California and Maine and Massachusetts and 
New Jersey and send it to other countries.
  This is truly the ``even more oil'' Republican Party. Whatever 
ExxonMobile wants, whatever Shell wants, whatever BP wants, we'll do 
it, even if we know millions of people will just be protesting right 
from the very beginning--and by the way, without passing one of the 
reforms from the BP spill commission to make sure that the drilling 
occurs in a safe fashion.
  They still, in 2 years, have yet to bring out one single safety 
reform that would implement safeguards to protect against the 
repetition of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. So the natural gas 
that's found can go overseas. It will be done in a risky fashion 
because they refuse to learn the lessons of BP in the Gulf of Mexico, 
and they've included no new safety measures. That's what ExxonMobil 
wants, that's what BP wants, so it's out here on the House floor to be 
voted upon, by the way, over the vigorous objection of this Democrat 
and Democrats all across the country.
  This Congress, the Republican majority, has reported 11 drilling 
bills out of the Natural Resources Committee. Those 11 bills have been 
combined and brought to the House floor and this is now the sixth 
massive passage of giveaways to Big Oil that we have considered. Two of 
those bills were largely similar to the legislation we are considering 
today to dramatically expand offshore drilling without putting any new 
safety measures in place.
  All of the previous drilling bills have suffered from the same fate. 
They were all far too extreme to pass the Senate and not a single one 
of them has been signed into law. Well, let me let everyone in on a 
little secret: this bill is also not becoming law. Like the bills 
before it, it can't pass the Senate, and the administration has already 
said that the President would veto this bill.
  But that reality hasn't stopped the Republican House from passing 
giveaways to the oil and gas industry over and over again. The reason 
they keep passing them is the same reason when you go to a movie and 
you see previews of coming attractions. What they're saying here is 
we're passing, that is, Republicans are passing, all of this 
legislation for the oil companies to drill off our beaches for the big 
oil companies. And if just somehow or other Mitt Romney becomes 
President and the Republicans take over the Senate, this will become 
the law of the Nation. So they see this as a preview of coming 
attractions, and they want the public to know that that will happen.
  They want to run this year on this premise, and I think that's great. 
It's a very honest way of dealing with something that will horrify 
people who live all along the coastlines in these States that would run 
the risk of having damage done to their beaches.

[[Page 12026]]

  When you include all of the bills that have been reported by all of 
the committees altogether, this Republican House has already cast 139 
votes--139 votes--on the House floor this Congress to benefit the oil 
and gas industry.
  We are going to pass 90 hours of debate on the floor on oil and gas 
legislation this Congress just today. What a streak. When most people 
think of the great records of American history, they might think of Joe 
DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, or Cal Ripkin's 2,362 consecutive 
games, or maybe Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points in a basketball 
game, or Ted Williams hitting .406 in 1941.
  But when all is said and done, the record of this Republican Congress 
voting to benefit Big Oil might be just as untouchable a record. With 
already 139 votes and nearly 90 hours of debate on these giveaways to 
the oil industry on the House floor, this is a once-in-a-generation 
performance by this Republican Congress. It may stand as a record that 
can never be broken by any other Congress in terms of the number of 
giveaways to the oil and gas industry.
  Whether it's voting 33 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or 
voting again and again for more and more drilling, under the GOP, this 
isn't the House of Representatives, it's the House of Repetition. 
President Truman dubbed the 80th Congress the ``do nothing'' Congress. 
Well, this is apparently the ``do the same thing over and over and over 
again'' Congress.
  The Republican majority has already cast 139 votes to aid the oil and 
gas industry. How many votes have they cast to benefit the wind and the 
solar industry? Ah, there's a good question. Well, the answer is zero--
139 for oil and gas, zero for the wind and solar industry. Is that all 
you really need to know about what's going on here in Congress?
  Can you imagine the millennials out there listening to this debate 
saying zero for wind and solar? Zero for the future? Zero for making 
our country more of the clean energy leader of the world, of reducing 
greenhouse gases, of creating jobs in these industries? Zero for wind 
and solar?
  The wind tax breaks, by the way, are expiring this year. Do not 
expect that to come out on the House floor as a vote that the 
Republicans say we must extend. But tax breaks for oil companies, extra 
drilling privileges off our beaches for the oil and gas companies? Oh, 
yeah, plenty of votes for that.
  While we have been spending 90 hours debating legislation to help Big 
Oil, recently the majority wouldn't even allow a debate on the floor on 
an amendment to create a renewable electricity standard for our Nation 
because the Republican energy policy isn't ``all of the above.'' It is 
``oil above all.'' And that's what we're going to be debating for the 
rest of the day out here on the House floor--sad to say for the future 
of renewable energy for our country.
  At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Before I yield to the gentleman from 
Colorado, I'll yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to my good 
friend from Massachusetts that in response to his answer on how many 
bills this House has addressed on renewables, the gentleman said zero, 
and that is incorrect.

                              {time}  1700

  There have been multiple bills and parts of bills dealing with the 
process of putting wind and solar in place, specifically on public 
lands, so I just wanted to correct the gentleman in that regard.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today is very 
simple. Republicans are taking a proactive step to secure a more stable 
energy future for our country.
  Just last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service 
published a report confirming what you can see on this chart, that 
President Obama's plan for offshore drilling offers the lowest number 
of lease sales in the history of our Outer Continental Shelf program.
  There, on the left, my left, ``15'' is the number you see in red. 
Going back to 1980, when President Jimmy Carter was in office, he had 
36 lease sales in his proposed 5-year plan. And you can see intervening 
5-year plans since 1980 until today.
  This is the fewest ever. Even this number is generous, because we're 
operating under the assumption that the administration will actually 
follow through on doing all of these 15 lease sales. This is not a sure 
bet, when you consider that since the President was elected, he has 
cancelled more lease sales than he has held.
  Let me repeat that. This President, in 3\1/2\ years, has cancelled 
more lease sales than have been held.
  Now, the administration proposes a new leasing plan that offers for 
sale the fewest leasing sales ever and locks away 85 percent of our 
Outer Continental Shelf from any development.
  Why would the President propose the fewest number of lease sales 
ever? Is it because we've solved our dependency on foreign oil? No. We 
import 5 million barrels a day.
  Is it because we've developed all of our domestic resources so 
there's nothing left to develop? No. The President's plan leaves tens 
of billions of barrels of oil off limits and trillions of cubic feet of 
natural gas untapped, unused, and unavailable for the American 
consumer.
  The President says over and over that he supports U.S. energy 
development, then we see that, at every opportunity, he makes the 
choice to prevent efficient energy development from happening.
  We must do more for the American people in generating more energy for 
lower prices and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. This bill does 
exactly that.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. Vote for 
American energy and American jobs. Let's replace the President's do 
nothing plan with a plan that moves America forward.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I would like to address a point that the chairman made as he 
attempted to correct Mr. Markey and said that there have been a number 
of wind energy bills considered. I think we would gladly count those 
votes in the column of gutting the national environmental protection 
act, but wind, no. The wind industry did not support any of those bills 
that he was talking about or amendments. They are not wind legislation. 
They are environmental spoilage legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill would allow drilling off the coast 
of every State in the east coast, from Maine to South Carolina, and off 
of California and in Bristol Bay, off of Alaska, which is, I might add, 
one of our Nation's most important salmon fisheries. By reviving long 
dead lease sales in these fishery areas, they would be reviving sales 
that the Bush administration issued just 4 days before they left 
office.
  Now, it's interesting that tomorrow we will consider Republican 
legislation on this floor that is intended to prohibit midnight 
regulations, yet, today, we have a midnight drilling lease sale. They 
are, in effect, trying to reinstate the Bush administration's midnight 
offshore leasing plan. So I just want my colleagues on the other side 
to know that tomorrow, when we are talking about midnight regulations, 
that they were actually talking about it a day in advance.
  The other side has also made the point that the administration's 
offshore drilling plan would reinstate a moratorium. Quite the 
opposite. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration's offshore drilling 
plan already, now, makes more than 75 percent of our oil and gas 
resources available for drilling. They are not doing what the 
Republicans are saying they are doing.
  Two months ago, industry analysts were projecting that, by the end of 
this year, we would have 50 percent more floating rigs operating in the 
gulf than before the BP spill. It turns out they were wrong. Not by the 
end of this year. It's already happened. We have about 50 percent more 
rigs operating in

[[Page 12027]]

the gulf today. We have more rigs operating in the United States than 
in the rest of the world combined.
  And they're saying the President is trying to kill the oil industry.
  H.R. 6082 ignores the fact that President Obama's all-of-the-above 
energy strategy has successfully reduced our dependence on foreign oil 
from 57 percent in the last year of the Bush administration to only 45 
percent today. It ignores the fact that our oil production is at an 18-
year high.
  It does raise the question of why we have this legislation in front 
of us at all if not to maybe embarrass the President. But, no, the 
President will not be embarrassed by the facts, and I hope we will deal 
with the facts here.
  This legislation is unnecessary and unwise--unnecessary because the 
drilling is taking place, and unwise because the other side wants to 
strike all of the environmental protections that, rather than weakened, 
should be strengthened.
  Later we will be considering an amendment that I will offer to strike 
the language from the underlying bill that requires the Department of 
the Interior to conduct a single multisale environmental impact 
statement for all new areas opened for drilling.
  You may recall, Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that this 
legislation talks about drilling from Maine to South Carolina, off 
California and in Alaska. And they propose to say a single 
environmental impact statement will deal with that? Well, that's like 
the environmental impact statement that applied to the BP drilling in 
the gulf that talked about walruses. Yes, because they were using the 
same environmental impact statement that they had used in Alaska 
previously.
  No, the protection of the environment requires a little more 
attention than that. Congress has a responsibility to the American 
people to ensure that offshore oil and gas drilling is occurring in a 
safe and environmentally responsible manner.
  Also, later, we will be considering an amendment that I will offer 
that has to do with the royalties that will be collected--or should be 
collected--from offshore drilling.
  The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last 
year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize 
on the pain of Americans at the pump, raking in $368 million in profits 
per day. And this legislation that is brought to the floor by the 
Republicans here wants to allow them to drill in many places without 
paying any royalties, without paying a fee to the taxpayers for the oil 
that the taxpayers own.

                              {time}  1710

  Right now, more than 25 percent of all oil produced offshore on 
Federal lands is produced without paying a penny of royalty. That 
should be changed.
  My constituents--and I think the constituents of any Member of this 
House--would say it's only fair that these oil companies pay for what 
they use.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, a member of the Natural 
Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman, Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank the committee chairman for allowing me 
to speak.
  First, I would like to agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He 
is absolutely correct that oil production has increased in recent years 
and that our dependence on oil has actually decreased over the same 
period of time.
  But why? Because of the private sector.
  The private sector industry has been out there and has been drilling 
in new areas like North Dakota and in my own home State of Louisiana. 
It's the private sector that's driving this. It's producing more oil 
than we ever have, and there is much more that we can have.
  On the other hand, on public lands, which have been under the control 
of the President, we have seen a reduction of 15 percent. So there is 
no way in the world we could give our President, President Obama, 
credit for that unless, of course, we said, Well, indeed, the private 
sector didn't build it--he did. But I really don't think that's the 
case.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 6082.
  What we are seeing in President Obama's lease plan is a study in 
contrasts. When demand for energy was up and prices were spiking in 
2008, the Bush administration opened more areas for drilling. That's 
just commonsense economics. Here we are 4 years later with high energy 
prices again, and this President's solution is to propose a plan that 
opens no new areas of drilling.
  The Obama administration pounced on the BP spill 2 years ago to 
ratchet down our Nation's ability to drill for oil, and then it dragged 
its feet in issuing new drilling permits. All the while, taxpayer 
dollars were being thrown at failed wind and solar energy projects like 
Solyndra and many others too numerous to name today.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 
minute.
  Mr. FLEMING. This legislation is smart policy and is a return to 
common sense. Our country needs energy, and it needs jobs. The 
President's plan doesn't help, but H.R. 6082 does. It will open areas 
for drilling that never should have been closed off, and that will lead 
to more jobs and more cost-effective energy for Americans.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, in 1969, many in America encountered the phrase 
``oil spill'' for the first time. Off the coast of Santa Barbara, 
California, there was what has now become the granddaddy of oil spills.
  Currently representing that area and those beaches is our good 
colleague. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are, voting once again to mandate new offshore 
drilling in areas where it simply isn't wanted. And just like before, 
this proposal simply ignores the facts, the facts stated by my 
colleague from New Jersey: the fact that we already make more than 75 
percent of the offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling; 
the fact that domestic oil production is at an 18-year high; and the 
fact that we have more rigs that are drilling in the United States than 
in the rest of the world combined.
  Instead of addressing the real issues in offshore drilling, like the 
need to adopt the safety recommendations of the nonpartisan oil spill 
commission, this bill seeks to compound the problems by mandating new 
drilling all over the place.
  H.R. 6082 also cavalierly dismisses the legitimate concerns raised by 
the people most affected by this mandated new drilling idea--my 
constituents. After nearly 100 years of drilling off my coastline, 
Californians have spoken loud and clear: we've had enough. In fact, a 
2010 proposal to allow slant drilling from the shores of a coastal town 
in my district was opposed by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of 
the voters.
  To protect communities now at risk under this bill, I offered an 
amendment that would have stopped the mandated new lease sales off 
southern California--off my district--but the majority refused to allow 
a debate on this amendment. In addition, this new mandated drilling 
would happen on platforms that have been in the Santa Barbara Channel 
since the Everly Brothers were topping the music charts over 50 years 
ago. It's not a good idea to use these old rigs for expanded drilling--
20 of them--including platform A, as my colleague referenced, which was 
the very culprit of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.
  I offered an amendment to require the Interior Department to certify 
these platforms were actually capable of handling new drilling before 
it could start; but thanks to the Rules Committee, we won't be debating 
that issue either.
  What is also true is that the Pentagon doesn't support new drilling 
off

[[Page 12028]]

its base on the central coast. The Pentagon told ExxonMobil that the 
company's proposed drilling plan at Vandenberg Air Force Base would 
``present a wide range of significant operational constraints.'' That's 
why I offered an amendment to protect the national space launch mission 
at Vandenberg Air Force Base; but again, the House won't be able to 
debate that issue, and the concerns of the Air Force are left 
unaddressed.
  Mr. Chairman, it's clear that H.R. 6082 is not a well-thought out 
proposal. It's another heavy-handed, know-it-all approach from 
Washington, D.C.--rubber-stamping destructive drilling, cutting out 
environmental reviews, limiting public input. That might be good policy 
for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's 
bad energy policy for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
reckless offshore drilling bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee and a 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. As I listened to my colleague from Santa Barbara, I 
was reflecting on the fact that, during that same period, I represented 
the same area of Santa Barbara. I was in the State senate for 8 years. 
So I would remind the gentlelady that less than 4 years ago the Santa 
Barbara County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution asking for more 
offshore development of the Santa Barbara area, so dependent is the 
region's economy on that enterprise.
  Mr. Chairman, that speaks volumes, I think, about where the American 
people stand today as well.
  America's energy crisis is not because of any shortage of American 
energy. Our Nation is blessed with vast reserves of petroleum, natural 
gas, coal, hydroelectricity, and uranium that dwarf those of any other 
nation, and they should make us the most prosperous and energy-
independent Nation in the world.
  The real energy crisis is here in Washington--some would say right 
here in this Chamber--where our government, in thrall to the green 
left, continues to thwart the development of American resources.
  We have seen this policy time and time again as the President has 
blocked the Keystone pipeline, waged war on coal, and thwarted offshore 
exploration and development, which is a problem that this bill now 
addresses. To add hypocrisy to injury, while blocking American 
petroleum development, many of these politicians exhort the Saudis and 
Brazilians to increase their production.
  Enough is enough. Our Nation is at a crossroads. We can choose either 
a future of government-created energy shortages or a future of jobs, 
prosperity and abundance produced by American enterprise. That is the 
issue before us today, and that is one of the issues that will be 
before the American people in November.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is a new member of the 
committee, but who is one of the most energetic and informed members of 
the committee and passionate about preserving a healthful environment.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, here we go again.
  It isn't enough that the Obama administration's offshore drilling 
plan makes more than 75 percent of our oil and natural gas resources 
available for drilling; but the majority is not going to be happy until 
we have turned over every square foot of our public lands and our 
coastline to the oil and gas companies.
  H.R. 6082 abandons any pretense to the support of states' rights by 
mandating lease sales for the east coast and southern California--the 
coastlines of States that are on record as opposing oil and gas 
drilling along their coasts.

                              {time}  1720

  Too bad New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. If your 
citizens want to prioritize the tourism, recreation, and fishing 
industries, Big Oil wants to move in, and H.R. 6028 gives them the 
authority to do so. H.R. 6082 requires no public comment or 
consultation with the States. Apparently, those steps, steps followed 
by the administration in putting together their plan, are too time 
consuming. Besides, they may result in opposition to this ill-conceived 
drilling plan.
  On the same day that the United States Chemical Safety Board has 
released its report on the Deepwater Horizon accident with the finding 
that safety lessons were not learned from the 2005 refinery accident, 
we're moving a bill that does nothing to improve the safety of offshore 
drilling for either the people who work on these rigs or for the many 
citizens and businesses whose coastal access, enjoyment, or livelihood 
would be lost if there were an oil spill.
  Thankfully, this bill will go no further than this House, at least in 
this Congress. If it passed the other body, the President has already 
issued a veto threat. Why are we doing this? One can only speculate.
  I'm disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make my amendment 
in order. It would have required oil and gas companies that are awarded 
leases to disclose their Federal campaign donations to candidates and 
super PACs.
  We are in real danger of losing our democracy. Free speech should not 
cost millions of dollars, and corporations are not people. Sunshine is 
the best anecdote to this particular brand of poison. The public should 
know who is funding issue ads and other campaign-focused activities, 
especially when those funds come from corporations that profit from 
public resources.
  The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case unleashed a 
tidal wave of anonymous campaign donations. There are now over 600 
super PACs poised to spend at least the $221 million that they have 
collected so far to dominate the airwaves with advertisements of the 
political viewpoints of corporations and wealthy individuals. According 
to a Bloomberg news article published earlier this year, Americans for 
Prosperity, an organization backed by oil interests, paid over $12 
million for ads attacking the Obama administration's green energy 
policies.
  The public has a right to know how profits made through exploitation 
of public resources of our land and our coastlines are being used to 
influence elections. My amendment would have provided the public with 
some of that information.
  H.R. 6082 will not make us energy independent. It will not make us 
more energy efficient. It will not lower fuel prices. Energy efficiency 
and investment in our new energy resources are the real way to kick our 
oil habit.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 6082.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, before the gentleman begins, may I ask the time 
remaining on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 17\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I give thanks to the 
Natural Resources Committee for their hard work on this issue.
  As my good friend, Jeff Landry, the Congressman from Louisiana 
reminds us, drilling equals jobs. And Republicans have a plan for job 
creation in America, and it begins not with a government takeover of 
our health care industry like the Democrats thought would create jobs. 
It begins with America pursuing energy independence, utilizing the 
resources that we are blessed with in this country, primarily right now 
in the offshore areas. We do this by expanding the areas of our Outer 
Continental Shelf that are included in our Nation's plan for 
exploration over the next 5 years. It seems simple to the average 
American, and that's what frustrates them so much, that we would refuse 
to at least explore our reserves and meet our energy needs in this 
country.

[[Page 12029]]

  With a 9.4 percent unemployment rate in South Carolina, South 
Carolina understands that drilling equals jobs. Jobs we want, and that 
is why the Palmetto State offshore area is included in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
American Jobs and Energy initiative by passing H.R. 6082.
  Mr. HOLT. At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who, on the Appropriations 
Committee and Interior Appropriations, is a champion for the 
environment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from New 
Jersey for yielding to me.
  I have a few facts that we need to put on the table here:
  One, this bill isn't going anywhere. It's not going to be accepted by 
the Senate, let alone be enacted by the President;
  Secondly, we could create more jobs and a more sustainable future if 
we dropped the subsidies for oil and gas and we redirected them into 
wind and solar power;
  Thirdly, this will have no impact upon the world oil price.
  The fact is that we have a good deal of experience that shows that no 
matter how much production comes out of the United States, it, at best, 
has a negligible impact upon what consumers pay at the gas pump. Let me 
introduce some numbers to that effect to prove the point.
  We currently consume about 18.8 million barrels of oil a day, and we 
produce about 5.4 million. Despite the concerted efforts of former 
oilmen President Bush and Vice President Cheney and a Congress that 
embraced the ``drill, baby, drill'' mantra, total oil production 
actually dropped from 2.118 billion barrels in 2001, when President 
Bush and Vice President Cheney came into office, to 1.812 billion 
barrels in 2008, when they left office. Under the friendliest, most 
pro-oil administration, U.S. production declined, despite technological 
advances in drilling and despite the lifting of previously restricted 
areas to drilling on land and at sea.
  Ironically, oil production today, under the Obama administration, is 
higher than at any time during the last 14 years. I'll mention that 
once again. Oil production today is higher, under the Obama 
administration, than at any time during the last 14 years.
  Onshore, oil companies hold leases on more than 73 million acres of 
the public's land; offshore, more than 37 million acres of the Outer 
Continental Shelf have been offered for lease since 2012.
  More of the public's lands and waters are available and have been 
leased for drilling than at any previous time in U.S. history. It's 
worth repeating. More of the public's lands and waters are available 
today and have been leased for drilling than at any previous time in 
U.S. history.
  As of June 1 of this year, there were 1,980 rotary drilling rigs 
operating on U.S. lands and waters, more than all other countries 
combined.
  But all this activity has had no impact on prices. The fact is we 
have 36 years of data to show that it will have no impact on the price 
of oil.
  Why are we doing this? That's the real question that needs to be 
answered. The Associated Press undertook a statistical analysis of 36 
years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic 
oil production. The study found that there was no statistical 
correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price 
at the pump.
  U.S. oil production this past spring has been steady, yet the price 
of regular gasoline has fluctuated by more than 50 cents a gallon over 
a three month period.
  The price spike this past spring can no more be attributed to 
President Obama and the false claim that he is failing to drill more 
than he can be credited with the recent drop in the gasoline prices.
  This bill moves us in exactly the opposite direction of what the 
bipartisan National Oil Spill Commission recommended: that current 
environmental reviews be more thorough and that oil spill response 
plans cover all contingencies.
  It did not call for an arbitrary mandate to open all areas offshore 
on an unrealistic timetable, and it did not recommend drilling 
applicants be granted fast track approval.
  This bill dismisses the work of the commission and pretends the 
trauma we all experienced in 2010, watching day-after-day and month-
after-month, as more than 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the 
Gulf didn't happen.
  It pretends the suffering and economic losses thousands of residents 
and local Gulf businesses experienced didn't happen.
  This bill returns to the lax regulatory climate that existed before 
the disaster. It should be defeated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  It was just last month that the administration announced its proposed 
final lease plan for developing the U.S. offshore energy resources for 
the next 5 years, 2012-2017. There was a lot of anticipation about 
this. We thought that finally the administration would hear the calls 
that have come from this House saying we need to increase our American 
energy supply and we need to create jobs, but we were disappointed. Our 
calls for relief obviously fell on deaf ears.
  Instead of opening up 98 percent of the U.S. offshore, which is 
currently unleased for energy exploration, the President's plan will 
make the situation worse by closing 85 percent of our offshore areas to 
energy production. I think that's significant.
  You have to ask the question: What do you really want? If you want 
energy independence, open it up. Let's explore for these sources.

                              {time}  1730

  To put that into context, I think what we need to do is look at this 
President's plan and compare it to previous Presidents. And, Mr. 
Chairman, what we find is that this President's plan offers fewer 
offshore drilling leases than former President Jimmy Carter had 
offered. The President's plan also ignores the economic struggles that 
are facing our country, and it really does not move us toward energy 
independence.
  What it does do is it moves us a step backwards. We are heading in 
the wrong direction on this issue, and it reimposes a drilling 
moratorium that had been lifted in 2008, a moratorium that the gulf 
coast still has not recovered from. And I think that we need to look at 
that and consider those jobs in our coastal regions.
  In stark contrast to the President's plan, H.R. 6082 proposes a drill 
smart job creation plan that expands offshore drilling and opens new 
areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this plan.
  Mr. HOLT. May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chair?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 minutes. The 
gentleman from Washington has 14 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6082 which I 
believe is a commonsense approach to energy production and jobs in 
south Louisiana and for our Nation.
  I continue to be disappointed. The President states we must have ``an 
all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every 
source of American-made energy,'' but at the same time, he fails to 
understand the need to develop resources now for future energy 
production.
  South Louisiana has tens of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas 
industry. This administration's hostility to responsible, safe American 
energy production by closing 85 percent--85 percent--of our offshore 
areas to energy production and issuing burdensome and duplicative 
regulations stalls our languishing economy and hurts job growth.
  I rise in support of H.R. 6082 because it's a rational and 
responsible plan.

[[Page 12030]]

Not only will this bill generate a robust drilling plan, creating 
thousands of new jobs, helping to lower the price at the pump, improve 
American energy security, and strengthen our national and economic 
security, but it requires separate environmental reviews for each 
specific lease sale. This is good policy.
  Passage of this legislation sends a crystal clear message to the 
administration: a do-nothing energy plan is simply unacceptable.
  I look over at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I 
would urge the President as well to take a look at that plaque up there 
near the ceiling above the Speaker's Chair--read it--from Daniel 
Webster. It says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land.''
  Passage of this bill gets us on to a good start of developing the 
resources of our land, which include good, high-paying American jobs.
  Mr. HOLT. I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) who represents one of the areas that would 
be affected by offshore drilling, should this go forward.
  Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  I don't have a lot of time to watch television these days. But I 
think most of us have seen on television a commercial comes up time and 
time again. It's a commercial with beautiful coastal scenes in it, 
telling people, Come to Louisiana, Come to Mississippi, Come to 
Florida, Come to the coast. And I looked at that. And I said, That's 
great marketing. At the end of the commercial, I was surprised to see 
it was sponsored by BP. Now why was that sponsored by BP? It was 
sponsored by BP because of Deepwater Horizon and the damage that that 
did.
  And this bill is just another attempt at giving Big Oil a handout, 
putting oil companies and their profits above both the American 
taxpayers and American treasures.
  Now my district includes the south shore of Massachusetts, the Cape, 
the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and the south coast. 
We're a maritime community, one that respects the ocean and one that 
has prospered from its resources.
  This bill would threaten our shores, our marine life, and the 
industries that rely upon them by opening up the waters of the east 
coast from Maine to South Carolina for quote-unquote ``required oil and 
gases.''
  Now I ask my colleagues, is this necessary? Why put hundreds of miles 
of ocean waters and the livelihoods of our fishing and tourism 
industries at risk when our Nation's oil imports are already down to 
their lowest level in nearly two decades, and production is up?
  Now in the spirit of compromise, I would like to offer a suggestion 
that will help the oil companies increase their profits. And that would 
be this: Let's defeat this bill, and the oil companies won't have to 
spend all that money paying for TV commercials to lure people to areas 
that are our Nation's treasures because they've been damaged.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from a coastal State, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of 
President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling 
Plan.
  The President's lease plan for offshore energy resources is 
unacceptable. It would close 85 percent of our offshore areas to energy 
production and recovery. Just like the Keystone pipeline, this is just 
another example of an administration beholden to a radical 
environmental agenda.
  We must be about safely and responsibly recovering American energy. 
We have available energy under our feet and off our shores. This plan 
does that by expanding offshore drilling into new areas, areas that 
contain the most oil and natural gas resources.
  Our economy is still struggling. People are still looking for work. 
And this bill would generate $600 million in government revenue and at 
the same time, put tens of thousands of Americans back to work.
  It's time that we choose jobs and energy security over left-wing 
ideology.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am the final speaker on our side. If the 
gentleman from Washington State is ready to conclude debate, so are we 
in the minority.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would tell my friend from 
Massachusetts, I have one other request for time and then myself to 
close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Then, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise today on behalf of the people of Virginia's Fifth District. As 
I visit with central and southside Virginians across my district, they 
all echo the same sentiment: The burdens caused by high fuel prices in 
this stalled economy are negatively impacting their lives.
  This issue particularly resonates in the Commonwealth because just 
last month, the administration announced that its 5-year energy plan 
will exclude resources off of the coast of Virginia. This announcement 
comes as a shock to the people that I represent. At a time when the 
Fifth District is suffering from 3 years of high unemployment, now the 
administration has said it will put thousands more Virginia jobs on 
hold. It also shocks us because it shows just how out of touch 
Washington is when it comes to the devastation that high fuel prices 
are causing at home.
  Energy prices may have subsided for now, but now is the time to act. 
I am proud to support this legislation which replaces the 
administration's unreasonable and irresponsible energy policy. I 
believe that this legislation will bring jobs to Virginia, help keep 
fuel prices low, and move our country forward to spur economic growth 
in central and southside Virginia.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is a very simple debate to understand. The Republicans want to 
authorize drilling for oil and gas off of the coastlines of southern 
California, Maine and New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 
New York, Maryland, and New Jersey. Those States do not want that. They 
long ago decided the risks were too great for their beaches and for 
their fishing industries. They do not want it.
  But it also is in the context of this Republican aversion, this 
Republican opposition to wind and solar and other renewables receiving 
the same attention as oil and natural gas does. And the important thing 
about wind and solar is that they would be domestically produced 100 
percent. The same is true, by the way, you would think, for natural 
gas. Let's just say they find some off the coast of Massachusetts or 
off the coast of New Jersey; that would be great. But what the 
Republicans refuse to agree to is that that natural gas, after we've 
drilled off of our beaches, cannot be exported to other countries. And 
the reason that's important is we could use that natural gas and 
substitute it for the oil that we import from the Persian Gulf, but 
they won't agree to do that.
  So the one thing that definitely has to be produced here is wind and 
solar because it has to be domestic. Natural gas, though, you can put 
it in a ship and you can send it around the world. You can freeze it 
like liquefied natural gas. And they won't agree not to do that as part 
of this package of running the risk of fouling the beaches of the east 
coast and the west coast.
  There is just something fundamentally wrong with this; nothing for 
wind and solar, everything for the oil industry, including their 
discretion to then take the oil and gas that's discovered off our 
beaches and selling it overseas.
  So this is just wrong on so many levels in terms of what we should be 
doing to protect our own country, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?

[[Page 12031]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 9\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say why we are here today. We are here 
today because the President submitted his plan. It was late. His 5-year 
plan is supposed to go through a 60-day review here in the Congress. We 
are here to offer an alternative to that plan because that plan locks 
up 85 percent of the potential resources in this country. We offer this 
plan because we have heard loud and clear from the American people that 
it is in our best interest to be less dependent on foreign energy. And 
in the process of creating American energy, we obviously create 
American jobs. That, to me, is a win/win situation.
  Now, let me respond to some of the arguments that have been made on 
the other side, and I want to point out specifically the bills.
  The charge was made that the Republican-led House has not taken up 
any bills dealing with renewable energy. In fact, the observation was 
that there were no bills. In fact, there have been several bills, and 
there are three bills that have passed the House. Now, some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle may not like it, but the fact is 
that they've passed.
  The first one is H.R. 4402. It passed on a bipartisan basis in July. 
H.R. 3408, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in February. And H.R. 
4480, it too passed on a bipartisan basis in June. So Republicans have 
repeatedly said that we are in favor of an all-of-the-above energy 
plan, and this, of course, confirms that belief.
  Now, I want to make an observation to part of the debate here that we 
are giving away something. I'm trying to think of an analogy on how to 
describe that, and the best I can come up with is if one has an asset, 
the Federal Government has an asset of having control over the Outer 
Continental Shelf, and somebody wants to use that asset where there may 
be some opportunity to grow the economy or create jobs, or what have 
you, that seems to me to be a positive step rather than a giveaway.
  In fact, I think about the private landowners in North Dakota or 
maybe the State of North Dakota, because the same people, Big Oil, that 
are being beat up here on the floor here in debate went to North 
Dakota. They talked to the State and they talked to the private 
landowners. They said, You may have some assets that we would like to 
see if maybe there is some energy development available, very similar 
to what's available on the Outer Continental Shelf. So they made an 
agreement, I'll pay you, the landowner, some money if you let me look. 
And if there is something there, I'll pay you with what comes out of 
the ground.
  Now, this is exactly the same process we're going through here, 
except we're dealing with the Outer Continental Shelf. Now, who is the 
beneficiary of that? Well, the beneficiary, in part, obviously, is the 
Federal Government because they get money for the leases and they'll 
get royalty payments. And I might point out, by the way, Mr. Chairman, 
the second largest source of income to the Federal Government after the 
income tax comes from leases and royalties. So there clearly is a 
benefit to the American people in that regard.
  So when this is characterized as a giveaway when supposedly what is 
being given away is paid for, it does not, in my mind, pass the 
straight-face test.
  Lastly, we hear the arguments, specifically from my good friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) saying this bill is going nowhere in the other 
body. Well, I would remind my good friend that the two Senators from 
his home State of Virginia are Democrats, and they are in support of 
drilling off the coast of Virginia, which, of course, this bill 
embodies. So if maybe they could whisper into the majority leader's ear 
and get some action on it, then this bill, indeed, could move through 
the Senate, as I suspect it will move through the House, on a 
bipartisan basis in the same light.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is a very good bill. I 
urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6082, the so-
called ``Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-
Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan.'' This bill opens 
up nearly every last piece of our public lands to drilling, giving even 
more to Big Oil. The bill would require oil and gas leasing off the 
East Coast, from Maine to South Carolina, off of Southern California 
and in the important fishery of Bristol Bay off Alaska. It opens up 
California's coastline to oil and gas companies as early as 2013. If 
this bill were to become law, areas that have previously been deemed 
off limits to oil development by state governments would be put up for 
lease.
  This bill also fails to secure safety reforms for offshore drilling, 
nor does it ensure that oil companies are paying their fair share to 
drill on public lands. The California Coastline is an international 
treasure and is one of the primary drivers of our state's economy. We 
must protect our coastlines and the vital ecosystems they embody. We 
cannot place it at risk of an oil spill or give it away to reckless, 
profit-seeking oil companies. We cannot and will not drill our way to 
energy independence. Continuing to make our cars more efficient, 
investing in clean and renewable energy, ending subsidies and tax 
breaks for the fossil fuel industry, and putting a price on carbon 
emissions is how we can obtain a secure and sustainable energy future.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this senseless and harmful legislation 
by joining me in voting ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my continued 
support for the restrictions placed on oil and gas leasing in the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 
2006. I am pleased that H.R. 6082 continues this moratorium and 
recognizes an area not only critical to the protection of Florida's 
beautiful beaches and unique environment but to the training of our 
nation's sailors, Marines and pilots who conduct training exercises 
there on a regular basis.
  As you know, I have been working on the issue of drilling in the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico since 1983, when the oil industry proposed 
drilling off the Gulf Coast of Florida. That year, I offered an 
amendment to a 1983 supplemental appropriations bill to create the 
first buffer zone to protect Florida's Gulf Coast from offshore oil 
drilling. Congress did not implement this buffer zone only to protect 
the economic or environmental interests of the State of Florida; rather 
we also recognized the potential conflict that exists between drilling 
and naval and aviation military activities.
  The importance of this area to our military training was affirmed in 
2000, when the Department of Defense requested that no above-surface 
structures be built in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, officially 
establishing the Military Mission Line within which no drilling can 
occur. This decision proved timely when the Air Force and Army were 
forced to end training exercises in Vieques, Puerto Rico and had to 
find a new site to undertake these specialized training activities. The 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico was the only site available where this training 
could continue because this naval and aviation training is incompatible 
with drilling platforms and drilling ships.
  Since the first amendment in 1983, I negotiated with my colleagues to 
include this moratorium in appropriations bills year after year, until 
a bipartisan compromise was reached in 2006 that balanced increased 
domestic energy production with the critical military activities 
conducted in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. This carefully crafted 
agreement opened 8.3 million acres south of the Florida Panhandle to 
drilling, an area previously under a ban, while barring new oil and gas 
leases off Florida's coastline until June 30, 2022, and codifying the 
ban on drilling within the Military Mission Line.
  Prior to the enactment of the current moratorium, then Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that ``in those areas east of the 
Military Mission Line, drilling structures and associated development 
would be incompatible with military activities, such as missile 
flights, low-flying drone aircraft, weapons testing and training.'' By 
maintaining the drilling ban in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, H.R. 6082 
continues to protect an area that holds the U.S. military's largest 
training and testing area.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support this measure that will responsibly 
increase our domestic oil production while maintaining the important 
protections against drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, in order to 
ensure that our military readiness and training capabilities are not 
compromised.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 6082, the Congressional 
Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting 
Offshore Drilling Plan.

[[Page 12032]]

  This is the current Majority's 12th giveaway for Big Oil in the last 
18 months. I've consistently opposed these prior 11 measures on the 
House floor. The Senate has failed to pass any of the prior bills, and 
President Obama has consistently stated his intention to veto those 
measures.
  The majority claims that this bill is about lowering energy prices 
and creating jobs.
  Let's be clear--this is a bill against President Obama's offshore 
drilling plan.
  Today, more than 75 percent of the offshore oil and gas resources are 
available for drilling under that plan. We have 50 percent more 
floating drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than we did 
prior to the BP spill and have more total rigs operating in the United 
States than does the rest of the world combined. Domestic oil 
production is at an 18 year high and oil and gas companies continue to 
enjoy substantial profits--all on top of tax breaks totaling over $4 
billion per year. In addition, this year the U.S. became a net exporter 
of oil for the first time since 1949.
  My home state of Hawaii relies on imported oil from both foreign and 
U.S. sources for 90 percent of our primary energy. We use oil to 
generate our electricity and to fuel our vehicles. We also pay three 
times the average price that the mainland pays for that electricity and 
our gas prices are constantly the highest in the nation--despite all of 
the drilling that is currently happening.
  That's why this attack on President Obama's comprehensive approach to 
energy--producing more oil and boosting clean energy--is especially 
troubling.
  It's also troubling that the majority seem to be consciously ignoring 
key safety recommendations and preventing proper environmental reviews.
  We all remember April 20, 2010. That is the date that the Deepwater 
Horizon oil rig exploded. This accident killed 11 crew members and 
injured numerous others. Over 4 million barrels of oil gushed into the 
Gulf of Mexico, and the spill could not be contained for almost 3 
months.
  In response President Obama created the bipartisan National 
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. 
The commission concluded that if more effective oversight of safety and 
environmental protection had been conducted--by both the government and 
the industry itself--the disaster could have been avoided. The 
commission then made a series of recommendations to prevent another 
spill from occurring.
  Representative Markey introduced these recommendations as legislation 
in January of 2011. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 501. 
However, I'm disappointed that there has not even been a committee 
hearing on this important legislation.
  That's not all. On July 24, 2012, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board 
released a report which found that at the time of the 2010 Deepwater 
Horizon blowout, BP and other companies involved in that accident had 
failed to implement safety recommendations made by the Board in 2007.
  The 2007 recommendations stemmed from the investigation of a March 
2005 explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery.
  These are real disasters with real consequences for workers and 
communities.
  At the same time, the facts and record are clear: These disasters are 
preventable and Congress can and should do something to address them.
  The bill also undermines a series of laws intended to ensure that we 
are good stewards of our natural resources--including the National 
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic 
Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act. Ensuring compliance with these 
laws protects public health, communities, and the environment. These 
environmental reviews are also necessary to avoid costly and time-
consuming litigation for all parties.
  More than that, this is a matter of ensuring that the resources we 
have can be utilized responsibly to support jobs and economic growth in 
industries other than drilling, like tourism for example.
  The bill also opens huge areas on the East Coast, stretching from 
Maine to South Carolina, off of Southern California, in the Alaska 
Arctic and in the area around the important fishery of Bristol Bay off 
Alaska. Opening these areas ignores concerns raised by nearly every 
stakeholder other than oil and gas companies.
  These include significant issues raised by states and local 
communities, concerns about important fishing areas, and even concerns 
raised by our military will go unheeded if this bill were to become 
law.
  Finally, H.R. 6082 would require that the Department of Interior 
conduct a single multi-sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 
the Atlantic, Pacific and Bristol Bay. Combined EIS documents are 
usually done for lease sales in areas where the conditions are well 
known and similar. However, these are three wildly different 
environments that merit their own considerations.
  Just to be clear, those who stand to lose under this bill include: 
states, localities, fisherman, the military, average citizens and small 
businesses that currently rely on these areas for recreation, tourism, 
and other purposes.
  The winners under this bill: the oil and gas drilling industry.
  Hawaii is a case study for why we must end our reliance on fossil 
fuels and work harder to support the development of a broad range of 
clean, renewable, locally-produced fuels. Drilling more won't decrease 
the global competition for oil, and it won't do anything to reduce 
energy prices in the long-term. High energy prices act as a tax on all 
of us and an anchor on our economy, so if we are truly going to have 
the most competitive economy in the 21st century we need to develop 
affordable alternatives. Developing these alternatives will give the 
U.S. the upper hand both in terms of costs to our economy, and in 
developing new industries that can create jobs for the next century.
  Instead, the bill before us keeps us on the same path of dependence 
we've been on. This bill is a failure for our economy in the long term, 
fails to address the safety reforms for offshore drilling that numerous 
experts have advocated for, and seeks to give oil companies another 
windfall without ensuring that they are paying their fair share to 
drill on public lands.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this terribly shortsighted and ill-
advised legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, while the American people are asking 
Congress to help create jobs and stabilize the economy, the House 
Majority would rather spend valuable time on handouts to big oil and 
gas. For the 11th time this Congress, Members are being asked to 
support giveaways to big producers and polluters. It is ironic that 
this bill is being debated at the same time the U.S. Chemical Safety 
Board released its report that the Deepwater Horizon disaster was 
caused by a lack of adherence to safety guidelines. Instead of 
thoughtful efforts to ensure health and safety of workers and the 
public, as well as the protection of the environment, H.R. 6082 ignores 
any lessons from that tragedy while opening huge portions of our coasts 
to drilling. In addition, as someone who has fought to make sure the 
American taxpayer is properly compensated for energy resources 
extracted from federally leased lands, I am disturbed that this bill 
would not ensure oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on 
public lands. This bill does nothing to help our country build a strong 
energy future or get Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-29. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 6082

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Replacement of 
     President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting 
     Offshore Drilling Plan''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) OCS planning area.--Any reference to an ``OCS Planning 
     Area'' means such Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area as 
     specified by the Department of the Interior as of January 1, 
     2012.
       (2) Proposed oil and gas leasing program (2012-2017).--The 
     term ``Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas 
     Leasing Program (2012-2017)'' means such plan as transmitted 
     to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate on 
     June 28, 2012.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASING 
                   PROGRAM (2012-2017).

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall implement the Proposed 
     Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 
     (2012-2017) in accordance with the schedule for conducting 
     oil and gas lease sales set forth in such proposed program, 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq.), and otherwise applicable law.

[[Page 12033]]

       (b) Modified and Additional Lease Sales.--Notwithstanding 
     the schedule of lease sales in the Proposed Final Outer 
     Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017), the 
     Secretary shall conduct under the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) oil and gas lease sales in 
     OCS Planning Areas as specified in the following table, in 
     the year specified in the table for each lease sale:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Lease Sale
     No.                      OCS Planning Area                   Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        229   Western Gulf of Mexico..........................     2012
        220   Mid-Atlantic....................................     2013
        225   Eastern Gulf of Mexico..........................     2013
        227   Central Gulf of Mexico..........................     2013
        249   Southern California (existing infrastructure         2013
               sale)..........................................
        233   Western Gulf of Mexico..........................     2013
        244   Cook Inlet......................................     2013
        212   Chukchi Sea.....................................     2013
        228   Southern California.............................     2014
        230   Mid-Atlantic....................................     2014
        231   Central Gulf of Mexico..........................     2014
        238   Western Gulf of Mexico..........................     2014
        242   Beaufort Sea....................................     2014
        221   Chukchi Sea.....................................     2014
        245   Mid-Atlantic....................................     2015
        232   North Atlantic..................................     2015
        234   Eastern Gulf of Mexico..........................     2015
        235   Central Gulf of Mexico..........................     2015
        246   Western Gulf of Mexico..........................     2015
        237   Chukchi Sea.....................................     2016
        239   North Aleutian Basin............................     2016
        248   Western Gulf of Mexico..........................     2016
        241   Central Gulf of Mexico..........................     2016
        226   Eastern Gulf of Mexico..........................     2016
        217   Beaufort Sea....................................     2016
        243   Southern California.............................     2017
        250   Mid-Atlantic....................................     2017
        247   Central Gulf of Mexico..........................     2017
        255   South Atlantic-South Carolina...................     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (c) Lease Sales Described.--For purposes of subsection 
     (b)--
       (1) lease sale numbers 229, 227, 233, 244, 225, 231, 238, 
     235, 242, 246, 226, 241, 237, 248, and 247 are such sales 
     proposed in, and shall be conducted in accordance with, the 
     Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing 
     Program (2012-2017), except each such lease sale shall be 
     conducted in the year specified for such sale in the table in 
     subsection (b);
       (2) lease sale numbers 220, 212, 228, 230, 221, 245, 232, 
     234, 239, 217, and 243 are such sales proposed in, and shall 
     be conducted in accordance with, the Draft Proposed Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-
     2015 as published in Federal Register on January 21, 2009 (74 
     Fed. Reg. 12), except each such lease sale shall be conducted 
     in the year specified for such sale in the table in 
     subsection (b); and
       (3) lease sale numbers 249 and 250 shall be conducted--
       (A) for lease tracts in the Southern California OCS 
     Planning Area and Mid-Atlantic OCS Planning Area, 
     respectively, as determined by and at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, subject to subparagraph (C);
       (B) in the year specified for each such lease sale in the 
     table in subsection (b); and
       (C) in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 4. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE LEASE 
                   SALE.

       (a) In General.--In lease sale 249 under section 3, the 
     Secretary shall offer for sale leases of tracts in the Santa 
     Maria and Santa Barbara/Ventura Basins of the Southern 
     California OCS Planning Area as soon as practicable, but not 
     later than December 31, 2013.
       (b) Use of Existing Structures or Onshore-Based Drilling.--
     The Secretary of the Interior shall include in leases offered 
     for sale under lease sale 249 such terms and conditions as 
     are necessary to require that development and production may 
     occur only from offshore infrastructure in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act or from onshore-based 
     drilling.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL DEFENSE.

       (a) National Defense Areas.--This Act shall in no way 
     affect the existing authority of the Secretary of Defense, 
     with the approval of the President, to designate 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)).
       (b) Prohibition on Conflicts With Military Operations.--No 
     person may engage in any exploration, development, or 
     production of oil or natural gas on the Outer Continental 
     Shelf under a lease issued under this Act 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. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--For the purposes of this Act and in order 
     to conduct lease sales in accordance with the lease sale 
     schedule established by this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall prepare a multisale environmental impact 
     statement under section 102 of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) for all lease sales 
     required under this Act that are not included in the Proposed 
     Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 
     (2012-2017).
       (b) Actions To Be Considered.--Notwithstanding section 102 
     of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4332), in such statement--
       (1) 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
       (2) the Secretary shall only--
       (A) identify a preferred action for leasing and not more 
     than one alternative leasing proposal; and
       (B) analyze the environmental effects and potential 
     mitigation measures for such preferred action and such 
     alternative leasing proposal.

     SEC. 7. EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO NOT INCLUDED.

       Nothing in this Act affects restrictions on oil and gas 
     leasing under 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).

     SEC. 8. LEASE SALE OFF THE COAST OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

        In determining the areas off the coast of South Carolina 
     to be made available for leasing under this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) consult with the Governor and legislature of the State 
     of South Carolina; and
       (2) focus on areas considered to have the most geologically 
     promising energy resources.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House 
Report 112-616. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 1, beginning at line 11, strike ``Proposed oil and gas 
     leasing program (2012-2017)'' and insert ``Proposed final 
     outer continental shelf oil & gas leasing program (2012-
     2017)''.
       Page 1, line 14, strike ``plan'' and insert ``program''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
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, and I will just take a few seconds here.
  This amendment is very simple. It makes two small technical 
corrections to the way the plan is referred to in the bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  The minority has no objection to the amendment by the gentleman, and 
we urge support of it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the 
amendment, and 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).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1750


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Beginning at page 5, line 22, strike section 6.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple:
  ``On page 5, line 22, strike section 6.''

[[Page 12034]]

  This amendment strikes language from the bill that requires the 
Interior Department to conduct a single multisale environmental impact 
statement for all of the new areas that would be opened under this 
bill.
  Now, it's not going to happen. We are not going to see this into law. 
I'm sure this bill is not going anywhere. But if it were, it would be 
an environmental disaster.
  The notion that one environmental analysis would be sufficient for 
lease sales in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, and Bristol Bay in Alaska 
is simply absurd. These are very different environments. The steps that 
would be taken to prepare for drilling would be different in each one. 
The steps that would be taken during drilling would be different in 
each one. The steps that would be taken to prepare against an accident 
would be different in each one, and the steps for a cleanup would be 
different in each one. In fact, it would be hard to imagine three 
environments that could be more different. Even along the Atlantic 
coast from South Carolina to Massachusetts there are differences.
  Congress has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that 
offshore drilling for gas and oil is occurring in a safe and 
environmentally responsible manner. It's been over 2 years since the 
worst environmental oil disaster in American history, the BP oil spill, 
and Congress has yet to enact a single legislative reform.
  This committee, instead of doing a bill that--seems to be motivated 
to try to embarrass the President, I guess, based on a false premise 
that the President is interfering with the oil industry. They should 
actually be trying to put in place corrections that have been pointed 
out that are needed following the knowledge we've learned from the BP 
oil spill. The independent BP Spill Commission gave Congress a grade of 
``D'' for a legislative response.
  Now, the Republican majority has said they wanted to wait until all 
the facts were in before taking action to respond to the gulf spill. 
Well, the time has come. We've heard from the independent BP Spill 
Commission, Mr. Chairman; we've heard from the government's joint 
investigative team, Mr. Chairman; and those reports reached similar 
conclusions: The BP disaster was preventible, not inevitable. Those 
reports concluded that corners were cut, bad decisions were made, and 
stronger safety standards could have helped, in fact, could have 
prevented the disaster.
  In fact, just today, the United States Chemical Safety Board issued 
its first report on the BP oil spill disaster and found that, when BP 
looked at offshore operations, it ``focused on financial risks, not 
process safety risks.''
  So that's what we should be doing here today. We should be 
strengthening the safety, the public health, and the environmental 
protections instead of saying we're going to drill everywhere and water 
down the environmental protections.
  Here we are considering the 11th drilling bill over the last 18 
months. The Republican majority is, once again, seeking to open up 
vast, vast swaths of America's coastlines to drilling without proper 
environmental review.
  Mandating a single environmental impact analysis for the variety of 
lease sales included under this legislation is simply insufficient. 
Truncating environmental review will make drilling less safe, not more 
safe.
  Let me be clear: The authors of H.R. 6082 apparently believe that the 
Atlantic, the Pacific, and Bristol Bay are similar enough to warrant a 
single environmental assessment.
  An oil spill off the east coast would endanger 200,000 jobs and $12 
billion associated with just New Jersey's fishing and tourism 
industries--and that's not counting the indirect effects as this money 
flows through our local economies.
  Bristol Bay and the North Aleutian Basin form the heart of one of the 
most productive salmon fisheries on the planet, contributing more than 
$5 billion every year to our economy, yet the underlying bill opens up 
these areas to drilling under a truncated environmental review.
  My amendment simply strikes the language from the bill that requires 
a single multisale environmental impact statement and would go a long 
way toward protecting the environment.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  The amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing 
energy production and job creation. This amendment would strike the 
section of the bill requiring that an environmental impact statement be 
conducted prior to any leasing in lease sale areas.
  The gentleman takes issue with the manner in which the environmental 
impact statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to 
mention is that the administration is required to do yet another 
environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on 
each lease block as a part of the leasing process, and then each 
exploration plan has additional environmental work. So, in effect, all 
of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied 
for the effect that any activity will have on the environment.
  Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will still 
be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore 
leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National 
Fishing Enhancement Act, to name a few.
  The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the 
environment. It goes an extra mile in requiring a multiple-sale EIS on 
all of the lease areas, while also ensuring that leasing does occur, 
although that leasing is still subject to all the environmental 
protection laws that are on the books.
  Support for offshore energy development does not mean that you cannot 
also respect the range of different environmental needs based on lease 
area.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in the country does not want to 
drill safely and responsibly. I know I certainly don't, and I know 
Members on my side of the aisle don't. So I encourage my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman has yielded back his time. I 
will yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Richardson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. 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 7, strike line 3 and insert the following:

     SEC. 8. LEASE SALES OFF THE COASTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       Page 7, line 5, after ``lina'' insert ``and the coast of 
     California''.
       Page 7, line 8, strike ``the State of South Carolina'' and 
     insert ``each such State''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Richardson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, my staff and I have had the opportunity 
earlier today to discuss this amendment with Chairman Hastings, Ranking 
Member Markey and their staffs, so I'll be brief.

[[Page 12035]]



                              {time}  1800

  The Richardson amendment improves the bill by amending section 8 to 
explicitly require the Secretary of the Interior to consult the 
California Governor and the State legislature before leasing any areas 
off the coast of California. My amendment codifies in the bill existing 
law, practice, and custom.
  In short, the Richardson amendment extends to California the same 
consideration that the bill's drafters afforded the State of South 
Carolina. The State of California has within its borders more than two-
thirds of the Nation's Pacific coastline, a far greater percentage than 
South Carolina has with respect to the Atlantic coastline.
  California's coastline is an international treasure, and our State's 
residents should have input on drilling off our shores. Offshore 
drilling along the California coastline should thoroughly consider 
impacts to tourism, fisheries, coastal recreation, and of course the 
economy and its benefits. That is why it's reasonable and necessary 
that the people of California, through their chief elected officials, 
be consulted by the Secretary of the Interior on the subject of 
offshore drilling off the California coast.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to acknowledge the leadership and expertise 
and willingness of Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for 
working with me on the Richardson amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And 
I want to congratulate her on her amendment because I think this is a 
responsible approach that we are trying to take.
  One of the reasons why California is so important, I think as the 
gentlelady knows, is that there are geologists that say that there are 
over 1.5 million potential barrels of oil off the shore. That should be 
important to Californians because not too long ago you were producing 
50 percent of your oil production, now it's down to 38 percent. What we 
say, obviously, in this legislation is that it should be done from 
platforms on land.
  So I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. I think it's a 
responsible approach, and I think it adds to this legislation. And I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to conclude with 
saying that I both acknowledge and appreciate the leadership by both 
Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey; look forward to working 
with them on this and many other issues; and I'm grateful for their 
willingness to consider the rightfulness of this amendment.
  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 (Ms. Richardson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENT TO OFFER GAS FOR SALE ONLY IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall require that all gas 
     produced under a lease issued under this Act shall be offered 
     for sale only in the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, 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 such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very, very simple. It ensures that 
the natural gas produced under the leases issued under this legislation 
is sold in America. We're talking about the public lands of the United 
States, the taxpayer-owned lands of the United States. These are the 
American people's lands off of Massachusetts, off of New York, off of 
New Jersey, off of California that are being leased under this bill. 
The very least we should be able to tell the American people is that 
they are actually going to see a benefit from any oil or gas produced 
from these lands.
  We should be able to tell Americans that we are keeping the natural 
gas produced on their public lands here in America to keep prices low 
for Americans here in the United States, and we're going to find ways 
of putting that natural gas into trucks, into buses, into cars so that 
we can stop importing oil from dangerous parts of the world.
  We should be able to tell Americans that we're keeping the natural 
gas here so that we can create more American jobs in manufacturing 
plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, and steel; and that we tell those 
countries in the Middle East we don't need your oil any more than we 
need your sand because we have natural gas here in America. That's all 
that my amendment would do, send a strong signal to the OPEC nations.
  Current law does not allow for the exportation of our crude oil, and 
it shouldn't allow for the exportation of our natural gas either. My 
amendment would ensure that no waivers can be granted, no permits can 
be issued to export natural gas produced from the public land of the 
United States to other countries when we're still importing oil from 
OPEC. How much sense does that make that we find natural gas and start 
to sell it to other countries, even as OPEC continues to tip us upside 
down and shake money out of our pockets at the pump?
  So I'm going to reserve the balance of my time at this point and 
continue my argument in a few minutes.
  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. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to see that the gentleman understands 
that America needs oil and natural gas. That was a very good statement 
on his part. We would prefer to see more domestic production of this 
necessary commodity rather than importing it from foreign countries. I 
think we're making progress in that regard, Mr. Chairman.
  The good news is this is already law, what the gentleman is trying to 
address. Title 43, chapter 29, section 1534 of the U.S. Code 
specifically prevents the export of both oil or gas produced from the 
Outer Continental Shelf unless the President finds that it is, one, in 
the national interest; two, will not increase our reliance on natural 
gas; and, three, that it is in accordance with the Export 
Administration Act, which puts further regulations on exports.
  Now, the House has said repeatedly that increased energy production 
on Federal lands is in the national interest. So I suppose the 
gentleman could say there is some wiggle room there. But, nevertheless, 
this amendment had failed in committee last week, it has failed on the 
House floor on many occasions because of this protection that's already 
in law. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Department of Energy right now has applications from 15 companies 
to export 28 percent of our current natural gas consumption in the 
United States.
  Let me be very clear: exporting our natural gas will increase 
American energy prices. No economist or energy analyst disagrees. Why 
would we find natural gas here and then start selling it around the 
world? It would increase the price here. In fact, exporting far less 
than what is currently being proposed could send domestic natural gas 
prices skyrocketing by 54 percent.

[[Page 12036]]

  Let me just let everyone out there know right now, we are the Saudi 
Arabia of natural gas. We are, right now, the lowest natural gas price 
in the world. In the United States, it's only $2.40, $2.50 in Mcf. In 
Japan, in Korea, in China, it's seven times higher. In Europe, it's 
four times higher. So if you're a manufacturer, if you're a company 
thinking about moving your trucking or your bus fleet to natural gas as 
opposed to oil and you're in these other countries, it's difficult for 
you to do it.
  It's time for the United States to figure out how to do this. We have 
this incredible bonanza. Now they're proposing to drill off the 
coastline of Massachusetts, off New York, off southern California to 
find more natural gas. And what are they saying? Let's export it. Well, 
you're going to export the cheapest natural gas in the world.
  Do you know what T. Boone Pickens says about this? ``If we do it, if 
we export natural gas, we're truly going to go down as America's 
dumbest generation. It's bad public policy to export natural gas.''

                              {time}  1810

  This is T. Boone Pickens. This is Ed Markey. This is a coalition that 
spans the entire spectrum of political thought, but we do agree on this 
one thing. Why would we take our most precious natural resource and 
sell it to other countries, when it gives us a massive competitive 
advantage?
  So I'm going to reserve the balance of my time to conclude debate, 
but this is a nonsensical policy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no more requests for 
time, and I understand I have the right to close, so I will reserve my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. How much time is remaining on either side, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 15 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. Fifteen seconds.
  We drill for natural gas off of our beaches, our pristine beaches and 
we find it, we take the risk, those States take their risk, that 
natural gas should stay here in America. ExxonMobil shouldn't be able 
to pack it up and sell it to China, sell it to South America. That 
natural gas should stay here in America if it's found off of our 
beaches. That's what the Markey amendment calls for.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this law has been on the books 
since 1940. Now, in 1940, there was a whole lot of unrest in the world 
just prior to the Second World War, and in the wisdom, apparently, of 
the Congress of that time, they said that energy production from the 
Outer Continental Shelf, which I might add, was probably not as robust 
as it is today, there are only certain conditions that you would export 
what comes off. And as I listed those things before, I think they're 
important.
  That law was a good law then. It's a good law now. This amendment 
adds absolutely nothing to that whatsoever.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  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. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall require that drilling 
     operations conducted under each lease issued under this Act 
     meet requirements for--
       (1) third-party certification of safety systems related to 
     well control, such as blowout preventers;
       (2) performance of blowout preventers, including 
     quantitative risk assessment standards, subsea testing, and 
     secondary activation methods;
       (3) independent third-party certification of well casing 
     and cementing programs and procedures;
       (4) mandatory safety and environmental management systems 
     by operators on the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is 
     used in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act); and
       (5) procedures and technologies to be used during drilling 
     operations to minimize the risk of ignition and explosion of 
     hydrocarbons.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, 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, the independent blue ribbon BP Spill 
Commission--and this is their comprehensive compendium of what went 
wrong and what needs to be done in order to correct what went wrong in 
the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in the history of 
our country--concluded that there were systemic problems that occurred 
in the entire industry.
  The Commission recommended sweeping reforms to improve the safety of 
offshore drilling. Yet, this Congress has still not enacted a single 
legislative reform and, as a result, the BP Spill Commission recently 
gave Congress a D, this Republican Congress, on its legislative 
response, and only refrained from handing out an F because it said it 
didn't want to insult the institution.
  My amendment would simply ensure that we put into the statute 
specific minimal safety requirements for blowout preventers, cementing, 
and the casing of offshore wells. My amendment would ensure that if we 
are going to expand drilling off of States like Massachusetts and New 
York and New Jersey and Maryland and California, that we put additional 
safety requirements on the books to ensure that a Romney administration 
or any other future administration cannot simply roll back the Interior 
Department reforms.
  We don't want a Louisiana mess off of the coast of Massachusetts, off 
of the coast of southern California. We want the safety reforms that 
the BP Spill Commission recommended be put in place so there is no 
recurrence.
  The Republicans are saying they want to drill off of the coast of 
these States that don't want the drilling. The least that they should 
do is build in the safety reforms.
  And just today, the Chemical Safety Board released its report on the 
disaster. The Chemical Safety Board reached many of the same 
conclusions as the BP Spill Commission. The government's joint 
investigative team and the National Academy of Engineering said that 
this disaster was not inevitable, that it was preventable.
  This majority has said they wanted to wait until all the facts were 
in before taking action on safety legislation. Well, the time has now 
come. We now have two blue ribbon reports, each reaching the same 
conclusions. It is long past time for the Congress to take the lessons 
of the BP spill and turn them into laws, so that we never have a 
disaster like this again.
  I'm afraid of what the majority is contemplating here, which is 
authorizing the drilling off the coasts of the East and the West in our 
country without building in the safety reforms. If ever there is a 
recipe for disaster, ruining the fishing, ruining the tourism business 
for these States that don't want the drilling in the first place 
because their economies are not based upon the same premise as the 
Louisiana and Texas economy, then this is that recipe. This is what 
we're voting on here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.

[[Page 12037]]

  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, let's be very frank about this. This amendment won't 
increase safety, but it will add red tape to the leasing process and 
open new avenues for lawsuits to interfere with the process of creating 
American energy and creating American jobs.
  The types of safety measures identified in the amendment are already 
in place, and they are already enforceable. On multiple occasions, the 
Obama administration has testified that offshore drilling operations 
are being conducted safely.
  With this amendment, the minority continues to try to divert 
attention away from the real issue of increasing energy production, 
American energy production, creating jobs, American jobs, lowering 
energy costs, and improving our national security, all doing that 
because, potentially, we lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  So it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply do 
not want to face the fact that this bill says we can move forward with 
a robust and responsible program of oil and gas development, while, at 
the same time, ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. 
These are not, nor should they be mutually exclusive goals.
  Right now, we have two choices before us. Tomorrow, when we vote on 
this, and the suspension that will be before us, we can choose to 
endorse the President's energy plan to hold 15 sales in five areas in 
the OCS, or we can support this bill before us, which will have nearly 
double, 29 sales, in over double the areas, 11 areas.
  Both options will ensure that the drilling is done safely. Both 
options will ensure that our environment is protected. But only one 
option follows through on the promise made to the American people when 
the moratoria was lifted.
  The American people clearly want our Nation to harness our energy 
resources. But the President's energy plan takes 85 percent of the 
Outer Continental Shelf and makes it off-limits.
  This amendment, I should add, has failed when it was offered on this 
floor last February, and it also failed when it was offered in 
committee last week. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. MARKEY. May I ask the Chair to recapitulate the exact time that 
the majority and minority still have remaining for this debate?
  The Acting CHAIR. There are 1\1/2\ minutes for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, and there are 2\1/2\ minutes for the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. MARKEY. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman is prepared to yield 
back, I will do the same.
  Mr. MARKEY. I am prepared to give my convincing concluding 
presentation to the House floor.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am the last speaker on my side, so you 
do what you have to do, and I will respond accordingly.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I yield myself my remaining time.
  Again, just for the record, Republicans can say this as much as they 
want, but I have to repeat:
  (1) When President Obama was sworn in, 57 percent of our oil was 
imported. Today, only 45 percent of our oil is imported--
congratulations, President Obama--no matter how many times the 
Republicans want to cover that over.
  (2) Seventy-five percent of all of the oil and gas reserves offshore 
have been made available by the Obama administration for drilling.
  (3) We in the United States are at an 18-year high in drilling.
  Now, the Republicans have a problem with this because the 18-year 
high in drilling, the reduction from 57 percent of imports down to 45 
percent of imports and the fact that 75 percent of all areas off the 
shores of our country are open for drilling run totally contrary to 
everything that they believe--to everything that they want America to 
believe, it is better to be said--because if the American people 
actually believed the truth, which is that Obama has reduced our 
imported oil from 57 percent down to 45 percent, reduced our dependence 
upon imported oil and increased our drilling to the highest point in 18 
years, then their whole narrative just goes right down the drain. They 
have to keep getting up as though Bush were the right guy, but he did 
nothing.
  All we're saying is, if you are so desperate to actually license all 
of this new drilling off of the beaches of our States, at least build 
in the safety precautions, which is what the Markey amendment calls 
for, which will prevent another mess like the BP Horizon catastrophe in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Okay. Let's say it again: The gentleman's remarks would imply that, 
because there is increased oil production in this country, it's due to 
the actions of this administration.
  Nothing, Mr. Chairman, could be further from the truth, because it 
takes a while to go through the process of leasing and developing 
potential resources before you drill, and even then you don't know 
until you drill.
  All of that process started prior to this administration's taking 
office. It happened in the Bush administration, and as a matter of 
fact, it happened in the Clinton administration. That's where the 
increased production, in large part, came from. Even that isn't 
entirely true, because the increased production of American oil is 
really coming from State and private lands, not from Federal lands. In 
fact, over the last 2 years, Federal lands production has been down 
under this administration. It is principally because of North Dakota 
and West Texas that we are finding more production of American energy.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, I think that's good--but why should we 
ignore the potential resources that we have on Federal lands and not 
allow that to produce our American energy?
  This amendment really does not help that process. All it does is add 
red tape to the process, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from 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. 6 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. ELIGIBILITY FOR LEASES.

       (a) Limitation on Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     not offer any lease pursuant to this Act to a person 
     described in paragraph (2) unless the person has renegotiated 
     each covered lease with respect to which the person is a 
     lessee, to modify the payment responsibilities of the person 
     to require the payment of royalties if the price of oil and 
     natural gas is greater than or equal to the price thresholds 
     described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (2) Persons described.--A person referred to in paragraph 
     (1) is a person that--
       (A) is a lessee that--
       (i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the 
     Secretary considers the issuance of the lease under this Act; 
     or
       (ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to 
     another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate 
     of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or

[[Page 12038]]

       (B) any other person that has any direct or indirect 
     interest in, or that derives any benefit from, a covered 
     lease.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means a 
     lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that 
     is--
       (A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 
     304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
       (C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on 
     market price that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (2) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or 
     other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or 
     under common control with, a lessee.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. If the majority Republicans continue to push their ``oil 
above all'' agenda, then we House Democrats will persist in our 
attempts to make offshore drilling safe--safe for the workers and safe 
for the environment--and to make sure that the American taxpayers are 
getting their fair share of return on the use of their natural 
resources.
  The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last 
year. In the first quarter of this year, they continued to capitalize 
on the pain that Americans feel at the pump, raking in $368 million in 
profits per day. But did the Americans see increased profits from 
selling their oil as it was pumped from public lands offshore? No. As a 
result of a legal quirk in the 1995 law, oil companies are not paying 
any royalties to the American people on leases issued between 1996 and 
2000--none, zero.
  In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been 
pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have 
gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all 
oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, and 
these oil companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of 
all the oil produced offshore in the United States. They don't pay the 
American people one penny for their drilling regardless of their huge 
profits. It's just unjust.
  According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to 
lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this big giveaway 
to oil companies. Yes, it's a giveaway. The Government Accountability 
Office projects that all this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 
billion over the life of the leases. My amendment would recover these 
revenues that rightly belong to the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is yet another attempt to legislate a decision 
that was made during the Clinton administration. The constant attempt 
to renegotiate contracts that were signed, sealed, and delivered under 
the Clinton administration is in violation of contract law. That should 
be very, very basic, it would seem to me, if, indeed, we are a Nation 
of laws.
  The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Interior Department did not 
have the authority to go back and insert price thresholds on these 
leases. The Department lost this issue in district court, in the 
appellate court, and they lost it in the Supreme Court. If this 
amendment were to pass, the issue would most certainly be challenged in 
court where, undoubtedly, the Department would again lose after having 
spent taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible.
  Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a 
contract negotiated under government law. Now, some would say it's a 
bad contract. Maybe it was. I'm not going to second-guess what the 
Clinton administration did--but, in fact, they signed that contract 
law. This amendment has repeatedly failed on the House floor, and I 
hope it fails again. I urge its opposition.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. My amendment would offer oil companies a choice. They could 
choose either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf and 
not get new leases or they could pay their fair share and proceed with 
this willy-nilly drilling that would be allowed under this law, under 
this legislation. My amendment does not break contracts. It simply 
would not force companies to give up their leases. It would impose a 
condition on future leases. As the Congressional Research Service has 
stated:
  As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion in 
setting the qualifications of those with whom it contracts.
  These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history 
of the world, yet they receive more than $4 billion a year in taxpayer 
subsidies. On top of that, they get to drill for free on all of these 
public lands. Because of a quirk in the 1995 law, which came about 
because that Republican Congress was not eager to make oil companies 
pay, we shouldn't continue to give them a free ride.
  If my colleagues on the other side are serious about paying down the 
deficit and realistically financing necessary investments in this 
Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting this amendment to 
recover about $1 billion a year--actually, somewhat more than that 
probably--that is rightfully owed to the American people.

                              {time}  1830

  It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off once and for all.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  If the intent of this amendment, as the gentleman says, is just to 
say that companies aren't forced to, but could renegotiate their 
contracts, I would say they could do that right now. Anybody that 
enters into a contract is free--if both parties want to--to renegotiate 
a contract. Nothing prevents them from doing so. But to have the heavy 
hand of government say in the future that ``if you don't do this,'' I 
think is a step too darn far. I think that that is really the wrong way 
to go. That's the last thing that we need, is saying a condition of 
leasing or doing business with the government is that you have to 
retroactively go back and change a contract. That would have a chilling 
effect, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, I don't know why the Clinton administration signed these 
contracts. Who knows? But to add this, where do you stop then? Where do 
you stop with all of the Federal contracts that could be not only in 
energy production, but anything else? This is a very bad amendment. 
It's a very bad precedent, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. LEASES MUST REQUIRE ESTIMATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND 
                   EFFECT ON PRICES.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall require under each 
     lease issued under this Act that

[[Page 12039]]

      each application for a permit to drill a well includes 
     detailed estimations of--
       (1) the amount of oil and gas that is expected--
       (A) to be found in the area where the well is drilled, in 
     the case of an exploration well; or
       (B) to be produced by the well, in the case of a production 
     well; and
       (2) the amount by which crude oil prices and consumer 
     prices would be reduced as a result of oil and gas found or 
     produced by the well, and by when the reductions would occur.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Republicans justify these 
irresponsible bills by claiming that more drilling will help reduce the 
cost of gasoline and fuel for the average American. Yet opening up even 
more of our country's shores to drilling will do little to help 
Americans at the gas pump. In reality, the United States is already 
producing more oil per day than it ever has. There are more drilling 
rigs in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
  The drilling plan issued by President Obama that this bill amends 
already makes three-quarters of our offshore oil and gas resources open 
to drilling. Yet 70 percent of the offshore areas that are leased are 
currently not even active. That's 55 million acres under lease not 
active.
  The price of oil and gas is set on a global level, primarily by the 
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. At maximum output, 
the United States holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, not 
nearly enough to significantly impact the price per barrel, which is 
set on a global scale. According to the Energy Information Agency, even 
tripling our current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 
would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we 
continued at our current levels.
  Gas prices are set on the world market on the basis of many 
geopolitical factors. For example, when the world thought Israel might 
attack Iran in February, gas prices went up 10 percent in 2 months to 
reach a 9-month high over fear that fuel supply lines would be 
disrupted. Though production in our country has actually increased 
every year since 2005, crude oil hit a record $147 per barrel over the 
same time period, demonstrating that there is little correlation 
between drilling levels in the United States and the price of oil.
  What drives the price of oil more than any other factor is the large 
nonstop worldwide demand for oil. The only way we can reduce gasoline 
prices is to reduce our country's disproportionate demand for fossil 
fuels by increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage 
of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. Federal 
policies should focus on these kinds of demand-reducing improvements, 
not on increasing the land available for drilling. I make it very clear 
over and over again that I'll be the last person standing off the 
shores of Florida if we continue down the path of wanting to drill in 
that area.
  Mr. Chairman, with all this in mind, my amendment requires applicants 
for drilling or exploration to explain in detail to what extent and by 
when any oil is found on the leased property will that decrease the 
price of oil for the American consumer.
  More drilling will put our businesses, as well as our environment and 
our health, at an increased risk. Since we know that there's no 
correlation between gas prices and U.S. drilling, this bill is really 
nothing more than a giveaway, and I know my good friend from Washington 
will say that it is not. He perceives it as not a giveaway. I do. I 
think that it's nothing more than a giveaway to the oil and gas 
companies. My goodness, gracious, have we not given them enough?
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery 
that they are here as guests of the House and any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is 
in violation of the House rules.
  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. In deference to my good friend from 
Florida, I really believe that this is a political amendment that would 
simply require companies seeking to drill offshore to estimate the 
impact that increased oil and gas production would have on gasoline 
prices. This bill is about increasing American domestic energy 
production. It's about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's 
about creating American jobs and creating American energy.
  Simply put, requiring producers to estimate the impact that each and 
every well has on global markets is nothing more than a bureaucratic 
paperwork nightmare that would be put on those that would want to go 
and drill offshore and a delaying tactic by those that are opposed to 
offshore development. I don't think this is a good amendment. As I said 
in deference to my good friend from Florida, I really believe that this 
is a political amendment.
  With that, I urge rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, do I have any time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, I am going to use my 30 seconds 
as I hope to yield to my good friend from Washington for a question. 
Perhaps I can get it in.
  Do you dispute, Representative Hastings, that we now have 55 million 
acres under lease, 70 percent of it is not being utilized and, in the 
final analysis, that all of what we wanted to drill, that it would 
amount to more than 2 percent of the world's output?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
say that if you run out of time, I will claim the time.
  First, I do not deny that, except the figures that you're using 
aren't quite accurate; I will say that in the sense that the 2 percent 
you're talking about is known reserves.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The 2 percent figure that you are using is the known reserves. The 
potential resources that we have are much, much greater than that. And 
really, when you are looking at potential future energy production in 
this country, you look at the potential resources, not the known 
reserves. There's a big, big difference. Two percent is reserve.
  So I will acknowledge that while we have 2 percent right now, our 
potential resources are much, much larger.
  And I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman. But in the Gulf of 
Mexico, which holds the largest volume of undiscovered technically 
recoverable resources, 32 million acres are under lease. However, only 
approximately 10 million acres have approved exploration or development 
plans, and only 6.4 million of these acres are in production. Leased 
areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are not producing or are not subject 
to pending or approved exploration and development plan are estimated 
to contain 17.9 billion barrels of UTRR oil and 49.7 trillion cubic 
feet.
  So I will make the argument again to my dear friend that if we're 
talking about doing everything that you called for--and I know it's 
most sincerely--if we do that, we are not talking about reducing the 
price of gas but by a nickel. So show me the plan to get us to energy 
independence by drilling.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, what the gentleman is 
talking about is lease sales. Somebody has made an investment. They do

[[Page 12040]]

not know if that area has any oil or natural gas. They don't know. They 
will go through all the studies. They'll spend millions, and sometimes 
billions, of dollars finding out if there is something there. Then, if 
they think there is, they will drill, costing that much more.
  Now, I might add, with these lease sales, there is a set time. The 
Federal Government gets money from these lease sales. Why would 
somebody give the money to the Federal Government if they didn't think 
there was something there? And, by the way, many times these leases 
come up empty and the company walks away and the only revenue goes to 
the Federal Government.
  But let me speak to one other area of the amendment, because what the 
gentleman is really saying with this amendment is he is asking somebody 
that produces a crude product to estimate the price of a finished 
product. That's like telling an apple grower in my part of the country 
that, if he or she is to sell apples overseas, what's the price of 
applesauce going to be down the line? Now, it doesn't make any sense to 
do that. Now, whether the gentleman purposely did that or not, I don't 
know. But in any case, I don't believe that the amendment ought to be 
adopted for other reasons, but certainly for that one.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 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. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part C of House Report 112-616.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. LEASES MUST REQUIRE ESTIMATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND 
                   RESULTING CLIMATE CHANGE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     require under each lease issued under this Act that each 
     application for a permit to drill a well includes detailed 
     estimations of--
       (1) the amount of oil and gas that is expected--
       (A) to be found in the area where the well is drilled, in 
     the case of an exploration well; or
       (B) to be produced by the well, in the case of a production 
     well; and
       (2) climate change that will result from consumption of oil 
     and gas found pursuant to the lease.
       (b) Climate Change Defined.--In this section the term 
     ``climate change'' means change of climate that is attributed 
     directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the 
     composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition 
     to natural climate variability observed over comparable time 
     periods.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 738, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, in the last exchange that I had with 
my good friend, that I deeply appreciate his yielding some of his time 
to me, and I'm glad that he didn't compare apples to oranges. I thought 
that's what he was going to do, but he went down the applesauce route.
  Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues continue, in my opinion, to 
cling to an antiquated 19th century energy policy while the rest of the 
world has moved into the 21st century. Just because the majority 
Members of Congress refuse to acknowledge that human activity 
contributes to climate change does not make it true. Climate change is 
not an abstract or difficult scientific principle to grasp. The effects 
are all around us. Our country is currently experiencing its worst 
drought since the Dust Bowl in the year of my birth, 1936.
  Just last week, sudden violent storms rocked the east coast--they 
were referred to as microbursts--knocking out power for thousands and 
killing a number of people. Furthermore, record heat waves are having 
serious repercussions on crop yields.
  We must pursue responsible, sustainable energy policies both for the 
legacy that we will leave our children and also to make certain the 
United States is at the forefront of an emerging green economy.
  My amendment will not let oil companies shield themselves in 
ignorance any longer. It requires in each permit application an 
analysis and estimate of the impact on global climate change of the 
consumption of the fossil fuels discovered.
  While the oil and gas found under each individual lease may not have 
a huge impact, there is no question that the aggregate fossil fuel 
consumption contributes to global climate change.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to force my 
friends, the House Republicans, and big oil companies to acknowledge 
the reality that the international community is preparing for.
  Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, when I was president of the Organization 
for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly--its 
headquarters is in Denmark--I went to Denmark during that 2-year period 
of time, close to 30 times over the course of the years that I've been 
here. When I fly into Denmark, just coming from the side of Sweden, I 
see the windmills tilting that have been tilting for 16 years. And 
Denmark's city, Copenhagen, is the beneficiary of much of that 
production. They're headed toward the future. We're living in the past.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  In many respects, Mr. Chairman, we just had this debate. And again, 
with deference to my good friend from Florida, I think this is another 
political amendment because what it will do is require companies 
seeking to drill offshore to estimate the potential impact produced by 
oil and natural gas production, what impact that would have on climate 
change. Not only that, you would have to do it on a well-by-well basis.
  Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, some sort of requirement like that 
would simply dry up anybody wanting to drill offshore or utilize our 
resources offshore. Now, if that's what the gentleman wants, then okay, 
that's a good concession; but, if not, it simply does not make any 
sense.
  But from a practical standpoint--and I think this is very important, 
Mr. Chairman--if the issue--and there is some debate about this, no 
question. But if the issue of producing oil and natural gas will affect 
the climate, and we, as a country, probably have the most stringent 
environmental laws on our air quality and water quality, why would we 
put this extra burden on us when it wouldn't happen in other parts of 
the world?
  But the net effect of this, if it were to become law, would be to 
drive everybody from America.
  So the net effect, if the issue--now, if the issue is really to 
protect the environment and protect the air, why would you drive it to 
areas that have less stringent environmental laws? Yet that would be 
the practical effect if this amendment were to become law.
  Like I said, we've been over this before. It puts extraordinary 
burdens on individual wells and individual producers. And as I 
mentioned, in deference to my friend, I think it is a political 
amendment.
  I urge rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12041]]



                              {time}  1850

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in the words of the celebrated 
movie that these words came from, I'm shocked, just shocked that this 
is a political amendment. And I'm equally shocked that this bill is 
political. This is the 143rd time that we're talking about oil 
drilling. And somewhere along the line, I'm lost. I thought politics 
was what we do. That's what I do. That's what people sent me here to 
do. That's what you do, my good friend, is politics. That's what it's 
about.
  The difference is where we separate ourselves is whether we're 
talking about the politics of the future, where there are opportunities 
for us to do the things to bring us to energy independence, or whether 
or not we are going to cling to fossil fuels until we just can't find 
any place else to drill.
  My major opposition to oil drilling offshore has been demonstrably 
shown when the Deep Horizon accident occurred. There have been other 
accidents. You want to drill in the tundra; there have been accidents 
where oil was spilled in that area. And daily in Ft. Lauderdale, I see 
ships sitting offshore, and I find that occasionally tar and things 
that come from them wind up on the beaches.
  We make $60 billion a year in Florida on those resources. I heard you 
earlier, my colleague, argue about North Dakota. I don't want to be in 
North Dakota in the wintertime, and I'm glad if they are about their 
business doing what they want to do; but I know a lot of North Dakota 
people, when they finish with the drilling up there, are going to come 
to Florida for our beaches, and that's what I'm about trying to 
preserve.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Well, I, too, am shocked; but I'm glad we got that out of the way. 
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, this bill is a bill that addresses 
American energy and American jobs and, therefore, has a positive 
effect--potential positive effect--on our economy.
  This amendment adds nothing to that. As a matter of fact, I think 
it's an impediment to this bill becoming law if it were to be adopted. 
And if I could think of some sorts of things to say regarding oranges, 
I would say it; but I'm totally at a loss. So I will simply say that 
this amendment does not deserve support, I urge its rejection, 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. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  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. 
Hanna) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, 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. 6082) to 
officially replace, within the 60-day Congressional review period under 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final 
Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a 
congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and natural gas 
lease sales to promote offshore energy development, job creation, and 
increased domestic energy production to ensure a more secure energy 
future in the United States, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________