COASTAL AND MARINE ECONOMIES PROTECTION ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 145
(House of Representatives - September 11, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H7606-H7622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              COASTAL AND MARINE ECONOMIES PROTECTION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 1941.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 548 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1941.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1224


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1941) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of the Interior including in any leasing program certain 
planning areas, and for other purposes, with Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The first question is, what do all governors, Republican and 
Democratic, along the entire East Coast and along the entire West Coast 
of the United States and over 330 municipalities and counties from 
these States all have in common? You know what they have in common? 
They are all opposed to expanding offshore oil and gas development off 
their shores.
  Today we are here to ensure that these coasts, the Atlantic and the 
Pacific, receive the assurance and the protection that they deserve. 
H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act would 
permanently protect the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts from offshore oil 
and gas drilling. From Maine down to Florida, from Washington to 
California, over 3,000 miles of the United States' coasts are 
threatened by the fossil fuel industry-driven agenda, which is driven 
by the Trump administration.
  One of President Trump's first actions upon taking office was 
mandating the development of a new and totally unnecessary 5-year plan 
for offshore oil and gas lease sales. In January 2018, former Interior 
Secretary Zinke released a draft of that plan, which proposed opening 
more than 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas 
development. This proposal included the entirety of America's Atlantic 
and Pacific Coasts, and if enacted, drilling could endanger more than 
72,000 miles of U.S. shorelines.
  Expectedly, there was immediate pushback from citizens, elected 
officials, governors, business leaders, all who understood that their 
coastal communities are incompatible with offshore oil and gas.
  The public knows that bringing in industry as risky and as dirty as 
oil and gas to the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts is dangerous on many 
levels. Our oceans sustain a rich diversity of marine life, and they 
provide immense value to America's coastal communities by helping to 
generate billions of dollars in economic output and by supporting 
millions of jobs.
  For example, thriving fish stocks and healthy marine mammals off the 
coast of New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida support tackle shops, whale 
watching tours, and a massive seafood industry. And oil-free beaches 
and bays in Virginia and the Carolinas drive business for local 
restaurants, for vacation rentals, and for outfitters.
  But coastal residents are not the only ones who will benefit from 
protecting these areas. Some of our Nation's most majestic national 
park units belonging to all Americans are along our coast, including 
Acadia, Biscayne, Cape Hatteras, and Point Reyes. People from all walks 
of life and diverse backgrounds and from both political parties cherish 
these special places, and they rely on healthy oceans, clean beaches, 
and the abundant fish and wildlife that come with them.
  The inevitable spills and the variety of other onshore and offshore 
impacts from oil and gas drilling have no place along our East and West 
Coasts. Over one million people are employed by the tourism and 
recreation industries along the East Coast. These are real

[[Page H7607]]

jobs that exist now and will only grow if we continue to treat our 
oceans and coasts with care. That is over four times as many jobs as 
the industry-generated fantasies that come with opening the entire 
Atlantic seaboard to drilling rigs.
  Four times as many jobs would be at risk from the industrial 
facilities that would be built along the coast. Four times as many jobs 
would be at risk from the chronic pollution and pipeline spills that 
are widespread with offshore oil and gas. And four times as many jobs 
would be at risk from a catastrophic blowout, like the one we saw in 
the Gulf of Mexico only 9 years ago.

                              {time}  1230

  None of these facts or the outcry from concerned citizens have 
influenced a Trump administration that is laser-focused on doing the 
bidding of the oil and gas industry. Instead of protecting our coasts, 
President Trump and Secretary Bernhardt have played politics and now 
are hiding their plan to drill near our communities.
  In January 2018, immediately after the release of the draft leasing 
program, then-Secretary Zinke met with then-Governor of Florida Rick 
Scott at the Tallahassee airport and tweeted that he was removing 
Florida from the leasing program. However, it turned out that this was 
nothing more than a ploy meant to boost the political prospects of a 
Republican Senate candidate.
  First Florida was in, then it was out, then it was in again, and now 
nobody except Secretary Bernhardt and President Trump knows for sure.
  For 2\1/2\ years, this administration has based its offshore drilling 
decisions on politics, not on the needs or the concerns of coastal 
communities.
  In April, the administration announced that its offshore leasing 
plans are now on hold due to a recent court decision that is related to 
Alaska. But that is only a short-term reprieve. At any moment, the 
administration can restart its efforts to auction off our Nation's 
marine resources, which will undoubtedly happen if the President were 
to get a second term.
  Coastal communities need assurance that their businesses, beaches, 
and way of life will not be sacrificed to the fossil fuel industry by 
the Trump administration.
  H.R. 1941 provides our Atlantic and Pacific constituents, including 
those along Florida's Atlantic Coast, the necessary protections from 
the dangers of offshore oil and gas, and it deserves this body's full 
support.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, we are here on September 11. It is an anniversary of an 
event that has been impactful for all of us and has definitely changed 
our country. We cannot forget that. Hopefully, as a Nation, we can 
learn from that experience and from the dedication that people gave 
during and after that particular experience.
  Mr. Chair, we are here in what the Democrats have called their energy 
week with their energy week proposals. Their proposals are three very 
disjointed bills not based on science but based on the idea of paying 
off specific political interest groups for political purposes.
  Earl Weaver, when he used to coach the Baltimore Orioles, loved to 
bait the umpires. One time, he went out to the umpire and said: Is this 
as good as it gets, or are you going to get better?
  Of course, they threw him out of the game for saying that.
  However, today, I want to turn to the Democrats and say: Guys, is 
this as good as it gets, or are you going to get better? Because what 
we have before us is not an energy policy, it is an energy nonpolicy.
  When I was in college, gas was $0.25 a gallon. I remember driving my 
car into those gas stations, and there would be a kid who would be my 
age or younger coming out and filling up my tank, cleaning the 
windshields, and checking the oil and the tires. Then, they gave me 
either a plate or a towel for showing up.
  I then went to Europe for 2 years, and when I came back, the oil 
embargo had hit. No one came out to help me. Everything was self-
service. No one gave me any more towels or dishes. Gas prices in the 
embargo era were going up to the astounding almost $1.40 a gallon, 
which we could not believe.
  Our new President at the time put on a sweater, started a fire in the 
fireplace, and came before the American people and told us, basically: 
Get used to it. Live with less. Take it as an honor to be cold in the 
dark. That is the process.
  Fortunately, this country didn't go along with that, nor did the 
industry go along with that. Instead of being a country in which we 
were dependent upon OPEC countries, 60 to 70 percent of our energy 
coming from OPEC--and I am sorry, that is not what an Irish chicken 
does; that is a cartel. That is a cartel that was very against the 
interests of the United States. Instead of being that which was in the 
position to be bullied not by a major power but a secondary power into 
thinking they could extort this country into changing our foreign 
policy simply by exploiting our energy vulnerabilities, America 
changed, and instead, we decided that would not be our policy.
  We came up with a process of not only expanding our energy production 
in the United States, but we expanded it in a way that produced energy 
more efficiently; that used it in a cleaner fashion; that used a 
smaller footprint to do it; that made us energy independent to the 
point where we could be, instead of an importing country, an exporting 
country in the concept of energy; and that energy was used not only to 
support the United States' independence but also to support our allies 
and be able to confront negative forces like Russia, which was using 
energy as a political weapon and still would like to use energy as a 
political weapon.
  Now, we are faced with three bills here today, one much different 
than the other two. But the end result of the Democratic vision of 
energy presented to us in this energy week is basically to use the 
rearview mirror and take us backward 50 years into the past, where we 
go back to the time when our economy was fragile, and our enemies 
thought they could take advantage of our energy dependency, and they 
could do that to bully the United States.
  That is not what the process should be in creating an energy future 
for this particular country.
  Mr. Chair, we have three bills that will be before us today. None of 
them are scientifically grounded. All of them are actually political, 
paying off political experts, taking science and basically throwing it 
in the trash and saying okay--which the majority can do. They have the 
votes to do it but don't have the audacity to stand up and say this 
administration or this side of the aisle doesn't believe in science 
because these particular issues are politically motivated.

  There is no logic to what we are doing. In our committee, it was 
wonderful. We had the entire committee on the same day that the first 
bill was voted out also voting for LWCF. Everyone loved the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, so we wanted to make this permanent. We wanted 
to triple the amount of money that we were putting into that fund. At 
the same time that we voted to triple the amount of money in that fund, 
we also voted for bills that would basically cut the revenues from 
those areas that produce the money to go into the fund in the first 
place, and we call that logical.
  I call this hypocrisy as well because there is the vested interest, 
as the majority here was saying, that Governors in their States should 
have the ability to make decisions on Federal waters that are not 
within the boundaries of their States but in the same breath saying 
that Governors in the interior States should not have the ability to 
have decisions made on Federal lands within our States.
  I am sorry. That is pure hypocrisy.
  This is a lack of focus. It is a lack of focus when, a year ago, the 
Democratic leadership asked the President to find a way to cut down the 
cost of energy, oil and gas, to use his personal contacts to cut down 
the cost of that, and then we are bringing bills in here today that 
will drive up the costs, which will cut down our possibility of doing 
that in the future.
  You can do it, but there is a hypocrisy to the very essence of what 
is going on.
  Unfortunately, the three bills that will be thrown out here today by 
the

[[Page H7608]]

Democrats as their policy will have the net effect of destroying jobs 
and harming our economy, potentially turning us to an economic 
tailspin. That can happen.
  More importantly, it is nice to have a visual contrast, because this 
morning, Republican leaders, led by Mr. Scalise and Ms. Cheney and 
several others, introduced a comprehensive energy package, an energy 
package that is for all energy, all of the above, both fossil fuel and 
alternative, one that will grow our economy, which will create more 
jobs, which will give a logical standard of what we should do going 
forward with a clear view.
  The clear view of what Republicans would like to do with having a 
logical, comprehensive approach is in vast contrast to three 
disjointed, dispirited, nonscientific bills that simply want to pay off 
political communities.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1941, 
the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act.
  My bipartisan bill permanently protects the Atlantic and the Pacific 
Coasts from the threats of offshore oil and gas drilling. It reflects 
the tremendous importance that Members of both parties place on healthy 
shorelines and the State and local economies that depend on them. This 
bill acknowledges that if we don't act, drilling rigs could soon appear 
off of our beaches.
  Folks from up and down the coast of my district understand that 
opposition to offshore drilling is not a partisan issue. Whether it be 
a first grader like Anna Caroline of upstate South Carolina who rallied 
70 signatures to stop offshore drilling or a group of mayors like Billy 
Keyserling, Pat O'Neil, Tim Goodwin, Jimmy Carroll, or John Tecklenburg 
who worked tirelessly to defend our coastline, South Carolinians want 
to protect our community from the disastrous consequences that result 
from offshore drilling. The Lowcountry is a force to be reckoned with, 
and we stand firm in our opposition to drilling off of our shoreline.
  Down in the Lowcountry, we know that offshore drilling would ruin our 
economy, our vibrant natural resources, and our unique way of life. 
That is why opposition to offshore drilling is not a partisan issue, 
and I am proud to work with both Democrats and Republicans to get this 
done.
  Offshore drilling and the booming tourism industry that we have in 
the Lowcountry are mutually exclusive pursuits. Tourism in the Palmetto 
State is a $22.6 billion-a-year industry and supports 1 in every 10 
jobs in our State. South Carolina's tourism industry holds a great deal 
more promise for statewide economic prosperity.
  I want to take a moment to also consider how natural disasters would 
impact our State if we were to drill offshore. We have seen spills from 
onshore infrastructure in the path of a hurricane. Hurricane Katrina is 
the best-known example, with roughly 8 million gallons of oil spilled.
  Last week, Hurricane Dorian was a sobering reminder that hurricanes 
and natural disasters can change course in a moment's notice and 
inflict tremendous damage on communities in the path of a storm.
  If Charleston, Hilton Head, or Beaufort had onshore energy 
infrastructure similar to Port Fourchon or Galveston, the potential for 
a major spill or environmental calamity from Dorian's destruction would 
have skyrocketed.
  Opposition to offshore drilling is an economic one, but it is also a 
moral one. The book of Genesis teaches us to be stewards and caretakers 
of all creation. I find it unconscionable that we can knowingly damage 
our waters and, consequentially, our marine life for such a pursuit.
  Offshore drilling is reckless; it is harmful; and it is absolutely 
disruptive to the communities that we call home.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my bill that will 
permanently safeguard the First District of South Carolina and coastal 
communities across this Nation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who has unusual socks on today and 
who has been through these wars before.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this legislation 
which undermines the United States' energy dominance and makes us 
strategically weaker as a nation.
  I remember Admiral Mike Mullen saying there is no national security 
without energy security. We get that by exploring and developing the 
natural resources we are blessed with in this Nation.
  Currently, 67 percent of the energy used in our Nation is generated 
from oil and gas; 94 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is off 
limits to exploration. The Department of the Interior projects that an 
estimated 89.9 billion barrels and 327 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas has yet to be discovered on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Opening up the entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf could support 
nearly 265,000 new, higher paying jobs, $22 billion a year in private 
investment, and generate almost $6 billion in new revenue for the 
government within 20 years of the initial lease. Mr. Cunningham's bill 
blocks $2.2 billion from going to schools, roads, and conservation 
efforts in South Carolina.
  Through revenue sharing, oil and natural gas development are a 
critical source of funding for many valuable programs. Over the past 10 
years, royalty payments from lease sales have generated $73 billion for 
the Federal Government. Much of this money goes into conservation 
programs, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Many people on 
the other side of the aisle that will support this bill also supported 
the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  In 2018, the LWCF received $893 million in offshore revenues. South 
Carolina received $1.5 million in 2018 from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. Oil and gas royalties totaled about 90 percent of 
the LWCF's funding. Congress has already voted to permanently 
reauthorize in this Congress.
  How do the supporters of this bill intend to make up nearly all of 
the funding for a program that they supported that they would be 
cutting with this bill? They would do it by taxing the hardworking 
American citizens, I guess.
  Blocking offshore development would not only significantly harm our 
economy, but it would increase dependence on our adversaries for 
energy.
  Just in 2018, there was a Russian LNG tanker that arrived in the 
Boston harbor. It traveled 4,500 miles from Russia to the U.S. when the 
United States has been the number one producer of natural gas since 
2009.
  New England relies on foreign countries for about 20 percent of its 
natural gas. Why? Because we don't have the pipeline capacity running 
from the Marcellus shale up to New England to provide American natural 
gas, so they are having to buy from Russia.
  Development of our resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, opening 
up areas that were blocked by past administrations to energy 
development, exploration, and, ultimately, production, provides money 
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and it provides national 
security for places like New England and lessens their dependence on a 
foreign source of natural gas. And that foreign source, ladies and 
gentlemen, is Russia.
  Let this be a lesson in what is in store for this country if this 
bill is adopted. This bill leverages our adversary, Russia, while 
undermining our security.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the sponsor of this 
legislation, Mr. Cunningham, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lowenthal), and Mr. Grijalva for all of their work on this legislation.
  I want to say that I do think a permanent moratorium on oil and gas 
drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans' Outer Continental Shelf 
planning areas is something that we must do. It doesn't matter whether 
you represent the Atlantic or the Pacific Coast communities. A vote for 
a permanent moratorium on oil and gas development along these shores is 
a vote for our country's economic vitality.
  I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the last two 
speakers talk about national security and

[[Page H7609]]

how we don't have an energy plan. The bottom line is that, if you look 
at the consequences to the economy of the country in these coastal 
communities from something like the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, it 
was a 10-year projected economic loss of $8.7 billion in fisheries from 
Texas to Florida, including 22,000 lost jobs just for fisheries.
  Think of the impact on the tourism industry with the impact on local 
businesses if we have a spill of this magnitude. Tourism is now the 
number one industry in my State of New Jersey.
  And don't tell me that we don't have an energy plan. In the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, we are very much in favor of all kinds of 
energy options--natural gas, nuclear power, whatever it happens to be--
and we certainly have moved towards energy independence by having more 
natural gas and more production of oil.
  All we are saying here today is that, when you talk about offshore 
drilling in the Atlantic and the Pacific, if you weigh any benefits 
that might come either in jobs or in money that comes back to the Land 
and Conservation, whatever, you cannot possibly compare the economic 
loss that we would have from a major oil spill to whatever gain you 
have from this relatively small amount of oil that is going to be 
captured by these oil companies in offshore drilling on the Atlantic 
and the Pacific Coasts.
  After the BP oil spill--I was on the Natural Resources Committee at 
the time--there were recommendations that were put together by a 
bipartisan commission. Not all of those were adopted. But even with 
those recommendations, in the 7 years following the Deepwater Horizon 
tragedy, there were 34 additional oil spills of more than 2,000 gallons 
each.
  There is no way to stop these oil spills from happening. They happen 
on a regular basis. The further out you go, the more chance there is 
that you are going to have a spill, and we cannot risk that.
  The Jersey shore has already experienced a historic disaster in the 
past few years. It was called Hurricane Sandy. We don't need a man-made 
disaster that is going to shut down our businesses, cripple our housing 
market, harm our health, or hurt our environment. The ocean is strained 
too much by too much trash and disposal of plastics and the climate 
crisis that triggered an increase in sea temperatures and 
acidification.
  In fact, we don't have to choose between a clean ocean and energy 
production. Any energy we harness off the coast could come increasingly 
from clean, renewable sources like offshore wind.
  I am not saying that renewables are the only alternative. We still 
have to have fossil fuels, there is no question. But the damage that 
comes to our local economies cannot possibly compare to whatever jobs 
you think are going to be created or whatever money you think is going 
to come from this offshore drilling. It is miniscule in comparison to 
the economic impact to our area.
  So don't talk to me about jobs and loss of jobs when you see the loss 
of jobs that occurred after BP and could occur to our shores. There is 
absolutely no comparison, gentlemen. I have to say that over and over 
again.
  Now, we have put 1-year annual moratoriums. We passed an amendment 
that I had in the appropriations bill, Interior appropriations, to have 
a moratorium on an annual basis in the appropriations bill, but it is 
high time that we have a permanent moratorium. It is not enough to just 
address this annually through the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Cunningham). I was actually in his district, and I just 
heard unanimous praise of his effort to stop this drilling.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the 
opportunity to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tipton), someone who realizes that not only does the base bill stop 
drilling, but if you add one of the amendments they have, you are going 
to stop any kind of seismic activity that would allow alternative 
activity to be developed in these sources, as well.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1941, a 
bill that would permanently block responsible oil and gas development 
in the Atlantic and Pacific planning areas.
  As a Representative from a district that has overwhelming amounts of 
Federal land, I often find myself engaged with my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle about the importance of allowing local leaders 
to be able to manage the lands that are around them, making decisions 
about what happens on those public lands that surround their 
communities.
  The argument I am met with is that public lands belong to all 
Americans, to benefit all Americans.
  And it is true, the responsible energy development that happens on 
public lands in my district benefits all Americans in the form of 
reliable and low-cost energy sources, but we are here today debating a 
bill that would put the wishes of some States to close off submerged 
lands under Federal land jurisdictions ahead of the interests of all 
Americans.
  When it comes to local control, why should local coastal States lead 
the way while landlocked Western States are told time and again that 
the Federal Government knows what is best?
  I have been a longtime advocate for an all-of-the-above energy plan 
in the U.S. This means wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, natural 
gas, oil, oil shale, and minerals.
  An InsideClimate News article from January of last year outlined the 
investments offshore oil and gas companies are making in wind energy 
due to market demand and to the unique position that they are in, 
having already made significant onshore infrastructure investments.
  According to a 2017 Wood Mackenzie study, annual revenues from wind 
and solar could represent one-twelfth of the revenues in oil and gas by 
2035 as some major oil and gas companies seize opportunities in the 
wind power market.
  If the goal of my friends on the other side of the aisle is to reduce 
our country's reliance on fossil fuels, why push policies that cut off 
the source of the investment of oil and gas companies that are making 
renewable energy? We should be supporting industry and market-led 
shifts to renewable energy, not imposing drastic policies like H.R. 
1941 that hamstring these efforts.
  Finally, earlier this year, the House and Senate overwhelmingly 
passed a public lands package that permanently authorized the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. All States benefit from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, so we can't ignore the fact that the bill we are 
debating today would cut off the source of funding for the program, 
which, as we all know, is offshore oil and gas revenues.
  There have been many calls from my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to be able to pass a measure that will provide for mandatory 
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. How can we push for 
mandatory Land and Water Conservation Fund funding and, at the same 
time, advocate for a bill that completely cuts off Land and Water 
Conservation Fund sources?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act, to ban new 
offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
  My district is home to over 50 miles of beautiful California 
coastline. It is home to some of the world's premier marine research 
institutions, not to mention some of the best surfing in the country.
  In San Diego and Orange Counties, the ocean economy accounts for $7.7 
billion and sustains more than 140,000 jobs in coastal tourism and 
recreation. All it will take to jeopardize those jobs is a massive 
spill like the one we saw off the coast of Santa Barbara in 2015, which 
poured 142,000 gallons of crude oil into the water and onto beaches 
across southern California. That is why the people I represent have 
made their voices heard loud and clear: No more drilling off our coast.

  We can't allow the fossil fuel industry and their friends in the 
Trump administration to exploit our oceans for their own profit, roll 
back safety regulations that help prevent spills, and threaten hundreds 
of thousands of jobs.

[[Page H7610]]

  I expect we will hear a lot more from my friends across the aisle, 
many of whom represent landlocked districts, who claim there is nothing 
to worry about. Well, they should know that the folks who actually live 
in coastal communities won't stop fighting to protect our oceans and 
our jobs.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), our new Member in his first 
term here.
  Mr. CLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from the Commonwealth of Virginia, a 
Commonwealth which is rich in natural resources. We have an abundant 
supply of energy sources, but this legislation would destroy the 
untapped potential for research and investment in oil and gas resources 
off our coast.
  This bill would stifle innovation, prevent job creation, and severely 
limit the ability of our Nation to realize its full potential of 
achieving long-term energy independence.
  Studies have shown that exploring offshore oil and natural gas 
resources would bring thousands of jobs to Virginia and significantly 
boost its economy.

                              {time}  1300

  Earlier this spring I traveled with Congressman Scalise and a 
delegation of Members to his district in Louisiana, and helicoptered 
off into the Gulf of Mexico where I was able to see firsthand the great 
strides that have been made in energy exploration, technology, and 
innovation, and the great benefits that have accrued to Louisiana: 
Louisiana schools, Louisiana roads, and port projects as a result.
  The amazing developments in ensuring that energy resources can be 
explored and extracted safely and with minimal impact to our 
environment, demonstrated to me that similar efforts can be achieved 
back home in the waters off the coast of Virginia, and that our 
environmentally sensitive areas would be protected for future 
generations to enjoy, while we can lower energy costs for residents and 
businesses across our great Commonwealth.
  H.R. 1941 would block millions of dollars from going to Virginia and 
other coastal States. If South Carolina doesn't want the money, fine, 
but the Federal Government should not be in the business of halting 
Virginia and, in turn, America's economic growth. Failing to give 
States like mine the ability to explore the resources off our coast 
would be a grave disservice to my constituents, our Commonwealth, and 
our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1941, the 
Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act.
  Mr. Chair, the administration's proposed 5-year plan for expanded oil 
and gas leasing would pose significant danger to our Nation's coastal 
waters which are home to thousands of plant and animal species that 
rely on a well-balanced marine ecosystem.
  According to Oceana, oil and gas exploration could have untold 
effects on fish and marine wildlife, from decreasing fish catches, to 
increase stranding or beaching of marine mammals.
  On top of this, our oceans are an enormous driver of our States' 
economies. In my home State of Rhode Island, ocean industries such as 
fishing, tourism, and recreation account for nearly $2 billion in 
annual economic activity and support more than 41,000 jobs.
  Throughout New England, it accounts for more than $17 billion 
annually. Our States cannot afford to risk the dangers posed to our 
oceans and coasts by the administration's misguided proposal to expand 
oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic. We cannot afford to sit by and 
watch the President plunder our oceans for the benefit of the big oil 
companies at the expense of polluting our oceans, endangering fishing 
and tourism industries, and harming coastal communities.
  I was proud to introduce legislation earlier this year, the New 
England Coastal Protection Act, which would prohibit drilling in the 
Outer Continental Shelf off of the coast of the New England States, 
which I am proud to say has the support of every Member of Congress 
from New England, and which is incorporated in this bill before the 
House today.
  It is imperative that this country pursue a cleaner, more sustainable 
energy future which protects our oceans and coastlines, stimulates 
innovation, and spurs job growth.
  I strongly urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bost), who happens to be the Republican co-chair of 
the House Congressional Steel Caucus.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, for years, we have been told that we live in a 
resource-poor Nation. We were also told that the domestic oil and gas 
reserves were depleted. But, today, we know how wrong those predictions 
are.
  America is now the world leader in energy development. But don't 
forget about the jobs. Oil and gas production is a jobs multiplier. 
According to recent studies, more than 10 million American jobs can be 
attributed to oil and gas production. For each drilling and oil job, 
many more are created in manufacturing, transportation, and service 
industries.
  In my district, the U.S. Steel Granite City Works facility produces 
the steel for Oil Country Tubular Goods. These products are used in oil 
and gas production. These are good-paying jobs with great benefits.
  In addition to the steel jobs in Granite City, approximately 10,000 
Illinois manufacturers have jobs that have oil and gas industry ties. 
According to some estimates, an additional 1 million manufacturing jobs 
could be created through oil and gas development.
  We need to think about this as the political fringes try to shove the 
Green New Deal down our throats.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his work on this and 
for yielding me the time.
  Today I rise in support of the Coastal Marine Economies Protection 
Act and to defend Maine's coastline for future generations.
  This summer, I was blessed to, once again, become a grandmother. With 
the birth of my new grandson, I am now lucky enough to be the 
grandmother of four. All four of my grandchildren played in and around 
the ocean this summer, the Gulf of Maine, just as their parents have 
done and so many other Mainers do every summer.
  The Gulf of Maine is an irreplaceable natural resource that is a draw 
for millions of tourists each year, and it is critical to the Maine 
economy. It should not be exploited for oil and drilling.
  The climate crisis has already taken a toll on our waters. It has 
caused ocean acidification and rising sea levels, and the warming of 
the ocean has put Maine's vibrant fishing industries in peril.
  Drilling for fossil fuels in the Gulf of Maine when we should be 
investing in renewable energy, is like trying to put out a fire by 
dousing it with kerosene.

  I believe it is our duty as elected leaders to leave this Nation 
better than we found it. That means ensuring we preserve our oceans for 
our children and our grandchildren, and we fight this climate crisis 
with all we have got.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Maine.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will join me in supporting H.R. 1941, because sacrificing our 
coastline to further this Nation's dependence on fossil fuels is 
nothing short of irresponsible.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill and the other two 
natural resources bills that we will be considering this week.
  Let me start by saying that it is unfortunate that we are in this 
position today. One of the predominant reasons for this disappointment 
is that I, like many of my colleagues, both support

[[Page H7611]]

energy development, while looking after our natural and ecological 
resources.
  I love my district dearly. I was born and raised there. I have lived 
there all of my life and will continue to live there the rest of my 
life. I value the beautiful coastline that we have in my district.
  But blanket bans instituted by these bills across the Atlantic, 
Pacific, Gulf, and Arctic are misguided and are, quite plainly, the 
wrong approach.
  In January of last year, I raised concerns with the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management about how this plan would affect Georgia and my 
constituents. In April of this year, after the Georgia General Assembly 
passed a resolution opposing energy exploration in Federal waters off 
of Georgia, I sent a letter to Secretary Bernhardt requesting he 
exclude Georgia from consideration under this plan.
  Mr. Chair, I have taken public service seriously for my entire life. 
When I was elected to serve the people of the First District of 
Georgia, I knew that I would be representing the will of my 
constituents up here. That is why I have been firm in my stance that 
Georgia be removed from consideration due to concerns from the State 
legislature.
  But while my request to remove Georgia from consideration under this 
plan stands, I firmly believe it would be unwise and counterproductive 
to move forward with this blanket ban on U.S. Federal waters.
  Knowing these bills would be coming to the floor, I knew I needed to 
do something to support the request I heard in the district that waters 
off of Georgia be removed. That is why I, in order to abide by my 
commitment to my constituents in our community, submitted three 
amendments to the Rules Committee.
  Unfortunately, my amendments, which would empower States to decide 
what is best for them, remove Georgia from consideration, and address 
undersea national security, were not accepted by my colleagues across 
the aisle.
  Let me be clear. This wasn't a rejection of including the amendments 
in the bill. This was a rejection of the ability to even debate them.
  My colleagues across the aisle who had championed the will of the 
States to decide what is best for them when it comes to this topic, 
would not let my amendments move forward. For those who were so opposed 
to energy development offshore, I didn't even have the opportunity to 
have an amendment removing Georgia from consideration debated on the 
floor of this House.
  Mr. Chair, it is really unfortunate that we are voting on these bills 
which would sacrifice tens of thousands of jobs and millions in 
economic benefits for political grandstanding.
  To step back on domestic energy development is to promote foreign 
energy consumption. I can still remember when the United States was 
held hostage to Middle Eastern resources, and we can't allow that to 
happen again.
  While I believe Georgia should be removed from consideration, these 
bills are not the solution. I oppose these three bills, and I hope my 
colleagues will actually work with us on real solutions rather than 
promoting messaging bills.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, chairman, and ranking member, I rise today 
on behalf of our oceans and the communities, economies and ecosystems 
they support.
  My home State of New Jersey boasts a multibillion dollar commercial 
and fishing industry. That's 50,000 jobs and $7 billion every year. 
Potential spills from oil and gas development imperil every one of 
these jobs and every one of those industries. That is 50,000 jobs and 
$7 billion a year, not to mention the threat to exacerbating climate 
change.
  An oil spill could trigger even greater devastation to the nearly 
500,000 jobs supported by our State's tourism industry. Visits to the 
beautiful shore generates $16.6 billion in wages and adds $5.5 billion 
to the State's tax coffers. Too much is at stake.
  We cannot auction off our environment. We can't auction off our 
economy, and we sure as heck can't auction off our future to the 
highest bidder.
  We need to move away from dirty fossil fuels that would forever 
change the character of our coasts for the worse. We need to protect 
the Atlantic Coast by permanently banning offshore oil and gas 
drilling.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a concrete plan of action like this because the 
climate is changing in a way that threatens our national security, or 
ecosystems, and our economy.
  Thanks to H.R. 1941--and I commend the sponsors--the Coastal and 
Marine Economies Protection Act, we are acting to permanently protect 
the Atlantic from offshore oil and gas drilling right now. I thank the 
chairman, Mr. Chair, and the ranking member for this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I rise today because I wholeheartedly 
support the Coastal and Marine Economy Protection Act, authored by my 
good friend, Congressman Cunningham.
  This bill does what seems obvious to almost everyone. It bans 
offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. It is an issue that brings 
together business groups, environmental groups, sportsmen groups, and 
many, many others. It is an issue that transcends party lines.
  In my district, we had a press conference in support of this 
legislation and banning, and we had Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents, businesspeople, as well as environmentalists all 
together.
  In south Jersey, our coast is our lifeblood. It is everything. It is 
our economy, it is our culture, and it is our way of life.
  Our fisheries and tourism industry are worth nearly $50 billion a 
year, supporting well over half a million jobs statewide. If an oil 
spill would occur on our coastline, our beaches, natural resources, and 
coastal properties would be wiped out in a heartbeat.
  Our fishermen, casino workers, hospitality industry, restaurants, and 
small businesses would all, each and every one, suffer.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1941.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative 
Lowenthal for his leadership.
  Today, I rise in support of this legislation by Representative 
Cunningham to ban offshore oil drilling in both the Atlantic and 
Pacific. This would apply to new offshore oil drilling. Such oil 
drilling is both dangerous and harms coastal economies.
  My congressional district spans the coast of Los Angeles from Palos 
Verdes to Malibu. Its natural beauty is rivaled by few, and the 
tourism, recreation, and other ocean-related industries flourish 
because of it.
  Just a few years ago, in 2015, an oil pipeline ruptured in Santa 
Barbara to the north of my district, spilling 100,000 gallons of oil 
into the ocean, killing wildlife, and forcing closure of beaches in my 
district as their oil flowed down. This oil spill can affect large 
pieces of land and our environment, and our economy suffered.
  H.R. 1941 is a forward-thinking bill that will protect California's 
coast and help turn us away from fossil fuels. At a time when tackling 
the climate crisis is absolutely critical, I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding. I thank Mr. Bishop for his leadership as well.
  I rise in strong support of this bill introduced by Mr. Cunningham 
from South Carolina and two other bills on the floor this week that 
will be considered. All three are bipartisan bills.
  I thank Mr. Cunningham for his leadership on this particular issue.
  A permanent moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in 
pristine, untouched areas will help protect ecosystems and economies 
all along our Nation's Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. The other bills we 
will be considering this week will prevent oil and gas drilling along 
the Gulf Coast of Florida and

[[Page H7612]]

protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  The Trump administration is forcing a false choice between energy 
security and the health and safety of our coastal and Arctic 
environments. If we fail to protect vulnerable coastal and Arctic 
ecosystems, then we put at risk the livelihoods of millions of 
Americans in those communities that depend on their continued health 
and abundance.
  In coastal communities on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the 
Gulf of Mexico, tourism, outdoor recreation, and fishing are crucial to 
their economies. In Alaska, the Gwich'in people rely on the carefully 
balanced Arctic ecosystem for hunting, fishing, and their ancient way 
of life. Drilling in these areas creates an unacceptable risk both to 
our environment and to the people who live in those communities.
  Mr. Chair, the United States is now the largest producer of oil and 
gas in the world. No one would have thought that possible even a decade 
ago, yet here we are. Thank to advances in technology, over the past 6 
years, we have doubled the amount of oil we export. All of that has 
been made possible without touching vulnerable environments like the 
Arctic refuge or off the coast of my home State of Maryland, the 
Atlantic or the Pacific.
  The Trump administration is proposing to open the entire eastern 
seaboard for oil and gas development, from the Gulf of Maine to the 
Straits of Florida. States up and down the Atlantic, including my own 
State, oppose this move. We have seen what happens when something goes 
wrong, as was the case with the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010. An 
oil spill making its way into the Chesapeake Bay and destroying our 
world-class fisheries or harming the beautiful beaches of Maryland's 
Chesapeake and Atlantic shores would, frankly, be devastating.
  Instead of doubling down on fossil fuels, we ought to be working to 
reconfigure our economy to meet the challenges of climate change and 
seize opportunities from developing new clean energy technologies and 
leading the world in transitioning to a low- and eventually zero-carbon 
economy.
  The Democratic-led House already, Mr. Chair, took action on climate 
change earlier this year with the passage of H.R. 9, the Climate Action 
Now Act, which would uphold our commitment to the Paris climate 
agreement that the President inadvisably withdrew from.
  We will also continue taking meaningful action to stop the Trump 
administration's rollback of rules meant to protect clean air, clean 
water, and natural environments for generations to come. Our children, 
Mr. Chair, and our grandchildren--and, yes, our great-grandchildren--
deserve to inherit an Earth and an America that is clean, healthy, and 
sustainable. We ignore this challenge, Mr. Chair, at our peril.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for 
leading this effort; I thank Mr. Cunningham; and I rise in strong 
support of the legislation we are going to consider.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Carbajal), who is a highly respected Representative.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1941, the Coastal 
and Marine Economies Protection Act, to ensure we safeguard our 
environment against the threats of offshore oil drilling. I am proud to 
have worked with Chairman Grijalva, Chairman Lowenthal, and 
Representative Cunningham to make sure that this measure also includes 
my legislation, H.R. 279, the California Clean Coast Act. This would 
make certain that there is no future offshore oil and gas leasing off 
California's coast and put the interests of the American people first.
  We cannot put corporate profits of Big Oil above protecting our 
environment. My constituents in the central coast have seen firsthand 
the damage oil spills inflicted on our communities and our local 
economies. During the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, over 100,000 
barrels of crude oil spilled into the Santa Barbara Channel. This was 
the largest oil spill in California's history. It fundamentally harmed 
Santa Barbara's unique marine ecosystem and wildlife, recreational 
interests, and commercial fishing.

  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Paired with the 2015 Plains Refugio oil spill, where 
cleanup costs hit $92 million, these incidents show us that we cannot 
afford another disastrous oil spill.
  In contrast, California's coastal region tourism generates over $1.9 
trillion of GDP per year. It also supports more than $731 billion in 
wages. Any future oil drilling would pose a direct threat to our local 
economies and the success of local businesses that are tied to clean 
oceans and healthy ecosystems. We must safeguard our planet and economy 
for future generations, including my two grandchildren, Roman and 
Gianna. This is why I urge passage of H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine 
Economies Protection Act.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a Statement of Administrative 
Policy, which indicates the President's advisers would recommend a veto 
of this particular bill in the unlikely event that it will actually be 
considered by the Senate, but, Mr. Chair, you can bet your Social 
Security payments it won't be.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.R. 205--Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019--
                 (Rep. Rooney, R-FL, and 18 cosponsors)

  H.R. 1146--Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act--(Rep. 
                   Huffman, D-CA, and 182 cosponsors)

     H.R. 1941--Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act--(Rep. 
                  Cunningham, D-SC, and 51 cosponsors)

       The Administration opposes H.R. 205, the Protecting and 
     Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019, H.R. 1146, the 
     Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act, and H.R. 
     1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act. These 
     bills would undermine the Administration's commitment to a 
     prosperous American economy supported by the responsible use 
     of the Nation's abundant natural resources. Development of 
     our resources enhances our energy security and energy 
     dominance, and produces high-paying American jobs; provides 
     increased revenue to the Treasury, States, tribes, and local 
     communities; and is a critical source of conservation 
     funding.
       H.R. 1146 would prohibit the Department of the Interior's 
     Bureau of Land Management from administering an oil and gas 
     leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. The bill would repeal a 
     provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that directed 
     the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program for the 
     development of the Coastal Plain that would allow the use of 
     no more than about 0.01 percent of the total acreage of ANWR 
     for surface development of production and support facilities. 
     The Administration supports environmentally responsible 
     energy development in the Coastal Plain, also known as the 
     1002 Area, of ANWR. Such development is expected to increase 
     America's energy security and independence, create jobs, and 
     provide affordable, reliable energy for consumers while 
     providing much-needed revenue to both the State of Alaska and 
     the Federal Government.
       Similarly, H.R. 205 and H.R. 1941 would both restrict 
     future oil and gas development in the Federal waters of the 
     U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). H.R. 205 would amend the 
     Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) to make permanent 
     the current temporary leasing moratorium on offshore leasing 
     in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast of Florida. 
     H.R. 1941 would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (OCSLA) to permanently remove from consideration acreage for 
     offshore leasing on both the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Both 
     of these bills would undermine OCSLA, which established a 
     periodic, multi-stage planning process involving State and 
     tribal consultation and a thoughtful comparison and balancing 
     of the benefits and impacts to all the regions of the OCS. 
     These bills would permanently constrain this careful 
     administrative process. Under the bills, large swaths of the 
     OCS would be off limits for resource development without the 
     benefit of periodic assessments of the potential economic, 
     social, and environmental effects of development, as required 
     by existing law. Excluding these areas from leasing 
     consideration could place more pressure for development on 
     other OCS areas and constrain our ability to meet national 
     energy needs as required by OCSLA.
       Additionally, each of these bills would eliminate the 
     potential for future direct revenue that would otherwise be 
     provided to the Treasury, and through revenue sharing, to the 
     States, tribes, and counties where the development activities 
     occur. In Fiscal Year

[[Page H7613]]

     2018, energy development on Federal and Indian lands and 
     waters generated approximately $9 billion in direct revenue 
     from royalties, bonus bids, and rents. Of that revenue, $1.78 
     billion was disbursed to 35 States. The top States receiving 
     Fiscal Year 2018 revenues were New Mexico ($634.9 million); 
     Wyoming ($563.9 million); Colorado ($112.5 million); 
     Louisiana ($91 million); and Utah ($76 million). 
     Additionally, more than $1 billion was disbursed to Indian 
     tribes and individual Indian mineral owners; $1.22 billion to 
     the Reclamation Fund; $970 million to the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF); $150 million to the Historic 
     Preservation Fund; and $3.5 billion to the general fund of 
     the Treasury.
       Prohibiting energy development in new Federal areas would 
     hinder future administrations' efforts to make up for revenue 
     lost as production declines from leases in aging energy 
     fields. Such restrictions will tie the hands of future 
     administrations and reduce their ability to enhance energy 
     security through strong domestic energy production and to 
     ensure affordable energy for American families.
       If these bills were presented to the President, his 
     advisors would recommend he veto them.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter 
of strong opposition to the bill by over 20 entities, including the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Consumer Energy Alliance, and a letter in 
opposition from the Laborers' International Union of North America.

                                                September 5, 2019.
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We rely on American made energy to 
     power our daily lives, communities and to grow a more 
     prosperous future. Americans deserve clean, safe, reliable, 
     abundant and affordable energy so that our families, 
     communities and businesses can all share the opportunities 
     American energy creates. Our country cannot afford to block 
     access to new energy supplies and risk losing our energy 
     advantage. That's why we ask you to oppose legislation being 
     considered by the U.S. House of Representatives next week 
     that would slow scientific surveys and prevent access to new 
     sources of American offshore energy in the Outer Continental 
     Shelf.
       For more than seven decades, energy development in the Gulf 
     of Mexico has worked collaboratively alongside tourism, 
     fishing and Defense Department training activities. But H.R. 
     205 would permanently extend the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
     moratorium on oil and natural gas activities. The 
     Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimates that 
     this could cost taxpayers $400 million in revenue over the 
     next 10 years. Similarly, H.R. 1941 would block offshore 
     energy development in the Pacific and Atlantic planning 
     areas, and H.R. 1146 would lock up energy resources in the 
     Alaskan Coastal Plain.
       Congress should support progress. Modern energy 
     technologies have enabled an impressive record of 
     environmental stewardship and innovation. But when the 
     government chooses to arbitrarily and permanently close off 
     areas to exploration and potential development, we simply 
     increase our dependency on foreign sources. This reality is 
     visible in places like California and Massachusetts. Despite 
     abundant offshore oil and natural gas resources, California 
     imports 57 percent of its oil supply, a staggering 37 percent 
     of which comes from Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, to meet energy 
     needs each winter, Massachusetts imports liquefied natural 
     gas from Russia.
       American energy is produced with a smaller carbon footprint 
     under significantly stronger environmental protections than 
     energy produced anywhere else in the world. We ask you to 
     embrace these homegrown opportunities that benefit American 
     families, create high-wage jobs, strengthen the U.S. economy 
     and protect our environment.
       Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to 
     consider legislation undercutting domestic energy security 
     and economic opportunity by limiting American energy access. 
     We urge you to reject these bills and instead stand up for 
     energy produced in America, by American workers for the 
     benefit of American families.
           Sincerely,
       American Chemistry Council, American Council of Engineering 
     Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Gas 
     Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American 
     Petroleum Institute, American Pipeline Contractors 
     Association, Consumer Energy Alliance, Distribution Pipeline 
     Contractors Association, Energy Equipment and Infrastructure 
     Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America.
       International Association of Drilling Contractors, 
     International Association of Geophysical Contractors, 
     Laborers' International Union of North America, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Ocean Industries 
     Association, National Utility Contractors Association, 
     Offshore Marine Service Association, Portland Cement 
     Association, Power and Communication Contractors Association, 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Oil and Gas Association.
                                  ____

                                                September 9, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf 
     of the 500,000 members of the Laborers' International Union 
     of North America (LIUNA), I want to express our opposition to 
     H.R. 205, which would permanently extend the moratorium on 
     oil and gas leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; H.R. 1146, 
     to once again prohibit oil and gas drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and, H.R. 1941, which would 
     bar offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.
       Once again, jobs of LIUNA members who work in the energy 
     sector are being targeted for elimination by environmental 
     radicals for purely political purposes. There is absolutely 
     no chance for these ``message bills'' to be enacted into law 
     this Congress. So, instead of working to enact real job 
     creating infrastructure legislation, union members see their 
     jobs once again being denigrated and belittled.
       Energy independence is central to the future of the 
     American economy and our standard of living. Unfortunately, 
     the enemies of job creation continue to try to wall off and 
     strand our domestic energy resources from development; 
     killing jobs, prolonging our energy dependence on unfriendly 
     foreign regimes, and saddling middle-class and lower-income 
     families with rising energy costs.
       LIUNA members, in Alaska and elsewhere, know first-hand 
     that when done responsibly, with union-trained workers, 
     energy development can coexist with environmental 
     stewardship. LIUNA and the other building trades unions 
     invest significant resources into the training of our members 
     that help develop the knowledge and skills they need to work 
     safely and productively while constructing energy and other 
     infrastructure to the highest standards.
       For the hard-working members of LIUNA and other building 
     trades unions, these jobs put food on their families' tables 
     and roofs over their heads. These jobs enable them to put 
     their children through college, to save for retirement, and 
     to spend money in business establishments that employ others.
       I urge you to vote against these ill-conceived bills.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Terry O'Sullivan,
                                                General President.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, may I ask a question of the ranking member 
about how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the gentleman asks nicely.
  Yes. I am waiting for one more speaker coming over who may or may not 
be here.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. He just arrived, Mr. Chair, so I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is head of the Congressional Western 
Caucus and a valuable member of our committee.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend and Ranking Member Bishop for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided legislation. 
This legislation will put the United States at a distinct disadvantage 
with the rest of the world by taking some of our country's most 
valuable energy deposits off-limits to exploration. By the way, these 
are the people of the United States' resources.
  Under the current administration, America is experiencing an energy 
renaissance. By taking an all-of-the-above approach to energy policy, 
this administration has kick-started unprecedented growth in our energy 
production. For the first time since the 1950s, the United States will 
become a net exporter of oil and natural gas, providing great benefits 
for our economy and our national security. However, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle want to make these successes short-term 
phenomena.
  By permanently putting both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer 
Continental Shelves off-limits to oil and gas exploration, this bill 
ties one hand behind our Nation's back. Instead of making potential 
bountiful energy deposits off-limits to development, this Congress 
should be interested in making sure that these deposits are responsibly 
developed. Technological advancements in offshore energy development 
have made it safer than ever before.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
clarify a couple of things that have been said in this wonderful 
discussion, and I

[[Page H7614]]

thank all the speakers for coming before us.
  The sky is not falling. Let me repeat that: The sky is not falling. 
It has been pointed out and reported that if we do not have drilling in 
the Atlantic and Pacific, it will badly hurt the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund because it is funded from offshore revenues. The idea 
that the passage of H.R. 1941 will hurt the LWCF is completely false. 
This bill will not affect the LWCF at all.
  Let's talk about it. All the money for the LWCF from this fund comes 
from the existing oil and gas activities in the central and western 
Gulf of Mexico. Of the resources that come into the Federal Government 
from these areas, the central and western Gulf of Mexico, the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund gets the first $900 million. That is what comes 
in, and then it is distributed.
  Last year, what came in for the conservation fund should have been 
over $4.7 billion. In fact, in the last 19 years, we have brought in, 
at a minimum, $2.8 billion, far in excess of the $900 million that goes 
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  There are projections that the existing activity in the Gulf of 
Mexico is enough to keep the LWCF funded for many, many decades to 
come. We don't need to drill in the Atlantic or the Pacific to fund the 
LWCF. Revenues are not the problem.
  What is the problem then? The real problem is that only twice in the 
history of the LWCF has Congress appropriated the full $900 million. As 
I have pointed out, much more money has come into the Treasury. Only 
twice have we ever fully appropriated the money.

                              {time}  1330

  In fact, we have collected almost $40 billion in revenues that should 
have been spent on the LWCF, but we have appropriated less than half of 
that, which is $18.4 billion.
  So I am glad that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
very concerned about the LWCF, but I would like to point out that we 
should make sure we work together, that we get the full $900 million 
that we should be getting every year and that we are not getting every 
year.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am 
ready to close.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal) has for the LWCF.
  The issue though at hand is not necessarily what we have been 
appropriating for LWCF. The issue at hand is that you want to triple 
that amount.
  If you are actually going to cut the potential revenue that is going 
to come from these areas, don't ask to triple it at the same time. And 
I would still ask you--and remind you--I have got a park backlog bill 
that I want to have funded here. Don't take those funds away from the 
park maintenance backlog. That is far more significant than what we are 
talking about.
  But the real issue we are having here is a difference in the approach 
to the country's energy solutions, our future. You have three 
disjointed bills, none of them based on science--a lot of them based on 
mythology that we have heard here today, none of them scientifically 
based--but they are here in an isolated way, which the whole goal is to 
cut stuff. Let's just not produce.
  Now, at least when Jimmy Carter put on that sweater and started the 
fire and he talked to the American people, he was at least honest 
enough with them to say, You are going to have to lower your 
expectations. You won't be able to live the lifestyle you want to have 
in the future.
  At no time has anyone who is purporting this type of an approach that 
has been pushed by the Democrats talked about lowering or being willing 
to lower their thermostats in the winter or cut down on their air-
conditioning in the summer, or stop driving their boats as often as 
they want to, or no longer going on planes, trains, and automobiles.
  Now, they just expect--miraculously--energy to be produced by other 
areas that they can then enjoy it in some particular way. That is not a 
logical approach. It can be done, but it is not a logical approach. It 
doesn't just miraculously happen.
  The difference is, what the Republicans have placed on the table 
today is an overall approach to energy, a comprehensive approach to 
energy. Not just a comprehensive approach of how we build on our fossil 
fuels, but also how we build alternative energy and how we involve the 
States in that concept, because every State has a different 
requirement, a different initiative, and a different need. And we are 
trying to do that, not some one-size-fits-all blanket approach as we 
are going to have in this bill and the third bill that we will actually 
have tomorrow.
  The approach the Democrats are doing is saying we won't develop 
American sources because we might spill. Instead, we will try to rely 
on, maybe, them coming from somewhere else. Some of our colleagues have 
already talked about how the Russians are already importing into 
Boston. How California is already getting 57 percent of its energy 
coming from Saudi Arabia, and they come in tankers.
  And, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that we fail to realize, if you 
really want to have a higher mathematical possibility of oil spills, it 
is significantly higher when it comes from tankers than it is if we do 
our own drilling.
  So not only are we not talking about being self-sufficient, not only 
are we not talking about now trying to be a source of support for our 
allies, not only are we not trying to be somewhere where we can be a 
major player in this world, we are going to cut back automatically and 
actually make a greater risk in the process of doing it.
  This is a silly approach, and it contrasts specifically with what we 
are attempting to do. We can have jobs and we can have a future. And we 
can have a country that will no longer be bullied by other countries, 
seeing that we are energy-weak, if we approach it the way the 
Republicans want to approach it.
  But if we still do this disjointed, dispirited, nonscientific 
approach based on more myth than reality, then, actually, we are going 
in the opposite direction.
  The Democrats in their energy-weakness, would march us back 50 years 
to a time when America was much more fragile and in which second-rate 
powers thought they could bully us into submission simply by taking 
advantage of our lack of a strong, coherent energy policy. And that is 
what Republicans do not want to see happen again.
  And that is why I would urge you all to look at the bill that was 
introduced today--the Republican approach to it. That is the way of the 
future.
  It is bright. It is big. It is positive. It moves us forward. Not 
what we are doing today with a bunch of bills that piece-by-piece take 
us back from where we came, and we should never return again.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just, in closing, would like to make a few statements that kind of 
reiterate what has already been said, I think so well, and how we must 
protect our coast.
  Right now, the United States produces, in totality, 12.3 million 
barrels of oil a day--crude oil, each and every day. It is an all-time 
U.S. record. We have done that in 2018, and we lead the world now in 
terms of export production.

  Of that 12.3 million, we export over 3 million barrels of crude oil a 
day. It is more than is exported from all the other nations of the 
world, except for two OPEC nations.
  We are the number one producer of natural gas. We are a net exporter 
of natural gas, but we also say we do--by not opening up the Atlantic 
and the Pacific, we are not putting this tremendous resource of oil 
development at risk. Right now, in the Gulf, open for development in 
the future, we normally put up almost 80 million acres in the Gulf for 
leasing each year.
  Right now over 72 percent of the potential Gulf that is open for oil 
and gas development, 72 percent has not yet been developed. There is an 
estimated 43 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf yet

[[Page H7615]]

to be discovered and produced. There is enough oil there for the next 
66 years of production at the same level that we have today. We must 
protect our coast. We must protect the future.
  Mr. Chair, I urge swift adoption of H.R. 1941, and I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition 
to H.R. 1941, which will block oil and natural gas lease sales in the 
Atlantic and Pacific.
  To start, this bill reduces the United States' ability to develop our 
domestic energy resources. Furthermore, it emboldens Russia to continue 
to use its oil and gas as a weapon against Europe.
  At a time when Putin is using all available tools to sow discord and 
chaos around the world especially in Europe and the Middle East, we 
need to work together to stop him from further harming our national 
security interests and those of our allies. This bill is a step in the 
wrong direction and will further empower Putin
  In addition to this bill's geo-political ramifications, it also 
ignores the fact that American energy extraction technology and 
techniques are the best in the world. Inhibiting U.S. energy production 
will create a void for Russia and others to fill with their more 
ecologically damaging methods, while also sacrificing American jobs.
  Based on the negative effects H.R. 1941 will have on global security, 
the environment, and our economy, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
bill.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 116-31, modified by 
the amendment printed in part E of House Report 116-200, shall be 
considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
an original bill for purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute 
rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1941

       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 ``Coastal and Marine Economies 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LEASING IN CERTAIN PLANNING AREAS.

       Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is 
     amended by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as 
     subsections (h) and (i) respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) The Secretary shall not include in any leasing 
     program under this section any area within the Atlantic 
     Region planning areas or the Pacific Region planning areas, 
     as such planning areas are described in the document entitled 
     `Draft Proposed Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 
     Leasing Program 2019-2024', dated January 2018.''.

     SEC. 3. INSPECTION FEE COLLECTION.

       Section 22 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1348) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Inspection Fees.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     collect from the operators of facilities subject to 
     inspection under subsection (c) non-refundable fees for such 
     inspections--
       ``(A) at an aggregate level equal to the amount necessary 
     to offset the annual expenses of inspections of outer 
     Continental Shelf facilities (including mobile offshore 
     drilling units) by the Secretary of the Interior; and
       ``(B) using a schedule that reflects the differences in 
     complexity among the classes of facilities to be inspected.
       ``(2) Ocean energy safety fund.--There is established in 
     the Treasury a fund, to be known as the `Ocean Energy Safety 
     Fund' (referred to in this subsection as the `Fund'), into 
     which shall be deposited all amounts collected as fees under 
     paragraph (1) and which shall be available as provided under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Availability of fees.--Notwithstanding section 3302 
     of title 31, United States Code, all amounts deposited in the 
     Fund--
       ``(A) shall be credited as offsetting collections;
       ``(B) shall be available for expenditure for purposes of 
     carrying out inspections of outer Continental Shelf 
     facilities (including mobile offshore drilling units) and the 
     administration of the inspection program under this section;
       ``(C) shall be available only to the extent provided for in 
     advance in an appropriations Act; and
       ``(D) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(4) Adjustment for inflation.--For each fiscal year 
     beginning after fiscal year 2020, the Secretary shall adjust 
     each dollar amount specified in this subsection for inflation 
     based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from fiscal 
     year 2020.
       ``(5) Annual fees.--Annual fees shall be collected under 
     this subsection for facilities that are above the waterline, 
     excluding drilling rigs, and are in place at the start of the 
     fiscal year. Fees for fiscal year 2020 shall be--
       ``(A) $11,500 for facilities with no wells, but with 
     processing equipment or gathering lines;
       ``(B) $18,500 for facilities with 1 to 10 wells, with any 
     combination of active or inactive wells; and
       ``(C) $34,500 for facilities with more than 10 wells, with 
     any combination of active or inactive wells.
       ``(6) Fees for drilling rigs.--Fees shall be collected 
     under this subsection for drilling rigs on a per inspection 
     basis. Fees for fiscal year 2020 shall be--
       ``(A) $33,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of 500 feet or more; and
       ``(B) $18,500 per inspection for rigs operating in water 
     depths of less than 500 feet.
       ``(7) Fees for non-rig units.--Fees shall be collected 
     under this subsection for well operations conducted via non-
     rig units as outlined in subparts D, E, F, and Q of part 250 
     of title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, on a per inspection 
     basis. Fees for fiscal year 2020 shall be--
       ``(A) $13,260 per inspection for non-rig units operating in 
     water depths of 2,500 feet or more;
       ``(B) $11,530 per inspection for non-rig units operating in 
     water depths between 500 and 2,499 feet; and
       ``(C) $4,470 per inspection for non-rig units operating in 
     water depths of less than 500 feet.
       ``(8) Billing.--The Secretary shall bill designated 
     operators under paragraph (5) annually, with payment required 
     within 30 days of billing. The Secretary shall bill 
     designated operators under paragraph (6) within 30 days of 
     the end of the month in which the inspection occurred, with 
     payment required within 30 days after billing.''.

     SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order 
except those printed in part F of House Report 116-200. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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. McClintock

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 12-13, strike ``or the Pacific Region planning 
     areas,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the Pacific 
Coast for the total moratorium on oil exploration imposed under this 
legislation.
  It will make my California Democratic colleagues' heads explode, but 
there are also many other reasons to support this amendment.
  California is already pursuing these Green New Deal policies 
pioneered by Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Californians 
are now paying among the highest electricity and gasoline prices in the 
country as a result.
  In the last decade, while U.S. oil production has grown 130 percent, 
it has declined in California by 20 percent. In 2000, California 
produced 50 percent of the petroleum it consumed every year--50 
percent. That figure is now down to 30 percent.
  In 2000, California imported 25 percent of its oil from foreign 
countries. Today, it imports 60 percent. In just the last year, 
California's oil purchases from Saudi Arabia ballooned from 98 million 
barrels to 135 million barrels. These foolish policies are contributing 
to one of the highest unemployment rates, the largest homeless 
population, and the highest effective poverty rate in our Nation.
  Yet, leasing the 240 million acres that are currently off limits 
could support an additional 165,000 jobs and inject $15 billion into 
our economy every year.
  President Trump reversed the Obama-era war on energy, and last year 
America became the largest petroleum producer on the planet, outpacing 
both Saudi Arabia and Russia for the first time.

[[Page H7616]]

  These policies are also contributing to the lowest unemployment rates 
for Americans of African and Hispanic heritage in our Nation's history, 
rising wages after an entire lost decade of economic stagnation, and an 
overall rate of economic growth almost twice what we are seeing in 
Europe or that we saw under the Obama Administration.
  And let us consider the environment. California's coastal waters 
suffer from natural oil seepage of 86,000 barrels a year into the 
Pacific Ocean, the equivalent of one Santa Barbara oil spill every 
year. Development of our offshore resources reduces the pressure that 
produces seepage.
  Having grown up in coastal Ventura County 50 years ago, I can tell 
you firsthand of the conspicuous decline in natural seepage that has 
occurred in the years since the Channel Islands field opened. And lest 
we forget, it is the abundance of natural gas that has reduced our 
country's carbon dioxide emissions far below what expensive and 
oppressive government regulation has accomplished in Europe.
  California leads the Nation?
  Let me repeat: While our Nation's oil production is up 130 percent, 
California's is down 20 percent. While our Nation has achieved energy 
independence, California's reliance on foreign oil has more than 
doubled. That is trailing the Nation, not leading it.
  My State, that has among the most bountiful oil and natural gas 
resources in the Nation, has the least political will to develop them. 
I offer this amendment to highlight this point and to warn the rest of 
the Nation where it leads. And also--let's be honest--to watch my 
California Democratic colleagues set their hair on fire.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time so we can now watch. And 
I am ready to close when they are.
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, there is absolutely no sense in 
making a special exception to open the waters along the Pacific Coast 
for drilling.
  Supporters of this amendment clearly represent districts many miles 
from the nearest coastline. Maybe they never saw the environmental 
devastation on southern California beaches after the Santa Barbara 
Plains oil spill in 2015; maybe they haven't visited with small 
businesses in coastal communities like mine that depend on tourism and 
recreation to survive; maybe they don't know that offshore drilling 
threatens nearly 746,000 jobs and nearly $53 billion in GDP along the 
West Coast.
  However, I have seen that devastation. I visited those small 
businesses. And I am well-aware of how many jobs could and would be 
lost if we suffer from another spill along the Pacific Coast. I also 
know that more than 90 West Coast municipalities and all three Pacific 
Coast State governors formally oppose offshore drilling.
  The people I represent in San Diego and Orange County certainly do as 
well. They know that the risks far outweigh any benefit that fossil 
fuel companies will reap from drilling off our coast, and I am here to 
raise their voices.
  Mr. Chair, many of my Republican colleagues in the Committee on 
Natural Resources try to justify their push to destroy our coastal 
communities with offshore drilling by claiming that the alternative to 
expanded drilling is imported foreign oil.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle were serious about 
addressing oil imports, they would not sit idly by as the Trump 
administration works to completely undermine our country's fuel 
efficiency standards.
  If they were serious, they would support the State of California as 
it works to strengthen fuel economy, so that this country is not 
dependent on oil, period. And so that Americans can save money at the 
pump.
  California is working to reduce oil imports with its vehicle 
emissions standards and low carbon fuel standard, but the Trump 
administration is fighting tooth and nail to stop it by revoking the 
State's Clean Air Act waiver and challenging its groundbreaking 
agreement with automakers to set strong standards.
  Those who support the Trump administration's efforts are hitting my 
constituents--not once, but twice. First, they are making cars less 
efficient, which drives climate change and hurts air quality in 
southern California. And now, supporters of this amendment are seeking 
to increase the chances of an environmental catastrophe that could do 
irreparable damage to my constituents' communities and our local 
economy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
recognize the impact that this amendment will have on Pacific Coast 
economies by strongly opposing it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I readily concede that this amendment is 
anathema to the ruling elite in Sacramento. They have had their way 
with California. The policies they advocate on the House floor today 
are the same policies they have inflicted on my once Golden State 
during my lifetime.
  Those policies have produced the highest effective poverty rate in 
the Nation, among the highest energy prices in the country, and a 
historic exodus of Californians fleeing to other States.
  The road to Venezuela leads through California, and I urge the rest 
of the Nation to ask themselves: Is that really a road they want to 
take?
  We went down that road in the 1970s. The bill's author is, perhaps, 
too young to remember those dark days when our Nation was held hostage 
to foreign oil, when cars lined up for blocks to get gas and every 
meeting of the OPEC nations was a national crisis.
  I check the daily AAA survey of gasoline prices. Today, in 
California, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.63. 
In South Carolina, it is $2.23. That is a $1.40-a-gallon difference, 
and I ask the bill's author from South Carolina to consider if his 
constituents are ready to enact California policies and then pay for 
them through the nozzle.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, beginning on line 2, strike ``coastal and marine 
     economies protection'' and insert ``russian energy reliance 
     and united states poverty''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that changes 
the title of this legislation to something more fitting, that being the 
``Russian Energy Reliance and United States Poverty Act.''
  The consequences of this legislation becoming law would have 
devastating, long-term impacts on the economic and national security of 
the United States. Putting both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer 
Continental Shelves permanently off-limits to oil and gas development 
puts the United States at a distinct disadvantage to the rest of the 
world.
  We have already seen how policies from liberal States that are along 
the same lines of this legislation have caused certain parts of the 
country to become dependent upon Russian energy. New England, for 
example, was forced to import Russian natural gas in the wintertime 
because of the ludicrous decision by the State of New York not to allow 
pipelines to be built through the State.
  The legislation before us today would have similar consequences. As 
existing oil and gas deposits begin to run dry, new deposits will need 
to be extracted, many of which are located on the Pacific and Atlantic 
Outer Continental Shelves.
  Putting these deposits off-limits would cause us to go back to the 
old days of the old normal that had become

[[Page H7617]]

commonplace under the previous administration. The old normal of 
relying on foreign adversaries such as Russia to meet our energy needs 
is preposterous.
  The Members across the aisle may try to hide their intentions, but 
they are becoming clearer every day. They want to dismantle our 
domestic oil and gas industry, an industry that employs close to 10 
million people and plays a critical role in our Nation's energy 
security.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment so that the 
American people are aware of the true ramifications of this misguided 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, this is a pointless amendment, and I am, frankly, a little 
bit embarrassed that we are even discussing it. Not only does it not 
improve the bill, but it is also based on a false premise.
  Let's be clear: We are not reliant on Russian energy, and the United 
States is not stricken by energy poverty. In fact, it is the complete 
opposite of the present reality.
  The Atlantic and Pacific have remained off-limits to new oil and gas 
development for decades, but the United States now produces 12.3 
million barrels of crude oil each day, which is an all-time U.S. 
record, and it produces the most in the world. It exports over 3 
million barrels of crude oil a day, more than all but two members of 
OPEC exported in 2018.
  We are the number three exporter of oil. We are also the number one 
producer of natural gas in the world, and we are a net exporter of 
natural gas.
  Look, if we really want to lead in energy, we should be taking a 
bigger role in the production of renewable energy. Costs for renewable 
energy have plummeted, and our global competitors are jockeying to lead 
the world in clean energy development.
  Unfortunately, Republicans seem to have dusted off the same tired 
talking points that they were using 10 years ago--and even longer, 20 
years ago--before U.S. energy production skyrocketed.
  Even worse, the Trump administration acts like it believes those 
talking points and continues to believe that the future lies in coal, 
oil, and gas.
  Mr. Chair, this is a silly amendment, and it achieves nothing. For 
this reason, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I find it interesting that we are even debating 
this because, if it was such a poor decision, maybe the Rules Committee 
should not have made it in order. So, there is compliance from the 
other side.
  When we start looking at this aspect, we have to be truthful to the 
American people. The American people see the jargon that we actually 
come up with in this body, and they want to have a straight shot--
common sense. This is exactly what it should be titled because we are 
taking inventory off that belonged to the American people.
  Yes, I am one of those who believes in all-of-the-above energy 
policies. What we have to tell them and explain to them is that there 
is a difference between baseload power and intermittent power.
  Renewables do not have baseline power. To have a reliable electric 
grid that everybody depends upon, we have to have both. Green energy 
does not produce that application of baseload power, unless we are 
talking about hydro, and that we don't even consider a green energy 
anymore, from the other side.
  I think we need to be clear to the American people where these jobs 
are. They are good-paying jobs, $90,000 and above with benefits.
  When we take away these types of reserves, it really is victimizing 
the American people. That is not something I want to do. I want to make 
sure that they are empowered.
  These resources belong to the American people, and there is no reason 
why we shouldn't be able to use them and extract them diligently and 
cleanly.
  Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to vote for this, to be clear to the 
American public what this stands for, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I oppose the Gosar amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. RISK TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

       The Secretary of the Interior, after consulting with the 
     Secretary of Defense, shall report to Congress on whether 
     this Act poses a risk to national security due to potential 
     increase in dependence on foreign oil.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would require the Department of 
the Interior, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to report 
on whether the policies of this bill would put our national security at 
risk.
  There are many reasons to support domestic energy production, many 
reasons to oppose the bans this bill proposes, but I believe chief 
among them is that harnessing the natural resources our country has 
been blessed with makes our Nation and our allies safer.
  American energy production makes us less reliant on foreign actors. 
More American oil means we will less likely have to use Saudi Arabian 
oil. More American natural gas means our allies are less likely to rely 
on Russian natural gas.
  Our homes, factories, and vehicles need energy. Our allies need 
energy. As our world grows, so will our demand.
  Oil and natural gas are estimated to comprise 60 percent of global 
demand in 2050. The question is, where will the United States get it? 
Will we take it from our own shores, or will we rely on OPEC, whose 
Arab petroleum-exporting countries previously stopped oil shipments to 
the United States and caused gas prices to soar and threatened our 
national security.
  I support an all-of-the-above approach, which includes solar, wind, 
hydropower, nuclear, and coal. I also support domestic oil and natural 
gas. I believe an all-of-the-above energy approach benefits American 
pocketbooks and quality of life and, especially, our security.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment because I believe our 
government should fully understand the security risks these bans in 
these bills entail, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Lawson of Florida). Without objection, the 
gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, we do not have any concerns with the 
amendment and do not believe it undermines the underlying legislation.
  Furthermore, it is our firm belief that, if the Department of the 
Interior were to consult with the Defense Department, they would find 
H.R. 1941 poses no national security risk to the United States.
  The underlying bill does not affect a single producing offshore 
lease, and oil and gas companies now have tremendous opportunities for 
new offshore development in the United States.
  Let's be clear: The United States offers nearly 80 million acres in 
the Gulf of Mexico for new leasing every year, and companies now hold 
only 13 million acres of the Gulf under lease, which means that 72 
percent of the acres that have been offered are not yet developed.

[[Page H7618]]

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Lowenthal, my colleague 
from California, and thank my other Democratic colleagues. I think this 
is a commonsense amendment, and it sounds like the gentleman approves 
of it.
  Mr. Chair, I think it is common sense, and I am hopeful that it will 
be voted on with ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 5. STUDYING THE IMPACTS OF OFFSHORE DRILLING ON COASTAL 
                   COMMUNITIES AND COASTAL ECONOMIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report on the impacts of offshore 
     drilling on coastal communities and coastal economies.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) address how oil and gas companies interact with local 
     stakeholders in advance of a siting decision, including their 
     meetings with fishermen;
       (2) investigate the impacts of offshore drilling on 
     tourism, including tradeoffs during normal operations and 
     economic impacts after a spill;
       (3) describe how the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
     works with other agencies, including the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, to include stakeholder input in advance of 
     a siting decision;
       (4) address how quickly response teams can mitigate 
     environmental damage after a spill and how long regional 
     ecosystems take to recover following a spill;
       (5) describe any limitations on the quantity of comparative 
     data available on impacts to regions of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf that have not been sited for drilling;
       (6) describe the impacts on commercial and recreational 
     fisheries from offshore drilling; and
       (7) address the economic impacts of oil spills on the food 
     supply of a region, including those food sources that are 
     distinctive to a region's culture.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Coast has never been a site 
of significant offshore drilling, and for good reason. In my home State 
of Rhode Island and all along the coast, we know the importance of 
these waters to tourism and to the fisheries that they sustain. Indeed, 
waterways are part of our way of life. It is part of our identity and 
who we are.
  This amendment will instruct GAO to perform a study on the costs and 
the impacts of drilling on the coastal communities and their economies. 
This study will address how oil and gas companies interact with local 
stakeholders, including fishermen. It will explore how the Interior 
Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management works with other Federal 
agencies during siting. It will examine how response teams have reacted 
to offshore oil spills and the cost of those spills to tourism and the 
food supply of the affected region.
  And finally, it will analyze the caliber of the data that we have on 
hand today regarding these undrilled areas of the Outer Continental 
Shelf, and whether such data can be reliably used to gauge the impact 
of proposed drilling.
  These are all questions that have arisen during my conversations with 
fishermen, tourism leaders, and other Rhode Islanders deeply concerned 
about the risks of drilling off our coast.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that offshore drilling puts the safety of our 
waterways at risk, which we have seen from numerous spills over the 
years, including the devastating Deepwater Horizon blowout.
  We owe it to those who live in our coastal communities to be honest 
about the damage that such drilling can cause to them.
  Mr. Chairman, it will take decades to recover from an incident like 
the one we experienced with the Deepwater Horizon spill. While the news 
cycle eventually moves on, the coastal communities and the people that 
are affected have to deal with the consequences and often continue to 
suffer.
  That is why I am putting forward this amendment today, so that we can 
properly understand the full costs of drilling off our coast.
  I would like to thank Congressman Cunningham from South Carolina for 
sponsoring the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it 
and my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This amendment is perhaps well-intentioned. I am 
going to make that assumption. But the problem with this amendment is 
it is not a comprehensive amendment.
  The goal of this amendment is to specifically illustrate what kinds 
of issues will be studied by this GAO report, and they are all the 
negative aspects that could come from this report.
  There is no aspect here, I mean, it neglects totally to try and set 
any kind of benefits that would happen from development of oil or gas 
consumer. Now, that would be a true study. That would be a fair study. 
That would be a good study. That would be a valuable study.
  What this has done, in a statement of what will be considered, 
basically skewed what the GAO will do, so you have come up with a 
predetermined outset. We can predict exactly what will come out from 
this study because it is not comprehensive and it hasn't tried to be 
inclusive.
  What you should have done is simply direct the GAO to evaluate how 
taking resources off the table like this will affect our dependence on 
imports from foreign actors like Russia, whose environmental standards, 
whose efficiency standards, and whose human rights standards certainly 
are unacceptable to us in the United States. Doing so--if you had done 
that, that would have been a comprehensive, that would have been an 
accurate representation, and that would have been a good and decent 
study.
  So I oppose this particular amendment because I think it missed the 
mark.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments 
and his insights. I see that this amendment gets exactly the right 
information that we need. I am certainly not opposed to the gentleman's 
suggestion, and if at a later date he is going to offer such additional 
information to be gathered by GAO, I would certainly like to look at it 
and perhaps even support it.
  But this is the amendment that we have before us. I believe it is 
well thought out. Again, it is a GAO study to perform--to look at the 
costs and the impacts of drilling on coastal communities, which my 
community would be directly affected, and how they would be affected 
and their economies. And I think having more information is better. I 
think this hits the right mark, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in the original speech the 
gentleman from Rhode Island said he yielded back the balance of his 
time. Had he not yielded in the first speech?
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I reserved the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am sorry. Had that actually been said after the 
first speech, I would have reserved. But I have yielded back. I am done 
with this. Unless you really want to go on, I would urge the gentleman 
to yield back and we will go on with the vote.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have said everything I need to say, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

[[Page H7619]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rouda

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. ROUDA. 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 1, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF INSPECTION RESULTS.

       Section 22(c) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1348(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Publication.--The Secretary shall make the following 
     available to the public:
       ``(1) Any reports produced under this subsection.
       ``(2) The following information about each payment made 
     into the Ocean Energy Safety Fund under subsection (g):
       ``(A) The facility that was inspected.
       ``(B) The name of the operator of such facility.
       ``(C) The amount of the payment.''.
       On page 1, line 4, strike ``2'' and insert ``3''.
       On page 2, line 1, strike ``3'' and insert ``4''.
       On page 5, line 16, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rouda) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chairman, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection 
Act requires existing offshore oil and gas operations to undergo 
inspections and make payments into the Ocean Energy Safety Fund. My 
amendment would make this information available to the public.
  The Trump administration's 2018 proposed opening of more than 90 
percent of U.S. Federal waters to offshore oil could endanger at least 
42,000 miles of our Atlantic and Pacific coasts to the extreme risks 
posed by offshore drilling and spilling.
  I came to Congress to advocate on behalf of the people living in my 
coastal district. The American people have a vested interest in the 
health of their environment and the wealth of their local communities. 
It is essential that the public is aware of the companies who are 
extracting oil from our shores so that we can hold them accountable in 
the event of a disaster or an accident.
  Offshore drilling impacts more than just coastal communities; it 
impacts future generations of Americans. Transparency is a key 
democratic principle. Citizens deserve to know which companies are 
drilling off our shores, the location of their facilities, and the 
safety and state of their operations.
  In Orange County, this critical legislation helps make sure 
generations can come and continue to sail Newport Harbor, become junior 
lifeguards, surf the Wedge, catch halibut, and enjoy our pristine 
breaches.
  This legislation is essential to maintaining our quality of life, and 
I thank my colleague from South Carolina for his leadership.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my 
amendment and passage of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I guess kind of in opposition. It 
really is not in opposition to the amendment in and of itself, except 
it illustrates some of the problems the Democrats have in creating this 
approach to an energy policy coming through here, because the 
inspection fees that we have mandated by the amendment, if you tack it 
on to the bill itself, really are based on politics and not the cost of 
the administration of this particular inspection. In fact, it actually 
no longer becomes a cost of a service; it actually becomes a tax levied 
on the committee.
  What it illustrates is a deeper problem on how the Democrats decided 
to put these three bills up here on their energy week, and it also 
maybe indicates why they don't really expect it to go any further, 
because the offsets are so bizarre.
  In each of the bills, the Democrats have decided to use--the rules 
require an offset. In each of the bills, there is a different offset 
that is required. For the one that we will talk about tomorrow, it is 
going to be $900 million. I think this one is $400 million. The next 
one is $200 million. And in each bill, the Democrats have decided to 
use the same offset to pay for each bill.
  Now, ironically, if you did the one tomorrow and then you paid for 
the bill with that offset, then you would have taken that off the 
table. But that is not good enough here. Now we are using that same 
offset money to pay for this particular bill.
  I am sorry. This is simply an accounting smoke and mirrors trick that 
is being used by the Democrats to actually get these three bills onto 
the floor. For that, I don't really mind it, per se, because it doesn't 
affect the impact of it, but it is a sneaky way of trying to cover the 
bases and check the boxes and using money in double and triple amounts.
  If this offset is actually the way we are doing offsets in the 
future, then my parks bill doesn't have a problem going forward because 
we can use this money for that at the same time.
  Although, it is ironic that the money that they are going to use to 
offset these bills will be reduced because you are stopping the energy 
production in all of these areas. Everything comes together in some 
particular way.
  This is cute. This is not necessarily effective, but it is cute, and 
it is not the way the rules for offsets were intended to try and bring 
clarity to the situation within the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments, and I 
do appreciate, I think, and I hear from him that the other side does 
support transparency and accountability, which is welcomed in today's 
atmosphere of politics to have greater transparency and accountability.
  I am prepared to close, but I will reserve the balance of my time 
until my colleague is prepared to close as well.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I will make it easier for him.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUDA. I yield back the balance of my time as well, Mr. Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. 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:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. MORATORIUM ON SEISMIC ACTIVITIES RELATED TO OIL, GAS, 
                   AND METHANE HYDRATE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC, MID-ATLANTIC, SOUTH 
                   ATLANTIC, AND STRAITS OF FLORIDA PLANNING 
                   AREAS.

       Section 11 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1340) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Moratorium on Seismic Activities Related to Oil, Gas, 
     and Methane Hydrate Exploration and Development in the North 
     Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of 
     Florida Planning Areas.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, no agency of the United States or person may conduct 
     or authorize any other person to conduct geological or 
     geophysical activities in support of oil, gas, or methane 
     hydrate exploration and development in any area located in 
     the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits 
     of Florida Planning Areas of the outer Continental Shelf.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment 
establishes a moratorium on seismic testing in the Atlantic Ocean.
  I would like to begin by thanking my friends, Chairman Lowenthal, 
Chairman Grijalva, and Congressman Cunningham, for leading this bill 
and for working with me on this provision. I also thank my cosponsors, 
Congressmen Smith, Beyer, and Van Drew, for

[[Page H7620]]

their partnership and for their longstanding commitments to leading on 
this issue.
  During seismic testing, ships pull giant airguns through the ocean 
that release loud, pressurized blasts of air into the seafloor in 
search of oil and gas. The best evidence from scientists tells us that 
noise from these airguns can disturb, injure, or kill marine animals 
from zooplankton, the base of the food web, all the way up to large 
whales. In addition, airgun noise can reduce catch rates for fish and 
disrupt essential behaviors in marine mammals, including dolphins and 
whales.
  I believe we need to be building a clean energy future, but seismic 
airgun blasts lay the groundwork for more dangerous fossil fuel 
extraction that is bad for our economy and for the environment.
  I am proud to support H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies 
Protection Act, because I share the concerns of so many of my own 
constituents who have reached out to me urging Congress to reject 
proposals that open our waters and coastlines to expanded offshore 
drilling.
  In the 7 years following the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the 
U.S. oil and gas industry experienced more than 4,000 explosions, 
collisions, and related incidents, including 34 oil spills of more than 
2,000 gallons each.
  This bill will help us end these disasters once and for all, and I 
thank my friend Congressman Cunningham for his leadership here. My 
bipartisan amendment takes an extra step to make this legislation 
stronger yet.
  Even if we ban offshore drilling, the Department of the Interior's 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, could still issue permits for 
seismic testing in the Atlantic. We know, for example, that BOEM is 
currently reviewing applications from seismic testing companies looking 
for oil and gas beneath the Atlantic Ocean floor.
  A legal prohibition on seismic testing, which my amendment includes, 
is the surest way to prevent such testing in the Atlantic, protecting 
our environment, marine life, and the health, safety, and livelihoods 
of millions of people involved in tourism, recreation, fishing, and 
associated sectors. My bipartisan amendment is about saving the whales 
for sure, but it is also about saving people, saving our economy, and 
saving our planet.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment 
simply because the seismic activity that we are talking about has not 
been updated since the 1980s. So the biggest problem we have in here 
is, if you are going to do it with the Atlantic, you are doing this in 
the darkness of not actually understanding or knowing what the 
scientific results will be, and this will eliminate that permanently.
  So the technology for seismic studies has improved significantly over 
the years and is getting better at all times, but now we have a 
situation where the underlying bill stopped production on these lands, 
and this amendment would stop any scientific study to know what we 
could have done or what we should do at this time.
  But it is a little bit more insidious than that because this 
amendment only stops seismic study for oil and gas development; it 
doesn't stop seismic study for anything else.
  So, if, indeed, the argument is that the seismic study hurts the 
animals, that Flipper is offended by these seismic studies, all this 
amendment does is say Flipper can be offended and harmed if you are 
going to put in a windmill, but Flipper can't be offended and harmed if 
you are going to put in an oil rig. And no one really knows, because we 
won't do the study, whether Flipper is going to be offended. For all we 
know, Flipper is out there laughing at us right now for going through 
this silly exercise.
  But this amendment is not comprehensive, it doesn't meet the need, 
and it stops us once again from doing any science to know about it. So 
once again, this bill, these approaches, this is politics. This is not 
science. This is pure politics. For that reason, I oppose the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his 
comments. I would only point out that the seismic testing involved in 
preparing for possible offshore wind is orders of magnitude less 
disruptive. It is not at all comparable to the seismic testing done for 
oil and gas exploration, and it doesn't have an anywhere similar level 
of harm, and that is why it is a different matter.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding.
  Part of this body's responsibility is the public charge of looking at 
the resources of the American people. These resources do not belong to 
a single State, whether it be South Carolina, California, New Jersey, 
Wyoming or anything else. These are the public charge of the American 
people to this body of Congress, and part of the public charge is to 
understand what type of resources and the value those resources have to 
that public charge in regard to the people of this country.
  So doing our due diligence, it is a mandatory aspect that we 
undertake this charge to understand what that responsibility is to the 
American people. In some of the next amendments, you will actually see 
some of that public charge in that regard.

  This is an undertaking that is specifically null and void based upon 
what we owe the American people for the due diligence of this body in 
regard to the ownership of which they have of the Outer Continental 
Shelf. The magnitude is of inconsequential application. I ask everybody 
to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my esteemed colleague.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. 
Levin, for his leadership on this amendment.
  I have been invested in this issue throughout my time in Congress, 
and earlier this year my Republican colleague, Chris Smith, and I 
introduced the Atlantic Seismic Airgun Protection Act, a standalone 
bill that would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit 
oil, gas, and methane hydrate-related seismic activities in the North 
Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida. This 
amendment would do just that.
  Our coastal economy relies on healthy ocean ecosystems that generate 
$95 billion in gross domestic product every year and support nearly 1.4 
million jobs every year.
  Seismic blasting poses a major threat to marine life, including the 
critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, which is on the verge 
of extinction. Because they are extremely loud, these dynamite-like 
blasts are likely to have significant, long-lasting, widespread impacts 
on the behavior and survival of fish and marine mammal populations. If 
these are impacted, it is a serious danger to our coastal economies.
  This amendment will protect our marine life and our coastal 
economies, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his 
tremendous leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Once again, as we talk about seismic, realize there is a different 
approach to it. Not this administration, but the prior administration 
said there is no scientific policy that says any seismic study actually 
hurts any of the animals, whether it is for fossil fuels or it is for 
alternative types of energy.
  But the issue at hand is, if you are going to try and deny any 
seismic so you don't have any studies and we are going to go in the 
darkness and not really know what we are talking about, then you do it 
for everything. To try and distinguish between oil and gas and 
alternatives is simply an arbitrary reason that has no purpose in being 
there.
  However, if the underlying bill passes and you are not going to be 
drilling

[[Page H7621]]

there anyway--in which case we basically say as a Congress we don't 
care about understanding what we are doing, we are just thinking it is 
the right thing to do, so we will go ahead and do it--this is bad 
policy. It is bad policy for the underlying bill. It is bad policy for 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Levin-Beyer-Smith-Van Drew amendment to H.R. 1941, the Coastal and 
Marine Economies Protection Act. This amendment, which I'm proud to 
cosponsor, would ensure that H.R. 1941 not only proscribes future oil 
and gas leases of the Outer Continental Shelf in the Atlantic and 
Pacific planning areas but also prohibits any seismic activities in the 
Atlantic Ocean planning areas.
  Seismic activities are performed to first test for the possibility of 
oil and gas but in and of themselves, these activities pose countless 
risks to marine life and, by extension, our fishing industries and the 
health of our coastal ecosystems. Seismic airgun blasting in particular 
can deafen or seriously maim marine wildlife which rely upon sonar 
power for movement and can significantly affect local fish populations, 
which in turn harms New Jersey's fisheries as well as the fishing 
industry--a vital contributor to the economic well-being of my district 
on the Jersey Shore.
  I have continuously stated my strong opposition to offshore drilling 
and have made it clear that the people of New Jersey do not want oil 
rigs offshore, and we do not want our pristine beaches and waters at 
risk from oil spills.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to H.R. 1941 and 
to support the underlying bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 2 of this Act shall not be effective until the 
     Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Labor, finds that the prohibition under section 2 will not 
     adversely affect jobs available to minorities and women.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
allows the section 2 moratorium in this bill to go into effect when the 
Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of 
Labor, certifies that the offshore energy moratorium in the bill will 
not kill a substantial number of minority and women jobs.
  Under the current administration, unemployment has reached record 
lows. In August, the national unemployment rate sat at 3.7 percent, 
with the unemployment rate for African American workers sitting at 5.5 
percent, breaking the previous record of 5.9 percent which was set in 
May of 2018 under the same administration.
  According to a recent jobs report from The Washington Post--hardly a 
bastion of conservative credentialing--nearly 90 percent of the jobs 
added under this administration have gone to minority communities. This 
is astounding. This can be attributed to the first time a majority of 
new hires are people between the ages of 25 and 54, and they are from 
the minority communities.
  According to statistics published by the American Petroleum 
Institute, minorities will comprise one-third of the total workforce in 
the oil and gas sector by 2030. Women already comprise more than 15 
percent of the oil and gas workforce. These are good-paying jobs, 
paying $90,000, that hardworking families depend upon.
  This legislation puts these employment opportunities at risk by 
putting off limits potentially viable and valuable offshore energy 
opportunities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico that are the property of 
the American people.
  For the first time since the 1950s, the United States will soon be a 
net exporter of oil and natural gas, something that at one time was 
unthinkable. America's energy renaissance has boosted the economies of 
previously left-behind towns throughout the country and turned them 
into vibrant communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this commonsense amendment protects minority and women 
jobs and puts the interests of the American workforce first and 
foremost. It is very clear-cut, something that the American people can 
fully understand.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment has nothing to do with the bill and is 
simply an attempt to block protections for the Atlantic and the Pacific 
coasts, and it is based upon a false concern for women and minorities' 
jobs.
  We know that Members from both sides of the aisle understand that our 
existing coastal economies are incompatible with more offshore oil and 
gas development. I believe that enacting this underlying bill and 
protecting the Atlantic and Pacific coast from the dangers of offshore 
drilling will, in itself, safeguard jobs in the coastal tourism and 
recreational industries, many of which are held by women and people of 
color.

                              {time}  1430

  For example, thriving fish stocks and healthy marine mammals off the 
coasts of Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, and Florida support tackle 
shops, whale watching tours, and seafood markets.
  Oil-free beaches and bays in Virginia and the Carolinas drive 
business for local restaurants, vacation rentals, and outfitters.
  People from all walks of life, from diverse backgrounds, and from 
both political parties cherish these special places and rely on healthy 
oceans, clean beaches, and the abundant fish and wildlife that come 
with it.
  For example, last week, the Business Alliance for Protecting the 
Pacific Coast wrote to this body and expressed its strong support for 
the underlying bill. According to the business coalition, which 
represents more than 4,000 businesses along the West Coast, offshore 
drilling threatens nearly 746,000 jobs and nearly $53 billion in GDP.
  The real threat to jobs and economic opportunities in coastal 
communities would be failing to protect permanently our shorelines from 
dangerous oil drilling.
  This is an unserious amendment that does nothing to protect jobs 
belonging to women and minorities, and it keeps the Atlantic and 
Pacific Coasts at risk.
  Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I thought I heard that this has nothing to do 
with the bill. If that is the case, I take umbrage with that, and maybe 
we ought to take it up with the Parliamentarian. The majority actually 
put this in order, so I think it does pertain to this bill.
  I also heard that we can't have our cake and eat it too, that it is 
all about visitation and enjoying the outdoors. How does that work for 
Colorado? How does that work for Wyoming? How does that work for 
Arizona? We actually have our cake and can eat it too.
  Once again, I remind everybody that these are the property of the 
American people, not of individual States.
  I get it. You are closest to this, so you are implicated in some way 
or form. But I also want to remind you that, particularly in the 
Pacific, natural slicks of oil exist naturally. It is something that 
nature actually takes care of. With that aspect, it is very important.
  The power of a job is very, very important. It empowers people. It 
doesn't victimize them. It is very important that we are astute as to 
where we are putting people to work.
  By the way, if we don't have good jobs, how can we travel to go visit 
these wonderful sites, enjoy a boat ride going out and fishing in those 
areas?
  When you start to look at some of our plentiful playgrounds of these 
areas, look no further than Alaska, one of the most plentiful, 
bountiful areas for fish and wildlife. People come from

[[Page H7622]]

around the world to see that, yet they have their cake and eat it too.
  Once again, I want to make sure that people are empowered with these 
good-paying jobs, particularly those of minority, those of gender. 
These are important applications that facilitate upward mobility of 
people.
  This is a very timely amendment, something that is vastly overdue. We 
need to consider the consequences when we do actions that are 
consequential.
  Mr. Chair, this is a very timely amendment. I ask everybody to vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Rouda

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part F of House Report 116-200.
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a study to 
     determine the potential economic impact of offshore drilling 
     on tourism, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, 
     boating, transportation, and other waterfront-related and 
     coastal-related business.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 548, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rouda) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, this amendment adds a provision to the bill 
that would require the Department of Commerce to complete an economic 
impact study of potential damage related to offshore drilling. This 
assessment would include tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, 
boating, transportation, and other waterfront and coastal-related 
businesses.
  The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, which was once the largest oil 
spill in United States waters and now ranks third after Deepwater 
Horizon and the 1989 Exxon Valdez spills, killed thousands of birds and 
marine animals. Commercial fishing was suspended, and tourism plunged.
  California's economic drivers are concentrated along California's 
coastline, and an oil spill from a Federal platform, pipeline, or barge 
transporting oil would have a catastrophic impact on California's and 
the Nation's economy and natural resources. In fact, 40 percent of all 
goods shipped into the United States come through the Long Beach and 
Los Angeles ports of entry, and these goods go to all 435 districts 
across the United States. Every community would be impacted.
  Offshore drilling for oil and gas threatens key economic drivers in 
coastal districts and States. Disasters on the scale of the 2010 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the largest 
environmental disasters in American history, cost our country more than 
$60 billion in economic damages and environmental damages beyond 
calculation.
  Let's not lose sight that even a small spill has the potential to 
devastate important marine and coastal resources and the communities 
and businesses that depend on them.
  California is home to more than 800 miles of coastline, and its 
coastal economies annually generate hundreds of billions of dollars in 
wages nationally and nearly $2 trillion in GDP. A disaster could put at 
risk nearly 746,000 West Coast jobs and $53 billion of GDP that rely on 
healthy ocean ecosystems and a clean marine environment.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Cunningham for his leadership on 
this important issue and the efforts to protect our coasts from new oil 
and gas leasing. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support my amendment and the passage of this critical piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, clearly, the best thing that can be 
said about this amendment is it is the last one of this particular 
bill, and we can move on.
  The negative part that I have to say about this amendment is the same 
thing I said about the other amendments. It is a study that is halfway 
there; it is not comprehensive; it doesn't cover all elements that 
should be studied; and in fact, it will produce a skewed result because 
of what narrowly comes within it.
  There should be a study that says what jobs will or will not happen 
from this. That would be a study. That would be a portion of it that 
would be worth it. But it is not covered in what we are attempting to 
do here.
  In fact, if you think about it, this is kind of a bizarre approach to 
things. We already have a base bill to be passed that will ban this 
activity, and then we are going to institute a whole bunch of studies 
to see if we should have done the base bill in the first place. This is 
totally backward in the way bills should be done.
  If the gentleman really believed in the study and wanted to get the 
data, for heaven's sake, do that before introducing a bill that bans 
the activity in the first place.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but I do 
want to point out the purpose of this is simply to make sure that if we 
are going to entertain offshore leases, we fully understand the 
economic impact in the event of a potential disaster occurring. That 
seems to be a reasonable obligation of Members of Congress to taxpayers 
of America and working families across America, to make sure that we 
protect them against future environmental disasters.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, once again, same thing: It is 
superfluous.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Castor of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lawson of Florida, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 1941) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
prohibit the Secretary of the Interior including in any leasing program 
certain planning areas, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________