[House Report 116-156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress }                                            { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                            { 116-156

======================================================================

 
        PROTECTING AND SECURING FLORIDA'S COASTLINE ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

 July 16, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 205]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 205) to amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 
Act of 2006 to permanently extend the moratorium on leasing in 
certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 205 is to amend the Gulf of Mexico 
Energy Security Act of 2006 to permanently extend the 
moratorium on leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is the portion of the 
ocean seabed under federal jurisdiction, generally running from 
3 to 200 miles out from the coastline. The Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management (BOEM) in the Department of the Interior 
(DOI) is responsible for oil and gas leasing on the OCS. BOEM 
has divided the OCS into 26 administrative planning areas--11 
along the Lower 48 states, and 15 along Alaska. Under the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), DOI must go through a 
multi-step process to identify what parts of the OCS will be 
available for oil and gas leasing over a five-year period. BOEM 
is responsible for preparing the leasing program, known as the 
National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (also known as the 
Five-Year Program). Section 18 of OCSLA lays out the process 
for developing the Five-Year Program, as well as the 
environmental, economic, and social factors that the Secretary 
must consider and balance in determining the timing and 
location of the sales.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\43 U.S.C. Sec. 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Between 1982 and 2008, Congress used annual appropriations 
bills to prevent agency spending on oil and gas leasing in 
various portions of the OCS, with the entire Atlantic and 
Pacific coasts off-limits from Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal 
Year 2008.\2\ In the summer of 2008, President George W. Bush 
announced he would veto any appropriations bill that contained 
an OCS moratorium, bringing an end to the policy rider and the 
decades-long congressional ban for much of the OCS. Currently, 
the only OCS area statutorily withdrawn from oil and gas 
leasing consideration is the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which was 
placed under a moratorium until June 30, 2022, by the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Curry L. Hagerty, Cong. Research. Serv., R41132, Outer 
Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Development (2011).
    \3\The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), Pub. L. 
No. 109-432, div. C, tit. I, 120 Stat. 3000 et seq. (2006). GOMESA also 
placed approximately 3 percent of the Central Gulf of Mexico planning 
area under a leasing moratorium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Separate from, but sometimes consistent with, Congressional 
moratoria, Presidents have withdrawn regions of the OCS from 
oil and gas development under Section 12(a) of OCSLA. In June 
1990, President George H.W. Bush withdrew over 33 million acres 
around parts of Florida, the Pacific coast, and Massachusetts 
through the year 2000.\4\ In 1998, President Bill Clinton 
extended those withdrawals through 2012 and added the Atlantic 
coast and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Arctic.\5\ In 
2008, President Bush lifted nearly all of the Presidential 
withdrawals.\6\ President Barack Obama later permanently 
withdrew Bristol Bay in Alaska, most of the Arctic Ocean, and 
small portions of the Atlantic. President Donald Trump reversed 
all of these other than Bristol Bay in April 2017;\7\ however, 
on March 29, 2019, a federal judge in Alaska declared these 
actions illegal and restored the Obama-era protections.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Statement on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development, 26 
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1006 (June 26, 1990).
    \5\Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States 
Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. 
Doc. 1111 (June 12, 1998); see also Pub. L. No. 105-83, Sec. Sec. 108-
111, 111 Stat. 1543, 1561-62 (1997).
    \6\Memorandum on Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the 
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 44 
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 986 (July 14, 2008); see also Memorandum on 
Modification of the June 12, 1998, Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the 
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 43 
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 19 (Jan. 9, 2007); Pub. L. No. 109-432, 
Sec. 103(b), 120 Stat. 2922, 3002 (2006); Pub. L. No. 109-54, 
Sec. Sec. 104-06, 119 Stat. 499, 521-22 (2005).
    \7\Exec. Order No. 13,795 (Apr. 28, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 20,815 (May 
3, 2017); see also Emily Yehle, Trump Lifts Obama's Ban as Greens 
Promise Legal Assault, E&E News (Apr. 28, 2017), https://
www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053776/.
    \8\Order Re Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80), League of 
Conservation Voters v. Trump, 3:17-cv-00101 (D. Alaska Mar. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President Trump's April 2017 executive order and former 
Secretary Zinke's Secretarial Order 3350\9\ directed BOEM to 
initiate the planning process for a new Five-Year Program to 
replace the 2017-2022 Program finalized in January 2017. On 
January 4, 2018, BOEM published the 2019-2024 Draft Proposed 
Program (DPP),\10\ which proposed opening more than 90 percent 
of the OCS to oil and gas leasing, including the entirety of 
America's Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts. The DPP also 
proposed opening the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas 
leasing once the existing moratorium ends in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Dep't of the Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3350 (May 1, 2017), 
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-
order-3350-offshore-508.pdf.
    \10\https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 6, 2019, BOEM's Acting Director, Walter 
Cruickshank, appeared before the House Subcommittee on Energy 
and Mineral Resources and testified that BOEM ``will release 
the Proposed Program in the coming weeks.''\11\ However, in an 
interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2019, 
Secretary David Bernhardt indicated that at his direction, 
development of the proposed program had been placed on 
hold,\12\ and on May 7, 2019, before a House Appropriations 
Subcommittee, the Secretary stated that release of ``[the 
proposed program] is not imminent at this time.''\13\ The 
Secretary's stated reasoning for halting the plan was the March 
29, 2019, federal court decision reinstating protections from 
leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, despite the 
fact that BOEM has previously released draft plans proposing to 
lease off-limits areas in the event moratoria were removed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 
and the U.S. Geological Survey: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy & 
Mineral Res. of the H. Comm. on Nat. Res., 116th Cong. (2019) 
(testimony of Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management).
    \12\Timothy Puko, Trump's Offshore Oil-Drilling Plan Sidelined 
Indefinitely, Wall St. J. (Apr. 25, 2019).
    \13\FY20 Budget: Department of the Interior: Hearing Before the 
Subcomm. on Interior, Env't, & Related Agencies of the H. Comm. on 
Appropriations, 116th Cong. (2019) (testimony of Secretary David 
Bernhardt, Dep't of the Interior).
    \14\Dep't of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt. Serv., Draft Proposed 
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010-2015 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One likely explanation for the Department's actions is that 
the Trump Administration intends, if the President is 
reelected, to include the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in its final 
Five-Year Program and to hold lease sales in the Eastern Gulf 
as early as 2022. Comments from then-Secretary Zinke and the 
BOEM Acting Director Cruickshank frequently contradicted each 
other regarding the possibility of leasing around Florida, and 
efforts to obtain additional clarity from Secretary Bernhardt 
on his plans for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico have been 
fruitless. Given the widespread belief that a tweet from 
Secretary Zinke declaring Florida off-limits to offshore oil 
and gas leasing was issued to support Florida Governor Rick 
Scott in his Senate race, the Committee is concerned that the 
Administration is playing similar games with its 2019-2024 
program and intends to wait until after the 2020 presidential 
election, in which Florida may be a key swing state, before 
revealing an unpopular plan to lease off of Florida's shore.
    Offshore oil and gas development pose existential threats 
to Florida's tourism, fishing, and recreation economy, which 
rely on clean water and healthy beaches. These industries are 
worth much more to the economy and people of Florida than 
whatever limited benefits would be gained by needlessly 
drilling for oil and gas in the Eastern Gulf, and these 
industries must be protected by permanently extending the 
leasing moratorium, as H.R. 205 would accomplish. Fishing, 
tourism, and recreation in Florida account for $37.4 billion in 
GDP, including $17.5 billion just from the Gulf coast, and 
these activities support more than 600,000 jobs.\15\ Protecting 
the Eastern Gulf from oil and gas drilling has broad bipartisan 
support, including from both Florida Republican U.S. Senators 
and the Republican Governor. In 2018, Florida voters approved a 
Constitutional Amendment banning offshore drilling in state 
waters with 68.9 percent of the vote.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\OCEANA, Florida's Clean Coast Economy (2018), http://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/4046/florida_updated.pdf.
    \16\Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Elections, Nov. 6, 2018 Gen. 
Election, Official Results: Constitutional Amendment, https://
results.elections.myflorida.com/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/6/
2018&RACE=A09&PARTY=&DIST=&GRP=&DATAMODE=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which 
resulted in a blowout of nearly five million barrels of oil 
into the Gulf of Mexico, the west coast of Florida saw negative 
impacts to the commercial and recreational fishing and tourism 
industries, largely as a result of canceled trips from across 
the United States. According to the U.S. Travel Association, 
the oil spill would result in the loss of at least $7.6 billion 
in tourism revenues across the Gulf, with potential losses as 
high as $22.7 billion.\17\ The decline in recreational fishing 
was dramatic Gulf-wide: according to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, from May to August 2010, for-hire 
fishing trips declined by 98 percent in Mississippi, 80 percent 
in Alabama, 60 percent in Louisiana, and 33 percent in western 
Florida.\18\ According to CEO David Yates, Florida's Clearwater 
Marine Aquarium suffered a decrease of 10 percent in year-to-
year attendance growth the quarter the spill occurred.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Oxford Econ., Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism 
21 (2010), http://www.mississippiriverdelta.org/blog/files/2010/10/
Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdf.
    \18\OCEANA, Ingrid Biedron, Ph.D. & Suzannah Evans, Time for 
Action: Six Years After Deepwater Horizon 11 (2016), https://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/
deepwater_horizon_anniversary_report_updated_4-28.pdf.
    \19\Protecting Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res. of the H. Comm. on Nat. 
Res., 116th Cong. (2019) (written testimony of David Yates, CEO, 
Clearwater Marine Aquarium), https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/
media/doc/Testimony%20-%20David%20Yates%20-%2004.02.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the impacts that drilling in the Eastern 
Gulf of Mexico would have on Florida's economy, drilling would 
compromise military readiness, and the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has voiced opposition to the idea of oil and gas 
activities in this region. In May 2018, DOD published 
Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, 
which concluded: ``[i]f oil and gas development were to extend 
east of the [Military Mission Line], without sufficient surface 
limiting stipulations and/or oil and gas activity restrictions 
mutually agreed by the DoD and [Interior Department], military 
flexibility in the region would be lost and test and training 
activities would be severely affected.''\20\ In testimony 
submitted to the Committee in support of H.R. 205, Jim Heald, a 
retired United States Air Force Colonel with 26 years of 
service and a current member of the Florida Defense Support 
Task Force, reiterated the military importance of the existing 
moratorium in the Eastern Gulf and offered his full support for 
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Office of the Secretary of Defense, Preserving Military 
Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 21 (2018), http://www.iadc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/05/DOD-Offshore-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Florida's coastal ecosystems and tourism-reliant businesses 
are too important to risk by opening the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 
to oil and gas leasing. Given the Trump administration's focus 
on extracting as much oil and gas from federal lands and 
federal waters as possible, and their announced interest in 
holding a lease sale in the Eastern Gulf as early as 2022, H.R. 
205 is needed to permanently protect this militarily and 
economically vital region.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 205 was introduced on January 3, 2019, by 
Representative Francis Rooney (R-FL). The bill was referred 
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the 
Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. 
On April 2, 2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
legislation. On June 19, 2019, the Natural Resources Committee 
met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by 
unanimous consent. Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT) offered and 
withdrew an amendment designated Bishop #1. Representative 
Garret Graves (R-LA) offered an amendment designated Graves #1. 
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 21 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #1 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 21 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Case, HI.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Clay, MO.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Costa, CA....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cox, CA......................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC...............  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).........  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Levin, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........         X     ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N              P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).........         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cook, CA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT...................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX..................         X     ...........  ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR..........         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............         X     ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        14           21     ...........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:       YEAS         NAYS        PRESENT
     23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Graves offered amendments designated Graves 
#2 and Graves #3 en bloc. The amendments were not agreed to by 
a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 21 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #2 and #3 amendments offered en bloc
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 21 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Cartwright, PA................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Case, HI......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Clay, MO......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Costa, CA.....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Cox, CA.......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Cunningham, SC................  ...........         X     ..........
Ms. DeGette, CO...................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mrs. Dingell, MI..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Gallego, AZ...................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)..........  ...........         X     ..........
Ms. Haaland, NM...................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Horsford, NV..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Huffman, CA...................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Levin, CA.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA.................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. McEachin, VA..................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Ms. Napolitano, CA................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Neguse, CO....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU...............  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Soto, FL......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Tonko, NY.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Ms. Velazquez, NY.................  ...........         X     ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)..........         X     ...........  ..........
Ms. Cheney, WY....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Cook, CA......................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Curtis, UT....................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Fulcher, ID...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Gohmert, TX...................         X     ...........  ..........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR...........         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Graves, LA....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Hern, OK......................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Hice, GA......................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Johnson, LA...................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn, CO...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. McClintock, CA................         X     ...........  ..........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Webster, FL...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Westerman, AR.................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Wittman, VA...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Young, AK.....................  ...........  ...........  ..........
                                   -------------------------------------
    TOTALS........................        14           21     ..........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:        YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
     23...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Graves offered an amendment designated 
Graves #4. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #4 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 21 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Case, HI.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Clay, MO.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Costa, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cox, CA......................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC...............  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).........  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Levin, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........         X     ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N              P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).........         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cook, CA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT...................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX..................         X     ...........  ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR..........         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............         X     ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        14           22     ...........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:       YEAS         NAYS        PRESENT
     23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Graves offered an amendment designated 
Graves #5. The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote. 
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated Graves 
#6. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #6 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 22 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Case, HI.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Clay, MO.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Costa, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cox, CA......................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC...............  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).........  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Levin, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........         X     ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N              P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).........         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cook, CA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT...................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX..................         X     ...........  ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR..........         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............         X     ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        14           22     ...........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:       YEAS         NAYS        PRESENT
     23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Graves offered an amendment designated 
Graves #7. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #7 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 22 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Cartwright, PA................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Case, HI......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Clay, MO......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Costa, CA.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Cox, CA.......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Cunningham, SC................  ...........         X     ..........
Ms. DeGette, CO...................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mrs. Dingell, MI..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Gallego, AZ...................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)..........  ...........         X     ..........
Ms. Haaland, NM...................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Horsford, NV..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Huffman, CA...................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Levin, CA.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA.................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. McEachin, VA..................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Ms. Napolitano, CA................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Neguse, CO....................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU...............  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Soto, FL......................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ..................  ...........         X     ..........
Mr. Tonko, NY.....................  ...........         X     ..........
Ms. Velazquez, NY.................  ...........         X     ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)..........         X     ...........  ..........
Ms. Cheney, WY....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Cook, CA......................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Curtis, UT....................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Fulcher, ID...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Gohmert, TX...................         X     ...........  ..........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR...........         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Graves, LA....................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Hern, OK......................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Hice, GA......................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Johnson, LA...................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Lamborn, CO...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. McClintock, CA................         X     ...........  ..........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS................  ...........  ...........  ..........
Mr. Webster, FL...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Westerman, AR.................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Wittman, VA...................         X     ...........  ..........
Mr. Young, AK.....................  ...........  ...........  ..........
                                   -------------------------------------
    TOTALS........................        14           22     ..........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:        YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
     23...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Graves offered an amendment designated 
Graves #8. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #8 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas 
and 22 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Case, HI.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Clay, MO.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Costa, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cox, CA......................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC...............  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).........  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Levin, CA....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........         X     ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N              P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).........         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cook, CA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT...................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX..................         X     ...........  ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR..........         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............         X     ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        14           22     ...........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:       YEAS         NAYS        PRESENT
     23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by a roll call vote of 24 yeas and 12 nays, as 
follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
    Amendment: Final Passage
    Disposition: H.R. 205 was adopted and ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 
24 yeas and 12 nays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DEM. MEMBERS (25)              YEAS         NAYS       PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA...............         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Case, HI.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Clay, MO.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Costa, CA....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cox, CA......................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC...............         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).........         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Levin, CA....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA...............         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU..............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................         X     ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        REP. MEMBERS (19)                 Y            N              P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).........  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Cook, CA.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT...................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX..................  ...........         X     ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR..........         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............  ...........         X     ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        24           12     ...........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:       YEAS         NAYS        PRESENT
     23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or 
consider H.R. 205: a legislative hearing titled ``Protecting 
Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling'' held by the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on Tuesday, April 
2, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1334 of the Longworth House 
Office Building.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                  Compliance With House Rule XIII and 
                        Congressional Budget Act

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                                Congessional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 12, 2019.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 205, the 
Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
Gramp.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    The bill would
           Prohibit future auctions of leases for oil 
        and gas development in areas of the Gulf of Mexico that 
        are within 125 miles of the coast of Florida and in 
        most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
    Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
           Reducing collections of offsetting receipts 
        from offshore oil and gas leases
           Reducing spending subject to appropriation 
        for administrative expenses related to leasing 
        activities in the affected regions of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf (OCS)
    Areas of significant uncertainty include
           Estimating the amount and timing of any 
        future government income from oil and gas leasing 
        activities in the affected regions of the OCS under 
        current law
    Bill summary: The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 
2006 (GOMESA) imposed a temporary moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing in areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are within 125 
miles of the Florida coast and in most of the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico. Under current law, that moratorium will expire on June 
30, 2022. H.R. 205 would amend existing law to permanently ban 
oil and gas leasing in those regions.
    Estimated Federal Cost: The estimated budgetary effect of 
H.R. 205 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall 
within budget functions 950 (undistributed offsetting 
receipts), and 300 (natural resources and environment).

                                                    TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026   2027   2028   2029  2019-2024  2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Increases in Direct Spending
 
Estimated Budget Authority...........................      0      0      0      0     50     50     60     60     60     60     60       100        400
Estimated Outlays....................................      0      0      0      0     50     50     60     60     60     60     60       100        400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Decreases in Spending Subject to Appropriation
 
Estimated Authorization..............................      0     -5     -6     -2     -1     -1   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.       -15       n.e.
Estimated Outlays....................................      0     -3     -6     -4     -1     -1   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.       -15       n.e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.e. = not estimated.

    Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that the legislation will be 
enacted near the end of 2019.
    Background: Companies that lease federal oil and gas 
resources pay a bonus bid when they acquire leases, make rental 
payments on nonproducing acreage, and pay royalties based on 
the value of the oil and gas produced. Using the technical and 
economic assumptions that underlie CBO's May 2019 baseline 
projections, CBO estimates that offsetting receipts from 
leasing activities in all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf 
will total $56 billion over the 2020-2029 period. Royalties on 
production account for about 90 percent of that total, and 
bonus payments for most of the remainder. Because production in 
the OCS usually begins several years after a lease is issued, 
CBO expects that most of the proceeds during that period from 
leases issued after 2020 would be from bonus payments.
    CBO's baseline projections of bonus bids reflect recent 
trends in OCS auction proceeds as well as factors that may 
affect the value of resources in specific areas. In particular, 
CBO considers the number of leases acquired by bidders in 
auctions and trends in the winning bids for the top 10 leases, 
which recently have accounted for more than 40 percent of the 
total proceeds from individual auctions.\1\ Receipts from 
individual sales also vary depending on the bidders' 
assessments of the strategic value of specific geological 
resources, the degree of competition, and the size of the 
companies acquiring the leases. For new areas, CBO expects that 
proceeds also would reflect the bidders' assessment of the type 
and quality of the infrastructure and the costs of operating in 
a region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Since 2015, the top 10 bids in each auction of leases in the 
Gulf of Mexico have accounted for fewer than 10 percent of the leases 
issued but more than 40 percent of the proceeds generated by the sales. 
Winning bids from the top 10 leases in the Central Gulf of Mexico have 
declined from an average of about $60 million each over the 2008-2014 
period to about $10 million over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO's baseline projections assume no leasing will occur 
through 2022 in the region subject to the GOMESA moratorium. 
Once those statutory restrictions expire, decisions about where 
and when to offer leases in this portion of the OCS will be 
made by DOI administratively--in consultation with industry and 
affected states--for five year periods. CBO's baseline 
projections of oil and gas leasing receipts after 2022 reflect 
the possibility that DOI will authorize auctions in those areas 
under future leasing plans.
    Direct spending: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 205 would 
reduce offsetting receipts (which are recorded in the budget as 
decreases in direct spending) and thus would increase direct 
spending by $400 million over the 2020-2029 period. That 
estimate reflects the effects of prohibiting leasing activity 
in the OCS that otherwise may occur under current law.
    Because no leasing has occurred in the affected region 
since the 1980s, estimates of future proceeds are uncertain. 
Based on recent discoveries and infrastructure investments in 
adjacent areas, CBO expects that there may be significant 
industry interest in some of the deepwater resources of the 
eastern Gulf region.\2\ Access to those areas also was 
identified as high priority in comments submitted by industry 
on DOI's leasing plan for the 2017-2022 period.\3\ On the other 
hand, defense-related constraints on operations and state 
siting restrictions on related facilities may reduce the value 
of some leases. In addition, some resources off the coast of 
Florida probably would be excluded from auctions because 
leasing may not be compatible with state coastal zone 
management plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\For a discussion of Norphlet play (a geological formation in the 
Gulf of Mexico) and related issues, see Brian Scheid, ``With U.S. 
Offshore Plan Likely Scrapped, Industry Pursues Changes to Federal 
Lease Terms,'' S&P Global/Platts (May 23, 2019), http://
tinyurl.com1yxz6kd9n.
    \3\See Bureau of Ocean Management, 2017-2022 Outer Continental 
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program (January 2015), pp. 3-
13, www.boem.gov/2017-2022-0PP (PDF, 6.2 MB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO has no basis to estimate the specific probability of 
auctions occurring in the future. In the absence of specific 
information, CBO uses a 50 percent probability that auctions 
would occur after 2022 to reflect the legal authority that 
would exist after 2022 to hold such auctions.
    Taking into account such uncertainties and assuming that 50 
percent chance that auctions would occur after 2022, CBO 
estimates that, under current law, auctioning leases in areas 
of the OCS currently subject to the GOMESA moratorium would 
generate offsetting receipts totaling $400 million over the 
2023-2029 period. That estimate is roughly equivalent to a 
theoretical case in which 50 percent of the value of 300 leases 
are acquired at an average price of $2.5 million--an amount 
that is more than double the $1 million average price paid per 
lease in 2018. CBO expects that global energy companies would 
actively compete for leases in this region because of its 
strategic and resource potential.
    Spending subject to appropriation: CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 205 would reduce DOI's administrative costs 
by $15 million over the 2020-2024 period. That estimate is 
based on historical spending patterns for developing leasing 
plans and completing the environmental, geologic, and economic 
assessments that are required under current law for potential 
auctions of leases in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Any reduction 
in spending would depend on future appropriations being reduced 
by the estimated amounts.
    Uncertainty: The amount the government might collect under 
current law for leases in areas in the Gulf of Mexico subject 
to the GOMESA moratorium is uncertain and could be higher or 
lower than CBO estimates. The timing of any auctions will 
depend on future administrative actions that cannot be 
predicted. In addition, potential bidders could rely on 
assumptions that differ from CBO's, including projections of 
the long-term prices for oil and gas, production costs, the 
area's resource potential, and alternative investment 
opportunities. The factors that affect companies' investment 
decisions could result in a wide range of possible bonus bids.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those 
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 2.

                                              TABLE 2.--CBO'S ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2019   2020   2021   2022   2023   2024   2025   2026   2027   2028   2029  2019-2024  2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net Increase in the Deficit
 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect.......................      0      0      0      0     50     50     60     60     60     60     60       100        400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increase in long-term deficits: CBO cannot determine 
whether enacting the bill would increase net direct spending by 
more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive periods 
beginning in 2030. H.R. 205 would preclude the development of 
some oil and gas resources that otherwise may occur in the Gulf 
of Mexico under current law. The potential loss of offsetting 
receipts after 2029 would depend on several factors, including 
future prices for oil and gas and the timing, quantity of any 
production, and future administrative actions. For example, the 
cost of implementing the bill may not exceed $5 billion in any 
of those periods if prices are similar to those assumed in 
CBO's May 2019 baseline projections of $74 per barrel in 2029. 
On the other hand, costs could exceed $5 billion in some 
periods if prices or production exceed those projected amounts.
    Mandates: None.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; 
Mandates: Rachel Austin.
    Estimate reviewed by: Kim Cawley, Chief, Natural Resources 
Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.
    2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and 
objectives of this bill is to amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act of 2006 to permanently extend the moratorium on 
leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

                           Earmark Statement

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                           Existing Programs

    This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of 
the federal government known to be duplicative of another 
program.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

               Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

               GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                      DIVISION C--OTHER PROVISIONS

TITLE I--GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 104. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF GULF OF 
                    MEXICO.

  (a) In General.-- [Effective during the period beginning on 
the date of enactment of this Act and ending on June 30, 2022, 
the Secretary] The Secretary shall not offer for leasing, 
preleasing, or any related activity--
          (1) any area east of the Military Mission Line in the 
        Gulf of Mexico;
          (2) any area in the Eastern Planning Area that is 
        within 125 miles of the coastline of the State of 
        Florida; or
          (3) any area in the Central Planning Area that is--
                  (A) within--
                          (i) the 181 Area; and
                          (ii) 100 miles of the coastline of 
                        the State of Florida; or
                  (B)(i) outside the 181 Area;
                  (ii) east of the western edge of the 
                Pensacola Official Protraction Diagram (UTM X 
                coordinate 1,393,920 (NAD 27 feet)); and
                  (iii) within 100 miles of the coastline of 
                the State of Florida.
  (b) Military Mission Line.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
the United States reserves the right to designate by and 
through the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the 
President, national defense areas on the outer Continental 
Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).
  (c) Exchange of Certain Leases.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall permit any 
        person that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
        has entered into an oil or gas lease with the Secretary 
        in any area described in paragraph (2) or (3) of 
        subsection (a) to exchange the lease for a bonus or 
        royalty credit that may only be used in the Gulf of 
        Mexico.
          (2) Valuation of existing lease.--The amount of the 
        bonus or royalty credit for a lease to be exchanged 
        shall be equal to--
                  (A) the amount of the bonus bid; and
                  (B) any rental paid for the lease as of the 
                date the lessee notifies the Secretary of the 
                decision to exchange the lease.
          (3) Revenue distribution.--No bonus or royalty credit 
        may be used under this subsection in lieu of any 
        payment due under, or to acquire any interest in, a 
        lease subject to the revenue distribution provisions of 
        section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
        (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)).
          (4) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
        promulgate regulations that shall provide a process 
        for--
                  (A) notification to the Secretary of a 
                decision to exchange an eligible lease;
                  (B) issuance of bonus or royalty credits in 
                exchange for relinquishment of the existing 
                lease;
                  (C) transfer of the bonus or royalty credit 
                to any other person; and
                  (D) determining the proper allocation of 
                bonus or royalty credits to each lease interest 
                owner.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We are opposed to H.R. 205 as ordered reported from the 
Committee on Natural Resources. This legislation would 
permanently extend the moratorium on energy production in the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area set to expire in 2022.
    Enacted in 2006, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GO 
MESA, Public Law 109-432) established a revenue sharing 
structure for oil and gas lease sales on the Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Alabama[1] and imposed a moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning 
area.[2] Under GOMESA, offshore leasing is banned 
off the east coast of Florida through June 2022, at which time 
the moratorium will expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[1]\Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security (GOMESA). https://www.boem.gov/Revenue-Sharing/.
    \[2]\Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act (GOMESA) Areas. https://www.boem.gov/GOMESA-Map/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our colleagues who support this bill allege that oil and 
gas development cannot occur alongside commercial fishing, 
tourism, recreation or military testing and training 
operations. However, the Gulf States have proven that all of 
these activities can coexist, and in fact, benefit from one 
another, so long as we follow the process established in the 
law for stakeholder engagement and environmental review. The 
coast of Louisiana, where the lion's share of offshore drilling 
occurs, boasts one of the most diverse and productive 
ecosystems in the world, supporting marine and wildlife habitat 
and the largest commercial fishing industry in the contiguous 
United States.
    Further, 36% of current oil and gas leases have 
stipulations to accommodate nearby military testing and 
training operations--demonstrating the compatibility of 
Department of Defense (DoD) operations and energy development 
on the OCS. In 1983, the Department of the Interior (DoI) and 
DoD signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that allows for 
cooperation in the event that military and planned energy 
leasing activities on the OCS are in conflict.[3] 
The MOU establishes that certain defense-related activities may 
be irreconcilable with mineral exploration but, in some areas, 
energy production is possible so long as leasing and production 
stipulations are included to allow for military activity in the 
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[3]\Memorandum Agreement Between the Department of Defense and the 
Department of the Interior on Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental 
Shelf. July 20, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2018, DoD prepared a report discussing the scope of 
military testing and training events conducted east of the 
Military Mission Line (MML) offshore Florida and Alabama in the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico.[4] Throughout this report, 
DoD reiterates, ``If oil and gas development were to extend 
east over the MML, without sufficient surface limiting 
stipulations and/or oil and gas activity restrictions mutually 
agreed upon by the DoD and DoI, military flexibility in the 
region would be lost and test and training activities would be 
severely affected'' [emphasis added.[5] This 
conditional statement conveys that, with DoI and industry 
cooperation, multiple uses of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico are 
possible, including energy development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[4]\Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. May 2018.
    \[5]\Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. May 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, offshore oil and gas production is a 
significant source of federal and State revenues. In fact, 
offshore oil and gas development alone contributed over $3 
billion to the U.S. Treasury and over $200 million to the Gulf 
States in Fiscal Year 2018. The Gulf producing States of Texas, 
Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana receive a very small portion 
of the revenues generated from production on the OCS. These 
States, specifically Louisiana, rely on these revenues to 
design and complete critical hurricane protection and flood 
prevention projects[6]. However, recent payments 
have fallen well below projected levels, forcing Louisiana 
coastal managers to delay or cancel restoration projects. 
Notably, oil and gas production on the OCS is the funding 
source for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which 
the Congress, including proponents of this bill, recently voted 
to permanently authorize. It must also be noted that a 
Democrat-sponsored bill to create permanent mandatory funding 
of the LWCF was ironically considered, and passed, during the 
same markup that H.R. 205 was considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \[6]\http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/Final-GOMESA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is a clearly established process in law for States to 
weigh in on where we should conduct offshore energy 
development. This bill would bypass that process altogether by 
permanently banning production without consideration of the 
benefits this activity could provide in terms of domestic 
energy security. H.R. 205 is a regressive piece of legislation 
which does not account for the growing global demand for energy 
and military needs. We should be considering, through the 5-
year planning process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act, the best use of each area of the Gulf--with due 
consideration given to the needs of the military, tourism 
activities, and the hydrocarbon potential of these resources 
that are owned by the American public.
    This bill would take domestic energy resources off the 
table, increasing our dependence on foreign oil imports from 
unfriendly sources whose environmental standards are 
significantly less stringent than ours. Further, this proposal 
would preclude job creation and the generation of billions of 
dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury, States, and critical 
conservation investments. For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 205 
as ordered reported.

                                   Russ Fulcher.
                                   Tom McClintock.
                                   Doug Lamborn.
                                   Paul A. Gosar.
                                   Liz Cheney.
                                   Mike Johnson (LA).
                                   Garret Graves (LA).
                                   Rob Bishop (UT).