Amendment Text: H.Amdt.283 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (05/11/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H3199 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H3193-H3207]
          REVERSING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S OFFSHORE MORATORIUM ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 257 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1231.

                              {time}  1616


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer 
leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources, 
to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal, and for 
other purposes with Mr. Campbell (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) had 16\1/2\ minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) had 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If enacted, this bill will open up areas of the Outer Continental 
Shelf where there are the greatest known oil and gas reserves that 
contain billions of barrels of oil. With resources like these, it is a 
wonder that we continue to rely on other countries for most of our 
energy. While the administration is encouraging other countries to 
produce oil, Americans are unable to access large areas of our own 
energy supply here.
  H.R. 1231 will hold the administration accountable by setting 
production goals to make sure that we provide enough energy for our 
country while reducing the dependence on foreign oil. Gas prices have 
increased by 12.9 cents per gallon in my hometown of Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, during the last month alone.
  Plain and simply, we know that increased oil and natural gas 
production will drive down gas prices. We should have the ability to 
access our vast resources at home. Mr. Chairman, we have the means to 
provide relief for our growing energy deficit, and passage of this bill 
will be a step towards providing these means for our country.
  Mr. HOLT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Berg).
  Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, my home State of North Dakota is rich in 
natural resources, and we have seen tremendous economic opportunity 
from the Bakken field. Through EMPOWER North Dakota, we were able to 
adopt a long-term energy plan in our State. It encouraged new energy 
development; and it created high-paying, high-quality jobs in the 
energy industry. In fact, today our unemployment rate is the lowest in 
the Nation.
  We can have the same success on the national level, but to do so we 
need a long-term commonsense plan that is a national energy policy that 
must work to increase America's energy production, lower gas prices, 
and ultimately break our dependence on foreign oil.

                              {time}  1620

  America's families and small businesses are hurting. Gas prices are 
over $4 a gallon. Energy bills are hindering business growth. National 
unemployment remains a very high 9 percent. There is enormous potential 
in the gulf for energy development that can help turn our country's 
problems around. Our addiction to foreign energy is not sustainable. It 
threatens our national security. It's time to invest our resources that 
we have here in the United States. We need to lower energy costs and 
get Americans back to work.
  As a member of the House Energy Action Team and a proud North 
Dakotan, I'm committed to working hard towards a national long-term 
energy policy. Let's pass this bill, get the gulf back to work and 
break our dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The majority, the sponsors of this bill, say that we need it because 
supply is dwindling and gasoline prices are climbing and employment is 
terrible. Well, I'll grant they have got a point on a couple of items 
here. But it has nothing to do with this legislation. They bring 
forward a bill to help the oil supply when it is a fact, I say to my 
colleague, that 79 percent of all of the potential oil reserves as 
calculated by

[[Page H3194]]

the nonpartisan prospectors on the whole Continental Shelf are already 
under the current leasing program. Sixty million acres. This is 
indisputable. Sixty million acres offshore are under existing lease and 
contain 11.5 billion barrels. So this ``hurry up and drill'' 
legislation is certainly not necessary for that.
  As for employment, I said it before and I'll say it again. It is a 
fact. During the 5 years previously when the four oil companies took 
home $485 billion in profits, their combined American workforce dropped 
by 10,200 employees. They made money. They laid people off. So we can 
check that one off, too. It's not about employment.
  How about prices? This year's leases have nothing to do with this 
year's price at the gas pump--or next year's. In fact, not for 20 
years. Might it have an effect? Oh, yes, there's a supply problem. The 
supply problem is that U.S. oil reserves amount to about 2 percent of 
the world's oil reserves. About 2 percent. My colleagues say, Oh, no, 
those calculations are wrong. Okay, I'll give you a break. Let's say 
we're off by a factor of two. How about a factor of three? How about a 
factor of four? We would still be one of the smallest oil supplies of 
the oil-producing countries. So this is not about that.
  The prices are determined right now at the pump largely by 
speculation. According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
speculators increased their energy future contracts--their positions--
by 64 percent over the last couple of years, totaling more than a 
million contracts. They are trading in each day far more paper barrels 
than barrels of oil are ever delivered. It's speculation, pure and 
simple. Speculators have moved from holding 30 percent of the open 
interest in the commodity markets to 70 percent. And you wonder why the 
prices at the pump are so high. Even Goldman Sachs says that 
speculation is responsible for many tens of dollars of the hundred 
dollars a barrel that is now the world price for oil.
  Going back a decade, the majority voted to exempt all energy 
derivatives from CFTC regulations. And then when the Dodd-Frank 
financial reform bill came along, they opposed the enactment to give 
the CFTC the power to regulate energy derivatives. They voted to slash 
the CFTC budget as part of H.R. 1. Right now in the Agriculture 
Committee and the Financial Services Committee, they are working to 
block any possibility that the CFTC would put in regulations to limit 
or reduce speculation.
  So if my colleagues want to do something to deal with the high gas 
prices, I will give them a list of things to do. It is not this bill. 
We do not need to cut corners. We do not need to deem that inadequate 
applications for leasing are adequate. We do not need to deem that 
environmental impact statements that are clearly inadequate are 
adequate. We do not need to open up the east coast and west coast to 
willy-nilly rapid drill prospecting. We certainly do not.
  Now, one thing I'll hand my colleagues. They yesterday said we really 
need to get away from these environmental regulations that are stymying 
the oil companies, that are making it hard for them to earn their 
profits, these burdensome environmental regulations. I'll give them one 
thing. These regulations, the environmental impact statement that was 
prepared for the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico this year that they 
want to expand on into the future that has in it a plan for dealing 
with walruses, because they think that's a really good environmental 
impact statement that's based on the real world facts--you're right. In 
the Macondo well in the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon, we didn't 
lose a single walrus's life.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. In closing, I just repeat, let's live in the real world. 
Let's deal with the facts. Facts matter. And this bill can have 
devastating consequences for workers, for those who have to travel by 
car and buy gasoline, and for those who earn their living fishing and 
dealing with tourism in the gulf and in New Mexico and in California. 
Let's not pass another ``Amnesia Act.'' Let's not ignore the spill and 
drill, baby, drill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I ask how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this 
legislation. I would like Americans to understand that the issue of 
whether we should drill or not is long overdue because I have heard 
this argument for 36 years because I was here when we drilled and 
opened the Trans-Alaska pipeline to provide 17 billion barrels of oil 
to America--17 billion barrels of oil.
  I've heard people say that there's only 2 percent. That is a figure 
that was arrived at in 1955. We have new estimates with new technology. 
We think we have about 20 percent of the world's reserves in fossil 
fuels. And we're not producing them. I've heard the argument this 
wouldn't change the price of gasoline. It's not quick enough. I heard 
that 25 years ago.
  We need to produce so we have a stable supply of domestic fossil 
fuels so other countries and speculators don't take advantage. They 
have us right now in a position they can take advantage of because we 
are not producing any oil of any consequence in the United States right 
now. We're down to 600,000 barrels a day in Alaska. If we drop much 
more, we won't even have that 600,000 barrels a day. Yet we have in 
Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, there's been $5 billion spent to find oil. 
We have not had the permit to drill because of this administration. 
They think there's 27 billion barrels of oil in one offshore 
development. The other one has approximately 14 billion barrels of oil 
in one offshore development. Of course, we have ANWR, which that side 
does not support, to a great degree, that has probably 39 billion 
barrels of oil.

                              {time}  1630

  You add up that amount of oil and you have oil that will last this 
country for a hundred years.
  Now, yes, we ought to have other forms of energy. But the Obama 
administration is trying to force this country into a green energy 
future. This is a policy. I heard the former Speaker say it. Of course 
it makes sense to reduce our dependency on oil, as I said before, but 
no one takes into consideration the impact upon the economy of this 
Nation.
  New Jersey is building an LNG plant to receive gas from overseas. 
That's well and good, buying foreign gas, when we have trillions of 
feet of gas in the United States of America.
  We are costing not only jobs but the dependency--and everybody talks 
about the high price of gasoline. It's caused primarily because of 
spiking. Some little incident in the Middle East--the OPEC countries 
supposedly have 70 percent of our oil--raises the price of that 
gasoline. You can't have a model economy and a business and have those 
spikes. If the price was $5 across the board and you knew it was going 
to be $5 across the board for the next 40 years, you could build your 
economy on that. But we have gas at $5 a gallon now, the first of June, 
and it may go up to $6 in August. It may be down a little bit. We need 
to stabilize it. Only we can do this.
  But this administration is trying to convert America into their green 
technology. Technology of wind. Technology of, let's say, solar. Wind 
power is 17 cents a kilowatt compared to 5 cents for coal. Mr. and Mrs. 
America, you're paying for that. And again, as I said in one of my 
statements, this, in fact, is a tax on the American people. This is an 
Obama tax because of the lack of the cheaper fuel that's necessary to 
keep our economy running.
  The impediments of oil and gas production is another reason, the 
slowdown of Federal leases. We talk about everything that's leased and 
permitting offshore and onshore. Only six permits have been issued 
since the Gulf of Mexico, the time the BP spill happened--six permits. 
Leasing in the Gulf of Mexico coast has been delayed for several years. 
Offshore permitting for oil and gas has been slowed down to a real slow 
crawl.
  America, I keep telling you, you are being taxed by an administration 
that does not understand the necessity for fossil fuels for our 
economy. The movement of product, the receiving of product and the 
shipping of product, the deliverance of people, the deliverance of

[[Page H3195]]

supplies by air, ship, plane, train, automobile, and truck. That's what 
makes this country great.
  And here we sit with a group that says, oh, we're going to save the 
environment. I'm all for that. But you don't have an energy policy and 
you can't have it off fossil fuels. Anybody who says we're going to 
have one off fossil fuels is not even thinking about fuels, not even 
thinking about energy. You can't do it with wind power. We might get a 
little wind power if we put a propeller on the top of this Capitol to 
collect all the hot air that comes out of here most of the time. That 
might work. But we're not going to do it with solar power. You need all 
the forms of energy. And this administration so far has not promoted 
anything but the two most expensive: wind and solar.
  We need our fossil fuels. We need to make sure the agencies under 
this administration make sure that we develop our energies, or we 
cannot go anywhere. And if they can't do it, then it's up to this 
Congress. This Congress, this bill, this legislation, and the two 
previous bills are a step forward, a necessary step for this Nation. We 
need to keep going. So employ Americans and quit buying foreign oil. 
You talk about being hooked on dope, that's what we are. We're hooked 
on foreign oil. Yet we have people that say we can't develop our own 
oil, we can't develop our own resources, that it will hurt somebody, 
somebody will be harmed and we can't do it.
  That's not true. We can do it. In the gulf there were 41,000 wells 
drilled without a spill. Add one spill and everybody thinks the world 
came to an end. It was bad, yes. Do we learn from it? Yes, as we did 
with Exxon Valdez. We learned from that and we will improve upon that. 
But not to let them drill, not to let them produce that oil, not to let 
them help America out, not employ Americans, that is dead wrong.
  So I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and reject the 
amendments that are going to be offered. They are not the amendments 
they should be.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1231. I had offered amendments because I believe in responsible 
increase in offshore drilling. I offered amendments to improve upon 
this bill that would have provided for revenue sharing with coastal 
states and a study and report back to Congress to ensure that the 
Department of Interior has proper funding for staffing and training and 
technical engineers and such other personnel as is necessary to 
responsibly increase offshore drilling.
  As a Representative from an oil and gas producing District and state, 
I am aware that offshore drilling is an important component of the 
nation's energy supply and provides many Gulf communities with 
significant jobs and income.
  My state supplies 20 percent of the nation's oil production, one-
third of the nation's natural gas production; a quarter of the nation's 
refining capacity and nearly 60 percent of the nation's chemical 
manufacturing.
  The Texas energy and petrochemical clusters employ 600,000 people, 
which represent 70 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the total 
U.S. workforce in those industries.
  Houston is home to some of the world's largest oil, gas, and 
petrochemical facilities.
  As the fourth most populous city in the United States, and the 
greater Houston area remains a diversified regional economy, with the 
energy industry contributing 50 percent of our economic base for 
employment. Even so there is no denying the importance of the energy 
industry for creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation.
  We have consistently led the nation in petroleum production since the 
early 10th century and we have one-fourth of total U.S. oil reserves.
  As a coastal state we provide the resources and the mechanisms to 
support the offshore drilling industry and we also bare the highest 
risk to our natural resources. Its stands to reason that we should also 
have access to revenue generated from Offshore leases.
  Federal Revenues from offshore leases were estimated at $18.0 billion 
in FY 2008 by the Department of the Interior. During the previous 10 
years (1998-2007), revenues from federal OCS leases reached as high as 
$7.6 billion in FY 2006. Higher prices for oil and gas are the most 
significant factors in the revenue swings. Of the $18.0 billion 
offshore revenue in FY 2008, $8.3 billion was from royalties and $9.5 
billion came from bonus bids. Coastal states can use that money to 
further support the industry that utilizes our highways and waterways.
  A significant portion of oil and gas produced from Gulf Outer 
Continental Shelf leases is transported to those refineries for 
processing via offshore pipeline through state waters.
  Providing coastal states with additional access to revenue will 
enable these states to protect their natural resources and advance the 
transport of oil, gas, and petrochemicals across the United States.
  Coastal States like Texas with energy development off their shores in 
federal waters have been seeking additional federal revenues generated 
off our shores.
  We particularly want more assistance for coastal areas that may be 
most affected by onshore and near-shore activities that support 
offshore energy development.
  Currently, the affected states receive revenue indirectly from 
offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters. This is in contrast to 
the direct revenues to states that have onshore federal leases within 
their boundaries.
  Coastal states bear the greatest risks if there is a disaster. 
Because of the current and wind patterns in the Gulf of Mexico, Texas' 
coastal natural resources are most at risk for environmental damage in 
the event of an oil spill from an offshore production platform or 
pipeline. In addition, a substantial portion of federal Outer 
Continental Shelf production is refined in Texas and then transported 
via state highways or pipeline located in the state.
  A significant amount of the infrastructure that will be used to 
explore and develop the resources in these new lease sales will be 
constructed in Texas and transported through state waters. The same 
might be said for other coastal states whose shores and resources are 
dedicated to offshore drilling.
  Annual rental rates are $5-$9.50 per acre, with lease sizes generally 
ranging from 2,500-5,760 acres. However, annual rental rates for the 
March 2009 sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico begins at $11.00 per acre 
for lease in water depths over 200 meters. Initial lease terms of 5-10 
years are standard, and leases continue as long as commercial 
quantities of hydrocarbons are being produced.
  Demand for petroleum products in the U.S. remains strong. In 2005, 
each of the estimated 296 million people in the U.S. used an average of 
almost three gallons of petroleum every day. In 1978, the average 
American used 3.5 gallons per day.
  In 2006, crude oil imports totaled 10.1 million barrels per day 
(MBD), two-thirds of the total U.S. supply of 15.2 MBD, according to 
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE). After several additions of other petroleum products by 
refiners and fuel blenders, total petroleum consumption came to 20.6 
MBD for 2006.
  The oil and gas industry supports job growth in my state of Texas and 
across our nation.
  In Texas, the oil and gas industry supports 1.7 million jobs and 
approximately 25 percent of the state's economy, whereas nationwide the 
industry supports 9.2 million jobs and 7.5 percent of our nation's 
economy.
  We should focus our attention on providing the Department of Interior 
with funding and resources it needs to provide for training and 
staffing of technical engineers and other such necessary personnel to 
review drilling permit applications and determine future offshore lease 
sale areas.
  The Department of Interior must be properly funded and staffed with 
technical engineers to review permits, examine lease sales, and ensure 
that each application is afforded proper consideration
  For these reasons, I urge the Members as they vote on this important 
measure which certainly relates to job creation and national energy 
independence, that they consider a fair and balance approach as we aim 
to protect the environment and determine the most responsible measures 
to provide for the energy our nation requires.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
1231. This bill will ensure that our federal offshore oil and natural 
gas resources are accessible to us. This is essential for America's 
energy security.
  For years, I have supported bills that would increase funding to 
research and development projects dealing with new and cleaner energy 
sources as well as provide financial incentives to produce energy from 
wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal, for consumers to purchase fuel 
efficient vehicles, increase energy efficiency standards for buildings 
and appliances, and promote public transit efforts. I will continue to 
support programs and projects seeking to create cleaner energy 
technologies because we all benefit from a cleaner environment.
  Finally, coming from Texas, which is the nation's leader in renewable 
energy production and a pioneer in developing its own state portfolio 
standard, I support efforts to promote renewable energy production that 
meets the unique circumstances and resources of each state.
  But even with these increases in renewable energy, the Energy 
Information Administration found that oil, natural gas, and coal will 
continue to make up the large majority of U.S. energy use in 2030 and 
beyond. As our nation's energy demand continues to increase, reasonable 
access and exploration of our offshore resources is a key component of 
our nation's energy security.

[[Page H3196]]

  It is our job to provide affordable and reliable supplies of energy 
to American consumers, and this bill will help in our effort.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1231

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reversing President Obama's 
     Offshore Moratorium Act''.

     SEC. 2. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASING PROGRAM.

       Section 18(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4)(A) In each oil and gas leasing program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall make available for leasing and 
     conduct lease sales including--
       ``(i) at least 50 percent of the available unleased acreage 
     within each outer Continental Shelf planning area considered 
     to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil 
     and gas resources (on a total btu basis) based upon the most 
     recent national geologic assessment of the outer Continental 
     Shelf, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically 
     prospective parts of the planning area; and
       ``(ii) any State subdivision of an outer Continental Shelf 
     planning area that the Governor of the State that represents 
     that subdivision requests be made available for leasing.
       ``(B) In this paragraph the term `available unleased 
     acreage' means that portion of the outer Continental Shelf 
     that is not under lease at the time of a proposed lease sale, 
     and that has not otherwise been made unavailable for leasing 
     by law.
       ``(5)(A) In the 2012-2017 5-year oil and gas leasing 
     program, the Secretary shall make available for leasing any 
     outer Continental Shelf planning areas that--
       ``(i) are estimated to contain more than 2,500,000,000 
     barrels of oil; or
       ``(ii) are estimated to contain more than 7,500,000,000,000 
     cubic feet of natural gas.
       ``(B) To determine the planning areas described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use the document 
     entitled `Minerals Management Service Assessment of 
     Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of 
     the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2006'.''.

     SEC. 3. DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION GOAL.

       Section 18(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1344(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Production Goal.---
       ``(1) In general.--In developing a 5-year oil and gas 
     leasing program, and subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall determine a domestic strategic production goal for the 
     development of oil and natural gas as a result of that 
     program. Such goal shall be--
       ``(A) the best estimate of the possible increase in 
     domestic production of oil and natural gas from the outer 
     Continental Shelf;
       ``(B) focused on meeting domestic demand for oil and 
     natural gas and reducing the dependence of the United States 
     on foreign energy; and
       ``(C) focused on the production increases achieved by the 
     leasing program at the end of the 15-year period beginning on 
     the effective date of the program.
       ``(2) 2012-2017 program goal.--For purposes of the 2012-
     2017 5-year oil and gas leasing program, the production goal 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be an increase by 2027 
     of--
       ``(A) no less than 3,000,000 barrels in the amount of oil 
     produced per day; and
       ``(B) no less than 10,000,000,000 cubic feet in the amount 
     of natural gas produced per day.
       ``(3) Reporting.--The Secretary shall report annually, 
     beginning at the end of the 5-year period for which the 
     program applies, to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate on the progress of the 
     program in meeting the production goal. The Secretary shall 
     identify in the report projections for production and any 
     problems with leasing, permitting, or production that will 
     prevent meeting the goal.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in House Report 112-74. Each further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as a designee of Chairman Doc 
Hastings, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 10, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 4, line 6, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment that corrects a drafting error in the bill that was 
discovered by the legislative counsel after H.R. 1231 was reported from 
the committee with bipartisan support.
  The amendment changes the paragraph numbers in section 2 so they 
correctly reflect the sequence of appearance in the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection and we urge swift 
passage.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 12, insert ``, except in locations that would 
     interfere, conflict with, or impede operations of the Armed 
     Forces,'' after ``conduct lease sales''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment 
clarifies that any expanded oil production will not interfere with 
ongoing operations by the Armed Forces of the United States.
  I appreciate Congressman Bobby Scott and Congressman Jim Moran for 
their cosponsorship of this amendment. There are no stronger advocates 
for the military in my State than those two gentlemen.

                              {time}  1640

  As you know, the United States has more than two dozen coastal naval 
bases, including those located in Virginia, Washington, California, 
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 
Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, and Hawaii.
  The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness published a 
report, noting that many of these potential locations for oil 
exploration could and might conflict with DOD operations in these 
locations. For example, DOD has surface/subsurface operating areas and 
DOD special use airspace/warning areas off every coastal State in the 
continental United States.
  You can see from this map that there are the red dots where they 
actually have bases and that the spiderwebs are where they have 
operations offshore.
  These areas are important because the military uses some of these 
areas for surface and subsurface training as well as practice with live 
ordnance. Oil wells and live ordnance don't mix so well. For example, 
the Norfolk Naval Base in my home State of Virginia uses 78 percent of 
the proposed Lease Sale 220 area right now for training and live 
ordnance practice. The Navy wants to

[[Page H3197]]

ensure that oil drilling in that area does not interfere with live 
ordnance release and impact, including air to surface bombing; 
sensitive undersea and surface operations; combined shipboard systems 
qualification trials; and equipment testing and evaluation.
  Norfolk is America's largest naval base and is a major driver of our 
State's annual $10 billion government contracting economy. It would be 
difficult to quantify how many billions of dollars taxpayers have spent 
building and maintaining these military installations all around the 
continental United States, but relocation costs would be substantial, 
and we don't have that money.
  My friend from Alaska talks about putting people out of work or 
putting people into work. Believe me, if we had to close or relocate 
these bases, there would be a lot of weeping and mashing of teeth in 
the unemployment line all across America. The costs wouldn't just be 
borne by the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, but also by the servicemen and -
women who would have to relocate, and by the tens of thousands of 
contractor employees who rely on the DOD.
  Perhaps it's possible to co-locate oil drilling infrastructure in 
areas now used by the Navy or other components of the Armed Forces. In 
that case, this amendment would not get in the way of the oil 
exploration. This amendment simply ensures that any additional oil 
drilling which takes place in accordance with this bill will not 
conflict with the national security operations of the Armed Forces.
  I am sure that energy development and national security can be 
mutually reinforcing and compatible, and I hope that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle would support this commonsense amendment to 
protect our national defense and national security. I know we can all 
agree that preserving those should be paramount as we consider changes 
to our Nation's energy policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Both the Outer Continental Lands Shelf Act and the 2003 National 
Defense Act already fully protect the Defense Department's 
responsibilities in the Outer Continental Shelf and the State coastal 
areas of the OCS. H.R. 1231 continues these protections.
  As Chairman Hastings stated last week during debate on a very similar 
amendment to H.R. 1230, preserving the working relationship between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior is of great 
importance to the Natural Resources Committee. Because of this, H.R. 
1231 meets the mutual goals of balancing national security and energy 
independence, but this amendment would upset the balance.
  May I say, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense never notified, 
never talked to us about any opposition to this legislation.
  H.R. 1231 fully supports the Department of the Interior's work with 
the Department of Defense in addressing the necessary stipulations that 
will protect the military mission on the OCS during the development of 
lease sales.
  I also want to point out that gaining access to domestically 
available and affordable energy resources is also of paramount 
importance to our national security because it lessens our dependence 
on foreign sources of energy. Let me say that again. It must be very 
clear: Energy security and energy independence are a national security 
priority.
  Additionally, developing our own energy resources benefits the 
Department of Defense. According to the Brookings Institution, every 
$10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil increases the cost of 
Defense operations by $1.3 billion. Lowering energy prices should be a 
priority for American consumers and for the Department of Defense.
  This amendment isn't truly aimed at protecting DOD activities. It's 
aimed at trying to block lease sales and stopping offshore energy and 
development. That's what this is about. So I congratulate the people 
who are offering this amendment. It's exactly what you'd like to do.
  Again, Defense activities are not hindered by energy development. The 
Departments of Defense and the Interior work well together to balance 
the needs of our Nation. H.R. 1231 allows both offshore energy leasing 
and military activities to go forward and exist in a safe, responsible 
way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I would just say to my friend from Alaska 
that I won't have anybody questioning my sincerity about trying to 
protect the national security interests of the United States of 
America. I come from a State with a long military tradition. I am proud 
of that tradition, and I am here sincerely to protect national 
security. If we want to disagree with that, that's fine, but 
questioning the motivations of whether there is another agenda is a 
different matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield the balance of my time to my distinguished 
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from 
Virginia.
  I would remind my good friend from Alaska that the U.S. Atlantic 
Fleet is based at the Norfolk Naval Base, and operates in the same 
waters that this legislation proposes to sell for oil and gas 
development. Filling this area with drilling rigs is a bad idea.
  Now, we have been told verbally and in writing that there should be 
no lease sales in 72 percent of this lease area because it's in direct 
conflict with the operations of the Navy. Five percent, in addition, 
would interfere with aerial operations and should not host permanent 
surface structures like drilling rigs. There is another 1 percent that 
would have site-specific stipulations. Then you're left with 22 
percent, and much of that 22 percent is dedicated to the shipping lanes 
for the country's two busiest commercial ports: Hampton Roads and 
Baltimore.
  There are other areas offshore, I'm sure, that are also important to 
the Armed Forces, but we are responsible for Virginia. We know the 
situation there. We are not going to jeopardize those jobs. I would say 
that national security interests ought to trump oil and gas 
development.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I inquire of the time remaining on both 
sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Virginia's time has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this amendment. It's unnecessary and boy if we can't get the 
government to work together there is something wrong, something deadly 
wrong. This is about defense. This is about the department of enter, 
this is about the American people. We ought to be able to work together 
and I'm sure they can. I'm confident of it and the idea that this is 
going to hurt the mission is again a way to stop drilling. That's all 
it is. Maybe if we had that 23 percent open and we knew exactly where 
it was we might be able to drill there but I don't think they would 
support that either.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
  This amendment would prohibit offshore lease sales from going forward 
if those leases would interfere or impede the operations of the United 
States Armed Forces.
  I represent the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, which is home to 
the world's largest Naval Base at Norfolk. Our Navy trains extensively 
off the coast of my state in the Virginia Capes Operations Area. A 
significant section of a proposed lease sale for drilling off 
Virginia's coast is within this important military training zone.
  There are nearly 30 coastal naval installations in the United States 
and the Defense Department has expressed concerns that offshore oil and 
gas development could hinder the military's ability to train in many of 
these offshore areas.
  I have long had reservations about drilling off the coast of 
Virginia. I believe the environmental, economic and national security 
risks for drilling off the coast of Virginia far outweigh any benefits. 
This amendment would simply ensure that offshore oil and gas 
development will not disrupt these vital functions to our national 
defense.

[[Page H3198]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the Connolly Amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     second period, and after line 19 insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Eligibility for new leases and the transfer of 
     leases.--
       ``(A) Issuance of new leases.--
       ``(i) In general.--In each oil and gas leasing program 
     under this section, beginning with the 2012-2017 5-year 
     program, the Secretary of the Interior shall specify that the 
     Secretary will not accept bids on any new leases offered 
     pursuant to this Act from a person described in paragraph (2) 
     unless the person has renegotiated each covered lease with 
     respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the 
     payment responsibilities of the person to require the payment 
     of royalties if the price of oil and natural gas is greater 
     than or equal to the price thresholds described in clauses 
     (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       ``(ii) Persons described.--A person referred to in clause 
     (i) is a person that--

       ``(I) is a lessee that--

       ``(aa) holds a covered lease on the date on which the 
     Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or
       ``(bb) was issued a covered lease before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to 
     another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate 
     of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or

       ``(II) any other person that has any direct or indirect 
     interest in, or that derives any benefit from, a covered 
     lease.

       ``(iii) Multiple lessees.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (1), if there are 
     multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the 
     Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee 
     with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment 
     responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to 
     include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the 
     price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of 
     section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       ``(II) Treatment of share as covered lease.--Beginning on 
     the effective date of an agreement under subclaseu (I), any 
     share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered 
     lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the 
     agreement.

       ``(B) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any 
     direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit 
     from, a covered lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale 
     or other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, 
     servicing, or other agreement) any new lease made available 
     in an oil and gas leasing program under this section, or the 
     economic benefit of such a new lease, unless the lessee or 
     other person has--
       ``(i) renegotiated each covered lease with respect to which 
     the lessee or person is a lessee, to modify the payment 
     responsibilities of the lessee or person to include price 
     thresholds that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or
       ``(ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to 
     modify the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other 
     person to include limitations on royalty relief based on 
     market prices that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       ``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
       ``(i) Covered lease.--The term `covered lease' means a 
     lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that 
     is--

       ``(I) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       ``(II) issued by the Department of the Interior under 
     section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty 
     Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
       ``(III) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based 
     on market price that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).

       ``(ii) Lessee.--The term `lessee' includes any person or 
     other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or 
     under common control with, a lessee.
       ``(iii) New lease.--The term `new lease' means a lease 
     issued in a lease sale under this Act.
       ``(iv) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the first quarter of this year, the oil companies 
were actually able to make $35 billion in profits; but in my amendment, 
we are able to say to them, because of a flaw in leases in the 1990s 
which required them to pay no royalties on public lands--taxpayers' 
lands--for oil they're drilling for right now and charging $100 a 
barrel, $4 a gallon at the pump, that we think there is something wrong 
when the taxpayers don't get anything back.

                              {time}  1650

  And so what my amendment says is that they can't apply for any more 
leases on taxpayers' land unless they're willing to renegotiate the 
mistaken leases that were given to them that, by the way, will allow 
them to escape having to pay $53 billion in taxes, in royalties. That's 
another word for taxes, ``royalties.'' When you're talking about oil, 
``royalties'' is the word we use to describe taxes.
  This blank check to the oil industry is absolutely undeserved. The 
Republican approach to offshore oil royalty policy is to treat the Big 
Oil companies like royalty and to treat the consumers and taxpayers 
like peasants. They're just going to give away all these breaks to the 
oil industry.
  You know, Prince William and Kate Middleton just left on their 
honeymoon. Their royalty honeymoon is just beginning. But for the oil 
companies who are drilling for free on public land, they have a royalty 
honeymoon that has been going on for way too long, and today, we're 
going to give the Members of the House a chance to end the honeymoon on 
the royalties that the oil industry has to pay.
  Now, what are the Republicans going to do? They're going to oppose 
it. They're going to say, no, we need more tax breaks, $4 billion worth 
of tax breaks, for the oil industry. And so where are they going to 
find the money for those additional tax breaks that they want to give 
to the oil industry? Well, they looked around and they decided that the 
best place to find it was in Medicare, that is, in the health care that 
we give to Grandma and Grandpa. And so what they have done is they've 
set up a drilling rig for the oil industry on top of the Medicare 
program so they can drill into the pockets of Grandma and Grandpa to 
find the $4 billion in tax breaks, and then on top of that, protect 
them against having to pay the royalties, the taxes on where they're 
already drilling for free on taxpayers' land in our country.
  Now, that's an unbelievable combination, and they do it while cutting 
the renewables budget by 70 percent. Can you believe this? It's 2011. 
The Republicans have already passed a bill cutting the renewables 
budget--wind and solar, biomass, geothermal--by 70 percent, and they're 
setting up an oil rig on top of the Medicare program of Grandma and 
Grandpa to drill for even more tax breaks for the oil industry. This is 
just an unbelievable debate that we're having.
  And they say over here, ``Well, you know, we're the all of the above 
party; we want to do it all.'' But the truth is that they're really the 
oil above all party, and that's what this debate is all about, how can 
we get even more for the oil industry.
  So what my amendment will do is to just give people an opportunity to 
reclaim that $53 billion from the oil industry and give it to Grandma. 
Of all the people who don't need a break, a subsidy this year, it's the 
oil industry. You know who needs a break? You know who needs a subsidy? 
It's Grandma. Let's not cut Medicare. Let's not cut her health care in 
order to help the oil industry. Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H3199]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. With all due respect to Grandma and Grandpa, 
there's no Grandma and Grandpa that has Medicare taken away from them 
or anywhere else. That's pure demagoguery on this floor, and we know 
that, tied into the oil companies.
  It's ironic to me, this House has debated and voted on this amendment 
over the years. They've defeated it by a bipartisan vote. Just like a 
bad penny, it keeps showing up and the Big Oil is all bad. All I know, 
the American public is being taxed every year, $1,100 every year by 
this administration's high gas prices.
  Let's review the facts. The Deepwater Royalty Relief Act leases were 
issued by, oh, boy, Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt in 1996 and 2000. 
Oh, my good Lord, it was the Republicans that did all this. They're the 
ones that issued these leases, and those who hold these leases have 
repeatedly been successful in challenging the Interior Department's 
authority to include price thresholds in lease agreements. The 
Department of the Interior has lost at the Federal district court, the 
appellate court, the United States Supreme Court, and now we're going 
to interfere with a court decision?
  If this amendment passes, those holding such leases will be required 
to renegotiate the lease terms with DOI to include price thresholds 
before getting new leases. Bill Clinton would turn over--no, he's not 
in his grave, so I can't say that. The Secretary does not--and I repeat 
does not--have the authority to include price thresholds on these 
leases. In addition, forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would 
be a violation of contract law and would be challenged in court.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that just comes out of where, I 
don't know. It's a time to demagogue on the floor about Medicare. It 
has nothing to do with oil leases. It has nothing to do with the so-
called tax breaks that Bill Clinton and Bruce Babbitt put in place. 
George Bush wasn't there. Mr. Obama wasn't there. Bill Clinton did 
this.
  Lo and behold, somebody has to renegotiate something. Let's start 
renegotiating contracts all over the countryside. Maybe we ought to 
start doing that. Some of the contracts made, and I think we did this 
the last election, their contracts were terminated.
  I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Could the Chair tell me how much time we have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from Alaska has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Alaska has the right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. We have a big choice here. We can reclaim $53 billion 
from the oil and gas industry that they owe to the American taxpayer 
and put it into wind and solar and all-electric vehicles and the 
revolution that we need to transform our country's relationship with 
OPEC. We should be able to tell OPEC, We don't need your oil any more 
than we need your sand.
  This is a chance here to reclaim the $53 billion in windfall profits 
by escaping royalties that the oil industry owes, and put it into a new 
technology innovation agenda that talks about the future of wind and 
solar and electric vehicles that will transform our relationship with 
the rest of the planet.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' comments, but wind power is subsidized energy. That's 
all it is. Wind power is subsidized by the taxpayer. Solar power is 
subsidized by the taxpayer. To try to transform this country into using 
wind and solar by raising the cost of gasoline to the American consumer 
is dead wrong. That's not the way to solve this problem.
  I will support wind power when it's not subsidized. I will support 
solar power when it's not subsidized, and I will support nuclear power 
when we can, which the gentleman's opposed every time, and I will 
support hydropower. In fact, I will support all forms of power so we 
can become more independent, and I go back to the concept of fossil 
fuels. It moves objects. It moves objects. Wind power doesn't move 
objects, no. Solar power doesn't move objects, no. It takes fossil 
fuels to run our ships, our planes, our automobiles, our trucks, and 
our trains. That's the commerce of this Nation, and that's what's 
hurting this Nation today in the recovery.
  We have to start producing our own fossil fuels so we can have the 
commerce that's necessary to employ people and create the jobs in this 
country. In this country, it should be done. Yes, we can have the other 
forms of power, but we have to have the fossil fuels to continue 
hopefully the recovery of this country economically.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.

                              {time}  1700


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     second period, and after line 19 insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Data regarding bonuses provided to executives.--In 
     each oil and gas leasing program under this section, the 
     Secretary shall include requirements under which the 
     Secretary shall make available to the public data provided by 
     each lessee under the program with respect to the bonuses 
     provided to the executives of the lessee from the most recent 
     quarter.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 1231. As 
our constituents see soaring gas prices, oil companies have revealed 
record profits. The top five multinational oil companies earned over $1 
trillion in the past decade. These firms are eating up more and more of 
our constituents' paychecks.
  And where is it going? Only a small portion of the profits are 
reinvested back into the company to pave the way for efficiencies and 
research into alternatives to oil. Rather, oil companies are providing 
bumps to stockholders and high bonuses to their company executives, a 
pat on the back for high prices at the pump.
  My amendment would provide transparency to the U.S. taxpayer. The 
amendment requires the Secretary to disclose the executive bonuses for 
any company that is given a drilling lease.
  The time is now to hold the largest oil companies accountable, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to provide 
transparency back to the American taxpayer.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, when I first saw this amendment, I 
was wondering if we were debating financial services legislation here 
on the floor. Clearly, this amendment attempts to raise issues outside 
the realm of today's debate on increasing American-made energy and 
creating jobs.
  The Department of the Interior should spend its time focusing on 
reviewing permits, conducting environmental safety reviews, protecting 
our resources and leasing offshore areas that are most prospective for 
oil and natural gas production. The Department shouldn't have dozens of 
employees sitting around reading companies' Securities and Exchange 
Commission filings and assembling a list of which executives got what 
bonus.

[[Page H3200]]

  The information that this amendment would burden the Interior 
Department with gathering and publishing is already publicly disclosed. 
It should be made public, and that's why it already is. This amendment 
is not about openness and transparency of disclosing information. 
That's already the law.
  The real effect of this amendment is duplicative requirements and 
government waste. Let's get away from the political games and gotcha 
amendments. Let's allow the Department of the Interior to focus on OCS 
safety, environmental protection and leasing, and leave the bonuses to 
the Securities and Exchange Commission officials studying that. I 
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, in terms of the relevancy to this debate, 
I would take this time, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to thank the 
Rules Committee for allowing this amendment and, thus, I agree with 
them that this is relevant to this debate.
  I would like to comment on one more thing. My friend from Alaska 
brought up the point of a burden. The burden that exists right now is 
the burden that's being borne right on the gas pumps of the people in 
my district, in his district, and the people in the United States of 
America. That is the burden that working families are undergoing, the 
suffering that they are undertaking as they pay over $4 a gallon for 
gasoline in my district. Transparency and accountability are necessary, 
though the people who are beholden to the price spikes know where their 
money is going.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The question I ask is, How much would this cost 
the Department of the Interior? Would this take away from safety 
inspections? And to my good friend from Massachusetts, the burden is 
going to get worse. You are going to be paying about $5 a gallon by the 
first of June; if not, maybe a little bit later, but not later than the 
Fourth of July. And the burden is something that bothers me a great 
deal.
  But in Massachusetts alone, not one time has any one of your Members 
in the Congress ever voted to produce energy, other than wind power and 
solar power. And that doesn't drive your constituents' automobiles. 
That doesn't drive your trucks that deliver your products to the 
restaurants or the hospitals. That doesn't drive that train that people 
ride to try to get automobiles off the road. It doesn't drive the ships 
to bring the products to your shores. Fossil fuel is the key to our 
commerce; and we should recognize that in this Congress. And we should 
develop an energy plan that includes everything. You can't do it with 
just wind power. You can't do it with solar power. But you can do it 
with all powers.
  That's what's wrong with this Congress and this administration and, 
yes, previous administrations: they don't grasp the necessity of having 
more power available to increase the economy of this country. And we're 
on the cusp right now. I believe this bill will help us. If it does not 
help us, then shoot me another solution. I have not seen one on that 
side of the aisle.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, strike the closing quotation marks and second 
     period at line 19, and after line 19 insert the following:
       ``(7) Worst-case containment and clean-up plan required.--
     The Secretary shall include, in each 5-year oil and gas 
     leasing program, a requirement that each applicant for a 
     permit to drill under a lease issued in a lease sale under 
     the program must include a plan for containment and clean-up 
     of a worst-case oil and gas discharge scenario in activities 
     conducted under the permit, if issued.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last summer, we all saw the painfully disorganized and ineffective 
response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The frustration was 
palpable across our country. During that tragedy, it was clear that BP 
and the Federal Government had no plan to contain the oil spill and 
that BP lacked the capacity to respond to a spill of that magnitude.
  The amendment that I am offering today is very straightforward and 
simple, one that seeks to implement the lessons learned from the events 
of last summer. My amendment would require that all applicants for a 
drilling permit under a lease sold under H.R. 1231 submit a plan for 
containment and cleanup of a worst-case scenario oil or gas spill.
  This amendment does not limit drilling. It says simply and sensibly 
that when we drill, we should have a plan in place before an accident 
occurs. We shouldn't wait until a disaster like last year's 3-month-
long spill has already begun. There wasn't a person I spoke to who 
wasn't horrified by the devastating oil spill in the gulf. I believe 
that the American people want us to learn from that environmental and 
economic tragedy, and this amendment helps us accomplish that. When we 
drill, we should have a plan for dealing with possible disaster.
  Some have argued that we don't need a law because initial steps are 
being taken at the agency level or by oil and gas companies. Some have 
said that requiring a worst-case-scenario plan is anti-drilling or 
anti-jobs. We shouldn't get distracted from the simple truth of this 
amendment: when we drill, we should have a plan. We have seen the 
consequences of not having a plan, and it was lost jobs.

                              {time}  1710

  This amendment is pro-jobs. Requiring oil and gas companies to have a 
plan in place will not prevent the creation of a single oil and gas 
job, but it will protect fishing jobs and tourism jobs instead of 
asking us to put those jobs at risk should a spill occur.
  Our constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas 
companies to plan for the worst. Opposing this amendment irresponsibly 
denies the tragic events of last summer.
  For the sake of our economy, our environment, and our coastal jobs, I 
urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, simple amendment 
requiring oil and gas companies to have a plan. Join me in 
demonstrating to our constituents that we have learned from the events 
of last summer, and we are taking steps to prevent such a disaster in 
the future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, here again is another amendment that is redundant, but 
let's call it what it is: It's an obstruction.
  The Department of the Interior already requires that applicants must 
calculate worst case discharge before approving a permit. On June 18, 
2010, the Department of the Interior issued a notice to lessees 
outlining the information requirements and standards to be met before a 
permit would be approved. In the notice it is required that a lessee 
``describe the assumptions and calculations that you used to determine 
the volume of your worst case scenario.''
  It's already required on permit applications today, and is further 
reiterated by the language in H.R. 1229, which passed the House earlier 
today.
  The minority continues to try to divert attention away from the real 
issue of increasing energy production, creating jobs, lowering energy 
costs, and

[[Page H3201]]

improving national security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
  In fact, it seems that the Democrats simply do not want to face the 
fact that this bill says we can move forward with an aggressive program 
of responsible oil and gas development while, at the same time, 
ensuring that increased safety measures are undertaken. These are not 
mutually exclusive goals.
  Republicans want to make U.S. offshore drilling the safest in the 
world, and it is the safest in the world, so we can produce more 
American energy, create American jobs and strengthen our national 
security.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I thank my colleague for bringing this issue up. The 
June 18 notice to lessees is a great first step toward having worst 
case scenario containment and cleanup plans. But a notice to lessees is 
not the same as legislation. It is not intended to set policy, and it 
is not intended to have the force of law, which is why I am offering 
this amendment today.
  We need Federal laws, not notices, that require companies to submit 
worst case scenario oil spill containment and cleanup plans to ensure 
that another spill like the BP spill never happens again. Our 
constituents deserve to know that we have required oil and gas 
companies to plan for the worst, or give them an honest reason why we 
think no such plan is necessary, given the events last summer.
  If the majority agrees that we should have a plan, they should 
support this amendment. It simply requires that oil and gas companies 
have a plan, nothing more. It is about drilling safely, it protects 
jobs, oil and gas jobs, tourism and fishing jobs. And again, as I said, 
if the majority agrees that we should have a plan, they should support 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can only say that, to my 
knowledge, there's little chance of any oil drilling off the coast of 
Massachusetts. But there is a great possibility off the coasts of 
Florida, Virginia, Alaska, California, and this bill really sets out 
which areas should be drilled, not in large massive areas, but 
specifically.
  I personally will tell you, if I could drill in Alaska, offshore, 
which we should be able to do, but this administration has delayed a 
permit for 5 years--5 years. Five billion dollars put into investment 
to develop that field. It can't be done because of this administration.
  This bill tries to expedite that process for the good of this Nation 
and for the good of the people, not the good of the oil companies, 
because we need that oil.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     second period, and after line 19 insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Making moratorium in the eastern gulf of mexico 
     permanent.--The Secretary shall not make available for 
     leasing in any oil and gas leasing program under this section 
     any area referred to in section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico 
     Energy Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public 
     Law 109-432; 43 U.S.C. 1331 note).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer to H.R. 1231 an amendment that 
would make the current ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
permanent. This amendment would not have any effect on the budget as 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. However, it would have a 
significant impact on the economy of Florida, given that the State's 
tourist industry will be protected from future oil spills which could 
destroy our beautiful beaches and coastal areas. Certainly, Florida's 
coastline is a treasure, not just for Floridians but for all Americans 
and people throughout the world. For years, the Florida delegation has 
worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources, and as 
long as those rigs are in this area, the potential for devastation to 
Florida beaches persists.
  If an accident was to occur causing oil to wash ashore and to Florida 
beaches, both the environmental and the economic damage would be 
devastating to the State. And following the disaster off of Louisiana's 
gulf coast last year, we saw a quick glimpse of what could happen to 
Florida's economy in the event of an oil spill.
  I toured the region by helicopter last year and witnessed the 
devastation firsthand. That said, before any new areas are opened and 
Florida's pristine beaches are put at risk, I would very much like to 
see drilling in the areas that are already open and increased funding 
for research for new technology.
  I strongly believe that any drilling off of Florida's gulf coast 
would be extremely deterrent to the State economy and ecosystem. As we 
saw in the BP oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico, wherein 11 
workers died and an estimated 5 million barrels of crude oil poured 
into the Gulf of Mexico, the risks of drilling oil off of Florida's 
shores bring about extreme risk to our State in an already depressed 
economy, and with unemployment in the State of Florida still hovering 
at 11 percent, the last thing we need is to endanger nearly 1 million 
tourist-related jobs and the $60 billion tourist industry in the 
Sunshine State.
  Drilling off the coast of Florida is a misguided miscalculation. The 
risk of danger to the environment and the economy greatly outweighs any 
potential benefits. I would very much like to see increased drilling in 
areas already open and increased funding for research for new 
technology.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The 
underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to 
safe and responsible energy production. This bill aims to fulfill the 
promise that both Democrats and Republicans made to the American people 
when we voted in a bipartisan basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on 
offshore energy production.
  Since taking office, President Obama and his administration has 
effectively reimposed the moratorium. This bill would reverse his 
actions.
  In December 2006, a majority of the House and the Florida delegation 
voted in favor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, a bipartisan 
compromise that opened a portion of the western and central gulf but 
maintained the eastern planning area moratoria until 2022.

                              {time}  1720

  This amendment seeks to go backwards and single-handedly undo that 
agreement to close off forever the possible energy production in a 
portion of the Gulf of Mexico. This is exactly the wrong direction for 
America to be heading.
  Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy 
production. This is especially true in the eastern planning area of the 
gulf, which the Department of the Interior believes contains 
technically recoverable resources in the amount of 4 billion barrels of 
oil and over 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  Let's be clear, the area in the eastern gulf covered by this 
amendment is currently under moratorium until 2022. That is over a 
decade from now. This bill does not propose to change the 2022 date.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. More than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil 
spill,

[[Page H3202]]

we have yet to clean up Prince William Sound in Alaska. Oil is still 
being found buried in sand from the BP oil spill.
  The frequent occurrence of extreme weather that the eastern gulf 
coast experiences, including hurricanes and severe storms, could easily 
produce an oil spill, even with the technological improvements in oil 
and natural gas operations. Storms along the gulf coast in 2005 caused 
124 oil spills in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Katrina 
caused a 233,000 gallon oil spill, and Hurricane Rita worsened the 
damage with 508,000 gallons of oil spilled. If these rigs were in the 
gulf coast, our beaches would face complete destruction. As we have 
seen recently, cleanup methods for these spills are incapable of 
removing more than a small fraction of the oil.
  In addition, from the BP oil spill alone, Florida has over 284,000 
claims with only 117,000 paid. That is less than half, for a total of 
over $1.45 billion. For the total gulf region, there have been 10,000 
fishing claims, 122,000 food and lodging claims, 74,000 retail and 
sales claims, and a total of $1.6 billion paid on even more lost 
earnings and wages. We cannot afford another disaster of this 
magnitude. With more drilling, we still are living on borrowed time. 
Support the Corrine Brown amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 19, strike the final closed quotation mark and 
     the following period.
       Page 4, after line 19, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may 
     not include in any oil and gas leasing program under this 
     paragraph any lease sale in the Northern California Planning 
     Area.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, according to this bill's 
drafters, the legislation would not require leasing permits in the 
northern California planning area, which is the coastline of my 
district. My amendment merely makes that clear.
  Drilling on the north coast of California is a disastrous idea, and 
the legislation must be clear that it is not acceptable to drill off 
California's north coast. Because this amendment is a clarification of 
the legislation's intent, there is no cost associated with it.
  Just about 3 weeks ago, we marked the 1-year anniversary of the 
Nation's worst oil spill. I will not let what happened to the Gulf of 
Mexico happen to the north coast of California. I have introduced 
separate stand-alone legislation which would permanently ban drilling 
off the coast of my district.
  It is important to me and to my constituents that H.R. 1231 clearly 
notates that drilling will not occur in the northern California 
planning area along the coasts of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte 
Counties. The coastal area of my district is one of only four major 
upwellings in our world's oceans.
  An upwelling is where cold, nutrient-rich waters are brought from the 
ocean depths to the surface. Upwelling regions promote seaweed and 
growth, which, in turn, supply energy for some of the most productive 
ecosystems in our world, including many of our world's fisheries.
  North coast ecosystems also sustain some of the largest salmon 
populations in the lower 49 States and provide essential habitat for 
Dungeness crab, rockfish, sole, and urchin.
  In 2006 and 2008, commercial fishery disasters that virtually 
eliminated salmon fishing in California were economically disastrous to 
my district, to our States, and our Nation. If an oil spill were to 
occur off the coast of my district, the environmental and economic 
costs would be staggering. Drilling for oil or gas off California's 
north coast could cause serious harm to the unique and productive 
ecosystem and abundant marine life found in this area.
  My district is economically dependent upon the rich natural resources 
we are blessed to have, but it is also subject to significant 
earthquakes which exacerbate the issues, the threats, and the problems 
related to oil spills.
  One of my counties just wrote to me, and I quote, ``The modest amount 
of oil available in terms of our Nation's daily demand does not justify 
jeopardizing our fisheries, our environment, and our economic 
livelihoods.''
  This amendment will merely protect the north coast of California and 
will simply clarify what the drafters of this bill say that the bill 
does, and that is that they claim that it does not require drilling off 
the coasts of Mendocino, Humboldt, or Del Norte Counties.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is the second amendment of 
three today designed to close off portions of the Outer Continental 
Shelf to oil and natural gas exploration production, the opposite of 
what the bill under consideration today is about. The underlying bill 
is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and 
responsible energy production.
  H.R. 1231 aims to fulfill the promise that both Democrats and 
Republicans made to the American people when we voted on a bipartisan 
basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on offshore energy production. 
Since taking office, President Obama and his administration have 
effectively reimposed the moratorium, and this bill would reverse his 
actions.
  This amendment proposes to take America in exactly the wrong 
direction in which we should be heading. Congress should not foreclose 
the possibility of future energy production. With the price of gasoline 
going to $4 and $5 a gallon, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment and keep our focus on those offshore areas that contain 
substantial oil and natural resources, where increased American energy 
production will create new jobs, lower energy prices, and increase our 
economic and national security.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, I want to point out that the majority party has told me and 
told my staff that the bill that they have offered today, the bill that 
we are going to be voting on, does not affect the north coast of 
California. Now, my effort with this amendment is merely to trust but 
verify.

                              {time}  1730

  To oppose this amendment really calls into question, what is the 
underlying motivation of this bill? Does it do what they claim and not 
affect this region of our ocean, again, one of only four major 
upwellings in the world's oceans. This is an area that feeds and 
promotes the fisheries and the marine life not only in my area, but in 
all the ocean. And the idea we would put it at any kind of risk. Those 
of you who know the area know how rough the water is, know how rocky 
the shores are. If there was an oil spill there, it would never be 
cleaned up. The area is seismically active. To drill in that area with 
the threat of earthquakes, you are

[[Page H3203]]

looking at a situation that would make the Gulf of Mexico disaster pale 
in comparison.
  It is not too much to ask that we merely verify what it is the 
majority party says that they are not doing with this bill. And the 
idea that this amendment would be opposed is quite startling to me. I 
believe that this is something that everyone can get behind. To say 
that the bill doesn't do this and then refuse to take the amendment 
calls into question the motive of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from California 
brings out some legitimate points. But right now, today, under existing 
law, the northern California planning area is available for leasing. 
This bill does not change that current situation. It has been available 
since 2008 when gasoline prices hit $4 a gallon and the President and 
Congress lifted the offshore drilling moratoria.
  I will remind the House that in 2008 the coast of California was 
opened for potential leasing and drilling, that Democrats were in the 
majority in the House and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was Speaker of 
the House. For months, they resisted Republican efforts to end the 
offshore ban, but eventually the American people won out and the bans 
were lifted.
  I would also like to point out that this bill provides direction that 
when the Federal Government is writing 5-year leasing plans, that the 
focus be on areas with the greatest estimated oil and natural gas 
resources. This particular planning area does not have and has not 
registered high in this regard and this bill does not direct that 
leasing occur in this planning area. With gasoline back to the 2008 
highs of over $4 per gallon, let's keep the focus on where it should 
be, increasing American offshore energy production. That's what we're 
trying to do.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I don't know that there is a great deal more to add to what he has 
just said about permits and about the issue that has been discussed 
just recently.
  The thing that really bothers me is just a few years ago, 25 years 
ago, we were importing about 28 percent of our oil. Today we are 
importing 62 percent of our oil, more than double what we were doing 
just a few years ago, and the American people are paying the price. 
Instead of $1.50 or $2 a gallon for gas, they are spending $4 a gallon 
for gasoline.
  Nationwide, there are 86 billion barrels of oil. Fifty-one percent of 
that is in the Gulf of Mexico, which means there are 44 billion barrels 
of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and there are 240 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. For us to continue to be dependent on foreign energy 
sources is crazy. We ought to start drilling and doing what needs to be 
done here in America. And we can do in an environmentally safe way. We 
can do it in Alaska, offshore, we can do it in a number of places. But 
to sit by and continue to send our money to Saudi Arabia and other 
countries around the world that aren't our friends just doesn't make 
any sense, and the American people understand it.
  I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle ought to go back and 
talk to their constituents, who are paying the price at the gas pump.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Inslee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 112-74.
  Mr. INSLEE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     second period, and after line 19 insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) Washington state approval required.--Under this 
     section, the Secretary shall not make available for leasing 
     for exploration, development, and production of oil and 
     natural gas any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the 
     coast of Washington unless such leasing is approved by the 
     Governor and legislature of the State of Washington.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 257, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to protect the beaches and shoreline and economy of the State 
of Washington. This amendment is quite simple. It would simply say that 
we will not allow the Federal Government to run over the State of 
Washington on issues of drilling off of our coastline, that we won't be 
shackled to this antiquated policy of drilling without first providing 
reasonable protection, without first addressing the issue of rampant 
speculation that is what is exposing my consumers to $4 a gallon gas in 
the State of Washington, and without freeing us to do what we should be 
doing, which is developing new, clean energy sources. I want to address 
each one of those.
  Basically our position is we don't think in the State of Washington, 
or any State, and particularly the State of Washington, which is the 
Evergreen State, we ought to have this policy foisted upon us that is 
not an evergreen energy policy for this century for three reasons.
  Reason number one: Despite the fact that we have had this enormous 
passage of time since this horrendous spill in the gulf, this Chamber 
has not passed into law one single safety provision to bring additional 
safety to anywhere on our coastline. My amendment would simply say that 
the people of the State of Washington and their elected officials ought 
to be able to make a decision that we have got adequate, reasonable 
safeguards for drilling before it happens off of the State of 
Washington. That has not happened, and it is inexcusable.
  Second, before this happens, the people of the State of Washington 
ought to have reasonable protection against the rampant speculation 
that is going on that is driving up these prices. Even Goldman Sachs 
has recognized we have had four times the speculative positions taken 
and probably a $20 amount that has driven up these prices associated 
with this unchecked speculation. Yet this Chamber and my friends across 
the aisle have not done a single thing to address this speculation. 
Until we do that, we shouldn't have my neighbors and my constituents 
have foisted down their throats this policy of mandatory drilling 
without them first making a decision.
  Third, the people of the State of Washington want to help in our 
energy crisis and they are capable of helping in this energy crisis if 
this Chamber will just free them to do it.
  Here is how they want to help. They want to produce lithium ion 
batteries that can run electric cars so we don't have to start being 
shackled and just addicted to oil. But this Chamber hasn't done a 
single thing, a single thing this year, to help clean energy sources 
that Washington State business people want to produce.
  I look at the EnerG2 company that is making ultracapacitors. This 
Chamber isn't helping them make electric batteries for electric cars.
  I look at the REC company in Moses Lake, Washington, that is making 
the polysilicate cells for photovoltaic cells to produce the 
electricity for electric cars. This Chamber hasn't done a single thing 
to help that company advance.
  I look at the Targeted Growth company and the Boeing company that are 
developing biofuels so that we can have a competitor to gasoline so we 
can drive those prices down. This Chamber hasn't done a single thing to 
help those companies develop Washington State jobs for a new energy 
future.

[[Page H3204]]

  Now, we have got a lot of energy off of our coastline. It might be in 
assorted ways. But I know it is in offshore wind. But we aren't doing a 
single thing to help the offshore wind energy. All we are doing is 
trying to shackle an antiquated energy policy on the people of the 
State of Washington.
  I would have liked this amendment to have helped all of my colleagues 
on the Pacific Coast, but because of some of the financial rules that 
we have, we have only been able to bring this involving the Evergreen 
State. But I would hope that all of my colleagues would join me in 
saying that before this gets forced on the citizens of Washington 
State, we adopt some reasonable measures.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, acting for Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Doc Hastings of Washington State, I oppose this 
amendment.
  As explained in the debate on the prior two amendments, this bill is 
focused on increasing American-made energy, creating new jobs, and 
decreasing our dependence on energy from foreign nations. Congress 
needs to focus on increasing energy production, and this amendment goes 
in the opposite direction. In fact, this amendment attempts to impose 
unprecedented and impossible obstacles to fostering more American 
energy in Federal waters.
  It is stated that the purpose of the amendment is to give the State 
of Washington a say on leasing in Federal waters off the State's coast. 
However, multiple Federal laws already provide Washington State, and 
every State, the opportunity to participate in any such decisions. What 
this amendment would do is grant double veto power for Washington State 
to prohibit Federal activities in Federal waters outside the State's 
borders. The Interior Department provides repeated opportunities for 
public comment and participation throughout the planning and leasing 
process.
  Furthermore, the Coastal Zone Management Act requires State 
consistency review with its State coastal zone management plan before 
the Federal Government takes action in Federal waters off of any 
particular State. On top of that, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
provides clear requirements for consultation and cooperation with 
affected State and local governments. Considerable care and protection 
is provided to each and every State, with extra consideration 
guaranteed to coastal States. This is as it should be.
  What is particularly revealing about this amendment is that it only 
gives Washington State double veto power over certain types of offshore 
energy leasing. It singles out only oil and natural gas, but provides 
no such veto power over other forms of energy leasing. This includes 
wave energy, wind, solar, and other renewable forms.
  This double standard exposes the real intent of this amendment. It's 
not truly aimed at ensuring a voice for Washington State; it's intended 
to score political points. But the political points the amendment 
attempts to score are entirely hollow. Why? Because there isn't 
estimated to be any recoverable oil or natural gas in Federal waters 
off of Washington State.
  Again, this bill only goes into areas that have really large 
potential. Again, multiple Federal laws already guarantee all Americans 
have an opportunity to participate in an offshore planning process, 
especially the Governors, State and local officials, and citizens 
living in coastal States that will be impacted by leasing, should it 
take place.
  For those reasons, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.
  First, I wish my friend Doc Hastings from Washington was with us 
today. He's not feeling well. But Mr. Young is doing an admirable job 
with a weak argument, and I'll report that they're getting represented.
  I just want to point out we haven't seen horrendous damage to any 
ecosystem from a wind spill yet. If you spill a little wind, you don't 
end up covering large gulf areas with hydrocarbons or destroying oyster 
and shrimping grounds like have been in the gulf. There are differences 
from multiple sources.
  We are simply saying that before we move forward with additional 
offshore drilling, we ought to have reasonable safety protocols, we 
ought to address speculation, and we ought to have an energy policy 
that looks at all of the above.
  My friends across the aisle told us you were going to give us an all-
of-the-above energy policy. All you have given us is an all-of-the-
below energy policy. We need a little better than this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My good friend from Washington, they may not have a wind spill, but 
there's opposition to wind power. And wind is extremely expensive and 
only can be successful as long as it's subsidized by the taxpayer. As 
long as this administration keeps insisting on wind and solar power, 
they're doubly taxing our taxpayers of this Nation and hurting our 
economy. That's reality.
  So they're doubly taxed because now they're paying taxes because of 
the high cost of oil, the high cost of gasoline. And $1,100 a year they 
have additionally been taxed this year versus last year. And yet we 
talk about wind power. They're taxed because that comes out of the 
general fund. We're borrowing money from the Chinese. That's reality.
  Wind and solar are fine as long as they're subsidized. As long as you 
pay for them, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, they're fine. But that's an 
additional tax on you. If it was so economical, so well to be done, 
then we would have done it a long time ago. And I say it will work. 
It's like ethanol. It works. It's still not economical.
  So we have to go back to what commerce is run by--and it's fossil 
fuels. We can have all those other forms of energy. I do not want them 
subsidized. We can have all those other forms of energy, but we have to 
have the ability to move product. I look at the Port of Seattle, the 
Port of Tacoma. Every one of those ships is burning a fossil fuel that 
deliver those goods. Every truck that leaves that port that goes out to 
deliver those to the people around this Nation is burning fossil fuels. 
Every train that leaves is burning fossil fuels. Every airplane that 
lands, built by Boeing, is driven by fossil fuels.
  This is a chance for us to speak up in Congress and say we are going 
to develop our natural fuels in this country so we can compete 
legitimately. You cannot compete by borrowing money to buy foreign oil, 
and that's what that side wants to do. I'm saying that's wrong. And I 
will join hands with you if you vote for ANWR and you vote for other 
forms of energy, too. Let's get it all together, guys. Let's have an 
energy plan. All we're trying to do here is undo what the Obama 
administration did, and that's put a moratorium in.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-74 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.

[[Page H3205]]

          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 228, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--193

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Fortenberry
     Giffords
     Hastings (WA)
     Hirono
     Johnson, Sam
     Marchant
     Reed
     Schwartz
     Sullivan
     Waters

                              {time}  1814

  Messrs. YOUNG of Indiana, RIGELL, and WEBSTER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. POSEY, ROONEY, JACKSON of Illinois, CRENSHAW, DIAZ-BALART, 
and FORBES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 312, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 238, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                               AYES--189

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus

[[Page H3206]]


     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Giffords
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Waters


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1822

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Keating

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 240, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--186

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Giffords
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1830

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
DesJarlais) having assumed the chair, Mr. Campbell, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the

[[Page H3207]]

State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 1231) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act to require that each 5-year offshore oil and gas leasing 
program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and 
gas resources, to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production 
goal, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________