[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10608-10629]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      OFFSHORE ENERGY AND JOBS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2231.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 274 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. 2231.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1518


                     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. 2231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to increase 
energy exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, 
provide for equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, implement 
the reorganization of the functions of the former Minerals Management 
Service into distinct and separate agencies, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Gardner in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 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.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and 
Jobs Act.
  Unlike the President's plan that we heard from this week, which is to 
impose new energy taxes and Federal red tape that will increase energy 
prices and cost American jobs, this Republican plan will expand access 
to our own U.S. energy resources in order to lower energy prices and 
increase American jobs.

                              {time}  1520

  Gas prices have nearly doubled since President Obama took office. The 
national average today remains above $3.50 per gallon compared to the 
$1.89 it was when he took office. We shouldn't have to accept 
potentially $4-a-gallon gas prices, especially when we have the 
resources right here at home. Higher gas prices mean we are making 
tough budget choices. For small businesses, it may mean the difference 
between hiring more workers or having to let some go. For families, it 
may be the difference between replacing the worn-out household 
appliance or making due with makeshift repairs. This is why access to 
affordable energy is so vital.
  For decades, most of our Nation's offshore areas were under a 
moratorium, preventing any offshore development. All of that, Mr. 
Chairman, changed in the summer of 2008 when outrageously high gas 
prices made our Nation's energy struggles a regular topic of 
conversation around the dinner table for American families. Later that 
year, Congress and then-President Bush lifted those moratoria with the 
hopes of fostering an era of increased energy production.
  President Obama then came into office with a tremendous opportunity. 
For the first time in more than a generation, he had the ability to 
open new offshore areas to oil and natural gas production. Sadly, 
instead, he went out of his way to shut down this opportunity by 
putting forth a new 5-year offshore leasing plan that locks up 85 
percent of our offshore areas. The plan includes no new drilling, which 
results in no new American jobs. In fact, it includes the lowest number 
of lease sales ever offered in an offshore lease plan. Mr. Chairman, 
that's the worst record since President Jimmy Carter's.
  We must do better. That's why we are here today to consider the 
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. This legislation puts us back on the 
right path: one that will open new areas to drilling, one that will 
create 1.2 million American jobs, one that will lower energy prices, 
and one that will generate $1.5 billion in new revenue to the Federal 
Government. But it's not only energy jobs that will be created; it's 
associated industries like manufacturing, boating, transportation, and 
service industries like hotels and restaurants. They, too, will also 
benefit.
  This legislation requires the administration to implement a new 5-
year leasing plan that includes areas with the most oil and natural 
gas, such as the mid-Atlantic and Alaska and off southern California. 
It's not a ``drill everywhere'' plan but, rather, a ``drill smart'' 
plan that focuses on those areas where the greatest potential lies. It 
would also require specific lease sales to be held off the coasts of 
South Carolina and Virginia, the latter of which was originally 
scheduled to take place in 2011 but was cancelled by the Obama 
administration. There is bipartisan support in favor of the Virginia 
lease sale, but, again, this administration canceled it and punted any 
future sales until after 2017.
  The bill also establishes a fair and equitable revenue sharing 
program with all coastal States that have drilling off their coasts, 
much like what the Gulf States currently enjoy. Revenue sharing will 
create new incentives for opening offshore areas to drilling. Again, 
more American energy production equates to more jobs and a stronger 
economy.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes reforms to further enhance 
the accountability, efficiency, safety, and ethical standards of 
offshore energy operations. These reforms will allow for the robust 
production of our Nation's offshore energy resources while ensuring 
that all activity is conducted with proper oversight.
  Offshore energy production has steadily declined under this 
administration, and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's time to reverse that 
trend. H.R. 2231 will remove government barriers that are currently 
blocking access to our American energy resources. It will safely and 
responsibly unlock our energy and allow us to create over a million new 
American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Energy and 
Jobs Act.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here we are again. It's kind of a Groundhog Day moment for Congress.

[[Page 10609]]

This bill, or individual parts of this bill, passed in the last 
Congress five times and never went anywhere in the Senate, and it will 
meet the same fate again.
  Now, the premise here is that if we had mandatory offshore oil 
leasing in the more sensitive areas of the coast--remember, 75 percent 
of the known recoverable resources are available currently under lease. 
Currently, there are 5,484 leases on the Outer Continental Shelf that 
aren't producing. Those leases cover 30 million acres--85 percent of 
the total acreage currently under lease. We estimate there are 18 
billion barrels of oil under these leases and 50 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. When I asked the gentleman from the American Petroleum 
Institute why they needed to put more acreage under lease when they're 
sitting on all of this, his answer was, Well, you know, these things 
take a long time.
  If they take a long time, let's encourage them to develop what 
they've already leased, to go after these 18 billion barrels of oil and 
50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When they're making progress 
there, then they might come back and petition for more, and we'll make 
a decision at that point given the needs of the country; but the 
premise that somehow by putting more leases out there--with no 
requirement for them to perform--the price of gas will drop is 
absolutely untrue. We all know that's untrue. The American consumers 
know it's untrue.
  The principal reason that underlies the 50-cent-a-gallon, one-week 
run-up in May, which we're still paying, is refineries. Our refineries 
need to be cleaned and maintained and have periodic maintenance, and, 
oh, a couple of them have broken down. We have seen incredible 
consolidation in the refinery industry, and it's always the excuse for 
jacking up the price on Memorial Day and on the July Fourth weekend and 
sticking it to the American consumers. Last year, they claimed that all 
of the refineries were shut down. An investigative reporter went in and 
got the air pollution records--no. Actually, they were operating, and 
they were exporting gasoline from the United States to overseas and 
were claiming there was a shortage here.
  Now, we're in a world market. There's not much we can do about that. 
So the world price is what we pay for oil and gas, and it's a 
manipulated market; it's a collusive market. If we really wanted to do 
something, Members on the other side would join me in getting the 
administration to file a complaint against OPEC for manipulating the 
markets and for violating the World Trade Organization. You would join 
in investigating these suspicious refinery shutdowns, which I've asked 
the Obama administration Energy Task Force to do. You would also join 
us, instead of giving more latitude to speculators in the oil 
companies, in actually reining in the speculators. Hey, the head of 
ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for high prices as 75 cents a gallon is 
due to excess speculation on Wall Street.
  So there are some real things we could do that would bring relief 
very quickly to American families, but those are not giving the oil 
industry, which is sitting on 5,484 leases, covering 30 million acres 
and 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas, more acreage to put under lease, particularly with mandatory 
leasing in sensitive areas.
  That's what this bill would do. We've passed it before. Well, not 
``we.'' Collectively, the House has passed it before. I expect, as I 
said, we will see that happen again today, but nothing will happen with 
these bills in the United States Senate.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this 
legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. While the U.S. is blessed with an abundance of energy 
resources, we are also saddled with an administration that is throwing 
up barriers to our energy security and economic prosperity.
  This is why, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2231, the 
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. It passed out of the subcommittee I chair 
on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  The bill requires the President to implement a new 5-year plan that 
includes the areas offshore containing the greatest known oil and 
natural gas resources. This is a targeted approach that focuses on 
specific areas in which we know the most energy resources are located. 
The bill requires lease sales to be held off of Virginia, which were 
originally scheduled to take place in 2011, and South Carolina.

                              {time}  1530

  In both States, there is strong, bipartisan support from the public, 
the congressional delegations and the Governors for drilling off their 
coasts.
  Finally, the bill implements important reforms to strengthen the 
safety, accountability and efficiency of the Federal Government's 
offshore agencies. It establishes a fair revenue-sharing program for 
all coastal States.
  Both provisions would further encourage the safe, expanded production 
of offshore energy.
  Mr. Chairman, high gas prices hurt all of us, and the impacts are 
felt every day. Families are forced to make tough decisions in their 
budgets, schools run fewer buses and the costs of businesses go up, 
forcing companies to hire fewer workers. But the concerns of America's 
energy consumers, the Nation's small businesses and families have 
largely been ignored by this administration.
  When President Obama took office, nearly all of the offshore areas 
were open to energy production. The administration had the tremendous 
opportunity for the first time in more than a generation to open new 
areas of the OCS for oil and gas drilling. Available to them for the 
first time since 1982 was the opportunity to access billions of barrels 
of oil that have been held closed under lock and key for decades.
  Instead of jumping on the opportunity to increase our energy 
security, President Obama discarded a plan to develop these new areas, 
canceled lease sales and closed off 85 percent of our Outer Continental 
Shelf. This crushed the hopes and economic opportunity for the people 
in States like Virginia. In fact, the Obama plan put forward the lowest 
number of lease sales since the Jimmy Carter administration.
  Nearly one year later, we are here again today to attempt to change 
the wrong course upon which this administration has set our Nation and 
our energy future. Recently, the Energy Information Administration 
issued their report for energy production on Federal lands for fiscal 
year 2012. It should be no surprise that the sale of crude on Federal 
lands decreased 5 percent in 2012, with an 8 percent decrease in 
Federal offshore volumes.
  While this administration seems content with the status quo, this 
legislation is about making the right choices now to foster new access 
and new energy for the future. H.R. 2231 makes it clear that waiting 
until 2017, 5 more years, is too long for new energy production.
  Increased American energy production is one of the best ways to 
create new American jobs, strengthen the economy and generate new 
revenue to help tackle the national debt. We cannot keep ignoring the 
vast resources potential of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. I applaud 
Chairman Hastings for his leadership on this issue, and I encourage all 
of my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Mineral Resources 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Oregon.
  Each summer as Americans rush to our beaches for fun and relaxation, 
the majority of the Republicans here in the House rush forward with 
ill-conceived legislation to open up those same beaches and coastlines 
to unsafe drilling. Today we have a bill that has been accelerated 
through the legislative process and has been drafted in a way that 
limits the opportunity for Members representing coastal States to 
protect shorelines and coastal economies.

[[Page 10610]]

  The bill we're considering would allow Big Oil to put drilling rigs 
off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaskan coasts without enacting key 
drilling safety reforms that we know should be there following the BP 
Deepwater Horizon disaster. This is bad policy through a bad process, 
all so this bill can enjoy the same fate that so many irresponsible 
drilling bills that the majority has rammed through have experienced.
  They put these bills forward in apparent ignorance that a law 
requires passage by both houses and signature by the President. The 
administration was never given an opportunity to testify on this 
legislation, and now the President has suggested that he would veto 
this bill if it ever made it to his desk.
  In committee markup, I offered an amendment to protect the Atlantic 
coastal communities, including my home State of New Jersey, which is 
strongly opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast. The amendment was 
rejected on a party-line vote.
  Need I remind my colleagues that about 70 million people live in 
Atlantic coastal regions. And according to NOAA data, Atlantic 
commercial fisheries were valued at $1.8 billion in 2011, and the New 
Jersey Travel Industry Association says New Jersey's travel and tourism 
is worth about $38 billion a year, supporting more than 500,000 jobs. 
All this depends on the pristine conditions of our beaches and 
shoreline.
  But this isn't just about what New Jersey wants. Energy development 
of the OCS is a Federal issue. And as we learned during the debate on 
my amendment, any oil spill off the coast of, let's say, Virginia, will 
drift quickly to the coast of New Jersey and other northeastern States.
  I submitted an amendment this week, but it was ruled not in order. 
The Rules Committee seems to think it's strange to want to collect 
fees--rent on drilling plots that belong to the public. Fees should be 
collected on all leases, producing or not. I think it's worth noting 
that according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, as of June of 
this year, there were more than 30 million acres of non-producing 
leases, five times more than the 5.6 million leased acres where oil 
production is currently occurring. Oil and gas doesn't need more 
acreage to drill on. They need to drill on the leases they currently 
hold.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOLT. In addition to these leases, we're considering this bill on 
the heels of the President's speech announcing his plan to reduce 
carbon pollution and to mitigate the threats of global climate change.
  I realize the authors of this bill don't put much stock in what the 
President had to say the other day. But as elected representatives, we 
have a moral obligation to act. As the climate changes, there will be 
stronger superstorms, worse floods, more withering droughts, more 
intense wildfires. The science is overwhelming, but many of my 
colleagues in Congress would prefer to deepen our dependence on fossil 
fuels.
  We're considering this bill at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and 
it's the wrong bill. The crisis is not waning. The crisis of climate 
change is real. President Obama is doing all he can administratively 
while Congress fiddles. It is no coincidence that as Democrats work to 
address climate change, Republicans in the House recklessly pursue a 
``drill, baby, drill'' agenda.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of 
the committee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is a jobs bill. It 
creates American jobs, producing American energy. So it's an energy 
security bill, as well. And there can be no national security without 
energy security. So this is a national security bill, as well.
  Virginians get it, South Carolinians get it and Americans get it. The 
first domino is the jobs that are created on the offshore rigs. But if 
you ride on Highway 90 from Lafayette, Louisiana, down toward New 
Iberia and Houma, Louisiana, you're going to see on both sides of the 
road business after business after business that is supporting the 
offshore industries. These are pipe welders, pipefitters, mechanics and 
the service industry.
  You know what? Those guys contribute to the Chamber of Commerce and 
the United Way, and they go to church, they tithe and they eat at the 
local restaurants. This is a true job creator, and the first domino is 
the domino of putting Americans to work offshore, and that's what this 
bill does by opening up more areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. And 
with the trickle down, all the other dominos fall that provide money to 
the economies that desperately need it in this country in all the 
offshore areas.
  We want it in South Carolina. They want it in Virginia. And Americans 
want us to meet our energy needs with their own resources. That's why I 
urge the passage of this legislation, and I thank the chairman for his 
leadership.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 4 minutes to an outstanding new member of the 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a messy conglomeration of 
retread ideas that wastes this Chamber's time. The various titles in 
this bill have been rejected by the Senate, by many of the affected 
States, and have a zero chance of being signed by the President.
  Even when some of the ideas in this bill have merit, such as 
codifying the reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service, 
or addressing the temporary nature of Interior's authority to collect 
inspection fees, these ideas are cobbled together with provisions that 
are a mess of ``drill-baby-drill'' slogan-over-substance dead ends. So 
I get it; this is a message bill.
  Well, here's where I think the message is wrong: Americans have a 
right to weigh in on government actions in their backyard. This bill 
eliminates that opportunity by mandating lease sales and gagging the 
National Environmental Policy Act.
  Americans should all be able to share in the value of their public 
lands. This bill, however, takes the sale of a public asset and sends 
much of the revenue to only a few States, instead of either paying down 
the deficit or spending it on programs of national benefit to all 
Americans.
  Again, Americans should be told the truth about the nonexistent 
effect on gas prices of expanded U.S. drilling. As my colleague from 
Oregon explained so well, the price of crude is set in a global market, 
one where the countries with the greatest reserves have formed a 
cartel, which decreases supply to the world when we increase production 
in order for them to keep the prices propped up. So, unfortunately, we 
are actually not keeping gas prices down by increasing U.S. production.
  I am also very disappointed that an amendment that I filed was not 
made in order. My amendment would have prevented the Interior 
Department from doing business with companies that did not have a 
formal policy preventing discrimination based upon sexual orientation 
and gender identity. This amendment would have required oil companies 
that are not in compliance to certify that they would only hire 
individuals based on merit and not sexual orientation or gender 
identity, and they would prevent other discriminations and harassments 
if they want to purchase oil or gas leases.
  These policies are not unusual that I'm asking: 88 percent of Fortune 
500 companies have formal nondiscrimination policies prohibiting 
harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 
fact, all of the major integrated oil companies have sexual orientation 
nondiscrimination policies except one, ExxonMobil. In the past, 
ExxonMobil has explained that they're not in violation of State and 
local nondiscrimination laws because of the Federal Defense of Marriage 
Act, and that trumped local statutes. Well, that argument has been 
vitiated since

[[Page 10611]]

the Supreme Court struck down DOMA as unconstitutional.
  There is also extensive precedent of the Federal Government requiring 
contractors to have nondiscrimination policies based on race, color, 
religion, sex, and national origin. Our government dollars and 
resources should only be used when we are assured that the most 
qualified individuals are all equally considered.
  Now is the time for ExxonMobil to respect the Constitution and enact 
a formal policy preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation 
and gender identity. We Americans should not accept discrimination in 
any form.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), a member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Offshore 
Energy and Jobs Act. I applaud Chairman Hastings for his leadership on 
this bill that I believe will lower energy prices through the increased 
production of offshore resources.
  This is not only a jobs bill but a path to energy independence and 
relief to the American consumer's pocketbook--a concept this 
administration claims they support, but fails to follow through with.
  Just this week, the President directed EPA to put more regulations on 
the energy sector. These regulations will increase costs, which will be 
passed on to all American consumers and stifle domestic energy 
production, taking us further off the path to energy independence.
  I know my constituents do not believe that this heavy-handed approach 
to regulations and increasing costs to millions of families across the 
country is the answer to our problem.
  Oklahomans want leadership on energy policy, not hollow promises 
meant to appease a political party. I believe this bill is just one 
step of many that can be taken to get America to energy independence.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand with my constituents who believe that this path 
to energy independence begins here at home. I encourage my fellow 
Members to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just to inject a few facts into the 
debate, although we often ignore those around here: oil production from 
Federal lands is higher now than it was at the end of the Bush 
administration. We have produced 596 million barrels of oil from 
Federal lands last year, compared with 565 in 2008; and the Energy 
Information Administration found that oil production is higher on 
public lands offshore now than it was at the end of the Bush 
administration. We have produced 474 million barrels of oil last year, 
compared to 462 in 2008, but sometimes facts are inconvenient things.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), an esteemed member of the Ways and Means and 
Budget Committees.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for 
Chairman Hastings. He's a fair, civil individual. But this bill is off 
the charts. At least the last one that we voted on had some redeeming 
qualities--some redeeming qualities.
  We know there's more oil been produced in the last 3\1/2\ years. The 
increase is greater than the previous 20 years. So you're trying to 
target the administration, and the administration can speak for itself 
and defend itself, but this is not right. This is not right. This is 
not right.
  So let's talk about this. I am opposed to this legislation. This bill 
would completely rewrite the administration's plan for offshore leasing 
in a reckless and irresponsible manner. For example, this bill would 
force the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sale 220, located 
off the shore of Virginia, 70 miles from the beaches of my home State 
of New Jersey.
  Now, look, a lot of the folks that are going to vote for this bill 
voted against even helping those people in New Jersey respond to the 
Sandy storm. You know it, and I know it. And here we are on the floor 
perpetrating untruths about why this is needed now. Look, it's not the 
amount of land that we've set aside on water or on land for oil 
exploration and production. We've got plenty of oil coming out of the 
ground. We don't have any refineries, and this is the same debate we 
had 25 years ago. How dare anybody stand in this astute body and then 
claim we don't care if gas prices go up. The fact of the matter is this 
is an oil Congress and this is an oil economy, and you don't want to 
bring in--I want to talk about the special interests of the people who 
are hurting out there.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I want to talk about the special interests--not oil 
companies--us. Let's talk about us and what we get out of this.
  In fact, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, 
the administration is committed to ensuring that American taxpayers 
receive a fair return from the sale of public resources, public land. 
As drafted, as this bill is before us right now, the revenue-sharing 
provisions of H.R. 2231 would ultimately reduce the net return to the 
taxpayers from development of Federal resources directed to be leased 
under this bill.
  So, with summer upon us, tourism at the Jersey shore is one of our 
State's greatest economic drivers. These jobs that are committed, these 
jobs depend upon the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts, 
and the legislation before us now puts those jobs at risk. For 
communities across the State still working to rebuild from Sandy, this 
is not a risk they are willing to take.
  Instead of bending over backwards for Big Oil, we need to bend over 
and help as best we can the average citizen. I ask for a ``no'' vote on 
this.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my 
colleague from Virginia, I'd just point out that the CBO estimates that 
there will be revenue coming into the Federal Government of 
approximately $1.5 billion.
  At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Offshore 
Energy and Jobs Act, a bill that will create thousands of new jobs in 
Virginia while lowering the cost of energy for all Americans.
  Last month I traveled throughout my district, visiting local 
communities to discuss the impact of high energy prices. At each stop 
the same message rang clear: the cost of energy continues to have a 
significant negative impact on our small businesses, our farmers and 
our families.
  Not only do we see higher prices at the gas pump, but high fuel 
prices have triggered higher prices across the board. People are paying 
more for groceries and are witnessing their utility costs rise at a 
time when they can least afford it. There is no question Americans 
continue to suffer from Washington's failure to adopt a sensible energy 
policy.
  The President's consistently failed to lead on this issue. The 
administration continues to restrict leasing permits for oil and gas 
exploration off the coast of the Commonwealth, preventing Virginians 
from utilizing our natural resources.
  Reopening the lease sales off our coast enjoys broad bipartisan 
support in Virginia, yet Washington continues to insist that it knows 
best what is best for the Commonwealth.
  At a time when too many people in my district and across the country 
are out of work, it is critical that we, in the House, do everything we 
can to encourage creation of new jobs and reduce the burden on our 
hardworking families, our farmers and our small businesses.
  If adopted, this act will lead to the creation of over a million new 
American jobs. In addition, this legislation will lead to lower energy 
prices, economic growth and strengthened national security.
  As the House continues to lead on creating a sensible domestic energy 
policy, it is my hope that the Senate and the President will join us.

[[Page 10612]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. And I 
thank Chairman Hastings for his leadership and his committee for its 
leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire 
(Ms. Shea-Porter), another esteemed member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this poorly 
conceived and deeply irresponsible legislation. This bill is a clear 
giveaway to oil companies that are already posting record profits, and 
it's a dramatic departure from the regionally-targeted offshore 
drilling strategy that has led to domestic oil production rising to an 
all-time high. In fact, it's even possible that America will be the 
world's largest oil exporter within the next 7 years.
  To most people, this would indicate that our current policies are 
working, but apparently, not to the supporters of this bill. Instead, 
they think taxpayers should give giant subsidies to Big Oil at the 
likely expense of the economically critical tourism and fishing 
industries in many States, including my own.
  What we should be doing, 3 years after the awful BP spill in the 
Gulf, is passing legislation that would protect workers, coastal 
communities, and the environment from devastating spills. In the 3 
years since that tragedy, Congress has yet to pass legislative reform 
to improve the safety of offshore drilling.
  I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will vote down this unnecessary 
giveaway to oil companies and, instead, take up legislation to respond 
to the BP oil spill and protect our coastal communities and workers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a leader in 
the House here on energy development.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Let me make this simple. We need 20 
million barrels of oil each day. We need this for oil and natural gas 
to make plastics, fertilizer, for transportation, and other feedstock.
  Almost 20 percent of our oil comes from OPEC. Our 10-year trade 
deficit with OPEC is over $1 trillion. We can buy their oil or we 
develop our own. Ours or theirs.
  OPEC money funds the Taliban, al Qaeda, and terrorism, and thousands 
of servicemen have been killed and tens of thousands have been wounded 
by them.
  We have vast supplies, more than 86 billion barrels offshore. We can 
develop our own safely and responsibly, or we can rely on OPEC.
  So the real question is this: Where do you want our men and women to 
work?
  Do you want them to wear helmets or hard hats?
  Do we want them carrying rifles or wrenches, driving tanks or trucks?
  Do you want them to be protecting foreign wells and fighting 
terrorists paid off with OPEC oil money?
  Or do we want our men and women working here in America for American 
energy?
  In my work in the Navy, I have seen too many of our American 
servicemen and -women wounded. And so now the choice is simple. What do 
you choose?
  I choose American energy.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'd just like to respond to the gentleman who preceded me.
  The statistic he used was accurate in 2005, the 20 million barrels a 
day imported. And that was, of course, when George Bush was President 
of the United States with the Bush-Cheney energy policy. And that was 
57 percent, you know, of the oil we consumed.
  Now, due to changes with fleet fuel economy standards and biofuels 
and other steps taken by the Obama administration, actually, our daily 
consumption is down to 18.5 million barrels. That's not bad. That's 
almost an 8 percent decrease in a mere 7 years, with the President only 
in office for 4\1/2\. And we are now only 36 percent dependent on 
foreign oil.
  That trend continues, of course, as I spoke earlier, about the 
increase in production on Federal lands and Federal offshore lands 
between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. So 
actually, we are making significant progress with the new policies that 
are designed to create less oil dependence, as opposed to the Bush-
Cheney energy policy, which was actually designed to increase our 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished 
majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership 
on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Offshore Energy and Jobs 
Act. For too long, our economy has remained stagnant and the 
unemployment rate high. And for too long, hardworking American families 
have been suffering the consequences. These tough economic times are, 
in part, a direct result of our current energy policies.
  Over the past several years, the Obama administration has been 
leading this country in the wrong direction with regard to our domestic 
energy production by enacting a plan that keeps 85 percent of America's 
coastal areas off limits to energy exploration. These Federal barriers 
have cost Americans jobs, surrendered much-needed revenue streams that 
would benefit the States, and decreased access to drilling areas that 
would allow us to become less dependent on foreign oil.
  This administration has consistently been hostile to affordable 
domestic energy. Just this week, a senior advisor to the President 
said:

       The one thing the President really needs to do now is to 
     begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal 
     plants. A war on coal is exactly what's needed.

  This should not come as a surprise, since President Obama also has 
said in the past, ``Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity 
rates would necessarily skyrocket.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, we must harness our resources, contrary to these 
statements, not close them off. This bill reforms our current policy by 
requiring the administration to submit a 5-year leasing plan by 2015 
that contains new offshore areas with the greatest known oil and gas 
reserves. Some of these areas have been estimated at 2.5 billion 
barrels of oil, or up to 7.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 
There's simply no reason not to explore these areas with so much 
potential.
  This legislation also establishes a fair revenue-sharing system among 
coastal States where energy resources are explored. Whether it's off 
the coast of California, along the Gulf of Mexico, or the coast of my 
home State of Virginia, each State will share a percentage of revenue 
from energy production off their shores.
  This bill also ensures environmental protections remain a priority by 
reorganizing the Interior Department to include the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management, charged with overseeing environmental safety.
  Now, studies have indicated that energy production offshore, in my 
home State of Virginia, if this legislation is put into law, could 
create almost 2,000 new jobs in Virginia alone and produce 750 million 
barrels of oil and over 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  Mr. Chairman, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act will lower gas prices 
for working families. It will strengthen our national security, and 
help create up to a million new jobs across America in the long term. 
The people of this country deserve a government focused on restoring 
the faith in our economy, and this bill is a step in the right 
direction.

                              {time}  1600

  Again, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for his hard work on this 
measure, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman is prepared to close, I 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.

[[Page 10613]]

  The majority leader just put out some very impressive statistics on 
the possible potential off of the east and west coasts if we opened up 
these sensitive areas to mandatory leasing; but it's actually smaller 
than the known reserves under the leases the Federal Government has 
already let to oil companies, which they have thus far refused to 
develop: 5,484 leases, 30 million acres, 18 billion barrels of oil--his 
number was smaller than that--and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas. His number was smaller than that.
  So it's the premise that by mandatory leasing of these sensitive 
areas we're going to somehow have some sort of a boon to production as 
opposed to somehow incentivizing these oil companies not to sit on 
these leases forever. We have offered legislation previously from our 
side to require development of leases within a certain period of time, 
with escalating costs over time, and with the potential of turning 
those back and letting them be re-leased to companies that actually 
want to do the work.
  People say, Well, these oil companies won't just sit on it. Yeah, 
they'll sit on it. It's worth more every day. And they don't pay hardly 
anything to sit on it. Does anybody think the price of oil is going to 
be cheaper 5 years from now than it is today? So if they sit on a 
Federal lease--and, oh, maybe we can get some more to sit on for the 
future--then that resource which they paid for in 1999 when oil was 
much cheaper is a phenomenally profitable resource.
  So to say we must open up these sensitive areas now is disingenuous 
at best as opposed to incentivizing the industry to use those which are 
already leased and which have known resources that exceed the 
speculative resources under these in sensitive areas off California, 
off the east coast of the U.S., and in Bristol Bay, where there's a $2 
billion a year totally sustainable fishing industry. It's not worth 
those risks.
  The majority leader went on to castigate the administration. I know 
that many people's speeches are written in advance by their staff and 
they may not have been listening to the earlier debate and some of the 
facts I put out, or whatever happened. As I pointed out, during the 
Bush administration we were importing 20 million barrels of oil a day. 
That was 2005. And that was 57 percent of our consumption. Under the 
new policies of the Obama administration, which have led to 
conservation, more fuel-efficient cars, and biofuels, we are importing 
only 18.5 million barrels a day. That is 36 percent.
  So we have made progress, and we should continue down that path. To 
lease more fossil fuel resources offshore is not a particularly 
creative 21st century solution. It may be a grand mid-20th century 
solution, which was much reflected in the Bush-Cheney energy policy. 
Actually, at the time when it passed, I said it would have been 
embarrassing policy for the 1950s, and it was tragic for the 21st 
century in terms of the potential we have with conservation, alternate 
fuels, and other measures we can take.
  To rush this bill forward--and it will be rushed forward--to die in 
the Senate is not going to lower the price at the pump for any 
American. Again, the majority leader referenced that. And I made a 
statement on that earlier.
  We're experiencing, not an oil shortage, but an artificial refinery 
shortage in the United States of America, which is used as an excuse to 
jack up prices and stick it to the American driving public every year 
in May and June and July when our families want to go on vacation. It's 
stretching their wallets.
  If we took steps against the collusive shutdown of refineries, if we 
took steps against the collusive behavior of OPEC and other countries 
through the World Trade Organization, and if we took steps to crack 
down on the speculation on Wall Street, which even the head of 
ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for those sky-high prices; blame Wall 
Street--75 cents a gallon is due to the Enron loophole created by a 
former Republican Congress to allow wild speculation in energy futures 
by Wall Street as opposed to producers and consumers coming together in 
a regular commodities market. So if we wanted to provide relief today, 
we'd crack down on speculation.
  If we wanted to provide relief in the slightly longer term, we would 
deal with the issues of collusion and OPEC and refineries. And if we 
wanted to enhance the oil supply further, even though we're producing 
near-record amounts today here in the United States of America, we 
would encourage, incentivize, or disincentivize these oil companies who 
are sitting on these many, many billion barrels of oil, trillions of 
cubic feet of natural gas and refusing to develop their existing leases 
while pandering for more.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate and I think 
it's a good debate, because what's at stake here in the long-run, not 
only for today but maybe potentially for generations ahead, is the 
potential energy independence for our country. And I think that's a 
worthy thing to have a debate about on the floor of the House.
  Let me address a few of the issues that were brought up by my friend 
on the other side of the aisle, and let me focus first on leases.
  The argument on the other side leaves one to believe that leases are 
just given out to anybody that wants them and then they just sit on 
them. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lease is given out on 
a potential area where there may be oil or natural gas. Those leases 
cost money and have certain conditions of a time in which whoever buys 
the lease has to develop that lease, and that can range anywhere from 5 
to 10 years, depending on the depth of the water.
  So the fact of the matter is these lease sales cost whoever purchases 
the lease. Now if it costs, where does the money go? It comes to the 
Federal Government. This is a source of income for the Federal 
Government just on the lease sales.
  Now, why would any business want to spend money and not try to get a 
return on it? Many times, these leases then are reverted back to the 
Federal Government. In fact, the average, depending where you are and 
the depth, can be as high as 20 percent. It can be as low as 10 
percent. On average, it's around 15 percent. So these lease blocks come 
back to the Federal Government. And guess what. They can be relet 
again. In fact, in some cases, over 40 percent are relet. What does 
that mean? That means the Federal Government gets another chance--and 
still without any energy production, I might add--just on the lease 
sales.
  And then you have a truism, I suppose, and maybe not what is 
understood by a lot of people, but I've heard this over and over, that 
when you have a lease, you really don't know if there's oil there until 
you go through all the technology to find it. But the ultimate last 
step is to drill. And if you're lucky, then you'll get something that 
you can develop; but if not, all of that money is spent and you get no 
return back.
  This is a fact from the standpoint of how leases work. Nobody is 
going to sit on leases unless they felt that there is a potential 
there. If not, the terms of the lease sale means it goes back to the 
Federal Government, and that is something that I think we need to 
probably understand more than we do now.
  And then there's the issue of cartels. I think that was mentioned. I 
think history shows that whenever there is a cartel, I don't care what 
the commodity is, the very best way to beat the cartel is to outsupply 
the cartel. And that's precisely what this bill is about, and it's 
precisely because of the new technology that has been developed by the 
oil and gas industry to drill smart, which is what this bill does.
  The potential resources offshore in this country are huge, enough so, 
that some people say we could be the premier supplier of crude in the 
next 20 years--and that includes comparing ourselves to the Middle 
East.

[[Page 10614]]



                              {time}  1610

  Now, it has also been stated that since this administration took 
office, oil and gas production is up. That's true, it is up; but it's 
not up on Federal lands. And this is precisely what this bill 
addresses, oil and gas leasing on Federal lands.
  Most of that is on private lands and most of it, frankly, is in North 
Dakota and in west Texas. But if you look at what the results are of 
this administration as it relates to what their jurisdiction is--which 
of course is Federal lands and offshore--the Congressional Research 
Service, a part of Congress, has noted that the recent increase in U.S. 
oil and natural gas can be attributed to State and private lands, and 
not Federal. Now, that's what the CRS said, but I can go a step 
further.
  There is a Federal agency within the Department of Energy, the Energy 
Information Agency. Now, this is an agency within the Obama 
administration, I might add, Mr. Chairman. They say that total Federal 
offshore production dropped 8 percent last year and natural gas dropped 
19 percent last year. This is on Federal offshore. But it goes even 
further.
  Since the President took office in 2009, Federal offshore production 
is down 12 percent and natural gas production is down 40 percent. Now, 
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat, this is information that comes from 
the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. That is an 
agency within the Obama administration. So while we have increased oil 
and gas production in this country, it is, in fact, in spite of this 
administration, not because of.
  The reason why this legislation is so important--again, it's not done 
for a day; it's done for future generations--it is in our best 
interests. A growing economy needs a certainty of energy. This bill 
provides a certainty of energy because we are drilling on Federal 
offshore areas.
  And it has a national security aspect to it all, Mr. Chairman. You 
know, every day we hear news about the Middle East and the volatility 
in the Middle East, and yet we talk--OPEC is principally positioned in 
the Middle East, not wholly, but principally in the Middle East. Is it 
not in our best interest, therefore, when we know we have these 
resources, to utilize them from a national security standpoint?
  Finally, of course, it's been said over and over--and it's so true--
energy jobs are good jobs; they're good-paying jobs. Why don't we want 
to make sure that we can create more American jobs with American energy 
for national security purposes? Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what 
this legislation does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2231, The Offshore Energy and Jobs Act and H.R. 1613, The Outer 
Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization 
Act.
  H.R. 2231 directs the Interior Department to develop a new five-year 
offshore leasing plan that makes available for oil and gas exploration 
and development at least 50% of the unleased coastal areas with the 
most potential for energy production, and it creates a nationwide 
revenue sharing system so coastal states will receive a share of the 
federal royalties. It also requires that drilling be allowed off the 
coasts of California, South Carolina and Virginia and statutorily 
reorganizes the Interior Department agencies that oversee offshore 
leasing and permitting, safety inspections and revenue collection.
  While I do not agree with some of the environmental provisions in 
this bill, I support it because it is a message bill about the 
importance of accessing our offshore resources. While leasing and 
permitting has come back some since the Deepwater Horizon accident, it 
is not back to the level it was before the spill. Additionally with the 
President reneging on certain areas originally contained in his 2012-
2017 Five Year Offshore Leasing Plan, our future access over the next 
decade is extremely limited. We need to open new offshore areas up for 
production instead of producing on the same lands we have for decades.
  H.R. 1613 would approve the February 2012 agreement between the 
United States and Mexico concerning transboundary oil and gas 
reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. It also provides guidelines that the 
administration must follow in implementing all future transboundary 
hydrocarbon agreements.
  H.R. 1613 is different than H.R. 2231 in that it is not a message 
bill. It gives the State Department the authority it needs to move 
forward on an important negotiated agreement with Mexico so that our 
respective countries can jointly develop in the Gulf of Mexico. I am 
hopeful we can get this bill to the President's desk for his signature 
soon.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and 
Jobs Act. By requiring offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic 
Ocean, this bill threatens New Jersey's coastal environment, fishing, 
tourism and the associated jobs and economic activity. This bill is the 
same old failed attempt by the Republican majority to give away public 
resources to wealthy, multi-national corporations at the cost of 
American taxpayers and our environment.
  In New Jersey, tourism is a top industry, and we rely on our beaches, 
fisheries and clean ocean to attract that tourism. In 2011, the 
commercial fishing industry in New Jersey generated $6.6 billion in 
sales and contributed $2.4 billion to gross state product, while 
supporting 44,000 jobs. At the same time, New Jersey's recreational 
fisheries generated $1.7 billion in sales and contributed $871 million 
to gross state product, while supporting 10,000 jobs.
  I made an effort to give a voice to those Americans living on the 
Atlantic Coast who want to protect their livelihoods, who want to 
preserve a clean ocean and who want to ensure the health of marine 
life. I proposed an amendment to the bill which would have given the 
House of Representatives an opportunity to vote on whether we should 
force drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. However, my amendment was not 
allowed to even come to a full vote because of Republican opposition.
  At a time when domestic energy production is booming under President 
Obama, this rushed expansion of unsafe drilling into environmentally 
sensitive areas is completely unwarranted. This legislation 
unnecessarily rewards wealthy, multi-nationals who are sitting on 30 
million acres worth of approved leases, waiting to drill until prices 
are even higher.
  Energy independence is a matter of smart economic progress and 
national security and the American people deserve real proposals that 
will move our country forward. The American people deserve better than 
this same old bill that is sure to go nowhere once again.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, which 
raises several issues important to every Member of the House:
  Energy production and independence
  Environmental protection and preservation; and
  Job creation for minorities and women
  Given the importance of these issues, I believe the House would have 
benefitted from a bill I introduced during the 111th and the 112th 
Congress. H.R. 3710--The Deficit Reduction, Job Creation and Energy 
Security Act of 2011 and of 2012.
  My bill proclaimed a placement for the next generation. The 
introduction of H.R. 3710 indicated a collaborative approach in 
response of the call from Americans across the U.S., calling for jobs 
today. H.R. 3710 will do exactly that plus provide huge benefits to our 
national and local economies, and increase our energy supply and 
independence from foreign oil.
  The energy bill I offered calls for the secretary of interior to 
increase the total lease acreage set forth in the proposed outer 
continental shelf oil & gas leasing program for 2012-2017 by an 
additional 10 percent.
  This 10% increase shall be known as the deficit reduction acreage. As 
such, the secretary shall lease 20% of the deficit reduction acreage 
each year from 2012-2017. All proceeds from the deficit reduction 
acreage shall be deposited into the deficit reduction energy security 
fund.
  For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the 
first payment coming from the deficit reduction energy security fund, 
all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a 
period of 2 years. Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds 
shall be distributed as follows:
  The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the 
Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund (COSH);
  And the principle from the deficit reduction energy security fund 
shall be deposited into the U.S. Treasury and applied directly toward 
deficit reduction.
  The COSH fund will establish grants for States (coastal and disaster 
grant program and a national grant program) for addressing coastal and 
ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal 
areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with 
State and local agencies.
  My bill also establishes an Office of Ocean Energy Employment and 
Training at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 
Enforcement, which shall be empowered and directed to oversee the 
efforts of the

[[Page 10615]]

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Ocean 
Energy Planning, permitting and regulatory activities to carry out the 
purposes, objectives and requirements of this act.
  And my bill establishes the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion 
that will require the Secretary to take affirmative steps to seek 
diversity in all levels of such department, and to be responsible for 
all matters of the Department of the Interior relating to diversity in 
management, employment, and business activities.
  As a representative from Houston, Texas, representating the energy 
capital of America, I realize that energy is the lifeblood of every 
economy.
  I also realize that the oil and gas industry provides many jobs for 
many of my constituents and opportunities for small businesses in my 
district.
  Therefore, it is critical that while seeking solutions to secure more 
energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that 
will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and 
gas industry that creates millions of jobs across the entire country.
  My bill guarantees to pay down the deficit, create grant dollars for 
local government entities, and creates a job training and employment 
office for minorities and women at the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
  Mr. Chair, I ask the Chairman and the Ranking Member to work with me 
on my bill, H.R. 3710, to create a robust job creation bill that pays 
down the deficit, creates grant dollars and establishes an office for 
employment and job training for minorities and women.
  H.R. 2231 touches the surface but does not penetrate into the crust 
of a real offshore job creation bill.
  My bill, H.R. 3710 requires the department to utilize its authorities 
regarding the leasing and development of offshore oil and gas resources 
to accelerate job creation and economic revitalization to the fullest 
extent practicable, taking into account the department's 
responsibilities regarding conservation, safety and protection of the 
environment; promotes expansion of domestic employment opportunities; 
responds to the Nations increased need for domestic oil and natural gas 
resources; and supports the utilization of the outer continental shelf 
for oil and gas production and transmission.
  H.R. 2231, does not provide the key components, in which I propose in 
H.R. 3710, and for these reasons, I am opposed to the bill and cannot 
support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the offshore drilling bill 
before the House. Sadly, this legislation is representative of the 
unbalanced, partisan, and ultimately self-defeating approach that the 
Republican Majority has taken on energy issues.
  H.R. 2231 would mandate lease sales along the east and west coasts 
and elsewhere with inadequate environmental review and scant attention 
given to local concerns. In total, leasing would be mandated off the 
coasts of 14 states, whether they want it or not. If this heavy-handed 
giveaway to the oil industry seems familiar, that's because it is. Last 
July, the Republican leadership brought a nearly identical bill before 
the House. That bill never advanced beyond the House, and this drilling 
bill won't either. The Senate won't take it up. The President has said 
he'd veto it, so other than demonstrating the Majority's fealty to Big 
Oil, why are we again wasting the House's time on this?
  We're told that this bill is about making the U.S. more energy 
independent. Let the record show that domestic energy production is 
booming under the current Administration's policies. In 2012, American 
oil production reached a 20-year high. Natural gas production is at an 
all-time high. The U.S. is expected to surpass Saudi Arabia as the 
world's top oil producer within seven years.
  We're also told that this bill is all about driving down gas prices 
for American families. What guarantee do we have that the oil and gas 
production mandated by this legislation would actually stay in the 
United States? Over the last decade, U.S. exports of petroleum products 
like gasoline and diesel fuel have nearly tripled. Every day U.S. 
refineries export millions of gallons of refined petroleum products, 
including gasoline and diesel. This is no doubt good for the petroleum 
industry's bottom line, but it's hard to argue that it helps consumers 
at the pump.
  At the end of the day, the country needs an all-the-above energy 
strategy, including responsible oil and gas development, increased 
energy efficiency, support for renewable energy, and investment in 
advanced energy research and development. Unfortunately, the House 
Majority remained locked in an oil-above-all policy. The oil drilling 
bill before the House deserves to be defeated.
  The 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 113-16. 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. 2231

       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 ``Offshore Energy and Jobs 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

        TITLE I--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS

Sec. 101. Outer Continental Shelf leasing program reforms.
Sec. 102. Domestic oil and natural gas production goal.
Sec. 103. Development and submittal of new 5-year oil and gas leasing 
              program.

TITLE II--DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT NEW OCS SALES IN VIRGINIA, 
                     SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CALIFORNIA

Sec. 201. Requirement to conduct proposed oil and gas Lease Sale 220 on 
              the Outer Continental Shelf offshore Virginia.
Sec. 202. South Carolina lease sale.
Sec. 203. Southern California existing infrastructure lease sale.
Sec. 204. Environmental impact statement requirement.
Sec. 205. National defense.
Sec. 206. Eastern Gulf of Mexico not included.

    TITLE III--EQUITABLE SHARING OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES

Sec. 301. Disposition of Outer Continental Shelf revenues to coastal 
              States.

    TITLE IV--REORGANIZATION OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT AGENCIES OF THE 
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 401. Establishment of Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and 
              Minerals and Assistant Secretary of Ocean Energy and 
              Safety.
Sec. 402. Bureau of Ocean Energy.
Sec. 403. Ocean Energy Safety Service.
Sec. 404. Office of Natural Resources revenue.
Sec. 405. Ethics and drug testing.
Sec. 406. Abolishment of Minerals Management Service.
Sec. 407. Conforming amendments to Executive Schedule pay rates.
Sec. 408. Outer Continental Shelf Energy Safety Advisory Board.
Sec. 409. Outer Continental Shelf inspection fees.

                   TITLE V--UNITED STATES TERRITORIES

Sec. 501. Application of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act with respect 
              to territories of the United States.

        TITLE I--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS

     SEC. 101. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM REFORMS.

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

[[Page 10616]]

       ``(B) To determine the planning areas described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document 
     entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of 
     Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of 
     the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.

     SEC. 102. DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION GOAL.

       Section 18(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production Goal.---
       ``(1) In general.--In developing a 5-year oil and gas 
     leasing program, and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall determine a domestic strategic production goal for the 
     development of oil and natural gas as a result of that 
     program. Such goal shall be--
       ``(A) the best estimate of the possible increase in 
     domestic production of oil and natural gas from the outer 
     Continental Shelf;
       ``(B) focused on meeting domestic demand for oil and 
     natural gas and reducing the dependence of the United States 
     on foreign energy; and
       ``(C) focused on the production increases achieved by the 
     leasing program at the end of the 15-year period beginning on 
     the effective date of the program.
       ``(2) Program goal.--For purposes of the 5-year oil and gas 
     leasing program, the production goal referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall be an increase by 2032 of--
       ``(A) no less than 3,000,000 barrels in the amount of oil 
     produced per day; and
       ``(B) no less than 10,000,000,000 cubic feet in the amount 
     of natural gas produced per day.
       ``(3) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually, 
     beginning at the end of the 5-year period for which the 
     program applies, to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate on the progress of the 
     program in meeting the production goal. The Secretary shall 
     identify in the report projections for production and any 
     problems with leasing, permitting, or production that will 
     prevent meeting the goal.''.

     SEC. 103. DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMITTAL OF NEW 5-YEAR OIL AND GAS 
                   LEASING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) by not later than July 15, 2014, publish and submit to 
     Congress a new proposed oil and gas leasing program under 
     section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344) for the 5-year period beginning on such date and 
     ending July 15, 2020; and
       (2) by not later than July 15, 2015, approve a final oil 
     and gas leasing program under such section for such period.
       (b) Consideration of All Areas.--In preparing such program 
     the Secretary shall include consideration of areas of the 
     Continental Shelf off the coasts of all States (as such term 
     is defined in section 2 of that Act, as amended by this Act), 
     that are subject to leasing under this Act.
       (c) Technical Correction.--Section 18(d)(3) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344(d)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``or after eighteen months following the date of 
     enactment of this section, whichever first occurs,''.

TITLE II--DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT NEW OCS SALES IN VIRGINIA, 
                     SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CALIFORNIA

     SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALE 220 ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 
                   OFFSHORE VIRGINIA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the exclusion of Lease 
     Sale 220 in the Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas 
     Leasing Program 2012-2017, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall conduct offshore oil and gas Lease Sale 220 under 
     section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1337) as soon as practicable, but not later than one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Requirement To Make Replacement Lease Blocks 
     Available.--For each lease block in a proposed lease sale 
     under this section for which the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, under the 
     Memorandum of Agreement referred to in section 205(b), issues 
     a statement proposing deferral from a lease offering due to 
     defense-related activities that are irreconcilable with 
     mineral exploration and development, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     shall make available in the same lease sale one other lease 
     block in the Virginia lease sale planning area that is 
     acceptable for oil and gas exploration and production in 
     order to mitigate conflict.
       (c) Balancing Military and Energy Production Goals.--In 
     recognition that the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 
     leasing program and the domestic energy resources produced 
     therefrom are integral to national security, the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Defense shall work jointly 
     in implementing this section in order to ensure achievement 
     of the following common goals:
       (1) Preserving the ability of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States to maintain an optimum state of readiness 
     through their continued use of the Outer Continental Shelf.
       (2) Allowing effective exploration, development, and 
     production of our Nation's oil, gas, and renewable energy 
     resources.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Lease sale 220.--The term ``Lease Sale 220'' means such 
     lease sale referred to in the Request for Comments on the 
     Draft Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and 
     Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 and Notice of Intent To 
     Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 
     Proposed 5-Year Program published January 21, 2009 (74 Fed. 
     Reg. 3631).
       (2) Virginia lease sale planning area.--The term ``Virginia 
     lease sale planning area'' means the area of the outer 
     Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (33 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.)) that is 
     bounded by--
       (A) a northern boundary consisting of a straight line 
     extending from the northernmost point of Virginia's seaward 
     boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United 
     States exclusive economic zone located at 37 degrees 17 
     minutes 1 second North latitude, 71 degrees 5 minutes 16 
     seconds West longitude; and
       (B) a southern boundary consisting of a straight line 
     extending from the southernmost point of Virginia's seaward 
     boundary to the point on the seaward boundary of the United 
     States exclusive economic zone located at 36 degrees 31 
     minutes 58 seconds North latitude, 71 degrees 30 minutes 1 
     second West longitude.

     SEC. 202. SOUTH CAROLINA LEASE SALE.

       Notwithstanding inclusion of the South Atlantic Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Area in the Final Outer 
     Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 2012-2017, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a lease sale not 
     later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act for areas off the coast of South Carolina determined by 
     the Secretary to have the most geologically promising 
     hydrocarbon resources and constituting not less than 25 
     percent of the leasable area within the South Carolina 
     offshore administrative boundaries depicted in the notice 
     entitled ``Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
     Administrative Boundaries Extending from the Submerged Lands 
     Act Boundary seaward to the Limit of the United States Outer 
     Continental Shelf'', published January 3, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 
     127).

     SEC. 203. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE LEASE 
                   SALE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior 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, 2014.
       (b) Use of Existing Structures or Onshore-Based Drilling.--
     The Secretary of the Interior shall include in leases offered 
     for sale under this lease sale 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, 
     extended-reach drilling.

     SEC. 204. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--For the purposes of 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 title.
       (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. 205. NATIONAL DEFENSE.

       (a) National Defense Areas.--This Act does not 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. 206. 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).

    TITLE III--EQUITABLE SHARING OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES

     SEC. 301. DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES TO 
                   COASTAL STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338) is amended--
       (1) in the existing text--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``All rentals,'' and 
     inserting the following:

[[Page 10617]]

       ``(c) Disposition of Revenue Under Old Leases.--All 
     rentals,''; and
       (B) in subsection (c) (as designated by the amendment made 
     by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph), by striking ``for the 
     period from June 5, 1950, to date, and thereafter'' and 
     inserting ``in the period beginning June 5, 1950, and ending 
     on the date of enactment of the Offshore Energy and Jobs 
     Act'';
       (2) by adding after subsection (c) (as so designated) the 
     following:
       ``(d)  Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' includes a 
     territory of the United States.
       ``(2) New leasing revenues.--The term `new leasing 
     revenues'--
       ``(A) means amounts received by the United States as 
     bonuses, rents, and royalties under leases for oil and gas, 
     wind, tidal, or other energy exploration, development, and 
     production on new areas of the outer Continental Shelf that 
     are authorized to be made available for leasing as a result 
     of enactment of the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act and leasing 
     under that Act; and
       ``(B) does not include amounts received by the United 
     States under any lease of an area located in the boundaries 
     of the Central Gulf of Mexico and Western Gulf of Mexico 
     Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas on the date of 
     enactment of the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, including a 
     lease issued before, on, or after such date of enactment.''; 
     and
       (3) by inserting before subsection (c) (as so designated) 
     the following:
       ``(a) Payment of New Leasing Revenues to Coastal States.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of 
     the amount of new leasing revenues received by the United 
     States each fiscal year, 37.5 percent shall be allocated and 
     paid in accordance with subsection (b) to coastal States that 
     are affected States with respect to the leases under which 
     those revenues are received by the United States.
       ``(2) Phase-in.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     paragraph (1) shall be applied--
       ``(i) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases 
     awarded under the first leasing program under section 18(a) 
     that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Offshore 
     Energy and Jobs Act, by substituting `12.5 percent' for `37.5 
     percent'; and
       ``(ii) with respect to new leasing revenues under leases 
     awarded under the second leasing program under section 18(a) 
     that takes effect after the date of enactment of the Offshore 
     Energy and Jobs Act, by substituting `25 percent' for `37.5 
     percent'.
       ``(B) Exempted lease sales.--This paragraph shall not apply 
     with respect to any lease issued under title II of the 
     Offshore Energy and Jobs Act.
       ``(b) Allocation of Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of new leasing revenues 
     received by the United States with respect to a leased tract 
     that are required to be paid to coastal States in accordance 
     with this subsection each fiscal year shall be allocated 
     among and paid to coastal States that are within 200 miles of 
     the leased tract, in amounts that are inversely proportional 
     to the respective distances between the point on the 
     coastline of each such State that is closest to the 
     geographic center of the lease tract, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Minimum and maximum allocation.--The amount allocated 
     to a coastal State under paragraph (1) each fiscal year with 
     respect to a leased tract shall be--
       ``(A) in the case of a coastal State that is the nearest 
     State to the geographic center of the leased tract, not less 
     than 25 percent of the total amounts allocated with respect 
     to the leased tract;
       ``(B) in the case of any other coastal State, not less than 
     10 percent, and not more than 15 percent, of the total 
     amounts allocated with respect to the leased tract; and
       ``(C) in the case of a coastal State that is the only 
     coastal State within 200 miles of a least tract, 100 percent 
     of the total amounts allocated with respect to the leased 
     tract.
       ``(3) Administration.--Amounts allocated to a coastal State 
     under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall be available to the coastal State without 
     further appropriation;
       ``(B) shall remain available until expended;
       ``(C) shall be in addition to any other amounts available 
     to the coastal State under this Act; and
       ``(D) shall be distributed in the fiscal year following 
     receipt.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     a coastal State may use funds allocated and paid to it under 
     this subsection for any purpose as determined by the laws of 
     that State.
       ``(B) Restriction on use for matching.--Funds allocated and 
     paid to a coastal State under this subsection may not be used 
     as matching funds for any other Federal program.''.
       (b) Limitation on Application.--This section and the 
     amendment made by this section shall not affect the 
     application of section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 
     109-432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note)), as in effect before the 
     enactment of this Act, with respect to revenues received by 
     the United States under oil and gas leases issued for tracts 
     located in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico Outer 
     Continental Shelf Planning Areas, including such leases 
     issued on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    TITLE IV--REORGANIZATION OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT AGENCIES OF THE 
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNDER SECRETARY FOR ENERGY, LANDS, 
                   AND MINERALS AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF OCEAN 
                   ENERGY AND SAFETY.

       There shall be in the Department of the Interior--
       (1) an Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and Minerals, who 
     shall--
       (A) be appointed by the President, by and with the advise 
     and consent of the Senate;
       (B) report to the Secretary of the Interior or, if directed 
     by the Secretary, to the Deputy Secretary of the Interior;
       (C) be paid at the rate payable for level III of the 
     Executive Schedule; and
       (D) be responsible for--
       (i) the safe and responsible development of our energy and 
     mineral resources on Federal lands in appropriate accordance 
     with United States energy demands; and
       (ii) ensuring multiple-use missions of the Department of 
     the Interior that promote the safe and sustained development 
     of energy and minerals resources on public lands (as that 
     term is defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.));
       (2) an Assistant Secretary of Ocean Energy and Safety, who 
     shall--
       (A) be appointed by the President, by and with the advise 
     and consent of the Senate;
       (B) report to the Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and 
     Minerals;
       (C) be paid at the rate payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule; and
       (D) be responsible for ensuring safe and efficient 
     development of energy and minerals on the Outer Continental 
     Shelf of the United States; and
       (3) an Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management, 
     who shall--
       (A) be appointed by the President, by and with the advise 
     and consent of the Senate;
       (B) report to the Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and 
     Minerals;
       (C) be paid at the rate payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule; and
       (D) be responsible for ensuring safe and efficient 
     development of energy and minerals on public lands and other 
     Federal onshore lands under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Interior, including implementation of the 
     Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) 
     and administration of the Office of Surface Mining.

     SEC. 402. BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of the Interior a Bureau of Ocean Energy (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Bureau''), which shall--
       (1) be headed by a Director of Ocean Energy (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Director''); and
       (2) be administered under the direction of the Assistant 
     Secretary of Ocean Energy and Safety.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the 
     rate provided for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry 
     out through the Bureau all functions, powers, and duties 
     vested in the Secretary relating to the administration of a 
     comprehensive program of offshore mineral and renewable 
     energy resources management.
       (2) Specific authorities.--The Director shall promulgate 
     and implement regulations--
       (A) for the proper issuance of leases for the exploration, 
     development, and production of nonrenewable and renewable 
     energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf;
       (B) relating to resource identification, access, 
     evaluation, and utilization;
       (C) for development of leasing plans, lease sales, and 
     issuance of leases for such resources; and
       (D) regarding issuance of environmental impact statements 
     related to leasing and post leasing activities including 
     exploration, development, and production, and the use of 
     third party contracting for necessary environmental analysis 
     for the development of such resources.
       (3) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not carry out through 
     the Bureau any function, power, or duty that is--
       (A) required by section 403 to be carried out through the 
     Ocean Energy Safety Service; or
       (B) required by section 404 to be carried out through the 
     Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
       (d) Responsibilities of Land Management Agencies.--Nothing 
     in this section shall affect the authorities of the Bureau of 
     Land Management under the Federal Land Policy and Management 
     Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or of the Forest Service 
     under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 
     94-588).

     SEC. 403. OCEAN ENERGY SAFETY SERVICE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of the Interior an Ocean Energy Safety Service (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Service''), which shall--
       (1) be headed by a Director of Energy Safety (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Director''); and
       (2) be administered under the direction of the Assistant 
     Secretary of Ocean Energy and Safety.

[[Page 10618]]

       (b) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the 
     rate provided for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry 
     out through the Service all functions, powers, and duties 
     vested in the Secretary relating to the administration of 
     safety and environmental enforcement activities related to 
     offshore mineral and renewable energy resources on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) including the authority to 
     develop, promulgate, and enforce regulations to ensure the 
     safe and sound exploration, development, and production of 
     mineral and renewable energy resources on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf in a timely fashion.
       (2) Specific authorities.--The Director shall be 
     responsible for all safety activities related to exploration 
     and development of renewable and mineral resources on the 
     Outer Continental Shelf, including--
       (A) exploration, development, production, and ongoing 
     inspections of infrastructure;
       (B) the suspending or prohibiting, on a temporary basis, 
     any operation or activity, including production under leases 
     held on the Outer Continental Shelf, in accordance with 
     section 5(a)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1334(a)(1));
       (C) cancelling any lease, permit, or right-of-way on the 
     Outer Continental Shelf, in accordance with section 5(a)(2) 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1334(a)(2));
       (D) compelling compliance with applicable Federal laws and 
     regulations relating to worker safety and other matters;
       (E) requiring comprehensive safety and environmental 
     management programs for persons engaged in activities 
     connected with the exploration, development, and production 
     of mineral or renewable energy resources;
       (F) developing and implementing regulations for Federal 
     employees to carry out any inspection or investigation to 
     ascertain compliance with applicable regulations, including 
     health, safety, or environmental regulations;
       (G) implementing the Offshore Technology Research and Risk 
     Assessment Program under section 21 of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1347);
       (H) summoning witnesses and directing the production of 
     evidence;
       (I) levying fines and penalties and disqualifying 
     operators;
       (J) carrying out any safety, response, and removal 
     preparedness functions; and
       (K) the processing of permits, exploration plans, 
     development plans.
       (d) Employees.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     inspection force of the Bureau consists of qualified, trained 
     employees who meet qualification requirements and adhere to 
     the highest professional and ethical standards.
       (2) Qualifications.--The qualification requirements 
     referred to in paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall be determined by the Secretary, subject to 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (B) shall include--
       (i) three years of practical experience in oil and gas 
     exploration, development, or production; or
       (ii) a degree in an appropriate field of engineering from 
     an accredited institution of higher learning.
       (3) Assignment.--In assigning oil and gas inspectors to the 
     inspection and investigation of individual operations, the 
     Secretary shall give due consideration to the extent possible 
     to their previous experience in the particular type of oil 
     and gas operation in which such inspections are to be made.
       (4) Background checks.--The Director shall require that an 
     individual to be hired as an inspection officer undergo an 
     employment investigation (including a criminal history record 
     check).
       (5) Language requirements.--Individuals hired as inspectors 
     must be able to read, speak, and write English well enough 
     to--
       (A) carry out written and oral instructions regarding the 
     proper performance of inspection duties; and
       (B) write inspection reports and statements and log entries 
     in the English language.
       (6) Veterans preference.--The Director shall provide a 
     preference for the hiring of an individual as a inspection 
     officer if the individual is a member or former member of the 
     Armed Forces and is entitled, under statute, to retired, 
     retirement, or retainer pay on account of service as a member 
     of the Armed Forces.
       (7) Annual proficiency review.--
       (A) Annual proficiency review.--The Director shall provide 
     that an annual evaluation of each individual assigned 
     inspection duties is conducted and documented.
       (B) Continuation of employment.--An individual employed as 
     an inspector may not continue to be employed in that capacity 
     unless the evaluation demonstrates that the individual--
       (i) continues to meet all qualifications and standards;
       (ii) has a satisfactory record of performance and attention 
     to duty based on the standards and requirements in the 
     inspection program; and
       (iii) demonstrates the current knowledge and skills 
     necessary to courteously, vigilantly, and effectively perform 
     inspection functions.
       (8) Limitation on right to strike.--Any individual that 
     conducts permitting or inspections under this section may not 
     participate in a strike, or assert the right to strike.
       (9) Personnel authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director may employ, appoint, 
     discipline and terminate for cause, and fix the compensation, 
     terms, and conditions of employment of Federal service for 
     individuals as the employees of the Service in order to 
     restore and maintain the trust of the people of the United 
     States in the accountability of the management of our 
     Nation's energy safety program.
       (10) Training academy.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and maintain 
     a National Offshore Energy Safety Academy (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the ``Academy'') as an agency of the Ocean 
     Energy Safety Service.
       (B) Functions of academy.--The Secretary, through the 
     Academy, shall be responsible for--
       (i) the initial and continued training of both newly hired 
     and experienced offshore oil and gas inspectors in all 
     aspects of health, safety, environmental, and operational 
     inspections;
       (ii) the training of technical support personnel of the 
     Bureau;
       (iii) any other training programs for offshore oil and gas 
     inspectors, Bureau personnel, Department personnel, or other 
     persons as the Secretary shall designate; and
       (iv) certification of the successful completion of training 
     programs for newly hired and experienced offshore oil and gas 
     inspectors.
       (C) Cooperative agreements.--
       (i) In general.--In performing functions under this 
     paragraph, and subject to clause (ii), the Secretary may 
     enter into cooperative educational and training agreements 
     with educational institutions, related Federal academies, 
     other Federal agencies, State governments, safety training 
     firms, and oil and gas operators and related industries.
       (ii) Training requirement.--Such training shall be 
     conducted by the Academy in accordance with curriculum needs 
     and assignment of instructional personnel established by the 
     Secretary.
       (11) Use of department personnel.--In performing functions 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall use, to the extent 
     practicable, the facilities and personnel of the Department 
     of the Interior. The Secretary may appoint or assign to the 
     Academy such officers and employees as the Secretary 
     considers necessary for the performance of the duties and 
     functions of the Academy.
       (12) Additional training programs.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall work with appropriate 
     educational institutions, operators, and representatives of 
     oil and gas workers to develop and maintain adequate programs 
     with educational institutions and oil and gas operators that 
     are designed--
       (i) to enable persons to qualify for positions in the 
     administration of this Act; and
       (ii) to provide for the continuing education of inspectors 
     or other appropriate Department of the Interior personnel.
       (B) Financial and technical assistance.--The Secretary may 
     provide financial and technical assistance to educational 
     institutions in carrying out this paragraph.
       (e) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not carry out through 
     the Service any function, power, or duty that is--
       (1) required by section 402 to be carried out through 
     Bureau of Ocean Energy; or
       (2) required by section 404 to be carried out through the 
     Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

     SEC. 404. OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES REVENUE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of the Interior an Office of Natural Resources Revenue 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Office'') to be headed 
     by a Director of Natural Resources Revenue (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Director'').
       (b) Appointment and Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the 
     rate provided for Level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry 
     out, through the Office, all functions, powers, and duties 
     vested in the Secretary and relating to the administration of 
     offshore royalty and revenue management functions.
       (2) Specific authorities.--The Secretary shall carry out, 
     through the Office, all functions, powers, and duties 
     previously assigned to the Minerals Management Service 
     (including the authority to develop, promulgate, and enforce 
     regulations) regarding offshore royalty and revenue 
     collection; royalty and revenue distribution; auditing and 
     compliance; investigation and enforcement of royalty and 
     revenue regulations; and asset management for onshore and 
     offshore activities.
       (d) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not carry out through 
     the Office any function, power, or duty that is--
       (1) required by section 402 to be carried out through 
     Bureau of Ocean Energy; or
       (2) required by section 403 to be carried out through the 
     Ocean Energy Safety Service.

     SEC. 405. ETHICS AND DRUG TESTING.

       (a) Certification.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     certify annually that all Department of the Interior officers 
     and employees having regular, direct contact with lessees, 
     contractors,

[[Page 10619]]

     concessionaires, and other businesses interested before the 
     Government as a function of their official duties, or 
     conducting investigations, issuing permits, or responsible 
     for oversight of energy programs, are in full compliance with 
     all Federal employee ethics laws and regulations under the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) and part 
     2635 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, and all 
     guidance issued under subsection (c).
       (b) Drug Testing.--The Secretary shall conduct a random 
     drug testing program of all Department of the Interior 
     personnel referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue 
     supplementary ethics and drug testing guidance for the 
     employees for which certification is required under 
     subsection (a). The Secretary shall update the supplementary 
     ethics guidance not less than once every 3 years thereafter.

     SEC. 406. ABOLISHMENT OF MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE.

       (a) Abolishment.--The Minerals Management Service is 
     abolished.
       (b) Completed Administrative Actions.--
       (1) In general.--Completed administrative actions of the 
     Minerals Management Service shall not be affected by the 
     enactment of this Act, but shall continue in effect according 
     to their terms until amended, modified, superseded, 
     terminated, set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by 
     an officer of the United States or a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (2) Completed administrative action defined.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), the term ``completed administrative 
     action'' includes orders, determinations, memoranda of 
     understanding, memoranda of agreements, rules, regulations, 
     personnel actions, permits, agreements, grants, contracts, 
     certificates, licenses, registrations, and privileges.
       (c) Pending Proceedings.--Subject to the authority of the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the officers of the Department 
     of the Interior under this Act--
       (1) pending proceedings in the Minerals Management Service, 
     including notices of proposed rulemaking, and applications 
     for licenses, permits, certificates, grants, and financial 
     assistance, shall continue, notwithstanding the enactment of 
     this Act or the vesting of functions of the Service in 
     another agency, unless discontinued or modified under the 
     same terms and conditions and to the same extent that such 
     discontinuance or modification could have occurred if this 
     Act had not been enacted; and
       (2) orders issued in such proceedings, and appeals 
     therefrom, and payments made pursuant to such orders, shall 
     issue in the same manner and on the same terms as if this Act 
     had not been enacted, and any such orders shall continue in 
     effect until amended, modified, superseded, terminated, set 
     aside, or revoked by an officer of the United States or a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (d) Pending Civil Actions.--Subject to the authority of the 
     Secretary of the Interior or any officer of the Department of 
     the Interior under this Act, pending civil actions shall 
     continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act, and in 
     such civil actions, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, 
     and judgments rendered and enforced in the same manner and 
     with the same effect as if such enactment had not occurred.
       (e) References.--References relating to the Minerals 
     Management Service in statutes, Executive orders, rules, 
     regulations, directives, or delegations of authority that 
     precede the effective date of this Act are deemed to refer, 
     as appropriate, to the Department, to its officers, 
     employees, or agents, or to its corresponding organizational 
     units or functions. Statutory reporting requirements that 
     applied in relation to the Minerals Management Service 
     immediately before the effective date of this Act shall 
     continue to apply.

     SEC. 407. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY 
                   RATES.

       (a) Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and Minerals.--
     Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to ``Under Secretaries of 
     the Treasury (3).'' the following:
       ``Under Secretary for Energy, Lands, and Minerals, 
     Department of the Interior.''.
       (b) Assistant Secretaries.--Section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Assistant Secretaries 
     of the Interior (6).'' and inserting the following:
       ``Assistant Secretaries, Department of the Interior (7).''.
       (c) Directors.--Section 5316 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``Director, Bureau of Mines, 
     Department of the Interior.'' and inserting the following new 
     items:
       ``Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``Director, Ocean Energy Safety Service, Department of the 
     Interior.
       ``Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Department 
     of the Interior.''.

     SEC. 408. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF ENERGY SAFETY ADVISORY 
                   BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     establish, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, an Outer 
     Continental Shelf Energy Safety Advisory Board (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Board'')--
       (1) to provide the Secretary and the Directors established 
     by this Act with independent scientific and technical advice 
     on safe, responsible, and timely mineral and renewable energy 
     exploration, development, and production activities; and
       (2) to review operations of the National Offshore Energy 
     Health and Safety Academy established under section 403(d), 
     including submitting to the Secretary recommendations of 
     curriculum to ensure training scientific and technical 
     advancements.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Size.--The Board shall consist of not more than 11 
     members, who--
       (A) shall be appointed by the Secretary based on their 
     expertise in oil and gas drilling, well design, operations, 
     well containment and oil spill response; and
       (B) must have significant scientific, engineering, 
     management, and other credentials and a history of working in 
     the field related to safe energy exploration, development, 
     and production activities.
       (2) Consultation and nominations.--The Secretary shall 
     consult with the National Academy of Sciences and the 
     National Academy of Engineering to identify potential 
     candidates for the Board and shall take nominations from the 
     public.
       (3) Term.--The Secretary shall appoint Board members to 
     staggered terms of not more than 4 years, and shall not 
     appoint a member for more than 2 consecutive terms.
       (4) Balance.--In appointing members to the Board, the 
     Secretary shall ensure a balanced representation of industry 
     and research interests.
       (c) Chair.--The Secretary shall appoint the Chair for the 
     Board from among its members.
       (d) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not less than 3 times 
     per year and shall host, at least once per year, a public 
     forum to review and assess the overall energy safety 
     performance of Outer Continental Shelf mineral and renewable 
     energy resource activities.
       (e) Offshore Drilling Safety Assessments and 
     Recommendations.--As part of its duties under this section, 
     the Board shall, by not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section and every 5 years thereafter, 
     submit to the Secretary a report that--
       (1) assesses offshore oil and gas well control 
     technologies, practices, voluntary standards, and regulations 
     in the United States and elsewhere; and
       (2) as appropriate, recommends modifications to the 
     regulations issued under this Act to ensure adequate 
     protection of safety and the environment, including 
     recommendations on how to reduce regulations and 
     administrative actions that are duplicative or unnecessary.
       (f) Reports.--Reports of the Board shall be submitted by 
     the Board to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House 
     or Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and made available to the public in 
     electronically accessible form.
       (g) Travel Expenses.--Members of the Board, other than 
     full-time employees of the Federal Government, while 
     attending meeting of the Board or while otherwise serving at 
     the request of the Secretary or the Director while serving 
     away from their homes or regular places of business, may be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for individuals in the Government serving 
     without pay.

     SEC. 409. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF INSPECTION FEES.

       Section 22 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1348) is amended by adding at the end of the section 
     the following:
       ``(g) Inspection Fees.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     collect from the operators of facilities subject to 
     inspection under subsection (c) non-refundable fees for such 
     inspections--
       ``(A) at an aggregate level equal to the amount necessary 
     to offset the annual expenses of inspections of outer 
     Continental Shelf facilities (including mobile offshore 
     drilling units) by the Department of the Interior; and
       ``(B) using a schedule that reflects the differences in 
     complexity among the classes of facilities to be inspected.
       ``(2) Ocean energy safety fund.--There is established in 
     the Treasury a fund, to be known as the `Ocean Energy 
     Enforcement Fund' (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `Fund'), into which shall be deposited all amounts collected 
     as fees under paragraph (1) and which shall be available as 
     provided under paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Availability of fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 
     31, United States Code, all amounts deposited in the Fund--
       ``(i) shall be credited as offsetting collections;
       ``(ii) shall be available for expenditure for purposes of 
     carrying out inspections of outer Continental Shelf 
     facilities (including mobile offshore drilling units) and the 
     administration of the inspection program under this section;
       ``(iii) shall be available only to the extent provided for 
     in advance in an appropriations Act; and
       ``(iv) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(B) Use for field offices.--Not less than 75 percent of 
     amounts in the Fund may be appropriated for use only for the 
     respective Department of the Interior field offices where the 
     amounts were originally assessed as fees.
       ``(4) Initial fees.--Fees shall be established under this 
     subsection for the fiscal year in which this subsection takes 
     effect and the subsequent 10 years, and shall not be raised 
     without advise and consent of the Congress, except as 
     determined by the Secretary to be appropriate as an 
     adjustment equal to the percentage by which the Consumer 
     Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year 
     preceding the adjustment

[[Page 10620]]

     exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the 
     calendar year in which the claim was determined or last 
     adjusted.
       ``(5) Annual fees.--Annual fees shall be collected under 
     this subsection for facilities that are above the waterline, 
     excluding drilling rigs, and are in place at the start of the 
     fiscal year. Fees for fiscal year 2013 shall be--
       ``(A) $10,500 for facilities with no wells, but with 
     processing equipment or gathering lines;
       ``(B) $17,000 for facilities with 1 to 10 wells, with any 
     combination of active or inactive wells; and
       ``(C) $31,500 for facilities with more than 10 wells, with 
     any combination of active or inactive wells.
       ``(6) Fees for drilling rigs.--Fees for drilling rigs shall 
     be assessed under this subsection for all inspections 
     completed in fiscal years 2013 through 2022. Fees for fiscal 
     year 2013 shall be--
       ``(A) $30,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of 1,000 feet or more; and
       ``(B) $16,700 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of less than 1,000 feet.
       ``(7) Billing.--The Secretary shall bill designated 
     operators under paragraph (5) within 60 days after the date 
     of the inspection, with payment required within 30 days of 
     billing. The Secretary shall bill designated operators under 
     paragraph (6) within 30 days of the end of the month in which 
     the inspection occurred, with payment required within 30 days 
     after billing.
       ``(8) Sunset.--No fee may be collected under this 
     subsection for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2022.
       ``(9) Annual reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2013, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     operation of the Fund during the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Contents.--Each report shall include, for the fiscal 
     year covered by the report, the following:
       ``(i) A statement of the amounts deposited into the Fund.
       ``(ii) A description of the expenditures made from the Fund 
     for the fiscal year, including the purpose of the 
     expenditures and the additional hiring of personnel.
       ``(iii) A statement of the balance remaining in the Fund at 
     the end of the fiscal year.
       ``(iv) An accounting of pace of permit approvals.
       ``(v) If fee increases are proposed after the initial 10-
     year period referred to in paragraph (5), a proper accounting 
     of the potential adverse economic impacts such fee increases 
     will have on offshore economic activity and overall 
     production, conducted by the Secretary.
       ``(vi) Recommendations to increase the efficacy and 
     efficiency of offshore inspections.
       ``(vii) Any corrective actions levied upon offshore 
     inspectors as a result of any form of misconduct.''.

                   TITLE V--UNITED STATES TERRITORIES

     SEC. 501. APPLICATION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT 
                   WITH RESPECT TO TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

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

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 113-131. 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. Brady of Texas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 8, before the period insert ``, and shall 
     include and consider all such subdivisions in any 
     environmental review conducted and statement prepared for 
     such program under section 102(2) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2))''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is in the middle of an 
exciting energy revolution, but we will never truly reach energy 
security as long as 85 percent of our offshore areas remain off limits 
to oil and gas manufacturers.
  Chairman Hastings' Offshore Energy and Jobs Act on the floor today 
will open more offshore areas to energy development and bring our 
Nation closer toward the bipartisan goal of energy independence. This 
is a great thing.
  In particular, Chairman Hastings' innovative bill allows State 
Governors to request that certain offshore areas be included in the 5-
year leasing plan. This gives States more power to unlock offshore 
energy resources and the jobs and the affordable energy that go along 
with responsible offshore energy development.
  I'm offering an amendment to strengthen that language based on my 
More Energy, More Jobs legislation recently introduced with my 
colleagues, Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Shimkus of Illinois. It 
will require the Interior Department to include all these areas 
requested by State Governors in the environmental review process for 
the leasing plan.
  The National Environmental Policy Act requires all major Federal 
actions, including offshore leasing plans, to undergo an environmental 
review. For offshore leasing, this is an environmental impact 
statement. Typically, this is a 2-year process at least, and a first 
step for including any area in an offshore leasing plan. Without 
environmental impact statements, new areas can't be leased for offshore 
drilling.
  My amendment will bring more areas into consideration for offshore 
energy development and move them further along in the leasing process, 
regardless of whether they are included in the final leasing plan.
  More importantly, it will make it easier for future Congresses to 
pass leasing plans like the underlying bill because more offshore areas 
will have gone through the necessary environmental review process.
  I'd like to thank Chairman Hastings for working with me both on this 
amendment and including some of our ideas in the underlying bill. With 
this struggling economy and our Nation in the midst of an energy 
revolution, now is the time to act to unleash more American-made energy 
and more American jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and we 
support his amendment.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Chairman Hastings.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the general debate we had 
some creative math and/or cherry-picking of years to make a point that 
is not accurate.
  The point is that oil production from Federal lands today is higher 
than it was at the end of the Bush administration--596 million barrels 
compared to 565 in 2008.
  Now, in the offshore, when you use a certain number of years, 
obviously there is some anomaly. The anomaly was the worst oil spill 
disaster in the history of the United States, which was the Macondo 
blowup in the gulf, which of course set back leasing activity and 
development in the gulf for a period of time. However, we have now 
adopted new regulations. We're actually requiring blowup preventers 
that work and a few other sorts of things that the Obama administration 
has done to make the drilling safer.
  Under this administration, there are now more floating rigs in the 
gulf than before the spill and during the Bush

[[Page 10621]]

years; and we approved 112 Deepwater drilling permits last year--the 
most since 2005. Of course that drilling is being conducted more safely 
than it has in the past.
  So, I mean, we're going to be able to switch around, pick different 
years, and do all of these things, but these are aggregate, longer-term 
numbers as opposed to specifying a particular year--and particularly 
picking a year after the worst oil spill rig disaster in the history of 
the United States.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, we do not object to the amendment by Mr. 
Brady, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to respond to my good friend from Oregon's statistics.
  What I said is that the production is down from when the President 
took office. And that, of course, is true. The gentleman makes the 
argument that there was more production initially in the Obama 
administration than the Bush administration. I never argued with that. 
But there's a reason for it. There were more lease sales during the 
Bush administration, and it takes a while to get these leases 
producing. They started producing at the first part of the Obama 
administration; and since then, they have gone down because of the 
actions of this administration.
  So my statistics are correct, and I guess his statistics are correct; 
but it's not the whole story. The whole story is it takes a lot of time 
in order to bring a lease sale into production, and that's what the 
gentleman overlooked.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  I am ready to close whenever the ranking member is.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. As I pointed out earlier in the debate, yes, the 
chairman is correct, it does take time, and there are 5,484 leases, 30 
million acres, mostly about 85 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, that have 
an estimated, according to the Energy Information Administration, 18 
billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that 
have not yet been developed.
  In any case, I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment. He makes a 
small improvement in what we consider to be a bad bill by requiring 
that if States opt into leasing, that there will be a NEPA review. I'm 
glad that there is some recognition on the other side of the aisle on 
the value of NEPA reviews to protect our precious natural resources.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a commonsense amendment that helps us responsibly develop our 
traditional energy sources for more jobs, more revenue to help balance 
this budget, and more affordable energy for America.
  I urge my colleagues' support, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, beginning at line 3, strike section 204.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, 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, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy 
and Jobs Act. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Gerry 
Connolly and Jim Moran, for working with me to bring this amendment to 
the floor.
  This amendment strikes section 204 of the underlying bill. Section 
204 seeks to limit the ability to conduct a comprehensive Environmental 
Impact Statement, EIS. Given our experience with devastating oil spills 
such as the BP spill, the Exxon Valdez, and a spill off the coast of 
Santa Barbara, we should be improving our review processes and 
strengthening safety requirements.
  The combination of reduced resources and shortened timeframes that 
are mandated by the bill, as well as the expanse of area to be 
addressed, make the task of preparing a credible EIS difficult, if not 
impossible.
  With these demanding schedules provided by section 204, what 
information is compelling Congress to seek such swift approval? Oil 
production, as has been said, is at a 20-year high and natural gas 
production is also at an all-time high. Furthermore, under President 
Obama's leadership, our dependence on foreign oil has fallen from 57 
percent to 36 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to pass 
legislation that will serve them. Section 204 limits the environmental 
review to provide for less rigor than a typical review process, which 
can create huge environmental and economic risks.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I generally do not rise to vote or argue against a Hastings 
amendment, but in this case I feel I have to. It is the nature of who 
the author of the amendment is, perhaps, and I think the gentleman 
understands.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly 
increasing energy production. The amendment, as the gentleman noted, 
would strike a section of the bill, but that bill, that section, 
requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be conducted prior to any 
leasing in any lease sale areas.
  The gentleman takes issue in 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 part of the leasing process. Then each expiration 
plan has additional environmental work.
  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 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, just to name a few.
  The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the 
environment; it goes the extra mile in requiring a multi-sale EIS on 
all of the lease areas, while still ensuring that leasing does occur 
because of the certainty in the process.
  Support for offshore energy does not mean that you cannot respect a 
wide range of different environmental needs based upon a lease area.
  We want to drill safely and responsibly. I think that is embodied in 
the underlying bill. For that reason, I urge rejection of the Hastings 
amendment, the Hastings of Florida amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to 
tell me how much time I have remaining?

[[Page 10622]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 3 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased 
at this time to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment and 
good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Hastings of Washington would be 
more comfortable calling it the Hastings-Connolly amendment, so that a 
Virginia name might make him feel more comfortable.
  Mr. Chairman, have we already forgotten the consequences of lax 
regulation? I know the gulf coast hasn't. For many Americans, the image 
of more than 200 million gallons of oil spilling into the gulf, an area 
of oil spill and oil slick that if superimposed in this region would 
have gone from my district in northern Virginia all the way to New York 
City. It threatened America's largest fishery, jeopardizing tourism, 
wreaking havoc with the region's entire economy.
  Sadly, the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill might have 
been mitigated had BP and Transocean simply been required to do what 
this amendment requires--to comply with the basic environmental 
standards established to prevent such disasters from happening in the 
first place. Yet here we are 3 years later, and this Congress still has 
not taken a single action to improve drilling safety because the House 
majority has blocked every attempt. Now they want to make matters worse 
by gutting NEPA protections.
  I am pleased to join my colleague in offering a commonsense amendment 
to preserve NEPA protections, and at least some modicum of impartiality 
in this attempt to legislate the majority's motto of ``drill, baby, 
drill'' everywhere.
  Considering that all other major projects, even transit projects, 
with clear environmental benefits must undergo an Environmental Impact 
Statement, it is absurd to exclude from analysis activities that have 
the potential to destroy entire economies and ecosystems. For example, 
why is it that northern Virginia's Rail to Dulles project, a public 
project I oversaw, had to go through an extensive full 2-year 
environmental review, yet a privately-owned oil rig in the gulf was 
exempted from that same process? It makes no sense.
  The BP spill was preventable, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, gulf coast 
residents will pay that price for that poor decision to waive an 
environmental review for decades to come as we continue to clean up the 
worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history.
  Let's not allow that to happen. Let's support this amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the impacts of a major oil 
spill off Florida's coast would be devastating to tourism, travel to 
nearby beaches, mangroves, and wildlife. This is a truncated process 
and wrong.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does could have very serious 
consequences to Virginia's economy. By looking at multiple sales, you 
lose sight potentially of the harmful impact of individual parcels.
  For example, drilling the close-in parcels could have a very adverse 
impact to the tourism industry in Virginia Beach. Other parcels would 
affect the absolutely essential shipping channels to Baltimore and 
Hampton Roads. Opening up other parts of Virginia's waters would have a 
very serious and consequential impact upon the ability of the Navy to 
use that area off Virginia's shores. Other parcels would have an 
adverse impact upon the fishing industry.
  So what we are suggesting is to look specifically at these individual 
parcels. If you look at the entire broad scope of these sales, you're 
going to lose sight of some of the most serious adverse consequences.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate just simply on this 
amendment because I would point out to my colleagues that there has 
been a lot of reference on the floor today about the Senate's doing 
something or not doing something. I would just remind my colleagues 
that their Senators, both of whom are Democrats, support drilling off 
the Virginia coast. I've found out, too, that their candidate for 
Governor has switched his position now and that he, too, supports 
drilling off the coast of Virginia. So I can say here today, I think 
very honestly, that there is bipartisan support for drilling off the 
coast of Virginia.
  Finally, I want to address the point that my good friend from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) made about no safety. I will just refer him to 
title IV in this legislation. If his concern is on not having safety 
and updating rules because of oil spills, then he should support this 
legislation, because title IV does that through the reorganization 
process.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it hurts me to say vote ``no'' on a Hastings 
amendment, but I will in this case for the arguments that I made a 
moment ago. We simply don't need it because of all of the environmental 
reviews you have to go through on lease sales.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I, add the following new section:

     SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the 
     issuance of a lease under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to any person designated for the 
     imposition of sanctions pursuant to--
       (1) the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), 
     the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and 
     Divestiture Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), the Iran 
     Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22 
     U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a), or 
     the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 
     U.S.C. 8801 et seq.);
       (2) Executive Order 13622 (July 30, 2012), Executive Order 
     13628 (October 9, 2012), or Executive Order 13645 (June 3, 
     2013);
       (3) Executive Order 13224 (September 23, 2001) or Executive 
     Order 13338 (May 11, 2004); or
       (4) the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty 
     Restoration Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this straightforward amendment ensures 
that the Interior Department will not allow leases under the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to go to any person currently subject to 
sanctions by the U.S. Government under existing Federal laws. This 
amendment will ensure that no company can benefit from today's 
legislation if it helps prop up oppressive and destabilizing regimes, 
such as Iran or Syria.
  With the threat from Iran continuing to grow, it is vital that 
Congress respond with prudent and effective action. We must continue to 
isolate Iran, promote stability in the Middle East, and protect Israel. 
Growing our own domestic energy resources is an important part of 
further isolating Iran. My

[[Page 10623]]

amendment ensures that we do not inadvertently or indirectly support 
the Iranian regime while opening American sources of energy. Iran is an 
existential threat to our best ally in the region, Israel; and it is a 
state sponsor of terrorism in addition to Iran's relentless pursuit of 
nuclear weapons and the abuse it directs to its own citizens.
  With regard to Syria, existing sanctions are already helping increase 
the pressure on President Assad's regime. Thanks to the sanctions, 
Syrian oil production has decreased as companies have cut ties with the 
government and exited the country. Despite this pressure, more action 
is needed. This amendment is a responsible next step to ensure that 
nothing in this bill will empower President Assad's continuing war 
against the Syrian people.
  The United States should not be rewarding companies that are 
currently subject to sanctions by the U.S. Government. We must ensure 
that none of the profit derived from today's legislation will prop up 
nations that would harm our national security interests or those of our 
ally, Israel. Israel has a hard enough time surviving in a dangerous 
neighborhood without letting it get any worse.
  With both the Iranian and Syrian regimes threatening our allies in 
the Middle East and with Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, now directly involved 
in the fighting in Syria, I believe that Congress must show its unity 
in the protection of our good friend Israel and with the people of 
Syria.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman's amendment adds a 
great deal to this legislation, and I support your amendment.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for that and for his leadership on 
the entire bill.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this simple amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. At the beginning of the consideration of this bill, I 
talked about how this was a little bit of ``Groundhog Day'' because all 
or parts of this bill passed in the last Congress five times. Now the 
gentleman is kind of disproving my theory because, well, I guess, at 
the very end of the movie, they broke out of the ``Groundhog Day'' 
cycle's being repetitive; but the gentleman is actually breaking us out 
of the cycle.
  Actually, last year, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the 
gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a Democrat, offered this 
identical amendment for sanctions to one of the many offshore oil 
drilling bills passed by the Republicans in the last Congress. On that 
day, which was the 25th of July 2012--almost a year ago today--I would 
note, on an amendment that does exactly what this amendment does, which 
we think is extraordinarily meritorious, that every Republican voted 
no--N-O. That would, of course, include Mr. Lamborn and the esteemed 
chairman, Mr. Hastings.
  So I'm not sure what has changed in the last year. Perhaps they just 
opposed it the last time because a Democrat was offering it and because 
the principle and the danger posed by businesses operating in these 
countries which are hostile to the United States of America wasn't 
worth dealing with when you could beat a Democratic amendment. I don't 
know. Maybe there has been a new realization on the other side of the 
aisle of the dangers of Iran and Syria since that time. Again, I don't 
know.
  Not one Republican Member of the House voted in favor of this 
amendment 1 year ago despite the fact that the esteemed gentlelady from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered it as a motion to recommit on a bill. 
It could be because Republicans lockstep oppose motions to recommit or 
Democratic amendments, even if they have merit, just to make some sort 
of a perverse point.
  We support this amendment today, as Democrats did last year, and 
perhaps all of the Republicans will change their positions this year, 
and it will be a unanimous vote.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to receiving the vote of 
the ranking member. I suppose that means he is in favor of this 
amendment, so I appreciate and applaud that.
  This is very similar to the amendment last year, though it is not 
identical as you stated. It is very similar, and this is an example 
that we can work together in a bipartisan way to commonly work together 
on good ideas. Motions to recommit, as I will remind you, do sometimes 
throw up a procedural roadblock that delay the progress of a bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding as I 
want to make this point.
  Existing law already exists as it relates to sanctions with the 
countries we're talking about, but I think it is very important, since 
we're talking about a national commodity, that we reemphasize--and 
that's really what the gentleman's amendment does, it reemphasizes what 
is already on the books. I think that needs to be done, especially 
right now with the volatility that we see in the Middle East.
  So I think the gentleman's amendment, as I stated, makes a great deal 
of sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. LAMBORN. As I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman would have been accurate had the motion to 
recommit been worded ``promptly,'' but it was worded ``forthwith,'' so 
it would only have delayed the bill by a total of 10 minutes or 15 
minutes, however long the next vote was set for. It would not have sent 
the bill back to committee, and it would not have disrupted the 
movement of the legislation. So that part of the statement is not 
accurate and not a good explanation for why the Republicans uniformly 
opposed this excellent policy last year, even if it is, as the chairman 
says, reemphasizing existing law.
  We happen to think it's a really great existing law, and we wanted to 
make that point last year. Your side didn't. I'm glad that you've come 
around on looking at the companies that do business in Iran and Syria 
as serious threats to the United States and are going to essentially 
support the amendment that we offered last year, which you opposed.
  That's the best I can do, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we change our minds 
around here. We haven't. All the Democrats, I expect, will vote in 
favor of this amendment, as they did last time. Apparently now, most or 
all Republicans will vote. That is a privilege we have around here, to 
change our minds. I just wish they had opposed it on better grounds 
last time rather than saying, well, it would have delayed the bill by 
15 minutes.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I do look forward and appreciate the 
gentleman across the aisle's support of this amendment, and I thank him 
for his remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I urge everyone's support, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flores

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV add the following:

[[Page 10624]]



     SEC. 410. PROHIBITION ON ACTION BASED ON NATIONAL OCEAN 
                   POLICY DEVELOPED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 13547.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Bureau of Ocean Energy and the Ocean 
     Energy Safety Service may not develop, propose, finalize, 
     administer, or implement, any limitation on activities under 
     their jurisdiction as a result of the coastal and marine 
     spatial planning component of the National Ocean Policy 
     developed under Executive Order 13547.
       (b) Report on Expenditures.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit 
     a report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate identifying all Federal expenditures 
     in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, by the Bureau of Ocean 
     Energy and the Ocean Energy Safety Service and their 
     predecessor agencies, by agency, account, and any pertinent 
     subaccounts, for the development, administration, or 
     implementation of the coastal and marine spatial planning 
     component of the National Ocean Policy developed under 
     Executive Order 13547, including staff time, travel, and 
     other related expenses.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple amendment. 
It basically says that it prohibits the offshore agencies of the 
Interior Department from imposing ocean zoning related to the Obama 
administration's continued attempts to establish the National Ocean 
Policy under Executive Order 13547 without congressional authorization.
  It also requires the administration to submit a report to Congress 
identifying expenditures for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 by the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy, the Ocean Energy Safety Service, and their 
predecessor agencies.
  Just as a little background, Executive Order 13547 was signed in 
2010, and it requires that various bureaucracies essentially zone the 
ocean and the sources thereof. This essentially means that a drop of 
rain that falls on your house could be subject to this overreaching 
policy because that drop of rain will ultimately wind up in the ocean.
  There are concerns that have been raised recently that the National 
Ocean Policy may not only restrict ocean and inland activities, but it 
may also have a problem because it has not been given any specific 
appropriations by this Congress. We have had hearings on this in the 
Natural Resources Committee, and no agency has told us from which 
source they're getting the funding for this initiative.
  As you can see in chart 1, this light green area shows the area 
that's covered under ocean zoning. As you can see, that covers a lot 
more than the blue areas that represent the ocean. There are 26 States 
just in the Mississippi watershed that would be affected by this 
executive order.
  If we go to chart 2, you can see that the executive order creates a 
huge new bureaucracy at a time when we're trying to make government 
smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive. There are 63 agencies 
involved, as we see on the next chart, in this effort to try to zone 
the oceans. This looks like more than a planning exercise at this 
point.
  Let me say that you're going to hear from the other side something 
that says planning is good. Yeah, planning may be good. Planning with 
the intent to regulate or a backdoor regulation or backdoor rulemaking 
is not, because here is what the executive order states on its face. It 
says:

       All executive departments, agencies, and offices that are 
     members of the council and any other executive department, 
     agency, or office whose actions affect the ocean, our coasts, 
     and the Great Lakes shall, to the fullest extent consistent 
     with applicable law . . . comply with council certified 
     coastal and marine spatial plans.

  That means all these folks are going to have something to say on how 
we move forward.
  This is a very simple amendment, and it was so simple that we offered 
it as a limitation amendment for the FY13 CJS appropriations bill, and 
it passed on a bipartisan vote of 246-174.
  Let me close by saying that we're not plowing new ground here. This 
has already been approved in the CJS appropriations bill from last 
year. This amendment does not stop any existing statute, any existing 
rule, or any existing regulation. For instance, you may hear that it 
stops the Rigs-to-Reefs program. That is totally false. It does not get 
in the way of any existing program.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLORES. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.
  The gentleman knows that I have the same concerns he has on this 
executive order, and I think his amendment adds a great deal to this 
bill, and I support his amendment.
  Mr. FLORES. Reclaiming my time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in adamant opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This amendment would prohibit the Department of the 
Interior offshore agencies from using voluntary and commonsense 
planning as part of the National Ocean Policy to inform decisions they 
make under existing laws.
  It's interesting that the National Ocean Industries Association, 
which represents offshore energy developers of many kinds, yesterday 
noted:

       This is a great example of the progress that can be made 
     when industry and regulating agencies communicate with each 
     other. It's gratifying to see government and an industry come 
     together to cooperatively and responsibly address these 
     complex and important environmental issues.

  And the gentleman's amendment would bring that program to a halt, 
which obviously the industry actually seems to think is useful.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California will 
control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I think the gentleman might be well intended with his thought of what 
this amendment does, but it's exactly the opposite of what the industry 
wants.
  The gentleman is a relatively new Member to Congress and does not 
represent a coastal area in his district. But if he were here during 
the nineties and early 2000, the reason we have a National Ocean Policy 
is because Congress set up a commission to study the conflicts of the 
sea brought to us by users of the ocean. That was the petroleum 
industry. That was the fishing industry. They were in conflict.
  We had one agency saying, You can drill for oil, and others were 
saying, No, those are protected fishing grounds. Crab pots were being 
swept up by seismic boats going out and looking for oil and other 
geological issues. We had the Navy not corresponding with buoys. We had 
just tons of conflicts all within our 200-mile ocean exclusive economic 
zone, and the industry begged for some kind of collaboration of getting 
together.

                              {time}  1650

  Congress put together a commission; and on that commission Lawrence 
Dickerson, who was Diamond Offshore, chairman of the International 
Association of Drilling Contractors and chairman of the National Ocean 
Industries Association, was appointed by President Bush to sit on that 
commission. The recommendations of that commission, a commission that 
Congress created, were to create a national ocean policy. Congress 
actually introduced bills. The bills were introduced by Republican 
Members. Congressman Jim Greenwood carried the bill. Others carried the 
bill. The Resources Committee would never even give them a hearing. 
Admiral Watkins was chair of the committee, who was first President 
Bush's Energy Secretary, and also former CNO. All of these Republicans 
were asking for a national ocean policy.
  Now we have it, and the gentleman says let's ignore it, let's ignore 
it. Let's not allow it to even be involved. This is a setback. If you 
want to absolutely have fast track in permitting, then do it under 
planning. That's the way we plan for our military with the

[[Page 10625]]

quadrennial review. There isn't anything--health plans. Everything we 
do, transportation plans, you name it, it's around a big plan. We don't 
spend any money until the plan is in place.
  Now we are in the process of having that plan, which the industry 
supports, and the gentleman wants to say, no, don't do anything, ignore 
it. You bring us back to conflicts at sea. You bring back regulatory 
fights. If you want to delay decisionmaking, then don't have a plan 
like we have.
  This amendment destroys the ability to get the job done.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would note that the gentleman does not have the 
right to close.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I am a newcomer to Congress, but the reason 
I'm a newcomer to Congress is because before I did this, I had 30 years 
of experience working offshore. So I have firsthand experience with 
this. Twenty years of that, it was as a sea level officer for different 
companies that operated offshore.
  Congress studied this issue for 10 years, and took no action. What 
does that tell us? That means the intent of Congress is to have no 
statute or regulation to zone the oceans. So the gentleman's issue is a 
little off base here. And just to make sure we correct the statement 
about what NOIA said, here's what they're putting out today:

       NOIA staunchly supports the good work that Congressman 
     Flores has done and continues to do to fight back this ill-
     conceived national ocean policy, and stands in strong support 
     of the Flores amendment on the House floor today.

  I want to remind everybody I have this list of folks that support 
this. This is the fishing industry, both commercial and recreational. 
It's agriculture. It's home builders. It's the energy industry. We're 
not trying to stop a niche problem.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that the 
national ocean policy is the recommendation of a commission that we 
created, bipartisan commission, appointed by President Bush, to 
recommend how we might avoid the conflicts of sea. The national ocean 
policy is that, to have a policy so that when we do activities in the 
ocean, we know whether those activities are consistent with a policy.
  I think the gentleman is completely wrong in thinking that disrupting 
that policy planning is going to get a faster and more equitable way of 
drilling for oil. I think he's totally wrong in that, and the 
administration would probably veto the bill if it's in there. I don't 
think that it is an amendment that's going to do good. I think it's 
going to do harm, and I would oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Flores Amendment.
  This amendment would seriously undermine the smart ocean planning 
activities called for by the National Ocean Policy. I fail to see why 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose smart management of 
our ocean and coastal resources.
  We depend heavily on our oceans. In 2010 alone, maritime economic 
activities supported 2.7 million jobs and contributed 258 billion 
dollars to our GDP. But there is increasing competition for the use of 
our oceans. Offshore energy facilities, commercial fishing, recreation, 
renewable energy, and shipping are all competing for ocean space and 
resources.
  Yet, despite this complex network of competing interests, our current 
haphazard system makes planning decisions about each industry 
individually, rather than looking at the big picture and planning 
accordingly. Our discussion this week about expanding offshore oil 
drilling is a perfect example of this piecemeal approach that results 
in an inefficient use of our ocean resources.
  Smart regional planning is one answer to this problem. Planning 
processes allow us to work together and find the best solutions that 
offer the most benefits for our oceans and our economies--two systems 
that we all know are deeply intertwined and highly interdependent. 
Smart decisions are based on mathematical analyses, ecological 
assessments, and stakeholder deliberations--not politics. And with the 
guidance of the National Ocean Policy, these processes will happen at 
the regional level, which puts ocean management decisions closer to the 
people on the ground--the industries and jobs that will be impacted by 
ocean management decisions.
  The National Ocean Policy is not a big government initiative, but a 
mechanism for efficient planning and giving regions and states more 
control. The amendment in question would disenfranchise states, 
businesses, and citizens who engage in developing ocean plans.
  Mr. Chair, smart ocean planning is the clear way forward to make the 
most of our ocean resources. The Flores amendment would undercut this 
process, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FARR. I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 5, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Cassidy

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5, as 
modified, printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __. AMOUNT OF DISTRIBUTED QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL 
                   SHELF REVENUES.

       Section 105(f)(1) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
     of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; 43 
     U.S.C. 1331 note) shall be applied by substituting ``2023, 
     and shall not exceed $999,999,999 for each of fiscal years 
     2024 through 2055'' for ``2055''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, in 2006 Congress passed the Gulf of Mexico 
Energy Security Act, or GOMESA. This legislation for the first time 
allowed States to share in revenues generated from offshore drilling. 
GOMESA provided 37.5 percent of revenue to the Gulf States, to begin in 
the year 2017, but arbitrarily placed a $500 million cap on the 
collectively shared revenue.
  Conversely, the Mineral Leasing Act requires the Federal Government 
to allocate 50 percent of the energy revenue generated on Federal lands 
to interior States in which the revenue is generated without an annual 
cap.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply moves 
offshore royalty sharing more in line with the benefit onshore interior 
States experience by moving the GOMESA cap from $500 million to $1 
billion. This would begin 10 years from now. It's almost $1 billion, 
just short of $1 billion.
  My amendment does not impact onshore producing States. If your State 
is receiving revenue sharing from onshore, my amendment does nothing to 
change that. It just moves Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama a 
little bit closer to parity. You can look at this graph right here, and 
you can see that this graph shows that interior States are receiving 50 
percent with no dollar cap. Gulf States, less a percentage and with a 
cap. And all other States have the same percent with no cap.
  The House has previously passed a similar version of this amendment 
twice: once in the PIONEER Act and second on the Domestic Energy and 
Jobs Act, both last year, overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. In 
fact, the House laid the groundwork for this with the landmark passage 
of the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006. This was the first 
offshore revenue-sharing bill to pass a congressional Chamber, and it 
did not include an arbitrary cap.
  So I ask my colleagues, if you're worried about rising energy prices, 
I'd recommend a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. Thirty percent of the 
Nation's energy comes off the gulf coast. If you're interested in 
treating Gulf Coast States equally, the way we treat onshore drilling 
in Federal lands for inland States, I also recommend a ``yes.''

[[Page 10626]]

And if you're interested in the environment, let me just make the case 
here that by the Louisiana Constitution, 100 percent of the Federal tax 
revenue that comes from this will go to coastal restoration. That is 
important to us because every place you see red is a place where we 
will lose in Louisiana land over the next 50 years. And where you see 
red, I see families. I see families and businesses which will no longer 
exist unless we do something proactively to restore those lands.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
just want to tell the gentleman that I support his amendment. I think 
it adds a great deal to this legislation, and I commend him for it.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Louisiana for his amendment. I think it is the right thing. I thing the 
Gulf Coast States are treated unfairly with the cap. This raises the 
cap. It's the right thing.
  I was talking with a gentleman from an ACC school--I know you're an 
LSU guy--but he was from Virginia Tech. He said, Go Hokies. I didn't 
like that, but he understands that Louisiana is treated unfairly when 
you compare to what is going on in Wyoming where they got a billion 
dollars last year in revenue.
  My State of South Carolina is included in this bill, and they want 
the revenue-sharing as well. It is the right thing for the States that 
help produce America's energy. So I commend the gentleman. Let's raise 
that cap, and let's treat those Gulf Coast States fairly because they 
are the producers of American energy. And so I commend the gentleman.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because I can't 
believe--I am kind of excited that you want to get more money--but I 
can't believe the Republicans are suggesting that the Treasury of the 
United States ought to be robbed of another $11 billion that goes to 
deficit reduction so it can be spent on the Gulf States because in 
legislation we just passed we give the Gulf States something no other 
States get: we give them in law now $150 billion over the next 60 years 
in revenue earmarked for the Gulf States. And what this amendment says 
is that's not enough; we want $11 billion more. What gall.

                              {time}  1700

  Most of us, if we were doing this, would be accused of doing an 
earmark. And certainly you don't do earmarks anymore in the House of 
Representatives. So what is it that $150 billion isn't enough for four 
States and you need, now, before you even have spent that money, to put 
into law another $11 billion?
  Could you answer that question?
  Mr. CASSIDY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. No, you have the time. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. I will yield to the gentleman for a question. Explain to me 
what is broken that needs $11 billion more, right now, with the $150 
billion that you've already been given, or will be given.
  Mr. CASSIDY. This is what is broken. This is our coastline, which is 
melting away. This is what increases our risk. We've lost a land mass 
equal to Rhode Island in Louisiana.
  Now, the money that is received, our share will go to this, but it is 
not adequate to rebuild this coastline. And the other thing which is 
broken is--
  Mr. FARR. You've lost the coastline why?
  Mr. CASSIDY. Because we channeled the Mississippi in order to create 
navigational services for the rest of the inland nation. And so as you 
channel that Mississippi, the wetlands lost the nourishing sediment 
that comes to them.
  Mr. FARR. And those are the States that have also instate waters and 
onshore and offshore drilling?
  Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, we do have onshore and offshore drilling, 
absolutely.
  Mr. FARR. Which are very lucrative revenues for the State.
  Mr. CASSIDY. If we want to speak about lucrative revenue, all I ask 
is to have the same deal that every other State has. No, I don't even 
ask for the same deal that every other State has, because every other 
State, if they're interior, gets 50 percent of the revenue.
  Other coastal States, for example, California, have no cap on the 
amount of royalty sharing that they may have with the Federal 
Government. It is only in the gulf coast that there is a cap.
  Now, if you want to have the same deal for our State that other 
States have, I would love to have the 50 percent that Wyoming has.
  Mr. FARR. That's onshore, not offshore. We actually have caps with 
offshore, and we have banned further offshore drilling, both State and 
Federal waters.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Well, if you decide to cut off your economic nose to 
spite your face, I can't help that.
  Mr. FARR. The Republicans have been very big on deficit reduction and 
very much against earmarks. And now, with this amendment you're 
proposing it seems to fly in the face of the policy of your own party 
that you want to take out of the Treasury $11 billion that could be 
applied to deficit reduction and give it to the Gulf States, which 
already have $150 billion over the next--in revenue coming to you, 
earmarked for you. That is far more than California or other States.
  Mr. CASSIDY. If I may say, I admire your verbal sleight-of-hand 
because never in the past has royalty sharing been considered earmarks. 
But if now we're going to start considering royalty sharing earmarks, 
heck, let's go back and look at every State. But that is, again, a 
verbal sleight-of-hand. That is not under the definition of an earmark, 
and I think the gentleman knows that.
  Mr. FARR. Well, I'm on the Appropriations Committee, and if this were 
brought up in the Appropriations Committee, it certainly would be an 
earmark. And it is a process that should be in the appropriations 
process and not added to this bill, where you create an $11 million 
earmark for four Gulf States.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Assuming that the gentleman continues to yield to me, I 
would say, in that case, we need to go back to every State which has a 
better royalty sharing arrangement with the Federal Government than we 
and ask to reconsider that.
  We're not even asking to have the 50 percent on the inland or the no 
cap on the other coastal States. We're just asking that you raise the 
cap and keep our revenue sharing royalty percent at the same lower 
level than it is on the inland. Now, I don't know why we're being 
singled out when those other States do so well.
  Mr. FARR. Well, I think the chair of your committee, Mr. Hastings, 
who knows this, that only about 40 percent of the money that comes in 
for the Land and Water Conservation account, of the revenue that comes 
from the offshore drilling, only 40 percent of it is given back to the 
States for land and water conservation purposes. That other 60 amount 
just goes into the Treasury. That's where this money goes, and what 
you're doing is getting something that none of the other States have.
  If we want to revise the percentage of money that goes into the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, I'm all for that.
  Mr. CASSIDY. So, when I spoke to someone from Wyoming today, she 
goes, Oh, you're only getting 37.5? Wyoming gets 48 percent.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman from 
California has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield 
to me for 15 seconds?

[[Page 10627]]


  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to point out, the gentleman, 
my good friend from California, is talking about revenue loss.
  I just want to make this point: the CBO says this legislation will 
create $1.5 billion to the Federal Government.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CASSIDY. How much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) for yielding and for bringing this amendment. I 
think it's important to point out that this was an arbitrary cap that 
was put in place based on problems that were really created in the 
1950s when initial revenue sharing was done.
  For whatever reason, there are various reasons, one State was singled 
out to not be able to participate in revenue sharing. It just so 
happens to be the State that produced about 30 percent of the offshore 
oil and gas. All we're asking for is a little bit closer to fairness.
  This amendment's a really important step in the right direction and 
continues the concept that we've always promoted: to allow States that 
do participate in producing American energy to also participate in the 
revenue that's produced to the Federal Treasury. It's an incentive to 
continue to encourage that kind of American energy exploration.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I'll just close by saying--and I'm not 
sure I understand the logic of my friend on the other side of the 
aisle--apparently, this is going to increase our Federal revenue by 
$1.5 billion. But more importantly, it generates dollars for the State 
of Louisiana to preserve these, the homes of these families. This 
allows revenue that has been from our Outer Continental Shelf to come 
back to preserve this coastline, these families, and these businesses 
to remain in existence. And that's what this is really about, equity, 
increased revenue for the Federal Government, and families in Louisiana 
being able to preserve their existence.
  I urge support for our amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cassidy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. CASSIDY. 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:

                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __. RULES REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES UNDER GULF 
                   OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     issue rules to provide more clarity, certainty, and stability 
     to the revenue streams contemplated by the Gulf of Mexico 
     Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note).
       (b) Contents.--The rules shall include clarification of the 
     timing and methods of disbursements of funds under section 
     105(b)(2) of such Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply stipulates that no 
later than 60 days after the enactment of H.R. 2231, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall issue rules to provide clarity, certainty, and 
stability to the revenue streams we just discussed that were created by 
GOMESA of 2006.
  This Federal law allows the State to use this money for the 
restoration of coastal areas and the mitigation of damage to natural 
resources. However, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, formerly 
MMS, has yet to issue the necessary rules and regulations.
  In 2009, a letter signed by the Governors of Louisiana, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Texas asked for these rules to be published and 
recommendations incorporated. It's now 2013, over 6 years since 
Congress passed in 2006, and the rules have still not been published. 
The lack of clarity in this phase 2 implementation of GOMESA impedes 
the ability of Gulf States and eligible coastal political subdivisions 
to conduct and achieve the planning efforts needed to maximize coastal 
protection.
  It's long overdue for these rules to be published. The amendment is 
simple. It just directs it to do so. I move for approval of the 
amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think his amendment again adds a great deal to this legislation. I 
support the amendment.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose this amendment at this 
time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rigell

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 113-131.
  Mr. RIGELL. 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:

                    TITLE __MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __. SEISMIC TESTING IN THE ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL 
                   SHELF.

       Not later than December 31, 2013, the Bureau of Ocean 
     Energy Management shall publish a record of decision on the 
     Atlantic G&G Programmatic Final Environmental Impact 
     Statement.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 274, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. RIGELL. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2231, which 
requires the administration to complete its Atlantic Environmental 
Impact Statement by December 31 of this year, which will pave the way 
for us to calculate new estimates of the tremendous energy potential 
that's off our shores.

                              {time}  1710

  It's been 30 years since geological and geophysical studies, 
including seismic studies, have been conducted in Atlantic waters. 
Those studies used outdated technology, and our current estimates for 
the energy that is out there are surely inaccurate. And I believe 
they're low. For example, we collected five times more oil from the 
Gulf of Mexico than the government estimated to be there in 1983. The 
study also will allow us to move forward with a critical component of 
renewable energy--and that's wind.
  So for all those reasons, the administration must stay on track here 
and issue its long-awaited environmental impact statement--and do that 
on

[[Page 10628]]

time. And that's what my amendment ensures happens. It should move 
forward with energy production and, most importantly, job creation, 
using the best science available.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGELL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I think the gentleman's amendment makes a 
great deal of sense. We've had discussions in our committee on the 
accuracy of the data.
  The point is that this legislation says that one ought to drill where 
the resources are. And the gentleman's amendment, I think, goes a long 
way in that direction. I commend him for that and support it.
  Mr. RIGELL. I thank the chairman for your leadership on this bill.
  I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's 
amendment that sets a deadline for the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management to complete an environmental review to allow offshore 
Atlantic seismic studies to go forward. I have joined 42 bipartisan 
House colleagues urging President Obama to move quickly to complete the 
environmental analysis.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Interior is well over a year behind 
in completing its work. As you know, delays continue to prevent the 
creation of thousands of good-paying jobs and around $19.5 billion in 
Federal, State, and local revenue.
  I'm glad to join with Chairman Hastings in support of the Offshore 
Energy and Jobs Act. These measures are important for Virginia and this 
Nation, supporting domestic energy security, revenue sharing, and job 
creation. This is about jobs, energy independence, and just plain, old 
common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and this 
important energy bill.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2013.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President of the United States of America,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge that your 
     Administration act to diligently complete the long-delayed 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the conduct of a 
     safe, environmentally protective seismic assessment of the 
     oil and natural gas resources offshore the Atlantic outer 
     continental shelf (OCS). The gathering of such information 
     represents a critical step toward making science-based 
     decisions with regard to any future commercial or 
     recreational activities in the federal waters off our 
     Atlantic coastline that could provide the nation much needed 
     energy, economic, and environmental benefits.
       It has been nearly two generations since seismic testing 
     was last conducted along our eastern seaboard. Since that 
     time, technological advancements have rendered those previous 
     findings nearly irrelevant. For example, while 2-D imaging 
     was restricted by certain geological characteristics, today's 
     3-D and 4-D imaging techniques allow us to identify resources 
     previously unknown to exist. By relying solely on outdated 
     technology and information, we are blindly assessing offshore 
     resource potential and making uninformed decisions without 
     the benefit of sound science. To further illustrate this 
     point, in 1987 the Minerals Management Service estimated that 
     there were 9.57 billion barrels of oil within the Gulf of 
     Mexico. In 2011, with more recent seismic data and 
     exploration, they adjusted that estimate to 48.4 billion 
     barrels of oil--roughly a 500% increase.
       Contrary to the hyperbolic comments of many opposed to this 
     simple information-gathering process, history tells us it can 
     be done safely with great deference to our valuable ocean 
     ecosystems. Industry employs a number of effective mitigation 
     measures to reduce any potential impacts to wildlife in the 
     seismic survey areas such as ramping up the sound levels to 
     allow animals to leave the area before the full survey begins 
     and placing marine mammal observers onboard the survey vessel 
     to shut down the survey if an animal is spotted in the 
     vicinity. Industry has been performing seismic surveys around 
     the world, including the Gulf of Mexico, for decades and 
     there has never been a documented case where use of an air 
     gun to perform a seismic survey has caused the death of an 
     animal. Similarly, a report by the National Academy of 
     Sciences' National Research Council stated that ``No 
     scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated a link 
     between exposure to sound and adverse effects on a marine 
     mammal population.'' It is past time to continue your 
     Administration's efforts to safely accumulate this 
     information using modern technology.
       As you know, the Department of the Interior (DOI) held an 
     initial scoping meeting on their EIS for Atlantic OCS seismic 
     in April 2010. Previous to that in 2009, the FY 2010 House 
     Interior Appropriations bill instructed DOI to indicate their 
     expected timeline for completion of the EIS. DOI's response 
     in February 2010 indicated a Final EIS being issued in April 
     2012. With nearly a full year having passed beyond this 
     target date, we would urge the swift completion of this 
     environmental analysis so that the many seismic permits 
     already submitted to DOI may be properly considered, along 
     with any future applications.
       Finally, in order to ensure a viable market for Atlantic 
     seismic data, we also urge your reconsideration of current 
     policies prohibiting any new oil and gas leasing in the 
     Atlantic OCS. Only the prospect of future leasing provides 
     proper market incentive to make the significant investments 
     needed to obtain this data.
       We thank you for your consideration and hope to quickly 
     move forward on Atlantic seismic testing to enable a science-
     based decision making process with regard to OCS access.
           Sincerely,
         Jeff Duncan; Doc Hastings; John Fleming; Steve Scalise; 
           Joe Wilson, Morgan Griffith; Robert Wittman; Doug 
           Lamborn; Rob Bishop; Tom Graves; Randy Forbes; Paul 
           Broun.
         Mick Mulvaney; Virginia Foxx; Robert Hurt; Tom Rooney; 
           Frank Wolf; Richard Hudson; Trey Gowdy; Glenn Thompson; 
           Tom Rice; Renee Ellmers; Scott Rigell; Bob Goodlatte; 
           Mark Meadows; Robert Pittenger; Lynn Westmoreland; Bill 
           Cassidy.
         Cynthia Lummis; Michael Conaway; Steve Stivers; Kevin 
           Cramer; Henry Cuellar; Gene Green; Blake Farenthold; 
           Bill Flores; Chris Stewart; Mark Amodei; Tim Huelskamp; 
           Charles Boustany; Bill Johnson; Andy Harris.
                                  ____

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2013.
     Hon. Robert Wittman,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wittman: Thank you for your letter 
     dated March 21, 2013, to President Barack Obama expressing 
     your support for the completion of the Programmatic 
     Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate potential 
     effects of multiple geological and geophysical (G&G) 
     activities in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 
     President Obama has asked me to respond. A similar letter is 
     being sent to each co-signer of your letter.
       We share your commitment to ensuring that our resource 
     management decisions are based on the best available science. 
     To that end, the information developed from the PEIS will 
     help guide future decision making regarding the resources 
     available on the Atlantic Coast OCS as well as the social, 
     economic, and environmental impacts of developing those 
     resources.
       The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is in the 
     process of preparing a PEIS under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate potential effects of multiple 
     G&G activities in these areas, including seismic surveys 
     using air guns. BOEM was directed to develop this PEIS under 
     the Conference Report for the Department of the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
       This PEIS is part of a region-specific strategy for oil and 
     gas exploration and development in the Mid and South Atlantic 
     that focuses on the need to update resource information in 
     order to inform future decisions about whether and, if so, 
     where leasing would be appropriate in these areas. Seismic 
     surveys and other G&G activities being evaluated in this PEIS 
     are valuable to understanding the location, extent, and 
     properties of hydrocarbon resources. G&G surveys are also 
     used to identify geologic hazards, archaeological resources, 
     and hard bottom habitats that would need to be avoided during 
     exploration and development. A variety of G&G techniques in 
     addition to air guns are being evaluated in the study. These 
     techniques are also used to understand the potential to site 
     renewable energy structures and locate marine mineral 
     resources, such as sand and gravel used for beach and barrier 
     island restoration.
       In preparing the PEIS, BOEM uses the best available science 
     and works with experts and other regulatory agencies, such as 
     the National Marine Fisheries Service. BOEM has contributed 
     close to $40 million over the last decade on groundbreaking 
     research to better understand the potential for acoustic 
     impacts to marine life from geophysical sound sources. The 
     BOEM has also conducted several expert stakeholder workshops 
     to discuss and identify information needs on acoustic impacts 
     and reasonable measures to manage and mitigate such effects.
       We appreciate your interest in potential seismic 
     exploration in the Mid and South Atlantic OCS waters. Please 
     be assured that completion of this important environmental 
     review remains a high priority for us.
           Sincerely,

                                           Tommy P. Beaudreau,

                                  Acting Assistant Secretary--Land
                                          and Minerals Management.


[[Page 10629]]

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. As part of the Interior Department's 5-year plan, they 
are preparing to allow companies to reevaluate the potential oil and 
gas resources in the Mid- and South Atlantic using seismic and other 
testing. The Interior Department is currently going through the process 
of preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement for that 
testing because they have received nine permit requests for seismic 
airgun surveys. They have determined that because of the scope of 
interest, a programmatic EIS under the National Environmental Policy 
Act is needed prior to permitting any new, large-scale seismic surveys. 
The programmatic EIS would establish a framework for future NEPA 
evaluations of site-specific actions while identifying and analyzing 
mitigation measures for future programmatic use.
  Despite the claims of the majority, Mr. Chair, the Interior 
Department already intends to finish the programmatic EIS by the end of 
this year. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Beaudreau 
testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on 
May 16 of this year that:

       In the spring of 2012, BOEM released the draft programmatic 
     environmental impact statement, or PEIS, for proposed 
     geological and geophysical activities in the Mid- and South 
     Atlantic for public comment. The completion of this PEIS is 
     part of a region-specific strategy with respect to oil and 
     gas exploration and development that will focus on the need 
     to update information in order to inform future decisions on 
     whether, and where, leasing would be appropriate. The final 
     PEIS is expected to be published this year.

  That's just what Interior said just over 1 month ago. Their intention 
is to finish this work by the end of this year. But if for some reason 
Interior needs to complete additional surveys, we should not prevent 
them from doing so. But that's what this amendment would do. It would 
potentially short-circuit the NEPA process. We should allow the 
Interior Department to finish its work to ensure that these activities 
can occur in a way that does not adversely impact the environment and 
not tie their hands, as the gentleman would do.
  I urge defeat of this amendment that would potentially truncate a 
proper environmental review, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGELL. How much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RIGELL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's argument. I certainly don't agree with 
it. The concern that we have--that I have personally--is that the 
administration's willingness to keep the tempo and the cadence of this 
whole process going forward is real. And if I approach this with a 
great sense of urgency, it's because people are hurting. We need to 
diversify our local economy. This bill that the underlying bill 
supports could create 18,000 jobs in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia 
alone.
  I so appreciate the full support that we have, in principle, from 
Senators Warner and Kaine on this very issue. This is a commonsense, 
common ground, overall initiative to grow revenue that we need for 
better roads and healthier schools in an environmentally responsible 
way, moving forward with coastal Virginia energy. Our Governor supports 
it. Our general assembly supports it. Our two U.S. Senators support it, 
in principle. I ran on it. And it has the support of so many different 
groups, including the local chapter of the NAACP, the chambers of 
commerce. It's just a wonderful and, frankly, diverse group of 
coalitions that has come together to say this is what is best for 
Virginia and job creation. We need to move forward with this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his arguments. 
And we have no problem with the underlying process. The question is, 
why should we truncate this process at this time when important work is 
now being done by the Department of Interior? We do not object to the 
Department of Interior going forward. The Department has said in a 
timely manner they will finish this this year. That is appropriate. It 
is not necessary at this moment to eliminate the environmental process 
when in fact we know it's moving forward in a fair and a judicious way. 
If anything comes up, we need to hear that and understand that for 
future oil leases.
  And so I really request that we urge the defeat of this amendment and 
allow the proper process to go forward because we do not oppose the 
underlying theme of the bill but we do oppose the truncation of the 
process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGELL. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. RIGELL. I appreciate the gentleman's argument but my deep concern 
about the Federal government's real commitment to moving this forward 
is legitimate. I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. But the Federal 
Government does have a commitment in the Department of Interior to 
finish this in a timely manner. It has just been reported in the past 
month that they are working at this. They will finish it this year. So 
notwithstanding the very strong arguments of the gentleman from 
Virginia, we do not support truncating the environmental review 
process, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  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. 
Wittman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 2231) to 
amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to increase energy 
exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, provide for 
equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, implement the 
reorganization of the functions of the former Minerals Management 
Service into distinct and separate agencies, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________