[House Report 116-157]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


116th Congress    }                                   {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                   {       116-157

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



 
              COASTAL AND MARINE ECONOMIES PROTECTION ACT

                                _______
                                

 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. 1941]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 1941) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior including in any 
leasing program certain planning areas, and for other purposes, 
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. 1941 is to prohibit the Secretary of 
the Interior including in any leasing program certain planning 
areas.

                  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\Interior Dep't, 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 portions of the Atlantic and Pacific OCS 
regions in its final Five-Year Program and to hold lease sales 
in these areas as early as 2021. Comments from then-Secretary 
Zinke and the BOEM Acting Director Cruickshank frequently 
contradicted each other regarding the possibility of expanded 
leasing, and efforts to obtain additional clarity from 
Secretary Bernhardt on his plans for the Five-Year Program have 
been fruitless. Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 
Management Joe Balash was recently quoted, in reference to 
seismic permitting in the Atlantic Ocean, as saying ``I will 
tell you we wouldn't work really, really hard to get the 
seismic permits out, if it was an area that wasn't going to be 
available.''\15\ 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 before revealing an unpopular plan to expand OCS 
leasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Jimmy Tobias, US Official Reveals Atlantic Drilling Plan While 
Hailing Trump's Ability to Distract Public, The Guardian (Mar. 14, 
2019), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/14/offshore-
drilling-trump-official-reveals-plan-and-distractions-delight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1941 places a permanent moratorium on oil and gas 
leasing on the U.S.'s Atlantic and Pacific coasts in order to 
protect the local communities and businesses that rely on clean 
beaches and healthy oceans from the dangers of offshore oil and 
gas development. The existing industries, including tourism, 
fishing, and outdoor recreation, which have led to prosperous 
economies up and down the Atlantic and Pacific, are not 
compatible with offshore oil and gas drilling or the onshore 
infrastructure that would be required to support offshore 
development.
    The West Coast has existing oil and gas production off 
shore Southern California, but no new leasing has occurred 
there since 1984, and local opposition to offshore drilling is 
strong, with recent polling showing that 69 percent of 
Californians oppose additional offshore oil drilling, with only 
25 percent in support.\16\ Congressional, state, and local 
government opposition in the region is also strong, with three 
governors, six U.S. senators, more than fifty U.S. House 
members, ninety-two municipalities, and more than 2,100 elected 
officials from California, Oregon, and Washington formally 
opposing any new leasing off the West Coast. The Oregon and 
Washington coasts are believed to have very few oil or gas 
resources and have drawn minimal interest from the oil and gas 
industry in recent decades. California, however, does have a 
significant resource base, along with existing oil and gas 
infrastructure, which has made it a possible target for 
industry and the Trump Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Pub. Policy Inst. of Cal., PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians 
& the Environment 20 (2017), https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/
s_717mbs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In April 2019, Vipe Desai, a founding member of the 
Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, testified 
that further offshore drilling would put at risk California's 
$41.9 billion ocean economy and more than 600,000 jobs, in 
addition to nearly 167,000 jobs and $12.2 billion in GDP in 
Oregon and Washington.\17\ California has experienced the 
negative impacts of offshore oil and gas development firsthand, 
including during the 1969 blowout off Santa Barbara that 
ultimately spilled 3 million gallons of oil, and a 2015 onshore 
oil pipeline rupture near Refugio State Beach that spilled more 
than 100,000 gallons of offshore oil, much of which ended up on 
the beaches or in the ocean. These disasters negatively 
impacted coastal businesses, the tourism industry, fishing, and 
the health of marine ecosystems, and Pacific coast states have 
zero interest in more offshore oil and gas drilling that will 
place their economies and communities at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\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 Vipul ``Vipe'' Desai, 
Founding Member, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast), 
https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-
%20Vipe%20Desai%20-%2004.02.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Up and down the Atlantic seaboard, a bipartisan group of 
governors, state officials, mayors, and local leaders oppose 
oil and gas drilling because of the threat it would pose to the 
tourism, outdoor recreation, and fishing economies that rely on 
an oil-free coastline and ocean. Since early 2018, a Republican 
mayor from North Carolina and a Republican state senator and 
Republican mayor from South Carolina have all presented 
testimony to the Committee in opposition to oil and gas 
drilling off the Atlantic coast. In addition to offshore 
drilling rigs and platforms, offshore development requires 
extensive onshore infrastructure including pipelines, 
refineries, and storage tanks. These facilities would have a 
major onshore footprint and would further undermine the 
existing environmental and economic resources along the 
Atlantic shore.
    The Trump Administration and other supporters of oil and 
gas development in the Atlantic frequently cite economic 
figures from a study produced for the American Petroleum 
Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association, two 
oil and gas industry trade groups. Looking at those numbers in 
context, however, shows the much larger economic impact on 
fishing and tourism, which could both be significantly harmed 
by the presence of offshore drilling. A study done for Stop 
Offshore Drilling in the Atlantic showed that tourism will 
provide an estimated 181,543 jobs in South Carolina by 2035, 
compared to a potential 35,569 jobs from oil and gas.\18\ 
Further, the same study showed that tourism in just four 
coastal South Carolina counties eclipses the potential tax 
contributions of oil and gas development for the entire state, 
with tourism providing an estimated nearly $2.7 billion in tax 
revenue in those counties alone by 2035, compared to a 
potential $848 million statewide in hypothetical revenue 
sharing from oil and gas.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Terry Munson, Ian McLaren & Tom Stickler, Offshore Drilling vs. 
Tourism: Projected Revenue for South Carolina 12 (2015). The report is 
not available online. To obtain a copy, contact Peter Gallagher, 
Professional Staff, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources at 
[email protected].
    \19\Id. The latter figure is hypothetical and speculative because 
there is no guarantee that any federal payments from offshore drilling 
would be shared with Atlantic OCS states at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The businesses, communities, and economies along the 
Atlantic and Pacific coasts will face significant risks from 
offshore oil and gas drilling if the Trump Administration is 
successful in its pursuit to open the nation's coastlines to 
fossil fuel development. H.R. 1941 is necessary to permanently 
protect these regional economies and local residents from the 
dangers of offshore drilling.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 1941 was introduced on March 28, 2019, by 
Representative Joe Cunningham (D-SC). 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. Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered an 
amendment designated Gosar.132 (revised). The amendment was not 
agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as 
follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Gosar.132 (revised) 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 Gosar offered an amendment designated 
Gosar.134 (revised). The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Gosar.134 (revised) 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 Tom McClintock (R-CA) offered an amendment 
designated McClintock #1. The amendment was not agreed to by a 
roll call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. McClintock #1 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..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT) offered an amendment 
designated Bishop #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Bishop #2 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 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 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #1 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 #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #2 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     ...........  ...........
Ms. 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 #3. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 11 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #3 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 11 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..............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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     ...........  ...........
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR...........         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        11           22     ...........
    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 13 yeas and 21 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #4 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 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..............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        13           21     ...........
    Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report:       YEAS         NAYS        PRESENT
     23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Graves offered an amendment designated 
Graves #5. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote 
of 12 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Mr. Graves #5 amendment
    Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 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..............  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................  ...........         X     ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        12           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 22 yeas and 12 nays, as 
follows:
    Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
    Amendment: Final Passage
    Disposition: H.R. 1941 was adopted and ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 
22 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..............         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Soto, FL.....................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................         X     ...........  ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY....................         X     ...........  ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................  ...........  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Graves, LA...................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Hern, OK.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Hice, GA.....................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS...............  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Webster, FL..................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA..................  ...........         X     ...........
Mr. Young, AK....................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
    TOTALS.......................        22           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. 1941: 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,
                               Congressional 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. 1941, the Coastal 
and Marine Economies Protection Act.
    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 the Atlantic and Pacific regions 
        of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
    Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
           Reducing collection of offsetting receipts 
        from offshore oil and gas leases
           Reducing spending subject to appropriation 
        for administrative expenses related to leasing 
        activities in the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the 
        OCS
    Areas of significant uncertainty include
           Estimating the amount and timing of any 
        future government income from leasing in the Atlantic 
        and Pacific OCS under current law
    Bill Summary: H.R. 1941 would prohibit future auctions of 
leases for oil and gas development in the Atlantic and Pacific 
Outer Continental Shelf. Under current law, decisions on where 
and when to offer leases in the OCS are made administratively 
by the Secretary of the Interior--in consultation with industry 
and affected states--for five-year periods. Leases cannot be 
offered for areas that are not included in a five-year plan, 
but the available regions may change whenever a new plan is 
adopted. H.R. 1941 would direct the Secretary to exclude the 
Atlantic and Pacific regions from such plans.
    Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of 
H.R. 1941 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation 
fall within budget functions 950 (undistributed offsetting 
receipts) and 300 (natural resources and the environment).

                                                   TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                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       25       25     30     30     30     30     30        50        200
Estimated Outlays..........................      0        0        0        0       25       25     30     30     30     30     30        50        200
 
                                                     Decreases in Spending Subject to Appropriation
 
Estimated Authorization....................      0      -10      -12       -4       -1       -1   n.e.    n.e   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.       -28       n.e.
Estimated Outlays..........................      0       -7      -11       -7       -2       -1   n.e.    n.e   n.e.   n.e.   n.e.       -28       n.e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.e. = not estimated.

    Basis of estimate: For this 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 OCS 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The timing and location of OCS auctions currently are 
governed by the five-year plan for 2017 through 2022, which was 
adopted in 2016. Because that plan does not authorize auctions 
in the Atlantic and Pacific regions, CBO anticipates that no 
leasing will occur in those regions through 2022 under current 
law. However, CBO's baseline projections of oil and gas leasing 
receipts after 2022 reflect the possibility that DOI will 
authorize auctions in those areas under subsequent leasing 
plans.
    Direct spending: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1941 
would reduce net offsetting receipts (which are recorded in the 
budget as decreases in direct spending) and thus would increase 
direct spending by $200 million over the 2020-2029 period. That 
estimate reflects the effects of prohibiting leasing activity 
that otherwise may occur under current law.
    Because no leasing has occurred in the affected regions 
since the 1980s, estimates of future proceeds are uncertain. 
Although some companies recently applied for permits to do 
seismic testing off the Atlantic coast, industry comments on 
DOI's leasing plan for the 2017-2022 period indicate that 
auctions in these regions may be a lower priority than lease 
sales in other areas in the Gulf of Mexico.\2\ Several factors 
could affect the industry interest in the Atlantic and Pacific 
regions, including the absence of pipelines and onshore 
processing facilities in key areas, opposition in some states 
to the siting of such facilities in coastal areas, and past 
litigation regarding offshore oil and gas development, that 
resulted in the cancellation of some federal leases in both 
regions.\3\ In addition, some resources in those regions 
probably would be excluded from auctions because leasing may 
not be compatible with state coastal zone management plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\DOI's summary of comments on the draft leasing plan for 2017-
2022 indicated that companies were most interested in auctions of 
resources in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (which is subject to a 
statutory moratorium through June, 2022), followed by interest in the 
Mid- and South-Atlantic OCS, 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-DPP (PDF, 6.2 MB).
    \3\Agencies in several states, including California, New Jersey, 
and North Carolina, have adopted policies that ban oil and gas drilling 
and related activities in state waters and have opposed including their 
areas in the five-year leasing plan. 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-DPP (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 to hold such auctions.
    Taking into account such uncertainties and assuming that 50 
percent chance that auctions will occur after 2022, CBO 
estimates that, under current law, auctioning leases in the 
Atlantic and Pacific OCS would generate offsetting receipts 
totaling $200 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 
$1.3 million--an amount that is slightly higher the $1 million 
average price paid per lease in the Gulf of Mexico in 2018. 
While some expect that new geologic prospects such regions may 
be more valuable than those in well-developed portions of the 
Gulf of Mexico, CBO anticipates that most of those advantages 
would be offset by the additional logistical costs of 
developing resources in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.
    Spending subject to appropriation: CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 1941 would reduce DOI's administrative costs 
by $28 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 Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Any 
reduction in spending would depend on future appropriations 
being reduced by the estimated amounts.
    Uncertainty: The amounts the government might collect under 
current law for leases in areas in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS 
are 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 areas' 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. 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                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       25       25     30     30     30     30     30        50        200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Atlantic or Pacific regions under current law. The potential 
loss of offsetting receipts after 2029 would depend on several 
factors, including future prices for oil and gas, the timing 
and 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 and there is only a 50 percent chance that 
the resources estimated by the DOI are leased for development. 
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 and 
Physical 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 prohibit the Secretary of the 
Interior including in any leasing program certain planning 
areas.

                           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):

                   OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  Sec. 18. Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program.--(a) The 
Secretary, pursuant to procedures set forth in subsections (c) 
and (d) of this section, shall prepare and periodically revise, 
and maintain an oil and gas leasing program to implement the 
policies of this Act. The leasing program shall consist of a 
schedule of proposed lease sales indicating, as precisely as 
possible, the size, timing, and location of leasing activity 
which he determines will best meet national energy needs for 
the five-year period following its approval or reapproval. Such 
leasing program shall be prepared and maintained in a manner 
consistent with the following principles:
          (1) Management of the outer Continental Shelf shall 
        be conducted in a manner which considers economic, 
        social, and environmental values of the renewable and 
        nonrenewable resources contained in the outer 
        Continental Shelf, and the potential impact of oil and 
        gas exploration on other resource values of the outer 
        Continental Shelf and the marine, coastal, and human 
        environments.
          (2) Timing and location of exploration, development, 
        and production of oil and gas among the oil- and gas-
        bearing physiographic regions of the outer Continental 
        Shelf shall be based on a consideration of--
                  (A) existing information concerning the 
                geographical, geological, and ecological 
                characteristics of such regions;
                  (B) an equitable sharing of developmental 
                benefits and environmental risks among the 
                various regions;
                  (C) the location of such regions with respect 
                to, and the relative needs of, regional and 
                national energy markets;
                  (D) the location of such regions with respect 
                to other uses of the sea and seabed, including 
                fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed 
                sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, 
                and other anticipated uses of the resources and 
                space of the outer Continental Shelf;
                  (E) the interest of potential oil and gas 
                producers in the development of oil and gas 
                resources as indicated by exploration or 
                nomination;
                  (F) laws, goals, and policies of affected 
                States which have been specifically identified 
                by the Governors of such States as relevant 
                matters for the Secretary's consideration;
                  (G) the relative environmental sensitivity 
                and marine productivity of different areas of 
                the outer Continental Shelf; and
                  (H) relevant environmental and predictive 
                information for different areas of the outer 
                Continental Shelf.
          (3) The Secretary shall select the timing and 
        location of leasing, to the maximum extent practicable, 
        so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential 
        for environmental damage, the potential for the 
        discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for adverse 
        impact on the coastal zone.
          (4) Leasing activities shall be conducted to assure 
        receipt of fair market value for the lands leased and 
        the rights conveyed by the Federal Government.
  (b) The leasing program shall include estimates of the 
appropriations and staff required to--
          (1) obtain resource information and any other 
        information needed to prepare the leasing program 
        required by this section;
          (2) analyze and interpret the exploratory data and 
        any other information which may be compiled under the 
        authority of this Act;
          (3) conduct environmental studies and prepare any 
        environmental impact statement required in accordance 
        with this Act and with section 102(2)(C) of the 
        National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
        4332(2)(C)); and
          (4) supervise operations conducted pursuant to each 
        lease in the manner necessary to assure due diligence 
        in the exploration and development of the lease area 
        and compliance with the requirement of applicable laws 
        and regulations, and with the terms of the lease.
  (c)(1) During the preparation of any proposed leasing program 
under this section, the Secretary shall invite and consider 
suggestions for such program from any interested Federal 
agency, including the Attorney General, in consultation with 
the Federal Trade Commission, and from the Governor of any 
State which may become an affected State under such proposed 
program. The Secretary may also invite or consider any 
suggestions from the executive of any affected local government 
in such an affected State, which have been previously submitted 
to the Governor of such State, and from any other person.
  (2) After such preparation and at least sixty days prior to 
publication of a proposed leasing program in the Federal 
Register pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, the 
Secretary shall submit a copy of such proposed program to the 
Governor of each affected State for review and comment. The 
Governor may solicit comments from those executives of local 
governments in his State which he, in his discretion, 
determines will be affected by the proposed program. If any 
comment by such Governor is received by the Secretary at least 
fifteen days prior to submission to the Congress pursuant to 
such paragraph (3) and includes a request for any modification 
of such proposed program, the Secretary shall reply in writing, 
granting or denying such request in whole or in part, or 
granting such request in such modified form as the Secretary 
considers appropriate, and stating his reasons therefor. All 
such correspondence between the Secretary and Governor of any 
affected State, together with any additional information and 
data relating thereto, shall accompany such proposed program 
when it is submitted to the Congress.
  (3) Within nine months after the date of enactment of this 
section, the Secretary shall submit a proposed leasing program 
to the Congress, the Attorney General, and the Governors of 
affected States, and shall publish such proposed program in the 
Federal Register. Each Governor shall, upon request, submit a 
copy of the proposed leasing program to the executive of any 
local government affected by the proposed program.
  (d)(1) Within ninety days after the date of publication of a 
proposed leasing program, the Attorney General may, after 
consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, submit comments 
on the anticipated effects of such proposed program upon 
competition. Any State, local government, or other person may 
submit comments and recommendations as to any aspect of such 
proposed program.
  (2) At least sixty days prior to approving a proposed leasing 
program, the Secretary shall submit it to the President and the 
Congress, together with any comments received. Such submission 
shall indicate why any specific recommendation of the Attorney 
General or a State or local government was not accepted.
  (3) After the leasing program has been approved by the 
Secretary, or after eighteen months following the date of 
enactment of this section, whichever first occurs, no lease 
shall be issued unless it is for an area included in the 
approved leasing program and unless it contains provisions 
consistent with the approved leasing program, except that 
leasing shall be permitted to continue until such program is 
approved and for so long thereafter as such program is under 
judicial or administrative review pursuant to the provisions of 
this Act.
  (e) The Secretary shall review the leasing program approved 
under this section at least once each year. He may revise and 
reapprove such program, at any time, and such revision and 
reapproval, except in the case of a revision which is not 
significant, shall be in the same manner as originally 
developed.
  (f) The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish procedures 
for--
          (1) receipt and consideration of nominations for any 
        area to be offered for lease or to be excluded from 
        leasing;
          (2) public notice of and participation in development 
        of the leasing program;
          (3) review by State and local governments which may 
        be impacted by the proposed leasing;
          (4) periodic consultation with State and local 
        governments, oil and gas lessees and permittees, and 
        representatives of other individuals or organizations 
        engaged in activity in or on the outer Continental 
        Shelf, including those involved in fish and shellfish 
        recovery, and recreational activities; and
          (5) consideration of the coastal zone management 
        program being developed or administered by an affected 
        coastal State pursuant to section 305 or section 306 of 
        the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
        1454, 1455).
Such procedures shall be applicable to any significant revision 
or reapproval of the leasing program.
  (g) The Secretary shall not include in any leasing program 
under this section any area within the Atlantic Region planning 
areas or the Pacific Region planning areas, as such planning 
areas are described in the document entitled ``Draft Proposed 
Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 
2019-2024'', dated January 2018.
  [(g)] (h) The Secretary may obtain from public sources, or 
purchase from private sources, any survey, data, report, or 
other information (including interpretations of such data, 
survey, report, or other information) which may be necessary to 
assist him in preparing any environmental impact statement and 
in making other evaluations required by this Act. Data of a 
classified nature provided to the Secretary under the 
provisions of this subsection shall remain confidential for 
such period of time as agreed to by the head of the department 
or agency from whom the information is requested. The Secretary 
shall maintain the confidentiality of all privileged or 
proprietary data or information for such period of time as is 
provided for in this Act, established by regulation, or agreed 
to by the parties.
  [(h)] (i) The heads of all Federal departments and agencies 
shall provide the Secretary with any nonprivileged or 
nonproprietary information he requests to assist him in 
preparing the leasing program and may provide the Secretary 
with any privileged or proprietary information he requests to 
assist him in preparing the leasing program. Privileged or 
proprietary information provided to the Secretary under the 
provisions of this subsection shall remain confidential for 
such period of time as agreed to by the head of the department 
or agency from whom the information is requested. In addition, 
the Secretary shall utilize the existing capabilities and 
resources of such Federal departments and agencies by 
appropriate agreement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We are opposed to H.R. 1941 as ordered reported from the 
Committee on Natural Resources. This bill would block oil and 
gas lease sales in the Atlantic and Pacific planning areas in 
the forthcoming National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Program 
for 2019-2024.
    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) manages the 
National OCS Program, which establishes a schedule of oil and 
gas lease sales over a period of 5 years. BOEM is currently 
working under the 2017-2022 National OCS Program developed 
under the Obama Administration, which scheduled only 11 total 
lease sales in two OCS regions. In April 2017, President Trump 
directed BOEM to develop a new National OCS Program for 2019-
2024 to expand offshore oil and gas production.\1\ H.R. 1941 
would prevent the Administration from conducting lease sales in 
the Atlantic and Pacific planning areas under the new National 
OCS Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019-2024 National Outer 
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing. Draft Proposed Program. January 
2018. https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil and gas leasing has not occurred in the Atlantic and 
Pacific planning areas since the early 1980s. Proponents of 
H.R. 1941 often state that tourism, commercial fishing, and 
recreation industries would be threatened or destroyed by the 
presence of offshore oil and gas operations. But a brief look 
at the economies of States in the Gulf of Mexico (Texas, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana) easily proves that this 
fear is unfounded. For example, Louisiana hosts the great 
majority of current offshore drilling operations, but 
simultaneously supports one of the richest and most diverse 
ecosystems on the planet, attracting a plethora of marine 
wildlife and a booming fishing industry. Concern about 
compatibility with military testing and training has also been 
cited in discussions of opening the Atlantic and Pacific 
planning areas, but 36% of current oil and gas leases already 
have Department of Defense stipulations to accommodate military 
purposes. The decades-long, successful coexistence of military 
and drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that 
these interests are not mutually exclusive.
    Further, opponents of drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific 
planning areas often site concerns regarding potential impacts 
of seismic testing on marine life. However, there has been no 
documented scientific proof of marine animals being adversely 
impacted by the noise from air guns used in seismic 
activities.\2\ According to BOEM, this technology has been in 
use for 30 years and no known negative effects on marine animal 
populations or commercial fishing have been reported in the 
Gulf of Mexico, where active seismic testing still occurs.\3\ 
We should be actively exploring all areas of the OCS to better 
understand our available domestic resources for future planning 
purposes and to strengthen our national and economic security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``Science Notes.'' 
August 22, 2014. https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Science-Note-August-2014/.
    \3\U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``Science Notes.'' 
August 22, 2014. https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Science-Note-August-2014/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill would also prevent the generation of billions in 
revenues for the U.S. Treasury and the States. Offshore oil and 
gas production is a major source of federal and State revenues, 
contributing more than $3 billion to the Treasury and over $200 
million to the Gulf States in Fiscal Year 2018. Gulf States use 
their portion of revenues for programs to support conservation 
and coastal resiliency. This is essential for States like 
Louisiana who depend on healthy, stable coastlines for large 
sectors of its economy. Offshore energy development is also the 
primary funding source for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF), a program recently permanently reauthorized by 
Congress. It is ironic that a Democrat-sponsored bill to make 
LWCF expenditures permanent and mandatory was considered at the 
same markup as H.R. 1941, which if enacted would hamstring 
LWCF's main funding source.
    H.R. 1941 would reduce our ability to develop our domestic 
energy resources, increasing our dependence on imports from 
foreign actors such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose 
environmental and humanitarian standards are unacceptable. This 
bill would take billions of dollars in revenues off the table 
for the States, the U.S. Treasury, and conservation programs, 
and prevent the creation of millions of jobs. Rather than 
unilaterally eliminating planning areas from consideration, we 
should allow the stakeholder engagement process laid out in law 
to take place, including thoughtful consideration of the best 
places and conditions to access our valuable domestic energy 
resources.

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

                                  [all]