[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12186-12192]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PROPOSED 2012-2017 OFFSHORE DRILLING LEASE SALE PLAN 
                                  ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6168) to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to

[[Page 12187]]

implement the Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing 
Program (2012-2017) in accordance with the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act and other applicable law.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6168

       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 ``President Obama's Proposed 
     2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act''.

     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).

       The Secretary of the Interior shall implement the Proposed 
     Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 
     (2012-2017) in accordance with the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), other applicable law, and 
     the schedule established by such proposed program for 
     conducting oil and gas lease sales in OCS Planning Areas in 
     specified years as set forth in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Proposed Final
 Program for 2012-
  2017 Lease Sale                      Area                       Year
 Schedule Sale No.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              229   Western Gulf of Mexico....................     2012
              227   Central Gulf of Mexico....................     2013
              233   Western Gulf of Mexico....................     2013
              225   Eastern Gulf of Mexico....................     2014
              231   Central Gulf of Mexico....................     2014
              238   Western Gulf of Mexico....................     2014
              235   Central Gulf of Mexico....................     2015
              246   Western Gulf of Mexico....................     2015
              226   Eastern Gulf of Mexico....................     2016
              241   Central Gulf of Mexico....................     2016
              237   Chukchi Sea...............................     2016
              248   Western Gulf of Mexico....................     2016
              244   Cook Inlet................................     2016
              247   Central Gulf of Mexico....................     2017
              242   Beaufort Sea..............................     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. 
Tsongas) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The bill we are now considering, H.R. 6168, is a very simple bill. It 
would implement President Obama's proposed offshore drilling lease plan 
for the years 2012 to 2017.
  Late yesterday, the House debated H.R. 6082, the Congressional 
Replacement of President Obama's Energy Restricting and Job-Limiting 
Offshore Drilling Plan. These bills contain two distinctly different 
offshore drilling plans, and the House will have an opportunity to 
choose which one allows for more American energy production and more 
American job creation, and which one continues to lock up America's 
resources.
  This debate is occurring during the 60-day mandatory review period 
provided for under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 
which requires a President to submit his proposed plan to Congress for 
review. He must submit it to Congress before it can take effect. This 
60-day clock started ticking on June 28 when President Obama's plan was 
submitted to the House and to the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I am the official sponsor of this bill to implement 
President Obama's plan. I introduced this bill with the specific 
purpose of allowing the people's House to officially go on record as 
either endorsing the President's plan or registering its opposition to 
it.

                              {time}  1240

  Now, while I'm the bill's sponsor, I am going to vote against this 
bill. I oppose the President's plan. It's a giant step backwards for 
American energy production and for job creation.
  Madam Speaker, President Obama likes to give speeches claiming 
support for offshore drilling; however, I have observed his actions 
while in office are 180 degrees different than his rhetoric.
  When President Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, nearly 
all of our offshore areas were newly open to American energy 
production. This was the result of the public outrage in the summer of 
2008 over $4 gasoline prices that resulted in the Federal Government 
lifting the two moratoria that blocked energy production off both the 
Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. The will of the American people was 
clear: For the sake of family budgets, for small businesses, and for 
our economy, we must produce more American energy in America to lessen 
our dependence on hostile foreign sources.
  So when President Obama took office, there was an offshore energy 
plan to conduct lease sales in new areas that were no longer under the 
moratoria. Instead of seizing this opportunity to vastly increase 
American energy production, the President tossed that plan aside and 
delayed and canceled these sales, including a sale scheduled for 2011 
that would open a section offshore of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  The Obama administration has spent the last 3\1/2\ years slowly 
writing a plan that takes our country backwards, a plan that 
effectively reimposes the drilling moratoria that were lifted in 2008. 
The President's proposed plan keeps 85 percent of our offshore areas 
off-limits to energy production. The Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast, 
and parts of the Arctic are all kept under lock and key under his plan.
  His plan absolutely opens no new areas for drilling. As an example, 
after delaying the Virginia lease sale in 2011, the President doesn't 
even include it in his proposed plan. Under President Obama, then, the 
absolute earliest that the Virginia lease sale could happen is 2017. 
That's 6 years after it was scheduled to take place.
  In total, the President's proposed plan only includes 15 lease sales. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, this means 
that this President has the distinction of offering the lowest number 
of lease sales over a 5-year plan since this program began, since this 
legislation establishing the review. Madam Speaker, that's worse than 
even Jimmy Carter's record.
  During the several hours of debate yesterday, there was little 
defense of the President's limited and weak offshore plan. In fact, a 
great deal of time was expended by the other side trying to change the 
subject, rather than endorse or defend the President's offshore plan. I 
think that shows just how out of touch and unacceptable this plan 
really is.
  Today we will hear the deliberately misleading claim that the 
President's proposed plan opens 75 percent of the known offshore 
resources. That is simply not true, Madam Speaker. It was meant to 
provide political cover for a failed record on offshore drilling. The 
cold hard facts are the President is effectively reimposing a 
moratorium on 85 percent of our potential resources offshore of 
America's coasts.
  An attempt might be made to claim that the bill doesn't represent the 
President's plan. Madam Speaker, it couldn't be more black-and-white. 
This bill exactly replicates the offshore lease sales scheduled in the 
President's proposed plan, both by location and by the sale year. H.R. 
6168 is the President's plan.
  Now, just last week, Secretary of the Interior Salazar wrote that 
President Obama's offshore plan is what the ``American people have 
asked for.'' In reality, the American people want increased American 
energy production and new and more American jobs. The President's 
proposed plan fails to deliver on both, American energy production and 
American jobs.
  So by voting against this bill--which I will do, even though I am the 
sponsor of it--Members of Congress can stand up for the American people 
and reject

[[Page 12188]]

the President's no-new-drilling, no-new-jobs plan.
  We can and we must do better. And that is precisely why we had the 
debate, and we will have a vote later on today on H.R. 6082, the House 
plan.
  So with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to thank our ranking member, Mr. Markey of 
Massachusetts, for his forceful advocacy on this issue.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6168, legislation that would 
support the President's proposed Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan for 
2012-2017. This plan, which has been developed over the past few years 
with extensive public input, is a responsible way to increase domestic 
production of oil and gas while still protecting our delicate and vital 
ocean environment.
  Contrary to Republican claims that the plan would restrict domestic 
production and hurt jobs, the President's proposed plan would actually 
open 75 percent of offshore oil and gas resources to development. Where 
there are resources, the land is being opened--75 percent. In fact, 
domestic production of oil is at an 18-year high, and gas production is 
at an all-time high under President Obama.
  At the same time that the President's plan includes new leasing, it 
also protects many of our most important ocean environments from 
drilling, such as Georges Bank and other vital fishing areas off the 
coast of my State, Massachusetts. Georges Bank is a valuable public 
resource that has been central to our region's rich cultural heritage, 
economy, and identity.
  For years, these waters have been at the heart of the New England 
fishing industry and have historically been one of the country's most 
productive fishing grounds. Income from Massachusetts fisheries has 
been valued at approximately $350 million annually, and Georges Bank is 
a key part of this marine ecosystem. Allowing oil and gas drilling on 
Georges Bank would threaten to destroy these rich fishing grounds and 
could have a devastating effect on the Massachusetts economy.
  But the benefits of the President's responsible plan go well beyond 
just protecting Massachusetts. This plan would also protect Bristol Bay 
in Alaska from drilling. Bristol Bay, as many know, is one of Alaska's 
most pristine fishing grounds and the source of much of the salmon that 
we consume here in the United States.
  The decision to keep these areas off-limits was based on local 
recommendations and a lack of infrastructure and oil spill 
preparedness. If we open this fishing ground to oil drilling, the 
impact could be felt across our country.
  The Republican plan would also require just one environmental review 
for every new lease offered in the Atlantic, Pacific, or Bristol Bay, 
without taking into account the uniqueness of each of these locations. 
While I certainly understand the desire to streamline these reviews, 
requiring one blanket review for the entire country is not the answer.
  The harsh climate of Alaska is infinitely different than that of the 
Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of Maine. It is important to know the 
conditions of each site before drilling is started or we could face 
another disaster like the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon spill from which 
the Gulf Coast States are still recovering.
  So I call upon my colleagues to support the President's responsible 
offshore leasing plan and vote in favor of H.R. 6168. Our support of 
the President's plan is support for the fishermen in Massachusetts and 
throughout the United States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the 
Natural Resources Committee and a subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, this bill we are considering under 
suspension simply codifies President Obama's offshore drilling plan for 
the next 5 years. It's a simple bill and a simple vote: What do you 
choose for America's future?
  The Congressional Replacement Plan we debated yesterday will harness 
America's vast offshore resources in both existing and new areas in a 
responsible way. Our plan is the right plan to keep the United States 
competitive and to develop the resources that American families and 
American businesses need. It will generate more revenue for the 
taxpayers, more energy, and more jobs.
  What does the Obama plan under this suspension vote have to offer? No 
new areas for energy development and the lowest number of lease sales 
in the history of the 5-year program, according to Congressional 
Research Service. Is that really the plan you think is best to move our 
Nation forward and generate high-paying jobs?
  Look at this bar graph. This shows what was going on under President 
Jimmy Carter 30 years ago. This 5-year plan program has been going for 
more than 30 years, and the 15 lease sales you see at the end of the 
graph is the lowest in the history of the 5-year program. If you 
remember, during Jimmy Carter's administration, we had gasoline 
shortages. You could go to the gas station and buy gas if your license 
plate ended in an odd or even number, depending on the day of the week. 
We should not have the lowest number of lease sales in the history of 
our country.
  The Obama 5-year plan is the you-cannot-build-it plan; you cannot 
build new infrastructure for energy. It tells the people of Virginia 
that they cannot build new rigs and explore new areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf regardless of the bipartisan support of the Governor, 
Senators, and Representatives of Virginia. The President's plan says 
you cannot build anything new, essentially reinstating a moratorium on 
the Pacific and Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. The President's plan 
locks up 85 percent of our Nation's nearly 2 billion acres of Outer 
Continental Shelf resources.
  Production on Federal lands, according to the Energy Information 
Administration, is down under the Obama administration.
  I heard something earlier about natural gas production is up. That's 
on private lands primarily because of fracking.
  We need to get Federal lands producing again, and the Obama 5-year 
plan is not the plan to do that. The Congressional Replacement Plan is. 
We should vote for more American energy and vote for more American 
jobs. So vote against this suspension bill and vote in favor of the 
Congressional Replacement Plan.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, the number of lease sales don't translate 
into more drilling on these leases necessarily. Oil companies already 
hold leases in the Gulf of Mexico that are sitting idle that contain 
nearly 18 billion barrels of oil, according to the Interior Department. 
Oil companies should begin drilling on those leases before asking to 
threaten Massachusetts and other coastal States with new drilling.
  Now I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  Madam Speaker, I support President Obama's proposed offshore drilling 
lease plan. I will vote for it, but I suspect that it will garner 
little support, and that's the reason why it was scheduled for 
consideration today. But unlike the Republican majority in the House 
who favor drilling above all else, Interior Secretary Salazar and 
President Obama are acting more responsibly in a balanced fashion.
  Their 5-year leasing plan attempts to balance the full range of 
public and private interests. Their 5-year leasing plan attempts to 
ensure that our coastal waters will continue to be a shared public 
resource. They were never meant to be the exclusive domain of the oil 
and gas industry.
  Introducing drilling in new areas, as the gentleman from Washington 
State's bill would do, will disrupt established industries like 
commercial fishing and beach tourism. There is no

[[Page 12189]]

question about that. And there is no need to rush forward and open our 
entire coast to drilling when 75 percent of our offshore oil and gas 
resources are already available for drilling. In fact, more oil is in 
production today under the Obama administration than at any time during 
the last 14 years. And more of the public's lands and waters have been 
leased for drilling today than at any previous time in American 
history.
  Onshore, oil companies hold leases on more than 73 million acres of 
the public's land, though they choose to keep 45 million of those acres 
inactive.
  Offshore, more than 37 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf 
have been offered for lease, although the oil industry has bid on less 
than 10 percent of these new available leases. 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.
  Now, the President's plan does open up areas in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas off Alaska's northern coast to oil and gas development. I 
do have strong misgivings that adequate safeguards have been 
established to respond to a future oil spill disaster in these seas 
because drilling will be done in a harsh environment in a remote area 
where disaster response capabilities are extremely limited and could be 
compromised by severe weather conditions, which in fact are the norm up 
there.
  But I am in strong agreement that the 2012-2017 plan excludes lease 
sale 220 that covers waters in the Mid-Atlantic, especially off the 
coast of Virginia. In addition to commercial fishing interests and 
tourism, lease sale 220 threatens military readiness, our national 
security interests, and it intersects shipping lanes for the Atlantic's 
two busiest commercial ports--Hampton Roads and Baltimore. The U.S. 
Atlantic fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval Base and operates in these 
very same waters that the President wants to protect. He wisely 
proposes simply postponing oil and gas development primarily for that 
purpose.
  According to a report issued by the Office of the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense for Readiness, there should be no lease sales in 72 percent of 
the proposed 220 lease area since it is in conflict with live ordnance, 
air surface missile/bomb and gunnery exercises, shipboard qualification 
trials, carrier qualifications, and follow-on testing and evaluation. 
An additional 5 percent would interfere with aerial operations and 
shouldn't host permanent surface structures.
  In summary, 78 percent of proposed lease sale 220 that the President 
wisely postpones would be in areas that conflict with our national 
security needs; and a good deal of the remaining 22 percent would be 
within the shipping lanes to the ports of Hampton Roads and Baltimore.
  Madam Speaker, our coastal waters are a shared resource that host a 
number of competing and sometimes incompatible uses. In the interest of 
the oil and gas industry, and to perpetuate a myth that somehow we can 
drill our way to lower gasoline prices and energy independence, the 
Republican majority is demonstrating a disregard for our other economic 
interests and the livelihood of millions of Americans employed in the 
fishing and tourism and national security sectors. Their livelihood is 
needlessly placed at risk in a drilling-above-all-else policy.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support the President's balanced 
legislation and reject the other drilling bill that is on the floor 
today. The President is trying to do the right thing, and he should be 
supported. The other bill will have unintended, unforeseen, but 
inevitably adverse consequences to our economy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry), a 
Representative of a coastal State and a very important member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, the rhetoric here just does not meet the 
facts. Our energy policy in this country has continued to fail us 
because we have spent money in areas that are getting us no results. We 
know that to lower costs for all Americans, we must lower their energy 
bills. We know that the cheapest form of energy out there is oil and 
gas; and yet the President puts out a bare-bones policy, yet claims to 
want to create jobs.
  The lowest unemployment rate in this country exists in North Dakota, 
and the reason that unemployment is so low there is because they 
understand that drilling equals jobs. Now, let's see what's going on up 
in the Dakotas, because if we would believe what the gentlemen and 
ladies across the aisle would lead us to believe, that the areas that 
we would like to open up do not contain any resources, then they would 
believe, as the USGS believed in 2002, that the Marcellus shale in the 
Pennsylvania area only contained about 2 trillion cubic feet of gas.

                              {time}  1300

  Well, today, through the hard work of Americans and private industry, 
we have realized that there are 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 
In the Gulf of Mexico in the 1980s, there was an assessment that 
believed that only 6.25 billion barrels of oil was located in the gulf, 
but yet today, 15.5 billion barrels have been produced.
  Now, the problem is that it takes a while for private industry to 
recognize where these resources are, to be able to find them, to 
explore for them and then to determine how much is in the ground. And 
so that takes time. So what the President does is he takes those 
properties, those Federal lands, those Federal properties, off the 
table. It doesn't allow those companies to go out and explore to 
determine whether or not we can actually be energy independent, which 
everyone here on both sides of the aisle continues to come up to these 
microphones and claim they want.
  Well, we can do that. And all we're asking in our plan is that we 
allow these properties to be surveyed and looked at and be made 
available.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. LANDRY. Make these properties available so that private industry 
can come in to determine the amount of reserves that can be extracted 
out of the ground and given to Americans to reduce their overall energy 
consumption.
  So, Madam Speaker, I will tell you that what the President does is 
fails the American people when it comes to creating jobs and lowering 
the cost of energy not only at the gas pump, but in their electric 
bills, in the manufacturing centers around this country and in the 
steel mills. In every sector of this country that uses energy, the 
failure for us to tap into our resources and to review and get a solid 
assessment on the amount of resources available to the American people 
is being missed here.
  So I certainly hope that Members would reject the President's plan 
and take up our plan, which is going to expand the amount of Federal 
properties available to explore for oil and gas and lower the cost and 
create jobs for all Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday, the majority brought to the floor a bill 
that would replace the Interior Department's 5-year offshore drilling 
plan. Today, the majority is bringing a bill to the floor that would 
require the Interior Department to conduct the offshore drilling plan 
it is already doing.
  Now why would we be taking up a bill to replace the plan yesterday 
and a bill to implement the plan today? Is it because the majority is 
having buyer's remorse about their own bill that would put drilling 
rigs off of the beaches of California, the beaches of Maine, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, 
Maryland, and Virginia? Are they having remorse putting all those rigs 
out there off the beaches with no new safety procedures adopted post 
the BP spill? Overnight, have they had

[[Page 12190]]

some regret, conscience stricken, perhaps that's not a good idea?
  That would be a very hopeful sign, I think, for all of us who care 
about the environment, care about safety and care about protecting the 
beaches and the fishing industries of our country.
  Or is it because they were so compelled by arguments that the 
Democrats made during the debate on the floor yesterday that they now 
intend to reverse their position and actually support President Obama's 
offshore drilling plan that makes 75 percent of all of our oil and gas 
resources available for drilling while protecting the east and west 
coasts?
  I don't think so, because I am quite certain that the chairman of the 
committee intends to vote against his own bill here today and that the 
only reason the majority is bringing this bill up is to defeat it. It 
appears that the majority's dislike of President Obama is so great and 
so overwhelming that they are about to actually vote against more oil 
and gas drilling offshore even in an era where President Obama has 
already demonstrated his commitment to drilling. There are more rigs 
out drilling now in the United States than all the rest of the world 
combined. We're at an 18-year high in production of oil in the United 
States. You have to go all the way back to 1993 to find a day where 
there was more oil being produced on a daily basis than today. We have 
reduced our oil dependence--that is, how much we have to import from 
overseas--from 57 percent when George Bush was President just 4 years 
ago down to only 45 percent during the Obama administration.
  Thank you, President Obama. Thank you for the fantastic job you're 
doing in reducing our dependency upon imported oil. That is something 
that did not happen during President Bush's years in office. And that's 
quite a record, isn't it, that we're at an 18-year high for oil 
development? We're at a point where we've reduced our dependence on 
imported oil from 57 percent down to 45 percent just in 3\1/2\ years 
since President Obama was sworn in. We have more rigs than the whole 
rest of the world combined drilling for oil here in the United States. 
That is quite a record, and we thank you, President Obama, for your 
excellent job.
  But we know what the Republican majority is trying to do here today. 
They're trying to re-message here that somehow or other President Obama 
hasn't done a historically good job. The majority is about to make 
their own history here--rewrite history. They are so bent on voting 
against President Obama that they are going to actually oppose policy 
they hold most dear--more drilling. We appear to have found the one 
thing that can stop the majority from voting for drilling over and over 
again. This would be like Red Sox fans rooting against the Red Sox just 
because they signed Derek Jeter. All of a sudden, they would want to 
not support them any longer. And the majority is putting this bill on 
the suspension calendar today even though we know they have no 
intention of supporting it.
  So why are we here? Why are we wasting the time of this House when 
there are so many other pressing issues facing the Nation? We should be 
focusing on creating jobs for our constituents, on passing a farm bill 
that helps farmers who are being harmed by drought and taking action on 
a spending and tax plan to avert going off the fiscal cliff of 
sequestration. But are we doing any of those things? No, we are not.
  The majority is not only asking us to suspend the rules to pass this 
bill, they are asking us to suspend reality. They are asking us to 
suspend the reality that President Obama has reduced our dependence on 
oil from 57 percent down to 45 percent, that we are at an 18-year high 
in oil production in our country, and that we have 50 percent more 
floating drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than we did 
before the BP spill.
  Let me say that again: There are 50 percent more floating drilling 
rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than before the BP spill, and we 
have more drilling going on than the whole rest of the world combined. 
The reality is that President Obama is about ``all of the above.'' 
That's his energy plan.
  What the Republicans do is they just keep bringing out things that 
really make the oil industry happy but towards the goal of killing the 
wind industry and killing the solar industry, because they're doing 
nothing for those industries. And that agenda is, oh, so clear. It's 
transparently clear what this agenda is.

                              {time}  1310

  We actually support an ``aye'' vote on the President's plan and a 
``no'' vote on the Republican plan. We should not be drilling off of 
the beaches of our country when 75 percent of all the oil and gas 
resources have been made available and the oil industry hasn't even 
begun in a significant way to capture all those opportunities.
  At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
1 additional minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment to discuss 
with my good friend from Massachusetts some of the statistics that he 
was laying out for the American people here on the floor.
  The problem is that we are lacking the demand for energy right now 
because people are out of work. Because of high unemployment, people 
are not driving back and forth. That means they're not utilizing 
gasoline or energy. So, he's right; the amount of oil that we're having 
to import today has been reduced because people are out of work.
  Now, what happens if--and this is a big ``if''--we can crank this 
economy back up and we can do what everyone here wants to do, and that 
is to create jobs? Well, the problem is that, if we start cranking this 
economy up and we don't have a solid energy policy in place, gasoline 
prices are going to rise and we're going to end up back in a recession.
  So I would like the gentleman from Massachusetts to join me in 
saying, You know what? We're going to put the country on a sustainable 
path. We're going to ensure that when Americans get the jobs that we're 
going to help create here, we're going to make sure that the economy 
can continue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LANDRY. We're going to ensure that that economic expansion is 
going to last a long, long time.
  So again, I would urge the gentleman to reject the President's plan. 
Join us. Give private industry an opportunity to see what is out there. 
Once and for all, remove the shackles that America has chained to OPEC 
and let us be truly energy independent.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  All you have to know about the political nature of this bill--and the 
next bill that we're going to be voting on that allows for drilling off 
of the beaches of Massachusetts and southern California and Maine and 
Maryland, New Jersey, without new safety safeguards being put in 
place--is that they kind of pick a whole bunch of States that are on 
the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, but they leave out one State.
  Now, why did they leave out that State? I wonder why they left out 
Florida. Why isn't Florida on the list? Why did they exclude that one 
State out of their systematic goal of increasing energy independence 
and compromising, if necessary, the beaches of all of these other 
States in the advancement of that goal to help Exxon Mobile and BP and 
Shell drill off of our coastline? Why don't they want to drill off of 
Miami Beach? Why don't they want to drill off of Jacksonville's 
beaches? Why don't they include Florida? Hmm. Ah, Gore v. Bush. Florida 
could decide the Presidential race. Ah. Oh, the Republican convention 
is in Florida this year? Oh. They don't want 1 million people coming to 
protest the drilling off of the beaches of Florida? Oh. That makes a 
lot of sense. That's a good justification for excluding Florida, but

[[Page 12191]]

not Massachusetts, not Maine, not Maryland, not Virginia. But Florida, 
they're out.
  So all you have to know about the blatant political nature of these 
bills is that they're intended to embarrass President Obama, just as he 
has proven he is a historically successful President in increasing oil 
production in America. He has reduced oil dependence on overseas 
sources from 57 percent down to 45 percent--something George Bush never 
did. In fact, it spiked to 57 percent under his watch over 8 years. 
That's a long time to get something done on that front--and he now has 
50 percent more rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. So this is really all about 
politics: 131 votes out here to help the oil and gas industry, no votes 
out here to help the wind and solar industry.
  And the story line continues, even up to the point where they exclude 
Florida. I mean, it's so nakedly obvious what is happening here in 
terms of the political nature of what the Republicans are doing on this 
subject. But please, for the sake of the country, can we get to an all-
of-the-above strategy? Can we get to something that actually has you 
saying positively what you're going to do about the renewable energy 
that we have in our country that can make it possible for us to say to 
OPEC, totally, that we don't need your oil any more than we need your 
sand? Can we actually say that? Can we agree upon that, that it's a 
common goal and we can find a way of giving the incentives to the wind 
and solar industry in the same way you do, over and over again, want to 
give to the oil and gas industry?
  Please, let's work together, as a common goal, as a country, to 
accomplish that goal. Let's not just favor oil and gas. Let's have an 
agenda that includes all of the above. Because today is just another 
repetition of the same syndrome that has an ancestor worship at the 
altar of oil and gas that plagued us in the 20th century but can be 
alleviated, if we put together a plan to exploit all of our domestic 
resources, in the 21st century. The agenda of the majority is sadly 
lacking in that area.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this suspension vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  First of all, I want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts that I 
was hoping he would thank me for introducing the bill because now he 
has an opportunity to vote for the President's plan. I already 
mentioned that I was going to vote against it. I was very forthright. 
But now the gentleman does have an opportunity to vote for the 
President's plan, so I wish that he had thanked me for that.
  But I want to say this, Madam Speaker: We already know that Americans 
want to be less dependent on foreign energy. The Republican plan 
obviously does that. Americans also want to have parts of the economy 
start growing. Energy production is a way to jump-start our economy 
with good American jobs. So those are all givens.
  But the rhetoric sometimes coming from the other side is: Why are 
some areas emphasized and some areas are not? Because we use a very, 
very novel approach to where we should sell leases and explore for oil, 
and that is, very simply, where we think the resources are, and then 
people will bid on that and take a chance and see if there are 
resources. If there are, they will drill, and the Federal Treasury and 
the American people benefit.
  A good case of that, by the way, Madam Speaker, is in southern 
California, because reference has been made several times to southern 
California, and specifically to Santa Barbara, California, the Santa 
Barbara Channel.
  Now, the State Lands Commission says that there are 1,200 natural 
occurring seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel, and it's estimated that 
coming out of these naturally occurring seeps in the Santa Barbara 
Channel is 55,000 barrels a year--each year. Experts have concluded 
that that amount of seep could be translated into enough fuel to fuel 
the energy for Santa Barbara County for 7\1/2\ years. Now, that is a 
lot of oil.
  We believe the opportunity ought to be to go--again, with the novel 
approach--where the oil is. So that's why our approach says, okay, 
let's open up all these areas. Let's allow the private sector to 
ascertain if they want to pay somebody for a lease to develop those 
resources.

                              {time}  1320

  That is in essence what this debate is about.
  And finally, let me conclude this way, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that 
the President's plan reinstates the moratorium that existed going up to 
2008. The American people demanded that be lifted with $4 gasoline, but 
this essentially reinstates that.
  I think that's the wrong policy. So we'll have an opportunity today 
to vote on two proposals: one that does increase American energy and 
creates American jobs, or one that maintains the status quo. In fact, 
it doesn't even do that. It goes back and reestablishes the moratorium 
and locks up 85 percent of our resources.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this suspension bill, and a ``yes'' vote 
on the subsequent bill that we debated yesterday, H.R. 6082.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I voted for H.R. 6168, President 
Obama's Proposed 2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act. I 
emphasize that this is a qualified support. The President's plan 
maintains important protections for the Pacific Coast, the Atlantic 
Coast, and Bristol Bay. It is far better than the Republican 
alternative, which would open most of the American coastline to 
drilling, and which would eliminate important environmental safeguards 
in the process.
  Should Congress move forward with the President's proposal, it should 
do so with care, ensuring sufficient protection throughout the process. 
In particular, I am concerned about the potential permitting in Alaska. 
The President's proposal does require additional research and 
comprehensive analysis before approval of any project in Alaska, I 
underscore the need to have a full understanding of the impacts of 
drilling on the Alaskan ecosystems before moving forward. Appropriate 
safeguards must be in place and I look forward to working with the 
administration to ensure that we move forward with projects only after 
being confident that they do not pose a threat to the environment, 
ecosystems, or existing local economies in the area.
  Our biggest priority should be reducing our dependence on fossil 
fuels, regardless of whether or not those fuels are obtained 
domestically or internationally. I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to support policies that support clean energy production and 
energy efficiency.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, today we are considering the so-called 
President Obama's Proposed 2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan 
Act (H.R. 6168).
  This legislation, to require the Department of the Interior to 
conduct the very offshore drilling plan they are already set to 
implement, has been rushed to floor just so that the majority could 
vote against it in a political stunt. Even the sponsor of this bill 
will oppose it.
  Although I have serious concerns with the DOI's plan to hold lease 
sales in the Arctic, where spill response capabilities are virtually 
nonexistent and the merits of opening this pristine environment to 
drilling remain unclear, the DOI's five-year plan stands in stark 
contrast to the House Republican plan for offshore oil and gas 
development.
  The Republican plan amounts to yet another attempt to open up nearly 
every last piece of our public lands to drilling and hand even more 
giveaways to Big Oil. It is important to note that the President's plan 
does not provide for oil and gas lease sales off of the coast of New 
Jersey.
  For these reasons, I will vote for H.R. 6168. But I want the Record 
to reflect that my vote for this bill is not an endorsement of expanded 
drilling in the Arctic or seismic exploration off of the coast of New 
Jersey. I strongly oppose drilling off of the coast of New Jersey and 
in the Mid-Atlantic and I offered an amendment to the bill we are 
considering to prevent any new drilling in that region.
  Along with my Democratic colleagues on the Natural Resources 
Committee, I have offered bills to implement the safety recommendations 
of the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and to 
establish a fee on inactive leases as an incentive for oil companies to 
begin producing on the lands they already hold--of course, applying up-
to-date environmental and safety lessons. I also introduced the Big Oil 
Bailout Prevention Act to make

[[Page 12192]]

sure that oil companies pay the full cost of damages resulting from 
future oil spills.
  We should be considering these important reform bill not political 
stunts designed to let the majority pat themselves on the back about 
what a good job they are doing to promote the development of the 
natural resources that belong to all Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6168.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________