- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 116-157
======================================================================
COASTAL AND MARINE ECONOMIES PROTECTION ACT
_______
July 16, 2019.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Grijalva, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1941]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1941) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior including in any
leasing program certain planning areas, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 1941 is to prohibit the Secretary of
the Interior including in any leasing program certain planning
areas.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is the portion of the
ocean seabed under federal jurisdiction, generally running from
3 to 200 miles out from the coastline. The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) in the Department of the Interior
(DOI) is responsible for oil and gas leasing on the OCS. BOEM
has divided the OCS into 26 administrative planning areas--11
along the Lower 48 states, and 15 along Alaska. Under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), DOI must go through a
multi-step process to identify what parts of the OCS will be
available for oil and gas leasing over a five-year period. BOEM
is responsible for preparing the leasing program, known as the
National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (also known as the
Five-Year Program). Section 18 of OCSLA lays out the process
for developing the Five-Year Program, as well as the
environmental, economic, and social factors that the Secretary
must consider and balance in determining the timing and
location of the sales.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\43 U.S.C. Sec. 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 1982 and 2008, Congress used annual appropriations
bills to prevent agency spending on oil and gas leasing in
various portions of the OCS, with the entire Atlantic and
Pacific coasts off-limits from Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal
Year 2008.\2\ In the summer of 2008, President George W. Bush
announced he would veto any appropriations bill that contained
an OCS moratorium, bringing an end to the policy rider and the
decades-long congressional ban for much of the OCS. Currently,
the only OCS area statutorily withdrawn from oil and gas
leasing consideration is the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, which was
placed under a moratorium until June 30, 2022, by the Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Curry L. Hagerty, Cong. Research. Serv., R41132, Outer
Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Development (2011).
\3\The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA), Pub. L.
No. 109-432, div. C, tit. I, 120 Stat. 3000 et seq. (2006). GOMESA also
placed approximately 3 percent of the Central Gulf of Mexico planning
area under a leasing moratorium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from, but sometimes consistent with, Congressional
moratoria, Presidents have withdrawn regions of the OCS from
oil and gas development under Section 12(a) of OCSLA. In June
1990, President George H.W. Bush withdrew over 33 million acres
around parts of Florida, the Pacific coast, and Massachusetts
through the year 2000.\4\ In 1998, President Bill Clinton
extended those withdrawals through 2012 and added the Atlantic
coast and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Arctic.\5\ In
2008, President Bush lifted nearly all of the Presidential
withdrawals.\6\ President Barack Obama later permanently
withdrew Bristol Bay in Alaska, most of the Arctic Ocean, and
small portions of the Atlantic. President Donald Trump reversed
all of these other than Bristol Bay in April 2017;\7\ however,
on March 29, 2019, a federal judge in Alaska declared these
actions illegal and restored the Obama-era protections.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Statement on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development, 26
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1006 (June 26, 1990).
\5\Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States
Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 34 Weekly Comp. Pres.
Doc. 1111 (June 12, 1998); see also Pub. L. No. 105-83, Sec. Sec. 108-
111, 111 Stat. 1543, 1561-62 (1997).
\6\Memorandum on Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 44
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 986 (July 14, 2008); see also Memorandum on
Modification of the June 12, 1998, Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition, 43
Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 19 (Jan. 9, 2007); Pub. L. No. 109-432,
Sec. 103(b), 120 Stat. 2922, 3002 (2006); Pub. L. No. 109-54,
Sec. Sec. 104-06, 119 Stat. 499, 521-22 (2005).
\7\Exec. Order No. 13,795 (Apr. 28, 2017), 82 Fed. Reg. 20,815 (May
3, 2017); see also Emily Yehle, Trump Lifts Obama's Ban as Greens
Promise Legal Assault, E&E; News (Apr. 28, 2017), https://
www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053776/.
\8\Order Re Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80), League of
Conservation Voters v. Trump, 3:17-cv-00101 (D. Alaska Mar. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump's April 2017 executive order and former
Secretary Zinke's Secretarial Order 3350\9\ directed BOEM to
initiate the planning process for a new Five-Year Program to
replace the 2017-2022 Program finalized in January 2017. On
January 4, 2018, BOEM published the 2019-2024 Draft Proposed
Program (DPP),\10\ which proposed opening more than 90 percent
of the OCS to oil and gas leasing, including the entirety of
America's Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts. The DPP also
proposed opening the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas
leasing once the existing moratorium ends in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Interior Dep't, Secretarial Order No. 3350 (May 1, 2017),
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-
order-3350-offshore-508.pdf.
\10\https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 6, 2019, BOEM's Acting Director, Walter
Cruickshank, appeared before the House Subcommittee on Energy
and Mineral Resources and testified that BOEM ``will release
the Proposed Program in the coming weeks.''\11\ However, in an
interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2019,
Secretary David Bernhardt indicated that at his direction,
development of the proposed program had been placed on
hold,\12\ and on May 7, 2019, before a House Appropriations
Subcommittee, the Secretary stated that release of ``[the
proposed program] is not imminent at this time.''\13\ The
Secretary's stated reasoning for halting the plan was the March
29, 2019, federal court decision reinstating protections from
leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, despite the
fact that BOEM has previously released draft plans proposing to
lease off-limits areas in the event moratoria were removed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement,
and the U.S. Geological Survey: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy &
Mineral Res. of the H. Comm. on Nat. Res., 116th Cong. (2019)
(testimony of Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management).
\12\Timothy Puko, Trump's Offshore Oil-Drilling Plan Sidelined
Indefinitely, Wall St. J. (Apr. 25, 2019).
\13\FY20 Budget: Department of the Interior: Hearing Before the
Subcomm. on Interior, Env't, & Related Agencies of the H. Comm. on
Appropriations, 116th Cong. (2019) (testimony of Secretary David
Bernhardt, Dep't of the Interior).
\14\Dep't of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt. Serv., Draft Proposed
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010-2015 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One likely explanation for the Department's actions is that
the Trump Administration intends, if the President is
reelected, to include portions of the Atlantic and Pacific OCS
regions in its final Five-Year Program and to hold lease sales
in these areas as early as 2021. Comments from then-Secretary
Zinke and the BOEM Acting Director Cruickshank frequently
contradicted each other regarding the possibility of expanded
leasing, and efforts to obtain additional clarity from
Secretary Bernhardt on his plans for the Five-Year Program have
been fruitless. Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management Joe Balash was recently quoted, in reference to
seismic permitting in the Atlantic Ocean, as saying ``I will
tell you we wouldn't work really, really hard to get the
seismic permits out, if it was an area that wasn't going to be
available.''\15\ The Committee is concerned that the
Administration is playing similar games with its 2019-2024
program and intends to wait until after the 2020 presidential
election before revealing an unpopular plan to expand OCS
leasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Jimmy Tobias, US Official Reveals Atlantic Drilling Plan While
Hailing Trump's Ability to Distract Public, The Guardian (Mar. 14,
2019), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/14/offshore-
drilling-trump-official-reveals-plan-and-distractions-delight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1941 places a permanent moratorium on oil and gas
leasing on the U.S.'s Atlantic and Pacific coasts in order to
protect the local communities and businesses that rely on clean
beaches and healthy oceans from the dangers of offshore oil and
gas development. The existing industries, including tourism,
fishing, and outdoor recreation, which have led to prosperous
economies up and down the Atlantic and Pacific, are not
compatible with offshore oil and gas drilling or the onshore
infrastructure that would be required to support offshore
development.
The West Coast has existing oil and gas production off
shore Southern California, but no new leasing has occurred
there since 1984, and local opposition to offshore drilling is
strong, with recent polling showing that 69 percent of
Californians oppose additional offshore oil drilling, with only
25 percent in support.\16\ Congressional, state, and local
government opposition in the region is also strong, with three
governors, six U.S. senators, more than fifty U.S. House
members, ninety-two municipalities, and more than 2,100 elected
officials from California, Oregon, and Washington formally
opposing any new leasing off the West Coast. The Oregon and
Washington coasts are believed to have very few oil or gas
resources and have drawn minimal interest from the oil and gas
industry in recent decades. California, however, does have a
significant resource base, along with existing oil and gas
infrastructure, which has made it a possible target for
industry and the Trump Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Pub. Policy Inst. of Cal., PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians
& the Environment 20 (2017), https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/
s_717mbs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2019, Vipe Desai, a founding member of the
Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, testified
that further offshore drilling would put at risk California's
$41.9 billion ocean economy and more than 600,000 jobs, in
addition to nearly 167,000 jobs and $12.2 billion in GDP in
Oregon and Washington.\17\ California has experienced the
negative impacts of offshore oil and gas development firsthand,
including during the 1969 blowout off Santa Barbara that
ultimately spilled 3 million gallons of oil, and a 2015 onshore
oil pipeline rupture near Refugio State Beach that spilled more
than 100,000 gallons of offshore oil, much of which ended up on
the beaches or in the ocean. These disasters negatively
impacted coastal businesses, the tourism industry, fishing, and
the health of marine ecosystems, and Pacific coast states have
zero interest in more offshore oil and gas drilling that will
place their economies and communities at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Protecting Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Energy & Mineral Res. of the H. Comm. on Nat.
Res., 116th Cong. (2019) (written testimony of Vipul ``Vipe'' Desai,
Founding Member, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast),
https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony%20-
%20Vipe%20Desai%20-%2004.02.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up and down the Atlantic seaboard, a bipartisan group of
governors, state officials, mayors, and local leaders oppose
oil and gas drilling because of the threat it would pose to the
tourism, outdoor recreation, and fishing economies that rely on
an oil-free coastline and ocean. Since early 2018, a Republican
mayor from North Carolina and a Republican state senator and
Republican mayor from South Carolina have all presented
testimony to the Committee in opposition to oil and gas
drilling off the Atlantic coast. In addition to offshore
drilling rigs and platforms, offshore development requires
extensive onshore infrastructure including pipelines,
refineries, and storage tanks. These facilities would have a
major onshore footprint and would further undermine the
existing environmental and economic resources along the
Atlantic shore.
The Trump Administration and other supporters of oil and
gas development in the Atlantic frequently cite economic
figures from a study produced for the American Petroleum
Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association, two
oil and gas industry trade groups. Looking at those numbers in
context, however, shows the much larger economic impact on
fishing and tourism, which could both be significantly harmed
by the presence of offshore drilling. A study done for Stop
Offshore Drilling in the Atlantic showed that tourism will
provide an estimated 181,543 jobs in South Carolina by 2035,
compared to a potential 35,569 jobs from oil and gas.\18\
Further, the same study showed that tourism in just four
coastal South Carolina counties eclipses the potential tax
contributions of oil and gas development for the entire state,
with tourism providing an estimated nearly $2.7 billion in tax
revenue in those counties alone by 2035, compared to a
potential $848 million statewide in hypothetical revenue
sharing from oil and gas.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Terry Munson, Ian McLaren & Tom Stickler, Offshore Drilling vs.
Tourism: Projected Revenue for South Carolina 12 (2015). The report is
not available online. To obtain a copy, contact Peter Gallagher,
Professional Staff, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources at
[email protected]
\19\Id. The latter figure is hypothetical and speculative because
there is no guarantee that any federal payments from offshore drilling
would be shared with Atlantic OCS states at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The businesses, communities, and economies along the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts will face significant risks from
offshore oil and gas drilling if the Trump Administration is
successful in its pursuit to open the nation's coastlines to
fossil fuel development. H.R. 1941 is necessary to permanently
protect these regional economies and local residents from the
dangers of offshore drilling.
Committee Action
H.R. 1941 was introduced on March 28, 2019, by
Representative Joe Cunningham (D-SC). The bill was referred
solely to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the
Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
On April 2, 2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
legislation. On June 19, 2019, the Natural Resources Committee
met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by
unanimous consent. Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) offered an
amendment designated Gosar.132 (revised). The amendment was not
agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as
follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Gosar.132 (revised) amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Gosar offered an amendment designated
Gosar.134 (revised). The amendment was not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Gosar.134 (revised) amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) offered an amendment
designated McClintock #1. The amendment was not agreed to by a
roll call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. McClintock #1 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT) offered an amendment
designated Bishop #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Bishop #2 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Garret Graves (R-LA) offered an amendment
designated Graves #1. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll
call vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Graves #1 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #2. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 14 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Graves #2 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR........... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 14 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #3. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 11 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Graves #3 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 11 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... X ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR........... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 11 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #4. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 13 yeas and 21 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Graves #4 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 yeas
and 21 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... X ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 13 21 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Graves offered an amendment designated
Graves #5. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote
of 12 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Mr. Graves #5 amendment
Disposition: Not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 yeas
and 22 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... ........... X ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ ........... X ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... ........... X ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. ........... X ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. ........... X ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... ........... X ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. X ........... ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... X ........... ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ X ........... ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 12 22 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 12 nays, as
follows:
Bill/Motion: H.R. 1941
Amendment: Final Passage
Disposition: H.R. 1941 was adopted and ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of
22 yeas and 12 nays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEM. MEMBERS (25) YEAS NAYS PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brown, MD.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cartwright, PA............... X ........... ...........
Mr. Case, HI..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Clay, MO..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Costa, CA.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cox, CA...................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Cunningham, SC............... X ........... ...........
Ms. DeGette, CO.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Dingell, MI................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Gallego, AZ.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Grijalva, AZ (Chair)......... X ........... ...........
Ms. Haaland, NM.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Horsford, NV................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Huffman, CA.................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Levin, CA.................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Lowenthal, CA................ X ........... ...........
Mr. McEachin, VA................. ........... ........... ...........
Ms. Napolitano, CA............... X ........... ...........
Mr. Neguse, CO................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Sablan, CNMI................. X ........... ...........
Mr. San Nicolas, GU.............. X ........... ...........
Mr. Soto, FL..................... X ........... ...........
Mr. Van Drew, NJ................. X ........... ...........
Mr. Tonko, NY.................... X ........... ...........
Ms. Velazquez, NY................ ........... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REP. MEMBERS (19) Y N P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bishop, UT (Ranking)......... ........... X ...........
Ms. Cheney, WY................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Cook, CA..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Curtis, UT................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Fulcher, ID.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Gohmert, TX.................. ........... X ...........
Miss Gonzalez-Colon, PR.......... ........... X ...........
Mr. Gosar, AZ.................... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Graves, LA................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Hern, OK..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Hice, GA..................... ........... X ...........
Mr. Johnson, LA.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Lamborn, CO.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. McClintock, CA............... ........... ........... ...........
Mrs. Radewagen, AS............... ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Webster, FL.................. ........... ........... ...........
Mr. Westerman, AR................ ........... X ...........
Mr. Wittman, VA.................. ........... X ...........
Mr. Young, AK.................... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
TOTALS....................... 22 12 ...........
Total: 44/Quorum: 15/Report: YEAS NAYS PRESENT
23..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the
116th Congress--the following hearing was used to develop or
consider H.R. 1941: a legislative hearing titled ``Protecting
Coastal Communities from Offshore Drilling'' held by the
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on Tuesday, April
2, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1334 of the Longworth House
Office Building.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII and
Congressional Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 12, 2019.
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1941, the Coastal
and Marine Economies Protection Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen
Gramp.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill would
Prohibit future auctions of leases for oil
and gas development in the Atlantic and Pacific regions
of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Estimated budgetary effects would primarily stem from
Reducing collection of offsetting receipts
from offshore oil and gas leases
Reducing spending subject to appropriation
for administrative expenses related to leasing
activities in the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the
OCS
Areas of significant uncertainty include
Estimating the amount and timing of any
future government income from leasing in the Atlantic
and Pacific OCS under current law
Bill Summary: H.R. 1941 would prohibit future auctions of
leases for oil and gas development in the Atlantic and Pacific
Outer Continental Shelf. Under current law, decisions on where
and when to offer leases in the OCS are made administratively
by the Secretary of the Interior--in consultation with industry
and affected states--for five-year periods. Leases cannot be
offered for areas that are not included in a five-year plan,
but the available regions may change whenever a new plan is
adopted. H.R. 1941 would direct the Secretary to exclude the
Atlantic and Pacific regions from such plans.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of
H.R. 1941 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation
fall within budget functions 950 (undistributed offsetting
receipts) and 300 (natural resources and the environment).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases in Direct Spending
Estimated Budget Authority................. 0 0 0 0 25 25 30 30 30 30 30 50 200
Estimated Outlays.......................... 0 0 0 0 25 25 30 30 30 30 30 50 200
Decreases in Spending Subject to Appropriation
Estimated Authorization.................... 0 -10 -12 -4 -1 -1 n.e. n.e n.e. n.e. n.e. -28 n.e.
Estimated Outlays.......................... 0 -7 -11 -7 -2 -1 n.e. n.e n.e. n.e. n.e. -28 n.e.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.e. = not estimated.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted near the end of 2019.
Background: Companies that lease federal oil and gas
resources pay a bonus bid when they acquire leases, make rental
payments on nonproducing acreage, and pay royalties based on
the value of the oil and gas produced. Using the technical and
economic assumptions that underlie CBO's May 2019 baseline
projections, CBO estimates that offsetting receipts from
leasing activities in all areas of the OCS will total $56
billion over the 2020-2029 period. Royalties on production
account for about 90 percent of that total, and bonus payments
for most of the remainder. Because production in the OCS
usually begins several years after a lease is issued, CBO
expects that most of the proceeds during that period from
leases issued after 2020 would be from bonus payments.
CBO's baseline projections of bonus bids reflect recent
trends in OCS auction proceeds as well as factors that may
affect the value of resources in specific areas. In particular,
CBO considers the number of leases acquired by bidders in
auctions and trends in the winning bids for the top 10 leases,
which recently have accounted for more 40 percent of the total
proceeds from individual auctions.\1\ Receipts from individual
sales also vary depending on the bidders' assessments of the
strategic value of specific geological resources, the degree of
competition, and the size of the companies acquiring the
leases. For new areas, CBO expects that proceeds also would
reflect the bidders' assessment of the type and quality of the
infrastructure and the costs of operating in a region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Since 2015, the top 10 bids in each auction of leases in the
Gulf of Mexico have accounted for fewer than 10 percent of the leases
issued but more than 40 percent of the proceeds generated by the sales.
Winning bids from the top 10 leases in the Central Gulf of Mexico have
declined from an average of about $60 million each over the 2008-2014
period to about $10 million over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The timing and location of OCS auctions currently are
governed by the five-year plan for 2017 through 2022, which was
adopted in 2016. Because that plan does not authorize auctions
in the Atlantic and Pacific regions, CBO anticipates that no
leasing will occur in those regions through 2022 under current
law. However, CBO's baseline projections of oil and gas leasing
receipts after 2022 reflect the possibility that DOI will
authorize auctions in those areas under subsequent leasing
plans.
Direct spending: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1941
would reduce net offsetting receipts (which are recorded in the
budget as decreases in direct spending) and thus would increase
direct spending by $200 million over the 2020-2029 period. That
estimate reflects the effects of prohibiting leasing activity
that otherwise may occur under current law.
Because no leasing has occurred in the affected regions
since the 1980s, estimates of future proceeds are uncertain.
Although some companies recently applied for permits to do
seismic testing off the Atlantic coast, industry comments on
DOI's leasing plan for the 2017-2022 period indicate that
auctions in these regions may be a lower priority than lease
sales in other areas in the Gulf of Mexico.\2\ Several factors
could affect the industry interest in the Atlantic and Pacific
regions, including the absence of pipelines and onshore
processing facilities in key areas, opposition in some states
to the siting of such facilities in coastal areas, and past
litigation regarding offshore oil and gas development, that
resulted in the cancellation of some federal leases in both
regions.\3\ In addition, some resources in those regions
probably would be excluded from auctions because leasing may
not be compatible with state coastal zone management plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\DOI's summary of comments on the draft leasing plan for 2017-
2022 indicated that companies were most interested in auctions of
resources in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (which is subject to a
statutory moratorium through June, 2022), followed by interest in the
Mid- and South-Atlantic OCS, See Bureau of Ocean Management, 2017-2022
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program
(January 2015), pp. 3-13, www.boem.gov/2017-2022-DPP (PDF, 6.2 MB).
\3\Agencies in several states, including California, New Jersey,
and North Carolina, have adopted policies that ban oil and gas drilling
and related activities in state waters and have opposed including their
areas in the five-year leasing plan. See Bureau of Ocean Management,
2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed
Program (January 2015), pp. 3-13, www.boem.gov/2017-2022-DPP (PDF, 6.2
MB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO has no basis to estimate the specific probability of
auctions occurring in the future. In the absence of specific
information, CBO uses a 50 percent probability that auctions
would occur after 2022 to reflect the legal authority that
would exist to hold such auctions.
Taking into account such uncertainties and assuming that 50
percent chance that auctions will occur after 2022, CBO
estimates that, under current law, auctioning leases in the
Atlantic and Pacific OCS would generate offsetting receipts
totaling $200 million over the 2023-2029 period. That estimate
is roughly equivalent to a theoretical case in which 50 percent
of the value of 300 leases are acquired at an average price of
$1.3 million--an amount that is slightly higher the $1 million
average price paid per lease in the Gulf of Mexico in 2018.
While some expect that new geologic prospects such regions may
be more valuable than those in well-developed portions of the
Gulf of Mexico, CBO anticipates that most of those advantages
would be offset by the additional logistical costs of
developing resources in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.
Spending subject to appropriation: CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 1941 would reduce DOI's administrative costs
by $28 million over the 2020-2024 period. That estimate is
based on historical spending patterns for developing leasing
plans and completing the environmental, geologic, and economic
assessments that are required under current law for potential
auctions of leases in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Any
reduction in spending would depend on future appropriations
being reduced by the estimated amounts.
Uncertainty: The amounts the government might collect under
current law for leases in areas in the Atlantic and Pacific OCS
are uncertain and could be higher or lower than CBO estimates.
The timing of any auctions will depend on future administrative
actions that cannot be predicted. In addition, potential
bidders could rely on assumptions that differ from CBO's,
including projections of the long-term prices for oil and gas,
production costs, the areas' resource potential, and
alternative investment opportunities. The factors that affect
companies' investment decisions could result in a wide range of
possible bonus bids.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2.--CBO'S ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF H.R. 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2019-2024 2019-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase in the Deficit
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect............. 0 0 0 0 25 25 30 30 30 30 30 50 200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long-term deficits: CBO cannot determine
whether enacting the bill would increase net direct spending by
more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive periods
beginning in 2030. H.R. 205 would preclude the development of
some oil and gas resources that otherwise may occur in the
Atlantic or Pacific regions under current law. The potential
loss of offsetting receipts after 2029 would depend on several
factors, including future prices for oil and gas, the timing
and quantity of any production, and future administrative
actions. For example, the cost of implementing the bill may not
exceed $5 billion in any of those periods if prices are similar
to those assumed in CBO's May 2019 baseline projections of $74
per barrel in 2029 and there is only a 50 percent chance that
the resources estimated by the DOI are leased for development.
On the other hand, costs could exceed $5 billion in some
periods if prices or production exceed those projected amounts.
Mandates: None.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kathleen Gramp;
Mandates: Rachel Austin.
Estimate reviewed by: Kim Cawley, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goals and
objectives of this bill is to prohibit the Secretary of the
Interior including in any leasing program certain planning
areas.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Existing Programs
This bill does not establish or reauthorize a program of
the federal government known to be duplicative of another
program.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 18. Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program.--(a) The
Secretary, pursuant to procedures set forth in subsections (c)
and (d) of this section, shall prepare and periodically revise,
and maintain an oil and gas leasing program to implement the
policies of this Act. The leasing program shall consist of a
schedule of proposed lease sales indicating, as precisely as
possible, the size, timing, and location of leasing activity
which he determines will best meet national energy needs for
the five-year period following its approval or reapproval. Such
leasing program shall be prepared and maintained in a manner
consistent with the following principles:
(1) Management of the outer Continental Shelf shall
be conducted in a manner which considers economic,
social, and environmental values of the renewable and
nonrenewable resources contained in the outer
Continental Shelf, and the potential impact of oil and
gas exploration on other resource values of the outer
Continental Shelf and the marine, coastal, and human
environments.
(2) Timing and location of exploration, development,
and production of oil and gas among the oil- and gas-
bearing physiographic regions of the outer Continental
Shelf shall be based on a consideration of--
(A) existing information concerning the
geographical, geological, and ecological
characteristics of such regions;
(B) an equitable sharing of developmental
benefits and environmental risks among the
various regions;
(C) the location of such regions with respect
to, and the relative needs of, regional and
national energy markets;
(D) the location of such regions with respect
to other uses of the sea and seabed, including
fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed
sealanes, potential sites of deepwater ports,
and other anticipated uses of the resources and
space of the outer Continental Shelf;
(E) the interest of potential oil and gas
producers in the development of oil and gas
resources as indicated by exploration or
nomination;
(F) laws, goals, and policies of affected
States which have been specifically identified
by the Governors of such States as relevant
matters for the Secretary's consideration;
(G) the relative environmental sensitivity
and marine productivity of different areas of
the outer Continental Shelf; and
(H) relevant environmental and predictive
information for different areas of the outer
Continental Shelf.
(3) The Secretary shall select the timing and
location of leasing, to the maximum extent practicable,
so as to obtain a proper balance between the potential
for environmental damage, the potential for the
discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for adverse
impact on the coastal zone.
(4) Leasing activities shall be conducted to assure
receipt of fair market value for the lands leased and
the rights conveyed by the Federal Government.
(b) The leasing program shall include estimates of the
appropriations and staff required to--
(1) obtain resource information and any other
information needed to prepare the leasing program
required by this section;
(2) analyze and interpret the exploratory data and
any other information which may be compiled under the
authority of this Act;
(3) conduct environmental studies and prepare any
environmental impact statement required in accordance
with this Act and with section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)); and
(4) supervise operations conducted pursuant to each
lease in the manner necessary to assure due diligence
in the exploration and development of the lease area
and compliance with the requirement of applicable laws
and regulations, and with the terms of the lease.
(c)(1) During the preparation of any proposed leasing program
under this section, the Secretary shall invite and consider
suggestions for such program from any interested Federal
agency, including the Attorney General, in consultation with
the Federal Trade Commission, and from the Governor of any
State which may become an affected State under such proposed
program. The Secretary may also invite or consider any
suggestions from the executive of any affected local government
in such an affected State, which have been previously submitted
to the Governor of such State, and from any other person.
(2) After such preparation and at least sixty days prior to
publication of a proposed leasing program in the Federal
Register pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, the
Secretary shall submit a copy of such proposed program to the
Governor of each affected State for review and comment. The
Governor may solicit comments from those executives of local
governments in his State which he, in his discretion,
determines will be affected by the proposed program. If any
comment by such Governor is received by the Secretary at least
fifteen days prior to submission to the Congress pursuant to
such paragraph (3) and includes a request for any modification
of such proposed program, the Secretary shall reply in writing,
granting or denying such request in whole or in part, or
granting such request in such modified form as the Secretary
considers appropriate, and stating his reasons therefor. All
such correspondence between the Secretary and Governor of any
affected State, together with any additional information and
data relating thereto, shall accompany such proposed program
when it is submitted to the Congress.
(3) Within nine months after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary shall submit a proposed leasing program
to the Congress, the Attorney General, and the Governors of
affected States, and shall publish such proposed program in the
Federal Register. Each Governor shall, upon request, submit a
copy of the proposed leasing program to the executive of any
local government affected by the proposed program.
(d)(1) Within ninety days after the date of publication of a
proposed leasing program, the Attorney General may, after
consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, submit comments
on the anticipated effects of such proposed program upon
competition. Any State, local government, or other person may
submit comments and recommendations as to any aspect of such
proposed program.
(2) At least sixty days prior to approving a proposed leasing
program, the Secretary shall submit it to the President and the
Congress, together with any comments received. Such submission
shall indicate why any specific recommendation of the Attorney
General or a State or local government was not accepted.
(3) After the leasing program has been approved by the
Secretary, or after eighteen months following the date of
enactment of this section, whichever first occurs, no lease
shall be issued unless it is for an area included in the
approved leasing program and unless it contains provisions
consistent with the approved leasing program, except that
leasing shall be permitted to continue until such program is
approved and for so long thereafter as such program is under
judicial or administrative review pursuant to the provisions of
this Act.
(e) The Secretary shall review the leasing program approved
under this section at least once each year. He may revise and
reapprove such program, at any time, and such revision and
reapproval, except in the case of a revision which is not
significant, shall be in the same manner as originally
developed.
(f) The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish procedures
for--
(1) receipt and consideration of nominations for any
area to be offered for lease or to be excluded from
leasing;
(2) public notice of and participation in development
of the leasing program;
(3) review by State and local governments which may
be impacted by the proposed leasing;
(4) periodic consultation with State and local
governments, oil and gas lessees and permittees, and
representatives of other individuals or organizations
engaged in activity in or on the outer Continental
Shelf, including those involved in fish and shellfish
recovery, and recreational activities; and
(5) consideration of the coastal zone management
program being developed or administered by an affected
coastal State pursuant to section 305 or section 306 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1454, 1455).
Such procedures shall be applicable to any significant revision
or reapproval of the leasing program.
(g) The Secretary shall not include in any leasing program
under this section any area within the Atlantic Region planning
areas or the Pacific Region planning areas, as such planning
areas are described in the document entitled ``Draft Proposed
Program Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program
2019-2024'', dated January 2018.
[(g)] (h) The Secretary may obtain from public sources, or
purchase from private sources, any survey, data, report, or
other information (including interpretations of such data,
survey, report, or other information) which may be necessary to
assist him in preparing any environmental impact statement and
in making other evaluations required by this Act. Data of a
classified nature provided to the Secretary under the
provisions of this subsection shall remain confidential for
such period of time as agreed to by the head of the department
or agency from whom the information is requested. The Secretary
shall maintain the confidentiality of all privileged or
proprietary data or information for such period of time as is
provided for in this Act, established by regulation, or agreed
to by the parties.
[(h)] (i) The heads of all Federal departments and agencies
shall provide the Secretary with any nonprivileged or
nonproprietary information he requests to assist him in
preparing the leasing program and may provide the Secretary
with any privileged or proprietary information he requests to
assist him in preparing the leasing program. Privileged or
proprietary information provided to the Secretary under the
provisions of this subsection shall remain confidential for
such period of time as agreed to by the head of the department
or agency from whom the information is requested. In addition,
the Secretary shall utilize the existing capabilities and
resources of such Federal departments and agencies by
appropriate agreement.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
We are opposed to H.R. 1941 as ordered reported from the
Committee on Natural Resources. This bill would block oil and
gas lease sales in the Atlantic and Pacific planning areas in
the forthcoming National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Program
for 2019-2024.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) manages the
National OCS Program, which establishes a schedule of oil and
gas lease sales over a period of 5 years. BOEM is currently
working under the 2017-2022 National OCS Program developed
under the Obama Administration, which scheduled only 11 total
lease sales in two OCS regions. In April 2017, President Trump
directed BOEM to develop a new National OCS Program for 2019-
2024 to expand offshore oil and gas production.\1\ H.R. 1941
would prevent the Administration from conducting lease sales in
the Atlantic and Pacific planning areas under the new National
OCS Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019-2024 National Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing. Draft Proposed Program. January
2018. https://www.boem.gov/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and gas leasing has not occurred in the Atlantic and
Pacific planning areas since the early 1980s. Proponents of
H.R. 1941 often state that tourism, commercial fishing, and
recreation industries would be threatened or destroyed by the
presence of offshore oil and gas operations. But a brief look
at the economies of States in the Gulf of Mexico (Texas,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana) easily proves that this
fear is unfounded. For example, Louisiana hosts the great
majority of current offshore drilling operations, but
simultaneously supports one of the richest and most diverse
ecosystems on the planet, attracting a plethora of marine
wildlife and a booming fishing industry. Concern about
compatibility with military testing and training has also been
cited in discussions of opening the Atlantic and Pacific
planning areas, but 36% of current oil and gas leases already
have Department of Defense stipulations to accommodate military
purposes. The decades-long, successful coexistence of military
and drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that
these interests are not mutually exclusive.
Further, opponents of drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific
planning areas often site concerns regarding potential impacts
of seismic testing on marine life. However, there has been no
documented scientific proof of marine animals being adversely
impacted by the noise from air guns used in seismic
activities.\2\ According to BOEM, this technology has been in
use for 30 years and no known negative effects on marine animal
populations or commercial fishing have been reported in the
Gulf of Mexico, where active seismic testing still occurs.\3\
We should be actively exploring all areas of the OCS to better
understand our available domestic resources for future planning
purposes and to strengthen our national and economic security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``Science Notes.''
August 22, 2014. https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Science-Note-August-2014/.
\3\U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. ``Science Notes.''
August 22, 2014. https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Science-Note-August-2014/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill would also prevent the generation of billions in
revenues for the U.S. Treasury and the States. Offshore oil and
gas production is a major source of federal and State revenues,
contributing more than $3 billion to the Treasury and over $200
million to the Gulf States in Fiscal Year 2018. Gulf States use
their portion of revenues for programs to support conservation
and coastal resiliency. This is essential for States like
Louisiana who depend on healthy, stable coastlines for large
sectors of its economy. Offshore energy development is also the
primary funding source for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), a program recently permanently reauthorized by
Congress. It is ironic that a Democrat-sponsored bill to make
LWCF expenditures permanent and mandatory was considered at the
same markup as H.R. 1941, which if enacted would hamstring
LWCF's main funding source.
H.R. 1941 would reduce our ability to develop our domestic
energy resources, increasing our dependence on imports from
foreign actors such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose
environmental and humanitarian standards are unacceptable. This
bill would take billions of dollars in revenues off the table
for the States, the U.S. Treasury, and conservation programs,
and prevent the creation of millions of jobs. Rather than
unilaterally eliminating planning areas from consideration, we
should allow the stakeholder engagement process laid out in law
to take place, including thoughtful consideration of the best
places and conditions to access our valuable domestic energy
resources.
Russ Fulcher.
Kevin Hern (OK).
Tom McClintock.
Doug Lamborn.
Don Young.
Paul A. Gosar.
Liz Cheney.
Mike Johnson (LA).
Garret Graves (LA).
Rob Bishop (UT).
[all]
