H.Res. 274

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are again. It's kind of a Groundhog Day moment for Congress. This bill, or individual parts of this bill, passed in the last Congress five times and never went anywhere in the Senate, and it will meet the same fate again.

Now, the premise here is that if we had mandatory offshore oil leasing in the more sensitive areas of the coast--remember, 75 percent of the known recoverable resources are available currently under lease. Currently, there are 5,484 leases on the Outer Continental Shelf that aren't producing. Those leases cover 30 million acres--85 percent of the total acreage currently under lease. We estimate there are 18 billion barrels of oil under these leases and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When I asked the gentleman from the American Petroleum Institute why they needed to put more acreage under lease when they're sitting on all of this, his answer was, Well, you know, these things take a long time.

If they take a long time, let's encourage them to develop what they've already leased, to go after these 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. When they're making progress there, then they might come back and petition for more, and we'll make a decision at that point given the needs of the country; but the premise that somehow by putting more leases out there--with no requirement for them to perform--the price of gas will drop is absolutely untrue. We all know that's untrue. The American consumers know it's untrue.

The principal reason that underlies the 50-cent-a-gallon, one-week run-up in May, which we're still paying, is refineries. Our refineries need to be cleaned and maintained and have periodic maintenance, and, oh, a couple of them have broken down. We have seen incredible consolidation in the refinery industry, and it's always the excuse for jacking up the price on Memorial Day and on the July Fourth weekend and sticking it to the American consumers. Last year, they claimed that all of the refineries were shut down. An investigative reporter went in and got the air pollution records--no. Actually, they were operating, and they were exporting gasoline from the United States to overseas and were claiming there was a shortage here.

Now, we're in a world market. There's not much we can do about that. So the world price is what we pay for oil and gas, and it's a manipulated market; it's a collusive market. If we really wanted to do something, Members on the other side would join me in getting the administration to file a complaint against OPEC for manipulating the markets and for violating the World Trade Organization. You would join in investigating these suspicious refinery shutdowns, which I've asked the Obama administration Energy Task Force to do. You would also join us, instead of giving more latitude to speculators in the oil companies, in actually reining in the speculators. Hey, the head of ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for high prices as 75 cents a gallon is due to excess speculation on Wall Street.

So there are some real things we could do that would bring relief very quickly to American families, but those are not giving the oil industry, which is sitting on 5,484 leases, covering 30 million acres and 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, more acreage to put under lease, particularly with mandatory leasing in sensitive areas.

That's what this bill would do. We've passed it before. Well, not ``we.'' Collectively, the House has passed it before. I expect, as I said, we will see that happen again today, but nothing will happen with these bills in the United States Senate.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.

I yield 4 minutes to an outstanding new member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. Chairman, just to inject a few facts into the debate, although we often ignore those around here: oil production from Federal lands is higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 596 million barrels of oil from Federal lands last year, compared with 565 in 2008; and the Energy Information Administration found that oil production is higher on public lands offshore now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 474 million barrels of oil last year, compared to 462 in 2008, but sometimes facts are inconvenient things.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), an esteemed member of the Ways and Means and Budget Committees.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), another esteemed member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd just like to respond to the gentleman who preceded me.

The statistic he used was accurate in 2005, the 20 million barrels a day imported. And that was, of course, when George Bush was President of the United States with the Bush-Cheney energy policy. And that was 57 percent, you know, of the oil we consumed.

Now, due to changes with fleet fuel economy standards and biofuels and other steps taken by the Obama administration, actually, our daily consumption is down to 18.5 million barrels. That's not bad. That's almost an 8 percent decrease in a mere 7 years, with the President only in office for 4\1/2\. And we are now only 36 percent dependent on foreign oil.

That trend continues, of course, as I spoke earlier, about the increase in production on Federal lands and Federal offshore lands between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. So actually, we are making significant progress with the new policies that are designed to create less oil dependence, as opposed to the Bush- Cheney energy policy, which was actually designed to increase our dependence on fossil fuels.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I my consume.

The majority leader just put out some very impressive statistics on the possible potential off of the east and west coasts if we opened up these sensitive areas to mandatory leasing; but it's actually smaller than the known reserves under the leases the Federal Government has already let to oil companies, which they have thus far refused to develop: 5,484 leases, 30 million acres, 18 billion barrels of oil--his number was smaller than that--and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. His number was smaller than that.

So it's the premise that by mandatory leasing of these sensitive areas we're going to somehow have some sort of a boon to production as opposed to somehow incentivizing these oil companies not to sit on these leases forever. We have offered legislation previously from our side to require development of leases within a certain period of time, with escalating costs over time, and with the potential of turning those back and letting them be re-leased to companies that actually want to do the work.

People say, Well, these oil companies won't just sit on it. Yeah, they'll sit on it. It's worth more every day. And they don't pay hardly anything to sit on it. Does anybody think the price of oil is going to be cheaper 5 years from now than it is today? So if they sit on a Federal lease--and, oh, maybe we can get some more to sit on for the future--then that resource which they paid for in 1999 when oil was much cheaper is a phenomenally profitable resource.

So to say we must open up these sensitive areas now is disingenuous at best as opposed to incentivizing the industry to use those which are already leased and which have known resources that exceed the speculative resources under these in sensitive areas off California, off the east coast of the U.S., and in Bristol Bay, where there's a $2 billion a year totally sustainable fishing industry. It's not worth those risks.

The majority leader went on to castigate the administration. I know that many people's speeches are written in advance by their staff and they may not have been listening to the earlier debate and some of the facts I put out, or whatever happened. As I pointed out, during the Bush administration we were importing 20 million barrels of oil a day. That was 2005. And that was 57 percent of our consumption. Under the new policies of the Obama administration, which have led to conservation, more fuel-efficient cars, and biofuels, we are importing only 18.5 million barrels a day. That is 36 percent.

So we have made progress, and we should continue down that path. To lease more fossil fuel resources offshore is not a particularly creative 21st century solution. It may be a grand mid-20th century solution, which was much reflected in the Bush-Cheney energy policy. Actually, at the time when it passed, I said it would have been embarrassing policy for the 1950s, and it was tragic for the 21st century in terms of the potential we have with conservation, alternate fuels, and other measures we can take.

To rush this bill forward--and it will be rushed forward--to die in the Senate is not going to lower the price at the pump for any American. Again, the majority leader referenced that. And I made a statement on that earlier.

We're experiencing, not an oil shortage, but an artificial refinery shortage in the United States of America, which is used as an excuse to jack up prices and stick it to the American driving public every year in May and June and July when our families want to go on vacation. It's stretching their wallets.

If we took steps against the collusive shutdown of refineries, if we took steps against the collusive behavior of OPEC and other countries through the World Trade Organization, and if we took steps to crack down on the speculation on Wall Street, which even the head of ExxonMobil says, Don't blame me for those sky-high prices; blame Wall Street--75 cents a gallon is due to the Enron loophole created by a former Republican Congress to allow wild speculation in energy futures by Wall Street as opposed to producers and consumers coming together in a regular commodities market. So if we wanted to provide relief today, we'd crack down on speculation.

If we wanted to provide relief in the slightly longer term, we would deal with the issues of collusion and OPEC and refineries. And if we wanted to enhance the oil supply further, even though we're producing near-record amounts today here in the United States of America, we would encourage, incentivize, or disincentivize these oil companies who are sitting on these many, many billion barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and refusing to develop their existing leases while pandering for more.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the general debate we had some creative math and/or cherry-picking of years to make a point that is not accurate.

The point is that oil production from Federal lands today is higher than it was at the end of the Bush administration--596 million barrels compared to 565 in 2008.

Now, in the offshore, when you use a certain number of years, obviously there is some anomaly. The anomaly was the worst oil spill disaster in the history of the United States, which was the Macondo blowup in the gulf, which of course set back leasing activity and development in the gulf for a period of time. However, we have now adopted new regulations. We're actually requiring blowup preventers that work and a few other sorts of things that the Obama administration has done to make the drilling safer.

Under this administration, there are now more floating rigs in the gulf than before the spill and during the Bush years; and we approved 112 Deepwater drilling permits last year--the most since 2005. Of course that drilling is being conducted more safely than it has in the past.

So, I mean, we're going to be able to switch around, pick different years, and do all of these things, but these are aggregate, longer-term numbers as opposed to specifying a particular year--and particularly picking a year after the worst oil spill rig disaster in the history of the United States.

With that, Mr. Chairman, we do not object to the amendment by Mr. Brady, and I reserve the balance of my time.

As I pointed out earlier in the debate, yes, the chairman is correct, it does take time, and there are 5,484 leases, 30 million acres, mostly about 85 percent in the Gulf of Mexico, that have an estimated, according to the Energy Information Administration, 18 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that have not yet been developed.

In any case, I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment. He makes a small improvement in what we consider to be a bad bill by requiring that if States opt into leasing, that there will be a NEPA review. I'm glad that there is some recognition on the other side of the aisle on the value of NEPA reviews to protect our precious natural resources.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed.

At the beginning of the consideration of this bill, I talked about how this was a little bit of ``Groundhog Day'' because all or parts of this bill passed in the last Congress five times. Now the gentleman is kind of disproving my theory because, well, I guess, at the very end of the movie, they broke out of the ``Groundhog Day'' cycle's being repetitive; but the gentleman is actually breaking us out of the cycle.

Actually, last year, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a Democrat, offered this identical amendment for sanctions to one of the many offshore oil drilling bills passed by the Republicans in the last Congress. On that day, which was the 25th of July 2012--almost a year ago today--I would note, on an amendment that does exactly what this amendment does, which we think is extraordinarily meritorious, that every Republican voted no--N-O. That would, of course, include Mr. Lamborn and the esteemed chairman, Mr. Hastings.

So I'm not sure what has changed in the last year. Perhaps they just opposed it the last time because a Democrat was offering it and because the principle and the danger posed by businesses operating in these countries which are hostile to the United States of America wasn't worth dealing with when you could beat a Democratic amendment. I don't know. Maybe there has been a new realization on the other side of the aisle of the dangers of Iran and Syria since that time. Again, I don't know.

Not one Republican Member of the House voted in favor of this amendment 1 year ago despite the fact that the esteemed gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered it as a motion to recommit on a bill. It could be because Republicans lockstep oppose motions to recommit or Democratic amendments, even if they have merit, just to make some sort of a perverse point.

We support this amendment today, as Democrats did last year, and perhaps all of the Republicans will change their positions this year, and it will be a unanimous vote.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman would have been accurate had the motion to recommit been worded ``promptly,'' but it was worded ``forthwith,'' so it would only have delayed the bill by a total of 10 minutes or 15 minutes, however long the next vote was set for. It would not have sent the bill back to committee, and it would not have disrupted the movement of the legislation. So that part of the statement is not accurate and not a good explanation for why the Republicans uniformly opposed this excellent policy last year, even if it is, as the chairman says, reemphasizing existing law.

We happen to think it's a really great existing law, and we wanted to make that point last year. Your side didn't. I'm glad that you've come around on looking at the companies that do business in Iran and Syria as serious threats to the United States and are going to essentially support the amendment that we offered last year, which you opposed.

That's the best I can do, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we change our minds around here. We haven't. All the Democrats, I expect, will vote in favor of this amendment, as they did last time. Apparently now, most or all Republicans will vote. That is a privilege we have around here, to change our minds. I just wish they had opposed it on better grounds last time rather than saying, well, it would have delayed the bill by 15 minutes.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in adamant opposition.

This amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior offshore agencies from using voluntary and commonsense planning as part of the National Ocean Policy to inform decisions they make under existing laws.

It's interesting that the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents offshore energy developers of many kinds, yesterday noted:

This is a great example of the progress that can be made

when industry and regulating agencies communicate with each

other. It's gratifying to see government and an industry come

together to cooperatively and responsibly address these

complex and important environmental issues.

And the gentleman's amendment would bring that program to a halt, which obviously the industry actually seems to think is useful.

With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2231.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act.

Unlike the President's plan that we heard from this week, which is to impose new energy taxes and Federal red tape that will increase energy prices and cost American jobs, this Republican plan will expand access to our own U.S. energy resources in order to lower energy prices and increase American jobs.

Gas prices have nearly doubled since President Obama took office. The national average today remains above $3.50 per gallon compared to the $1.89 it was when he took office. We shouldn't have to accept potentially $4-a-gallon gas prices, especially when we have the resources right here at home. Higher gas prices mean we are making tough budget choices. For small businesses, it may mean the difference between hiring more workers or having to let some go. For families, it may be the difference between replacing the worn-out household appliance or making due with makeshift repairs. This is why access to affordable energy is so vital.

For decades, most of our Nation's offshore areas were under a moratorium, preventing any offshore development. All of that, Mr. Chairman, changed in the summer of 2008 when outrageously high gas prices made our Nation's energy struggles a regular topic of conversation around the dinner table for American families. Later that year, Congress and then-President Bush lifted those moratoria with the hopes of fostering an era of increased energy production.

President Obama then came into office with a tremendous opportunity. For the first time in more than a generation, he had the ability to open new offshore areas to oil and natural gas production. Sadly, instead, he went out of his way to shut down this opportunity by putting forth a new 5-year offshore leasing plan that locks up 85 percent of our offshore areas. The plan includes no new drilling, which results in no new American jobs. In fact, it includes the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in an offshore lease plan. Mr. Chairman, that's the worst record since President Jimmy Carter's.

We must do better. That's why we are here today to consider the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. This legislation puts us back on the right path: one that will open new areas to drilling, one that will create 1.2 million American jobs, one that will lower energy prices, and one that will generate $1.5 billion in new revenue to the Federal Government. But it's not only energy jobs that will be created; it's associated industries like manufacturing, boating, transportation, and service industries like hotels and restaurants. They, too, will also benefit.

This legislation requires the administration to implement a new 5- year leasing plan that includes areas with the most oil and natural gas, such as the mid-Atlantic and Alaska and off southern California. It's not a ``drill everywhere'' plan but, rather, a ``drill smart'' plan that focuses on those areas where the greatest potential lies. It would also require specific lease sales to be held off the coasts of South Carolina and Virginia, the latter of which was originally scheduled to take place in 2011 but was cancelled by the Obama administration. There is bipartisan support in favor of the Virginia lease sale, but, again, this administration canceled it and punted any future sales until after 2017.

The bill also establishes a fair and equitable revenue sharing program with all coastal States that have drilling off their coasts, much like what the Gulf States currently enjoy. Revenue sharing will create new incentives for opening offshore areas to drilling. Again, more American energy production equates to more jobs and a stronger economy.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes reforms to further enhance the accountability, efficiency, safety, and ethical standards of offshore energy operations. These reforms will allow for the robust production of our Nation's offshore energy resources while ensuring that all activity is conducted with proper oversight.

Offshore energy production has steadily declined under this administration, and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's time to reverse that trend. H.R. 2231 will remove government barriers that are currently blocking access to our American energy resources. It will safely and responsibly unlock our energy and allow us to create over a million new American jobs. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Virginia, I'd just point out that the CBO estimates that there will be revenue coming into the Federal Government of approximately $1.5 billion.

At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a leader in the House here on energy development.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.

If the gentleman is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate and I think it's a good debate, because what's at stake here in the long-run, not only for today but maybe potentially for generations ahead, is the potential energy independence for our country. And I think that's a worthy thing to have a debate about on the floor of the House.

Let me address a few of the issues that were brought up by my friend on the other side of the aisle, and let me focus first on leases.

The argument on the other side leaves one to believe that leases are just given out to anybody that wants them and then they just sit on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lease is given out on a potential area where there may be oil or natural gas. Those leases cost money and have certain conditions of a time in which whoever buys the lease has to develop that lease, and that can range anywhere from 5 to 10 years, depending on the depth of the water.

So the fact of the matter is these lease sales cost whoever purchases the lease. Now if it costs, where does the money go? It comes to the Federal Government. This is a source of income for the Federal Government just on the lease sales.

Now, why would any business want to spend money and not try to get a return on it? Many times, these leases then are reverted back to the Federal Government. In fact, the average, depending where you are and the depth, can be as high as 20 percent. It can be as low as 10 percent. On average, it's around 15 percent. So these lease blocks come back to the Federal Government. And guess what. They can be relet again. In fact, in some cases, over 40 percent are relet. What does that mean? That means the Federal Government gets another chance--and still without any energy production, I might add--just on the lease sales.

And then you have a truism, I suppose, and maybe not what is understood by a lot of people, but I've heard this over and over, that when you have a lease, you really don't know if there's oil there until you go through all the technology to find it. But the ultimate last step is to drill. And if you're lucky, then you'll get something that you can develop; but if not, all of that money is spent and you get no return back.

This is a fact from the standpoint of how leases work. Nobody is going to sit on leases unless they felt that there is a potential there. If not, the terms of the lease sale means it goes back to the Federal Government, and that is something that I think we need to probably understand more than we do now.

And then there's the issue of cartels. I think that was mentioned. I think history shows that whenever there is a cartel, I don't care what the commodity is, the very best way to beat the cartel is to outsupply the cartel. And that's precisely what this bill is about, and it's precisely because of the new technology that has been developed by the oil and gas industry to drill smart, which is what this bill does.

The potential resources offshore in this country are huge, enough so, that some people say we could be the premier supplier of crude in the next 20 years--and that includes comparing ourselves to the Middle East.

Now, it has also been stated that since this administration took office, oil and gas production is up. That's true, it is up; but it's not up on Federal lands. And this is precisely what this bill addresses, oil and gas leasing on Federal lands.

Most of that is on private lands and most of it, frankly, is in North Dakota and in west Texas. But if you look at what the results are of this administration as it relates to what their jurisdiction is--which of course is Federal lands and offshore--the Congressional Research Service, a part of Congress, has noted that the recent increase in U.S. oil and natural gas can be attributed to State and private lands, and not Federal. Now, that's what the CRS said, but I can go a step further.

There is a Federal agency within the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. Now, this is an agency within the Obama administration, I might add, Mr. Chairman. They say that total Federal offshore production dropped 8 percent last year and natural gas dropped 19 percent last year. This is on Federal offshore. But it goes even further.

Since the President took office in 2009, Federal offshore production is down 12 percent and natural gas production is down 40 percent. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to repeat, this is information that comes from the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Agency. That is an agency within the Obama administration. So while we have increased oil and gas production in this country, it is, in fact, in spite of this administration, not because of.

The reason why this legislation is so important--again, it's not done for a day; it's done for future generations--it is in our best interests. A growing economy needs a certainty of energy. This bill provides a certainty of energy because we are drilling on Federal offshore areas.

And it has a national security aspect to it all, Mr. Chairman. You know, every day we hear news about the Middle East and the volatility in the Middle East, and yet we talk--OPEC is principally positioned in the Middle East, not wholly, but principally in the Middle East. Is it not in our best interest, therefore, when we know we have these resources, to utilize them from a national security standpoint?

Finally, of course, it's been said over and over--and it's so true-- energy jobs are good jobs; they're good-paying jobs. Why don't we want to make sure that we can create more American jobs with American energy for national security purposes? Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what this legislation does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and we support his amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to respond to my good friend from Oregon's statistics.

What I said is that the production is down from when the President took office. And that, of course, is true. The gentleman makes the argument that there was more production initially in the Obama administration than the Bush administration. I never argued with that. But there's a reason for it. There were more lease sales during the Bush administration, and it takes a while to get these leases producing. They started producing at the first part of the Obama administration; and since then, they have gone down because of the actions of this administration.

So my statistics are correct, and I guess his statistics are correct; but it's not the whole story. The whole story is it takes a lot of time in order to bring a lease sale into production, and that's what the gentleman overlooked.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I generally do not rise to vote or argue against a Hastings amendment, but in this case I feel I have to. It is the nature of who the author of the amendment is, perhaps, and I think the gentleman understands.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prioritizes bureaucracy over responsibly increasing energy production. The amendment, as the gentleman noted, would strike a section of the bill, but that bill, that section, requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be conducted prior to any leasing in any lease sale areas.

The gentleman takes issue in the manner in which the Environmental Impact Statement is required to be conducted. However, what he fails to mention is that the administration is required to do yet another environmental review prior to each lease sale and additional reviews on each lease block as part of the leasing process. Then each expiration plan has additional environmental work.

In effect, all of the areas in the underlying bill will be studied and then restudied for the effect that any activity will have on the environment.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but all of these lease sales will be subject to the many different laws that still impact the offshore leasing process, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Fishing Enhancement Act, just to name a few.

The truth of the matter is that this bill doesn't harm the environment; it goes the extra mile in requiring a multi-sale EIS on all of the lease areas, while still ensuring that leasing does occur because of the certainty in the process.

Support for offshore energy does not mean that you cannot respect a wide range of different environmental needs based upon a lease area.

We want to drill safely and responsibly. I think that is embodied in the underlying bill. For that reason, I urge rejection of the Hastings amendment, the Hastings of Florida amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate just simply on this amendment because I would point out to my colleagues that there has been a lot of reference on the floor today about the Senate's doing something or not doing something. I would just remind my colleagues that their Senators, both of whom are Democrats, support drilling off the Virginia coast. I've found out, too, that their candidate for Governor has switched his position now and that he, too, supports drilling off the coast of Virginia. So I can say here today, I think very honestly, that there is bipartisan support for drilling off the coast of Virginia.

Finally, I want to address the point that my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) made about no safety. I will just refer him to title IV in this legislation. If his concern is on not having safety and updating rules because of oil spills, then he should support this legislation, because title IV does that through the reorganization process.

So, Mr. Chairman, it hurts me to say vote ``no'' on a Hastings amendment, but I will in this case for the arguments that I made a moment ago. We simply don't need it because of all of the environmental reviews you have to go through on lease sales.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman's amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I support your amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding as I want to make this point.

Existing law already exists as it relates to sanctions with the countries we're talking about, but I think it is very important, since we're talking about a national commodity, that we reemphasize--and that's really what the gentleman's amendment does, it reemphasizes what is already on the books. I think that needs to be done, especially right now with the volatility that we see in the Middle East.

So I think the gentleman's amendment, as I stated, makes a great deal of sense. I support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

The gentleman knows that I have the same concerns he has on this executive order, and I think his amendment adds a great deal to this bill, and I support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to our good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who I certainly hope is feeling better than the way he's walking today, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of 2013, as well as H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and makes several specific amendments in order to each bill which are germane and compliant with the rules of the House. This proposed rule also provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill.

These energy bills, if enacted, will help foster responsible development of our abundant offshore domestic energy resources and will do so in an environmentally responsible manner. H.R. 2231 would help reverse some of the current administration's energy policies, which are stalling responsible offshore lease development on the Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation would require that the administration implement a new 5-year leasing plan, including 50 percent of the areas that have been previously identified as the most promising in oil reserves and natural gas.

The average American consumer has seen their energy bill double since this

administration started. A gallon of gas was under $2 when the President was first sworn in. It's now routinely more than $4 a gallon--and continues to climb. And yet the administration deliberately stalls and blocks job-creating, energy-producing projects like the Keystone pipeline for the responsible development of coal and tar sands reserves we have on our public lands, including in my own State. This actually hits the middle class and the poor class the worst.

H.R. 2231 will streamline the current bureaucracy handling these leases and will also implement a fair and equitable revenue-sharing plan for coastal States. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that passage of this bill will reduce net direct spending of the Federal Government by $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. So, in essence, you have a bill that makes us more energy independent, drives down the cost of fuel for U.S. families, helps reduce the cost of the Federal Government, and produces an estimated 1.2 million jobs. I think, by most standards, that would be considered a fairly good bill.

Likewise, the other bill in the rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, will provide for improved Federal management and oversight of energy resources which straddle international boundaries. Passage of this act will implement an agreement we already have with the Government of Mexico on how to handle development of these resources, including revenue-sharing concepts, as well as ensuring that the United States companies that are investing will develop their resources but not be imperiled by actions that may be taken later on by the Government.

Finally, the resolution also provides for a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the fiscal year 2014 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which continues what was common when I first arrived here and then stopped but was then reinstated and continues to be reinstated by Chairman Pete Sessions--having open rules on our appropriations bills.

I'm appreciative of the Rules Committee chairman's leadership in this regard. I'm also appreciative of the hard work and dedication of the bill's sponsors. First, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Washington, also chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee (Mr. Hastings), as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his leadership on the Agriculture appropriation bill. In short, this is a fair and good rule dealing with good pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. I urge their adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the author of one of the bills in here, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I appreciate the comments that were just made by the gentleman from Massachusetts about a program which does fund $6.7 billion in the WIC program and was passed unanimously by voice vote from both parties in the Appropriations Committee.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of one of the bills that is part of this rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to realize how the GAO's and the OMB's facts are not inaccurate and also how rules that were waived for this bill have been waived for the same reason in prior pieces of legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I appreciate what has been said even though it has very little to do with the bills that we will be discussing in these next couple of weeks.

Especially as a former teacher, I understand significantly what it does to student loans and situations. I understand significantly how now 5 years ago Congress passed legislation that cut out the FFEL Program, which actually helped kids in their being able to afford their college workability. We consolidated all of our efforts with a program, an idea, from the 1980s, which was a bad idea then and is a bad idea now.

Unfortunately, this House has dealt with this issue. On May 23 of this year, we passed a bill that solves this problem, and we sent it over to the Senate. For some reason, I feel uncomfortable or at least tired of being held accountable for the Senate's inability to actually deal with legislation sent to them that solves problems and then have to take the responsibility back here. The House has dealt with this issue, and we did it in a responsible, reasonable way. The Senate has refused to.

So often what we have found as gridlock here is not necessarily between Republicans and Democrats as we pass a whole lot of bipartisan bills on this floor. It's between the Senate and the House. I wish it were different and that we could compel the Senate to act responsibly, but the Senate has not and the House has.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Other than brilliant verbiage from myself, you've got it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the opportunity of being part of a debate that covered a smorgasbord of ideas. Let me just respond to several of those that have been presented in the last lead-up to the vote on this particular amendment.

As I said before, I'm a teacher. I care greatly about education. I'm especially frustrated with the way Congress has passed or handled the student loan provision.

Several years ago, while the Democrats were in control--I'm trying not to be too partisan, but they were in control--we changed the law that dealt with student loans to consolidate that authority within the Federal Government. By doing so, we crushed private-State partnership plans that were an excellent avenue for loans that students could use. They could get breaks depending on their repayment habits. It was a marvelous program, but it was stopped in an effort to try to consolidate everything here within Congress. Since that time, we have played silly games of brinksmanship that deal with what the rate should be and what the rate might be.

We have a bill that this body passed on May 23 in plenty of time to extinguish this issue, plenty of time for the Senate to debate it, amend it, send it back to us, appoint the conference, go through regular process, if the Senate wished to do that. Instead, the result is the Senate has basically turned their back on the issue and said, We'll let it go over the cliff one more time.

You see, it shouldn't have been that way. If we had not changed the policy back when we passed a bill in the previous leadership of this House, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. What this House tried to do is say this is a silly approach going into the future. Let's come up with a policy towards student loans. If we have to consolidate them, if the Federal Government has to have their control and grasp over the entire thing, we should do it in a way that provides some kind of flexibility and some kind of rationalization so it can ebb and flow in the future as the market requires it to do.

We passed a bill not just that allowed them not to double, but we passed a bill here on this floor which solved the problem. The fact that the Senate does not wish to solve the problem is something that I find sad. But we solved the problem, and we did it in a timely fashion.

The great speeches that I heard today--and they were very good and their verbiage was better than mine--should be given over in the Senate where it can do some good.

I also want to talk about a couple of other issues that I've heard, that these particular bills in this rule would violate states rights' agreements, even though the issue at hand is only those waters and coastal waters that are a part of the Federal preserve and does not talk about State waters whatsoever.

We talked about in H.R. 1613 a poison pill being inserted into that provision that exempts Dodd-Frank. Somehow I wish we could actually go back to the person who actually inserted that provision in there because it was Secretary Hillary Clinton. That's part of the negotiations we did as a country with the Mexican Government; and it's logical that it is in there because it gives some protection to U.S. companies that, if that language was not in there, could be forced either to violate Federal laws or violate foreign laws and face civil penalties or cease to operate in foreign countries.

I can understand why the Secretary of State at the time did negotiate that portion that is in there. That's not the poison pill. That's simply what is in the negotiated settlement. All we're doing with this bill is enacting it, putting it into place, and allowing us to move forward with what has been simply negotiated on resource areas that straddle international lines.

I'm also somewhat frustrated with the statement that we might as well use the leases that we currently have. I'm also frustrated because we have had a great deal of increase in production of oil and gas, and it's all happened on private and State lands.

I happen to represent a State that has almost 70 percent of it controlled by the Federal Government. I have enormous amounts of resource potential in my State, but it is controlled by the Federal Government. So even though areas where private property and States have been able to increase the revenue to their States and increase the total amount of petroleum productions that we have, my State has seen the exact opposite.

If you go onshore to the areas that are controlled by this administration, the Federal lands, the amount of parcels that have been offered since 2005 are down 88 percent. The amount of acres that are offered for development of resources are down 85 percent. And what is most sad is the amount of revenue that is produced both to the State and to the Federal Government from onshore development since 2005, which is down 99 percent.

A lease is simply not, as has been stated, the green light to start drilling. A release simply says you start the process. And part of the problem with the releases both onshore and offshore has been the inability of the Federal Government to do so in a reasonable fashion. On onshore lease development there is regulation that says it must be done in a 6-month period of time to move forward from the initial sale and to which the lease is then offered so the company can start its drilling process. Yet in a survey done by GAO, 91 percent of the time, that 6-month standard has not been met onshore.

Part of H.R. 2231 is a reorganization of the administrative function that deals with how these leases are developed and how they proceed going forward. By taking one agency, which has had a very poor record and dividing it into three with specific responsibilities, we think we can streamline this process and make sure that what we are doing on the Outer Continental Shelf is far more effective than what we are doing on Federal lands onshore, where all we are having is stalling delays and a lack of production and a lack of revenue coming from them.

It was once said to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee that if he had a better idea, do it. In all due respect, he has a better idea. That better idea is the two bills before us right now, H.R. 2231, and the other bill, which is H.R. 1613. Those are good ideas. They will move us forward. They're the things we ought to do to prepare.

I think it's a great rule that is allowing that and allowing the appropriation bill to come through in an open rule, allowing anyone who has an idea that he or she wishes to bring to the floor the opportunity to do so.

With that, this is a fair rule. It deals with an appropriations process, as well as two bills that are good bills that

will help people. Especially after yesterday's speech, we should have an energy policy in this country aimed at helping middle class Americans, not one that simply says, freeze in the dark, especially if you're poor. That's the best thing we are going to be able to do.

These bills move us forward. We should vote for them. With that, having failed at my effort to give you good verbiage, in which case I'm sorry you're holding the cane there, I hope you're using that only to navigate around this floor and it will not become a weapon in the future.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 274 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the

reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and

the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 595 as specified in section 8 of this

resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Reserving the right to object, I'd like to understand the reasons--I understand the typographical errors and appreciate that the chair wishes to revise those, but I'm curious about one provision.

As the chair would remember, I came to the committee and asked that they not waive the rule for the Cassidy amendment because the Cassidy amendment will increase the deficit by $15 billion over 30 years. And of course the rules of the House don't allow us to engage in additional spending without an offset, and there is no offset. But the chair did waive all points of order, so the rules of the House don't apply to this additional $15 billion of deficit spending.

But now my understanding is that they want to substitute a different amendment, which, instead of $15 billion of additional deficit over 30 years, would only create $14,999,999,970 of new deficit.

I would like to understand why we're bothering to do this. I think over the span of 30 years, increasing the deficit by $14,999,999,970 versus $15 billion, which is easier to say because it has got a lot of zeros in it, what's the rationale? Why would we do this? Why do we need UC for this? I'm just curious.

Could the gentleman respond.

Continuing to reserve the right to object, so the bottom line here, if I can define it for our colleagues in simple language, is the net difference in waiving the rules of the House of $30, apparently the total waiving of the rules of the House to allow additional deficit spending. In contradiction of what the other side of the aisle normally proposes, there is somehow a dramatic difference between $14,999,999,970 of new debt and deficit and $15 billion, which requires a substitution of this amendment, because it's my understanding it would somehow then violate the Budget Act twice. Is that accurate? Even though you've waived the rule and we can go ahead with the amendment, you would be violating the Budget Act twice. So we just want to say we're only violating the Budget Act once; is that the difference?

Further reserving the right to object, if you're going to waive the rules of the House to create $15 billion in new deficit, I don't know why we need unanimous consent to waive the rules yet again to create $14,999,999,970 in deficit. I guess that makes a difference somewhere to someone, so I would not object.

I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We could have done this bill as a suspension bill 2 days ago. That is, it probably could have passed the House by unanimous consent, which is very rare, if this provision had not been added.

There is consensus on both sides of the aisle that it's critical that we move forward with this agreement with Mexico to deal with shared resources in the western Gulf of Mexico. However, the Republicans have chosen to use this as a vehicle to launch yet another attack on Wall Street reform, on the Dodd-Frank reforms, which is totally unnecessary. Obviously, it was presented as: it's potentially, possibly, maybe a future problem for American oil companies if the Mexicans change their law. Under their existing law, there is no problem. We're going to see disclosure, and it will be disclosure by Mexican companies that are bidding or by American companies that are bidding or by any other foreign company that is bidding in the gulf. You will see full disclosure, so no one would be at a commercial or at an economic disadvantage.

But the premise here is that, someday, Mexico might change their law, and therefore our companies would have to disclose and theirs wouldn't. If that did happen at some potential possible future date by some potential possible future Mexican Government, then the Securities and Exchange Commission has adequate authority, even under the Dodd-Frank reforms, to waive that requirement because it would be in the public interest and commercial interest of the United States of America to waive that provision in this instance. Now, that's dealing with Mexico.

The second problem with what they're proposing here is that they actually want to totally repeal this section of Dodd-Frank for any future agreements with any other nations on a transboundary basis, which could certainly include Canada and, likely, with the conflicts that are looming over the Arctic Ocean and the resources up there, with Russia. Now, I get pretty

nervous when I start thinking that U.S. companies are going to be negotiating secret agreements with Russia and that somehow these are going to protect our taxpayers, that they're going to protect our shareholders, that they're going to protect our public interest. That, I think, is really a very, very, very disturbing trend with this bill.

So the issue is: do we want to get this done? If we want to get it done, this is not the way to do it, because this bill, as amended by the Republicans to change the agreement and waive the rules for oil companies so they can make secret payments to the Government of Mexico, that will not pass the Senate. So we'll have yet another one-House bill, and we will further delay what the Republican side wants to expedite, which is offshore oil and gas development.

I would suggest that, rather than expediting things here, we're messing them up, and I would suggest to my colleagues that we oppose this bill in this form, that we bring it back as a clean authorization with the existing agreement with Mexico, and that we move forward and get it done. I expect, if we got it done here, we could bring it up again and get it done in a day or under suspension or perhaps, I think, with unanimous consent, even between today and tomorrow. Then the Senate would pass it with unanimous consent, and we'd be done with it.

Instead, we're going to have yet another example of the dysfunction of the Congress because we're going to pass a version here that cannot pass in the United States Senate, and then, I guess, the Republicans will try and blame the Senate for not wanting to waive the rules and allow oil companies to make secret payments to the Government of Mexico in order to garner commercial deals.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

That was very impassioned, and we can agree with the necessity of moving forward with the agreement. The problem is that the gentleman ignored the fact that the United States Senate will not pass this bill as written. They will not waive the Dodd-Frank disclosure rules to allow big oil companies to make secret deals with the Government of Mexico. They're not going to do that. So you're slowing things down by insisting on repealing part of these vital Wall Street reforms.

With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, who is an expert on this provision of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If the gentleman would go to the microphone, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and I will yield to him.

Your assertion is that Mexico asked the Government of the United States to include a waiver of our financial services reform provisions in section 105 in this agreement, and the Obama administration didn't agree to that but Mexico signed the agreement anyway, and now you're trying to help out the government of Mexico to get something that you claim they wanted but didn't get from this administration; is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Well, that's what you just said.

Well, please clarify.

Okay. With that, I would reclaim my time. I could ask to have the record read back, but I won't because it would delay things. But you said this is what Mexico wanted. You did say that just before as you spoke. Now you're saying that you believe that this is reflecting the spirit of the agreement. Now I will accept that. You believe that changing the agreement by waiving our financial services law is in the spirit of the agreement. I don't believe that. Maxine Waters, who serves on the Committee on Financial Services, doesn't agree with that. And, unfortunately, the President of the United States doesn't agree with that, so this bill is going nowhere. It's not going to get out of the Senate. They have a bipartisan bill over there that doesn't waive Dodd-Frank that they could pass by unanimous consent. We could be done with this. But no, we're not going to do that; we're going to play games.

So here's what the President said. He's got something to say about this in the end, he really does:

The administration cannot support H.R. 1613, as reported by

the House Committee on Natural Resources because of the

unnecessary, extraneous provisions that seriously detract

from the bill. Most significantly, the administration

strongly objects to exempting actions taken by public

companies in accordance with the transboundary hydrocarbon

agreements from requirements section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank

Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission's natural

resource extraction disclosure rule. As a practical matter,

this provision would waive the requirement for the disclosure

of any payments made by resource extraction companies to the

United States or foreign governments in accordance with a

transboundary hydrocarbon agreement. The provision directly

and negatively impacts U.S. efforts to increase transparency

and accountability, particularly in the oil, gas, and

minerals sectors.

So if we proceed with this bill in this form, the President will veto the bill, and we'll be back again. And how many months that'll take, I don't know. But to assert that somehow Mexico wanted this, or the administration wanted it, and they just kind of forgot to put it in the agreement, and now we're helping them out, even though the administration says they don't want it, and I don't know what the government of Mexico says--and then there was another issue raised about confidentiality provisions.

In fact, the SEC has more than adequate capabilities to do general exemptions in sections 12(h) and 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act. They could issue exemptions from this disclosure requirement under this authority, should it be warranted. In fact, the SEC today confirmed with us that there is nothing that would prevent the SEC from issuing exemptions should they be warranted. Now, the objection here is to waiving any and all future agreements from any public disclosure of payments to foreign governments. That's what you're doing here today. It's not about this one agreement or problems that might crop up with Mexico. That could be accommodated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It's about doing away with a critical section of Dodd- Frank. And if you want to do that, why not bring it up in the Financial Services Committee, have a hearing, have a debate, send us a bill and repeal it. But don't try and do it in the dark of night in the hope that if you attach it to this agreement, which we all agree should be entered into, Mexico wants, U.S. wants, that you're doing anybody a favor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)

May I ask the Chair, how much time remains on either side?

Okay. Does the gentleman have more speakers or would he be closing?

Mr. Speaker, what we've heard here today is that by modifying this agreement, by preventing disclosure of payments by big oil companies to foreign governments which could essentially constitute under-the-table agreements, bribes, however you have it, will somehow lower gas prices for the American people.

Now, I think if you went out and asked the American people, ``Do you think allowing ExxonMobil or any of the other big companies to enter into secret agreements with foreign governments to exploit jointly held resources is going to benefit you at the pump?'' I think they'd kind of laugh at you. I mean, no offense, but they would.

The bottom line is there's also a further assertion that somehow this possible future development of this area will lower the price at the pump. It won't and it hasn't, and today the prices are excessive.

Why are they excessive?

Well, there's this funny little thing that happens just around Memorial Day every year. The refiners--and the refinery industry has been dramatically consolidated over the last few years because there's been buyouts and closures and everything else--they decide that they've got to do periodic maintenance.

It's got to happen at the beginning of the driving season; and, of course, they all schedule it at the same time and they limit refinery capacity, and then they say there's a shortage and the price jumps up 50 cents a gallon, like it did in Oregon just a month ago--50 cents a gallon in a week.

Whoa, what happened? Did you see anybody waving red flags saying, We don't have any gas, or yellow flags?

Anybody remember the seventies? No. Everybody had gas. They just jacked up the price, because that's the way that the oil companies celebrate the beginning of the summer vacation season for the American people, by increasing their profits with extraordinary and unwarranted increases in the price claiming there's somehow a shortage because somehow they're cleaning their refineries, or one of them had a problem. They are actually exporting gasoline from the west coast.

What does that mean?

There's actually a glut of oil in the gulf region right now that they can't refine. We've got refineries closed in California with oil sitting in storage tanks that can't be refined. And somehow, if we just had more oil to add to the glut, to add to the full storage tanks because the refineries are shut down to drive up the price--or maybe they're not shut down. There was actually an investigation last year. When they claimed they were shut down, they weren't. So we don't really know.

But to say, well, gee, we trust the oil companies. Let's let them negotiate secret agreements with the Government of Mexico, with Canada, with--ultimately, perhaps with Russia and that will benefit the consumers at the pump, it does not meet the laugh test.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, we heard earlier the assertion that that would protect American workers. I'm not quite certain how that's going to work out. And probably it doesn't even help stockholders, because they might really want to know what's going on. I'm not sure.

I thank the gentlelady.

The bottom line here is it's simple. If we pass this bill in this form, the President would veto it if it came out of the Senate. It will not come out of the Senate.

They are actually acting in a true bipartisan way in the Senate, and they have a bill which could receive probably unanimous consent that does not contain this provision, that does not provide this waiver of the Dodd-Frank Act in favor of the big oil companies.

It's simple. I can see, you know, and I can count, and in all probability the Republican side will prevail here, but they are not furthering the cause of expediting the signing of this agreement and the execution of this agreement between Mexico and the United States by sending a bill to the Senate that the Senate will not pass.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding.

I believe Ms. Waters stated very clearly that there is substantial, if not unanimous, support on this side for this agreement without this provision, which would ultimately lead to the development of these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 274, I call up the bill (H.R. 1613) to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide for the proper Federal management and oversight of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1613.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act.

This bill was introduced by my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and will provide the certainty needed to move forward with offshore energy development in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico along our Nation's maritime boundary with Mexico.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexican Foreign Secretary Espinosa signed this long-awaited agreement February 2012. Since that time, the House Committee on Natural Resources has repeatedly requested draft-implementing legislation from the Obama administration. But it was not until March 19, 2013, when the committee finally received just that--several short sentences to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to promote development of energy resources that lie along the boundary with Mexico.

Despite the Obama administration sitting on this agreement for over a year, that should not in any way downplay the importance of getting this agreement approved. This agreement is good for our economy, and it's good for our American workers.

Opening new acreage for energy exploration and development creates jobs, it creates more American-made energy, and it helps reduce our dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs.

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the State Department, this agreement would open up nearly 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. These areas are estimated to contain as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

These areas are ready to be explored and developed, and this bill will give the U.S. job creators the certainty they need to move forward. Activity can begin once this agreement is enacted.

This bill executes the implementation of the U.S.-Mexico agreement, but it also looks to the future--providing a clear and transparent path for how future administrations should go about submitting future agreements with other countries with which we share international boundaries. Given the fact that this implementing legislation was bogged down within several agencies for over a year, I believe that Mr. Duncan's solution is a necessary step to ensure a smoother and more expedient process in the future.

H.R. 1613 also includes language to protect American workers by removing uncertainty surrounding the application of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act disclosure requirements.

The agreement signed by the Obama administration and Mexico specifically provides what royalty payments Mexico would receive from energy developers. However, under current U.S. law, companies that commercially develop oil, natural gas, or minerals are required to disclose payments made to a foreign government. This could create a potential conflict because Mexico has yet to decide how they will collect royalties and could potentially set regulatory measures that prohibit disclosure of payments.

This would then block American workers from being able to develop these resources.

Waiving the Dodd-Frank requirement is necessary in order to help protect American jobs and American-made energy in this instance. Without it, foreign-controlled energy companies could develop this American energy resource. The royalty payments to Mexico would still be undisclosed and kept private, but the net result would be that Americans would lose out on this energy potential.

The Natural Resources Committee and Mr. Duncan have worked hard to advance this bill and get it signed into law. It's important to American energy, to American jobs, to American energy security, and it is important in order to support a positive relationship with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the Natural Resources Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who worked very hard on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).

I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me clarify just a few major points here. First of all, the President did not say he would veto it. He said he had a concern. I accept that. But the President did not say he would veto this legislation. After all, it was his Secretary of State that negotiated the agreement. Why would he veto an agreement negotiated by his Secretary of State?

Secondly, if this could pass so easily out of the Senate, as my friend from Oregon asserts, why hasn't the Senate passed it?

We always ask that question over here. In fact, sometimes we get ourselves in a gridlock because we're so, maybe, frightened of what the Senate may or may not do.

Listen, if the Senate wants to pass this agreement without this provision, do it. Nobody is preventing them from doing it. Nobody.

Now, let me make another observation here that I think is probably more important in this debate than anything else that has been said, and that is, as was pointed out several times--I mentioned it in my opening remarks; Mr. Duncan mentioned it; Mr. Salmon mentioned it--in 2012, this agreement was signed. None of the information was given to us because we had to implement it. Now, I wonder why. Could it possibly be that the mindset of this administration, which, by the way, has consistently been nonresponsive to more exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore--if I may, Mr. Speaker, go back just a bit.

When this administration took office, there was no moratoria on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts. One of the first actions of this President was to lock up 85 percent of those potential resources. So maybe they do have a bit of a bias against offshore drilling.

So here's an amendment, here's an agreement that was signed over a year

ago. It took over a year for it to come here. Because of no action on their part, it was going nowhere legislatively until Mr. Duncan said, Listen, this is something we ought to do.

So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, is the reason why they're taking this one element--and I'll talk about that in a moment--as a reason to oppose this legislation really because they're trying to cover up the fact they don't like any offshore drilling?

I'll let somebody draw whatever conclusions they want. I simply ask the rhetorical question.

I will be more than happy to yield to my friend on that point. I assume he wants to talk about that, and I'm more than happy to engage in that debate.

Reclaiming my time, I think if you go back and look at the bills that have come in front of this body before in the last Congress--in fact, later on today--you will find that the overwhelming opposition to that legislation, if it's going to mirror what happened in the last Congress, was to oppose offshore development. So I'll just make that observation. Others can draw the conclusion.

But here is something that is very curious about this debate on why we should defeat this legislation because of this provision dealing in disclosure.

Anybody could have offered an amendment to take that provision out of the bill. It would have been perfectly in order. There's no parliamentary problem with striking from a bill. And there was an amendment, by the way, that was offered by a Member from the other body but was withdrawn. Both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are arguing against this because of this provision, they could have offered the amendment. It would have been made in order, and we could have debated it. But the amendment wasn't offered. I don't know why.

I will be more than happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I simply said that there is a pattern in this administration and with my friends on the other side that they oppose that. I'll let others draw that conclusion.

I will be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, we believe that this provision in Dodd-Frank is contrary to the agreement because the only moneys--and I'll get to this point. I was going to get to it later, but I'll get to it right now. The only moneys that go to Mexico are what the Obama administration agreed to for these royalties or leases. That is the only money that goes to Mexico. So we believe that there's no reason to have this particular requirement in the bill, and that's why we did it.

Now you can disagree with that, of course. You have every right to do it. But if you really believe that this bill should be defeated because of that provision, why didn't you offer an amendment? Wait, there was an amendment that was offered and then withdrawn. Curious? I don't know what their reasons are.

So all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a good piece of legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. And if the Senate, to conclude, has a different view, let them pass their different view and we'll work it out. Isn't that the reason our Founding Fathers had two bodies? So we can work out the differences?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, June 5, 2013.

Hon. Doc Hastings,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hastings: On May 15, 2013, the Committee on

Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental

Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act,

as amended, to be reported favorably to the House. As a

result of your having consulted with the Committee on

Financial Services concerning provisions of the bill that

fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to discharge our

committee from further consideration of the bill so that it

may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor.

The Committee on Financial Services takes this action with

our mutual understanding that, by foregoing consideration of

H.R. 1613, as amended, at this time, we do not waive any

jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or

similar legislation, and that our committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that we may address any

remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction.

Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of

an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and

requests your support for any such request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1613, as

amended, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters

on this matter be included in your committee's report to

accompany the legislation and/or in the Congressional Record

during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I find this amendment offered on this bill to be rather strange because the amendment usurps itself as an effort to protect states' rights. Well, the underlying bill is about an international agreement between the United States and Mexico, and that boundary is about 200 miles from the nearest shoreline. There is no jurisdiction of any State that goes that far out, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can assure the gentleman that there is nothing in this bill that would change any existing laws as it relates to states' rights and their waters.

But this amendment isn't necessary. It's simply restating the status quo. The sponsor of the amendment and all those concerned with upholding states' rights can be assured that the existing rights of the individual 50 States are fully respected and in no way undermined by this bill, as I just mentioned. However, adopting this amendment could impact international relations with foreign states. And the reason why is because in foreign law, as I understand it, the term ``state'' means foreign government. There's no explanation in the amendment about states, so that raises a concern.

So by adopting this amendment, you could potentially destroy the agreement that we have in place. And what will that do? Well, it would delay American energy production, and it would delay the creation of American jobs.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, just simply to close, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment is really unnecessary, and I think that chart points that out. You're talking hundreds of miles offshore, and yet the amendment asserts itself to protect states' rights. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot connect the dots on that.

I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.