- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-156
======================================================================
PROTECTING AND SECURING FLORIDA'S COASTLINE ACT OF 2019
_______
July 16, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 205]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 205) to amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security
Act of 2006 to permanently extend the moratorium on leasing in
certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 205 is to amend the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act of 2006 to permanently extend the
moratorium on leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is the portion of the
ocean seabed under federal jurisdiction, generally running from
3 to 200 miles out from the coastline. The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) in the Department of the Interior
(DOI) is responsible for oil and gas leasing on the OCS. BOEM
has divided the OCS into 26 administrative planning areas--11
along the Lower 48 states, and 15 along Alaska. Under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), DOI must go through a
multi-step process to identify what parts of the OCS will be
available for oil and gas leasing over a five-year period. BOEM
is responsible for preparing the leasing program, known as the
National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (also known as the
Five-Year Program). Section 18 of OCSLA lays out the process
for developing the Five-Year Program, as well as the
environmental, economic, and social factors that the Secretary
must consider and balance in determining the timing and
location of the sales.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\43 U.S.C. Sec. 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1982 and 2008, Congress used annual appropriations
bills to prevent agency spending on oil and gas leasing in
various portions of the OCS, with the entire Atlantic and
Pacific coasts off-limits from Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal
Year 2008.\2\ In the summer of 2008, President George W. Bush
announced he would veto any appropriations bill that contained
an OCS moratorium, bringing an end to the policy rider and the
decades-long congressional ban for much of the OCS. Currently,
the only OCS area statutorily withdrawn from oil and gas
leasing consideration is the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which was
placed under a moratorium until June 30, 2022, by the Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Curry L. Hagerty, Cong. Research. Serv., R41132, Outer
Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Development (2011).
\3\The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), Pub. L.
No. 109-432, div. C, tit. I, 120 Stat. 3000 et seq. (2006). GOMESA also
placed approximately 3 percent of the Central Gulf of Mexico planning
area under a leasing moratorium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from, but sometimes consistent with, Congressional
moratoria, Presidents have withdrawn regions of the OCS from
oil and gas development under Section 12(a) of OCSLA. In June
1990, President George H.W. Bush withdrew over 33 million acres
around parts of Florida, the Pacific coast, and Massachusetts
through the year 2000.\4\ In 1998, President Bill Clinton
extended those withdrawals through 2012 and added the Atlantic
coast and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Arctic.\5\ In
2008, President Bush lifted nearly all of the Presidential
withdrawals.\6\ President Barack Obama later permanently
withdrew Bristol Bay in Alaska, most of the Arctic Ocean, and
small portions of the Atlantic. President Donald Trump reversed
all of these other than Bristol Bay in April 2017;\7\ however,
on March 29, 2019, a federal judge in Alaska declared these
actions illegal and restored the Obama-era protections.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Statement on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development, 26
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1006 (June 26, 1990).
\5\Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States
Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres.
Doc. 1111 (June 12, 1998); see also Pub. L. No. 105-83, Sec. Sec. 108-
111, 111 Stat. 1543, 1561-62 (1997).
\6\Memorandum on Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 44
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 986 (July 14, 2008); see also Memorandum on
Modification of the June 12, 1998, Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 43
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 19 (Jan. 9, 2007); Pub. L. No. 109-432,
Sec. 103(b), 120 Stat. 2922, 3002 (2006); Pub. L. No. 109-54,
Sec. Sec. 104-06, 119 Stat. 499, 521-22 (2005).
\7\Exec. Order No. 13,795 (Apr. 28, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 20,815 (May
3, 2017); see also Emily Yehle, Trump Lifts Obama's Ban as Greens
Promise Legal Assault, E&E; News (Apr. 28, 2017), https://
www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053776/.
\8\Order Re Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80), League of
Conservation Voters v. Trump, 3:17-cv-00101 (D. Alaska Mar. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's April 2017 executive order and former
Secretary Zinke's Secretarial Order 3350\9\ directed BOEM to
initiate the planning process for a new Five-Year Program to
replace the 2017-2022 Program finalized in January 2017. On
January 4, 2018, BOEM published the 2019-2024 Draft Proposed
Program (DPP),\10\ which proposed opening more than 90 percent
of the OCS to oil and gas leasing, including the entirety of
America's Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts. The DPP also
proposed opening the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas
leasing once the existing moratorium ends in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Dep't of the Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3350 (May 1, 2017),
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-
order-3350-offshore-508.pdf.
\10\https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 6, 2019, BOEM's Acting Director, Walter
Cruickshank, appeared before the House Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources and testified that BOEM ``will release
the Proposed Program in the coming weeks.''\11\ However, in an
interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2019,
Secretary David Bernhardt indicated that at his direction,
development of the proposed program had been placed on
hold,\12\ and on May 7, 2019, before a House Appropriations
Subcommittee, the Secretary stated that release of ``[the
proposed program] is not imminent at this time.''\13\ The
Secretary's stated reasoning for halting the plan was the March
29, 2019, federal court decision reinstating protections from
leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, despite the
fact that BOEM has previously released draft plans proposing to
lease off-limits areas in the event moratoria were removed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement,
and the U.S. Geological Survey: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy &
Mineral Res. of the H. Comm. on Nat. Res., 116th Cong. (2019)
(testimony of Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management).
\12\Timothy Puko, Trump's Offshore Oil-Drilling Plan Sidelined
Indefinitely, Wall St. J. (Apr. 25, 2019).
\13\FY20 Budget: Department of the Interior: Hearing Before the
Subcomm. on Interior, Env't, & Related Agencies of the H. Comm. on
Appropriations, 116th Cong. (2019) (testimony of Secretary David
Bernhardt, Dep't of the Interior).
\14\Dep't of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt. Serv., Draft Proposed
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010-2015 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One likely explanation for the Department's actions is that
the Trump Administration intends, if the President is
reelected, to include the Eastern Gulf of Mexico in its final
Five-Year Program and to hold lease sales in the Eastern Gulf
as early as 2022. Comments from then-Secretary Zinke and the
BOEM Acting Director Cruickshank frequently contradicted each
other regarding the possibility of leasing around Florida, and
efforts to obtain additional clarity from Secretary Bernhardt
on his plans for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico have been
fruitless. Given the widespread belief that a tweet from
Secretary Zinke declaring Florida off-limits to offshore oil
and gas leasing was issued to support Florida Governor Rick
Scott in his Senate race, the Committee is concerned that the
Administration is playing similar games with its 2019-2024
program and intends to wait until after the 2020 presidential
election, in which Florida may be a key swing state, before
revealing an unpopular plan to lease off of Florida's shore.
Offshore oil and gas development pose existential threats
to Florida's tourism, fishing, and recreation economy, which
rely on clean water and healthy beaches. These industries are
worth much more to the economy and people of Florida than
whatever limited benefits would be gained by needlessly
drilling for oil and gas in the Eastern Gulf, and these
industries must be protected by permanently extending the
leasing moratorium, as H.R. 205 would accomplish. Fishing,
tourism, and recreation in Florida account for $37.4 billion in
GDP, including $17.5 billion just from the Gulf coast, and
these activities support more than 600,000 jobs.\15\ Protecting
the Eastern Gulf from oil and gas drilling has broad bipartisan
support, including from both Florida Republican U.S. Senators
and the Republican Governor. In 2018, Florida voters approved a
Constitutional Amendment banning offshore drilling in state
waters with 68.9 percent of the vote.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\OCEANA, Florida's Clean Coast Economy (2018), http://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/4046/florida_updated.pdf.
\16\Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Elections, Nov. 6, 2018 Gen.
Election, Official Results: Constitutional Amendment, https://
results.elections.myflorida.com/DetailRpt.Asp?ELECTIONDATE=11/6/
2018∽̱=A09&PARTY;=&DIST;=&GRP;=&DATAMODE;=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which
resulted in a blowout of nearly five million barrels of oil
into the Gulf of Mexico, the west coast of Florida saw negative
impacts to the commercial and recreational fishing and tourism
industries, largely as a result of canceled trips from across
the United States. According to the U.S. Travel Association,
the oil spill would result in the loss of at least $7.6 billion
in tourism revenues across the Gulf, with potential losses as
high as $22.7 billion.\17\ The decline in recreational fishing
was dramatic Gulf-wide: according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, from May to August 2010, for-hire
fishing trips declined by 98 percent in Mississippi, 80 percent
in Alabama, 60 percent in Louisiana, and 33 percent in western
Florida.\18\ According to CEO David Yates, Florida's Clearwater
Marine Aquarium suffered a decrease of 10 percent in year-to-
year attendance growth the quarter the spill occurred.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Oxford Econ., Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism
21 (2010), http://www.mississippiriverdelta.org/blog/files/2010/10/
Gulf_Oil_Spill_Analysis_Oxford_Economics_710.pdf.
\18\OCEANA, Ingrid Biedron, Ph.D. & Suzannah Evans, Time for
Action: Six Years After Deepwater Horizon 11 (2016), https://
usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/
deepwater_horizon_anniversary_report_updated_4-28.pdf.
\19\Protecting Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res. of the H. Comm. on Nat.
Res., 116th Cong. (2019) (written testimony of David Yates, CEO,
Clearwater Marine Aquarium), https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/
media/doc/Testimony%20-%20David%20Yates%20-%2004.02.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the impacts that drilling in the Eastern
Gulf of Mexico would have on Florida's economy, drilling would
compromise military readiness, and the Department of Defense
(DOD) has voiced opposition to the idea of oil and gas
activities in this region. In May 2018, DOD published
Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico,
which concluded: ``[i]f oil and gas development were to extend
east of the [Military Mission Line], without sufficient surface
limiting stipulations and/or oil and gas activity restrictions
mutually agreed by the DoD and [Interior Department], military
flexibility in the region would be lost and test and training
activities would be severely affected.''\20\ In testimony
submitted to the Committee in support of H.R. 205, Jim Heald, a
retired United States Air Force Colonel with 26 years of
service and a current member of the Florida Defense Support
Task Force, reiterated the military importance of the existing
moratorium in the Eastern Gulf and offered his full support for
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Office of the Secretary of Defense, Preserving Military
Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 21 (2018), http://www.iadc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/05/DOD-Offshore-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's coastal ecosystems and tourism-reliant businesses
are too important to risk by opening the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
to oil and gas leasing. Given the Trump administration's focus
on extracting as much oil and gas from federal lands and
federal waters as possible, and their announced interest in
holding a lease sale in the Eastern Gulf as early as 2022, H.R.
205 is needed to permanently protect this militarily and
economically vital region.
Committee Action
H.R. 205 was introduced on January 3, 2019, by
Representative Francis Rooney (R-FL). The bill was referred
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the
Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
On April 2, 2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
legislation. On June 19, 2019, the Natural Resources Committee
met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by
unanimous consent. Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT) offered and
withdrew an amendment designated Bishop #1. Representative
Garret Graves (R-LA) offered an amendment designated Graves #1.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 21 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Mr. Graves #1 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 21 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 21 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered amendments designated Graves
#2 and Graves #3 en bloc. The amendments were not agreed to by
a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 21 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Mr. Graves #2 and #3 amendments offered en bloc
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 21 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD..................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Cartwright, PA................ ........... X ..........
Mr. Case, HI...................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Clay, MO...................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Costa, CA..................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Cox, CA....................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Cunningham, SC................ ........... X ..........
Ms. DeGette, CO................... ........... ........... ..........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. Gallego, AZ................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).......... ........... X ..........
Ms. Haaland, NM................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. Huffman, CA................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Levin, CA..................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................. ........... X ..........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................. ........... ........... ..........
Ms. Napolitano, CA................ ........... X ..........
Mr. Neguse, CO.................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU............... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Soto, FL...................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. Tonko, NY..................... ........... X ..........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................. ........... X ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).......... X ........... ..........
Ms. Cheney, WY.................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Cook, CA...................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Curtis, UT.................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Fulcher, ID................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Gohmert, TX................... X ........... ..........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR........... X ........... ..........
Mr. Gosar, AZ..................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Graves, LA.................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Hern, OK...................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Hice, GA...................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Johnson, LA................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Lamborn, CO................... X ........... ..........
Mr. McClintock, CA................ X ........... ..........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS................ ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Webster, FL................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Westerman, AR................. X ........... ..........
Mr. Wittman, VA................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Young, AK..................... ........... ........... ..........
-------------------------------------
TOTALS........................ 14 21 ..........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #4. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Mr. Graves #4 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 21 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #5. The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote.
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated Graves
#6. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Mr. Graves #6 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #7. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Mr. Graves #7 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD..................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Cartwright, PA................ ........... X ..........
Mr. Case, HI...................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Clay, MO...................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Costa, CA..................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Cox, CA....................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Cunningham, SC................ ........... X ..........
Ms. DeGette, CO................... ........... ........... ..........
Mrs. Dingell, MI.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. Gallego, AZ................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair).......... ........... X ..........
Ms. Haaland, NM................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Horsford, NV.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. Huffman, CA................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Levin, CA..................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................. ........... X ..........
Mr. McEachin, VA.................. ........... ........... ..........
Ms. Napolitano, CA................ ........... X ..........
Mr. Neguse, CO.................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU............... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Soto, FL...................... ........... X ..........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ.................. ........... X ..........
Mr. Tonko, NY..................... ........... X ..........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................. ........... X ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking).......... X ........... ..........
Ms. Cheney, WY.................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Cook, CA...................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Curtis, UT.................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Fulcher, ID................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Gohmert, TX................... X ........... ..........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR........... X ........... ..........
Mr. Gosar, AZ..................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Graves, LA.................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Hern, OK...................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Hice, GA...................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Johnson, LA................... ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Lamborn, CO................... X ........... ..........
Mr. McClintock, CA................ X ........... ..........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS................ ........... ........... ..........
Mr. Webster, FL................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Westerman, AR................. X ........... ..........
Mr. Wittman, VA................... X ........... ..........
Mr. Young, AK..................... ........... ........... ..........
-------------------------------------
TOTALS........................ 14 22 ..........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #8. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Mr. Graves #8 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a roll call vote of 24 yeas and 12 nays, as
follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 205
Amendment: Final Passage
Disposition: H.R. 205 was adopted and ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of
24 yeas and 12 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... X ........... ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... X ........... ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ X ........... ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. X ........... ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... X ........... ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ X ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. ........... X ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ ........... X ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 24 12 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 205: a legislative hearing titled ``Protecting
Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling'' held by the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on Tuesday, April
2, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1334 of the Longworth House
Office Building.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII and
Congressional Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congessional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2019.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 205, the
Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen
Gramp.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill would
Prohibit future auctions of leases for oil
and gas development in areas of the Gulf of Mexico that
are within 125 miles of the coast of Florida and in
most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
Reducing collections of offsetting receipts
from offshore oil and gas leases
Reducing spending subject to appropriation
for administrative expenses related to leasing
activities in the affected regions of the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS)
Areas of significant uncertainty include
Estimating the amount and timing of any
future government income from oil and gas leasing
activities in the affected regions of the OCS under
current law
Bill summary: The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of
2006 (GOMESA) imposed a temporary moratorium on oil and gas
leasing in areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are within 125
miles of the Florida coast and in most of the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico. Under current law, that moratorium will expire on June
30, 2022. H.R. 205 would amend existing law to permanently ban
oil and gas leasing in those regions.
Estimated Federal Cost: The estimated budgetary effect of
H.R. 205 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall
within budget functions 950 (undistributed offsetting
receipts), and 300 (natural resources and environment).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases in Direct Spending
Estimated Budget Authority........................... 0 0 0 0 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 100 400
Estimated Outlays.................................... 0 0 0 0 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 100 400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreases in Spending Subject to Appropriation
Estimated Authorization.............................. 0 -5 -6 -2 -1 -1 n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. -15 n.e.
Estimated Outlays.................................... 0 -3 -6 -4 -1 -1 n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. n.e. -15 n.e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.e. = not estimated.
Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that the legislation will be
enacted near the end of 2019.
Background: Companies that lease federal oil and gas
resources pay a bonus bid when they acquire leases, make rental
payments on nonproducing acreage, and pay royalties based on
the value of the oil and gas produced. Using the technical and
economic assumptions that underlie CBO's May 2019 baseline
projections, CBO estimates that offsetting receipts from
leasing activities in all areas of the Outer Continental Shelf
will total $56 billion over the 2020-2029 period. Royalties on
production account for about 90 percent of that total, and
bonus payments for most of the remainder. Because production in
the OCS usually begins several years after a lease is issued,
CBO expects that most of the proceeds during that period from
leases issued after 2020 would be from bonus payments.
CBO's baseline projections of bonus bids reflect recent
trends in OCS auction proceeds as well as factors that may
affect the value of resources in specific areas. In particular,
CBO considers the number of leases acquired by bidders in
auctions and trends in the winning bids for the top 10 leases,
which recently have accounted for more than 40 percent of the
total proceeds from individual auctions.\1\ Receipts from
individual sales also vary depending on the bidders'
assessments of the strategic value of specific geological
resources, the degree of competition, and the size of the
companies acquiring the leases. For new areas, CBO expects that
proceeds also would reflect the bidders' assessment of the type
and quality of the infrastructure and the costs of operating in
a region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Since 2015, the top 10 bids in each auction of leases in the
Gulf of Mexico have accounted for fewer than 10 percent of the leases
issued but more than 40 percent of the proceeds generated by the sales.
Winning bids from the top 10 leases in the Central Gulf of Mexico have
declined from an average of about $60 million each over the 2008-2014
period to about $10 million over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO's baseline projections assume no leasing will occur
through 2022 in the region subject to the GOMESA moratorium.
Once those statutory restrictions expire, decisions about where
and when to offer leases in this portion of the OCS will be
made by DOI administratively--in consultation with industry and
affected states--for five year periods. CBO's baseline
projections of oil and gas leasing receipts after 2022 reflect
the possibility that DOI will authorize auctions in those areas
under future leasing plans.
Direct spending: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 205 would
reduce offsetting receipts (which are recorded in the budget as
decreases in direct spending) and thus would increase direct
spending by $400 million over the 2020-2029 period. That
estimate reflects the effects of prohibiting leasing activity
in the OCS that otherwise may occur under current law.
Because no leasing has occurred in the affected region
since the 1980s, estimates of future proceeds are uncertain.
Based on recent discoveries and infrastructure investments in
adjacent areas, CBO expects that there may be significant
industry interest in some of the deepwater resources of the
eastern Gulf region.\2\ Access to those areas also was
identified as high priority in comments submitted by industry
on DOI's leasing plan for the 2017-2022 period.\3\ On the other
hand, defense-related constraints on operations and state
siting restrictions on related facilities may reduce the value
of some leases. In addition, some resources off the coast of
Florida probably would be excluded from auctions because
leasing may not be compatible with state coastal zone
management plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\For a discussion of Norphlet play (a geological formation in the
Gulf of Mexico) and related issues, see Brian Scheid, ``With U.S.
Offshore Plan Likely Scrapped, Industry Pursues Changes to Federal
Lease Terms,'' S&P; Global/Platts (May 23, 2019), http://
tinyurl.com1yxz6kd9n.
\3\See Bureau of Ocean Management, 2017-2022 Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program (January 2015), pp. 3-
13, www.boem.gov/2017-2022-0PP (PDF, 6.2 MB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO has no basis to estimate the specific probability of
auctions occurring in the future. In the absence of specific
information, CBO uses a 50 percent probability that auctions
would occur after 2022 to reflect the legal authority that
would exist after 2022 to hold such auctions.
Taking into account such uncertainties and assuming that 50
percent chance that auctions would occur after 2022, CBO
estimates that, under current law, auctioning leases in areas
of the OCS currently subject to the GOMESA moratorium would
generate offsetting receipts totaling $400 million over the
2023-2029 period. That estimate is roughly equivalent to a
theoretical case in which 50 percent of the value of 300 leases
are acquired at an average price of $2.5 million--an amount
that is more than double the $1 million average price paid per
lease in 2018. CBO expects that global energy companies would
actively compete for leases in this region because of its
strategic and resource potential.
Spending subject to appropriation: CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 205 would reduce DOI's administrative costs
by $15 million over the 2020-2024 period. That estimate is
based on historical spending patterns for developing leasing
plans and completing the environmental, geologic, and economic
assessments that are required under current law for potential
auctions of leases in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Any reduction
in spending would depend on future appropriations being reduced
by the estimated amounts.
Uncertainty: The amount the government might collect under
current law for leases in areas in the Gulf of Mexico subject
to the GOMESA moratorium is uncertain and could be higher or
lower than CBO estimates. The timing of any auctions will
depend on future administrative actions that cannot be
predicted. In addition, potential bidders could rely on
assumptions that differ from CBO's, including projections of
the long-term prices for oil and gas, production costs, the
area's resource potential, and alternative investment
opportunities. The factors that affect companies' investment
decisions could result in a wide range of possible bonus bids.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2.--CBO'S ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect....................... 0 0 0 0 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 100 400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long-term deficits: CBO cannot determine
whether enacting the bill would increase net direct spending by
more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive periods
beginning in 2030. H.R. 205 would preclude the development of
some oil and gas resources that otherwise may occur in the Gulf
of Mexico under current law. The potential loss of offsetting
receipts after 2029 would depend on several factors, including
future prices for oil and gas and the timing, quantity of any
production, and future administrative actions. For example, the
cost of implementing the bill may not exceed $5 billion in any
of those periods if prices are similar to those assumed in
CBO's May 2019 baseline projections of $74 per barrel in 2029.
On the other hand, costs could exceed $5 billion in some
periods if prices or production exceed those projected amounts.
Mandates: None.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp;
Mandates: Rachel Austin.
Estimate reviewed by: Kim Cawley, Chief, Natural Resources
Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill is to amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act of 2006 to permanently extend the moratorium on
leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Existing Programs
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--OTHER PROVISIONS
TITLE I--GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 104. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF GULF OF
MEXICO.
(a) In General.-- [Effective during the period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act and ending on June 30, 2022,
the Secretary] The Secretary shall not offer for leasing,
preleasing, or any related activity--
(1) any area east of the Military Mission Line in the
Gulf of Mexico;
(2) any area in the Eastern Planning Area that is
within 125 miles of the coastline of the State of
Florida; or
(3) any area in the Central Planning Area that is--
(A) within--
(i) the 181 Area; and
(ii) 100 miles of the coastline of
the State of Florida; or
(B)(i) outside the 181 Area;
(ii) east of the western edge of the
Pensacola Official Protraction Diagram (UTM X
coordinate 1,393,920 (NAD 27 feet)); and
(iii) within 100 miles of the coastline of
the State of Florida.
(b) Military Mission Line.--Notwithstanding subsection (a),
the United States reserves the right to designate by and
through the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the
President, national defense areas on the outer Continental
Shelf pursuant to section 12(d) of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341(d)).
(c) Exchange of Certain Leases.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall permit any
person that, as of the date of enactment of this Act,
has entered into an oil or gas lease with the Secretary
in any area described in paragraph (2) or (3) of
subsection (a) to exchange the lease for a bonus or
royalty credit that may only be used in the Gulf of
Mexico.
(2) Valuation of existing lease.--The amount of the
bonus or royalty credit for a lease to be exchanged
shall be equal to--
(A) the amount of the bonus bid; and
(B) any rental paid for the lease as of the
date the lessee notifies the Secretary of the
decision to exchange the lease.
(3) Revenue distribution.--No bonus or royalty credit
may be used under this subsection in lieu of any
payment due under, or to acquire any interest in, a
lease subject to the revenue distribution provisions of
section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(43 U.S.C. 1337(g)).
(4) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations that shall provide a process
for--
(A) notification to the Secretary of a
decision to exchange an eligible lease;
(B) issuance of bonus or royalty credits in
exchange for relinquishment of the existing
lease;
(C) transfer of the bonus or royalty credit
to any other person; and
(D) determining the proper allocation of
bonus or royalty credits to each lease interest
owner.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
We are opposed to H.R. 205 as ordered reported from the
Committee on Natural Resources. This legislation would
permanently extend the moratorium on energy production in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning area set to expire in 2022.
Enacted in 2006, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GO
MESA, Public Law 109-432) established a revenue sharing
structure for oil and gas lease sales on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) offshore Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama[1] and imposed a moratorium on oil and gas
leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico planning
area.[2] Under GOMESA, offshore leasing is banned
off the east coast of Florida through June 2022, at which time
the moratorium will expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1]\Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security (GOMESA). https://www.boem.gov/Revenue-Sharing/.
\[2]\Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA) Areas. https://www.boem.gov/GOMESA-Map/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our colleagues who support this bill allege that oil and
gas development cannot occur alongside commercial fishing,
tourism, recreation or military testing and training
operations. However, the Gulf States have proven that all of
these activities can coexist, and in fact, benefit from one
another, so long as we follow the process established in the
law for stakeholder engagement and environmental review. The
coast of Louisiana, where the lion's share of offshore drilling
occurs, boasts one of the most diverse and productive
ecosystems in the world, supporting marine and wildlife habitat
and the largest commercial fishing industry in the contiguous
United States.
Further, 36% of current oil and gas leases have
stipulations to accommodate nearby military testing and
training operations--demonstrating the compatibility of
Department of Defense (DoD) operations and energy development
on the OCS. In 1983, the Department of the Interior (DoI) and
DoD signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that allows for
cooperation in the event that military and planned energy
leasing activities on the OCS are in conflict.[3]
The MOU establishes that certain defense-related activities may
be irreconcilable with mineral exploration but, in some areas,
energy production is possible so long as leasing and production
stipulations are included to allow for military activity in the
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[3]\Memorandum Agreement Between the Department of Defense and the
Department of the Interior on Mutual Concerns on the Outer Continental
Shelf. July 20, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018, DoD prepared a report discussing the scope of
military testing and training events conducted east of the
Military Mission Line (MML) offshore Florida and Alabama in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico.[4] Throughout this report,
DoD reiterates, ``If oil and gas development were to extend
east over the MML, without sufficient surface limiting
stipulations and/or oil and gas activity restrictions mutually
agreed upon by the DoD and DoI, military flexibility in the
region would be lost and test and training activities would be
severely affected'' [emphasis added.[5] This
conditional statement conveys that, with DoI and industry
cooperation, multiple uses of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico are
possible, including energy development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[4]\Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Office of the Secretary of Defense. May 2018.
\[5]\Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Office of the Secretary of Defense. May 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, offshore oil and gas production is a
significant source of federal and State revenues. In fact,
offshore oil and gas development alone contributed over $3
billion to the U.S. Treasury and over $200 million to the Gulf
States in Fiscal Year 2018. The Gulf producing States of Texas,
Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana receive a very small portion
of the revenues generated from production on the OCS. These
States, specifically Louisiana, rely on these revenues to
design and complete critical hurricane protection and flood
prevention projects[6]. However, recent payments
have fallen well below projected levels, forcing Louisiana
coastal managers to delay or cancel restoration projects.
Notably, oil and gas production on the OCS is the funding
source for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which
the Congress, including proponents of this bill, recently voted
to permanently authorize. It must also be noted that a
Democrat-sponsored bill to create permanent mandatory funding
of the LWCF was ironically considered, and passed, during the
same markup that H.R. 205 was considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[6]\http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/Final-GOMESA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a clearly established process in law for States to
weigh in on where we should conduct offshore energy
development. This bill would bypass that process altogether by
permanently banning production without consideration of the
benefits this activity could provide in terms of domestic
energy security. H.R. 205 is a regressive piece of legislation
which does not account for the growing global demand for energy
and military needs. We should be considering, through the 5-
year planning process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, the best use of each area of the Gulf--with due
consideration given to the needs of the military, tourism
activities, and the hydrocarbon potential of these resources
that are owned by the American public.
This bill would take domestic energy resources off the
table, increasing our dependence on foreign oil imports from
unfriendly sources whose environmental standards are
significantly less stringent than ours. Further, this proposal
would preclude job creation and the generation of billions of
dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury, States, and critical
conservation investments. For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 205
as ordered reported.
Russ Fulcher.
Tom McClintock.
Doug Lamborn.
Paul A. Gosar.
Liz Cheney.
Mike Johnson (LA).
Garret Graves (LA).
Rob Bishop (UT).
