tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 11, 2019 1:59pm-4:00pm EDT
acres in the gulf of mexico for new leasing every year. and companies now only hold 13 million acres of the acres in the gulf under lease, which means that 72% of the acres that have been offered are not yet developed. mr. chair, i resevere the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. ms. lesko: thank you, mr. chair, i want to thank representative lowenthal, my colleague from california, and thank my other democratic colleagues. i think this is a commonsense amendment and sounds like you approve of it. it is common sense and hope it will be voted oh, yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields the balance of her time. the gentleman from california.
mr. lowenthal: i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment. ms. lesko: are we doing a vote? i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from arizona. aye. in favor say those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider number 4 printed in
of house report 116-200. does the urpose gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i desk.n amendment at the the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part f of house by mr. 16-200 offered langevin of rhode island. he chair: pursuant to house the gentleman langevin, island, mr. is recognized. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the atlantic coast as never been a site of significant offshore drilling and for good reason. in my home state of rhode island
and all along the coast, we know the importance of these waters hrough tourism and to the fisheries they sustain. indeed, waterways are part of life.y of it's part of our identity and who we are. his amendment would instruct g.a.o. to perform a study on the the of impacts drilling in coastal communities and their economies. this study will address how oil and gas companies will interact stakeholders, including fishermen. it will explore how the bureau management will work with ther federal agencies during citing. it will look into the cost of tourism and the food supply of the affected region. the ly, it will analyze caliber of the data that we have on hand today regarding these of the outer s continental shelf and whether used ata can be reliably to engage the impact to
drilling. these are all questions that ave arisen during my conversations with fishermen, tourism leaders, and other rhode islanders deeply concerned about off our of drilling coast. mr. chairman, i believe that ffshore drilling puts the safety of our waterways at risk, which we've seen from numerous includingr the years, the devastating deepwater horizon blowout. who live in -- we oit to those who live in our coastal communities to be honest about the damage that can be caused to them. mr. chairman, it will take years to recover from the incidents, ike the deepwater horizon spill. the coastal communities and the people that are affected have to the consequences and often continue to suffer. that's why i'm putting forward today so we can properly understand the full cost of drilling off our coast. congressman hank cunningham from south carolina for sponsoring the underlying ill, and i urge my colleagues to support it, and my amendment,
nd i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. this amendment is perhaps well-intentioned. am going to make that assumption. but the problem with this amendment, it's not a comprehensive amendment. this amendment is to specifically illustrate what be studied ues will by this g.a.o. report, and they are all the negative aspects could come from this report. there is no aspect here -- i totally to lects transcend any kind of benefits that would happen from or gascon s of oil suming. -- gas consuming. that would be a true study. study.uld be a fair that would be a good study. that will be a valuable study. a t this has done in statement what will be
considered, basically skewed what the g.a.o. will do, so a 've come up with predetermined outset. what will come out from this study because it's not comprehensive and it hasn't tried to be inclusive. what you should have done is simply direct the g.a.o. to resources w taking off the table, like this, will affect our dependence on imports from foreign actors like russia, hose environmental standards, whose efficiency standards, and whose human rights standards unacceptable to us usthe in the united states. doing so, if you'd done that, that would have been comprehensive, that would have been an accurate representation, and that would have been a good and decent study. so with that, i oppose this particular amendment because i think it missed the mark. chairman, i , mr. yield back. he chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from rhode island
is recognized. i langevin: mr. chairman, thank the gentleman for his insights.nd his i see that this amendment gets information ight that we need. i am opposed to the gentleman's suggestion. if at a later date he'll offer such additional information to by g.a.o., i would like certainly like to look at it and perhaps even support it, amendment we e have before us. i believe it's well thought out. gain, it's a g.a.o. study to perform -- look at the cost of the impacts on drilling on coastal communities, which my directly would be affected, how they will be affected in their economies. having more information is better. i think this is the right mark, colleagues to support it. with that, i would reserve the time.e of my the chair: the gentleman from island. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, the
original speech, the gentleman from rhode island said he of his back the balance time. had he not yielded in the first speech? i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. mr. bishop: had that been said speech, i would have reserved. i'm done with this unless you really want to go on. urge you to yield back and go on with the vote. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i i need to say and i yield back the balance of my time. from air: the gentleman utah will suspend. yielded.p: everyone's go forward. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island yields? i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. chair, theion of the ayes have it. -- is ndment is not agreed to. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, did
are agreed to?s the chair: the amendment is agreed to. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. consider n order to amendment number 5 printed in part f of house report 116-200. for the purpose of those -- for the gentleman es from california seek recognition? mr. rouda: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 house in part f of report 116-200 offered by mr. of california. the chair: pursuant to house the gentleman from california, mr. rounda, and each will posed, control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rouda: thank you, mr. chairman. the coastal and marine economies protection act requires existing offshore oil and gas operations inspections and make payments into the ocean energy fund. my amendment would make this information available to the public. administration's 2018 roposed opening of more than 90% of u.s. federal waters to at hore oil could endanger least 42,000 miles of our atlantic and pacific coast to extreme risk posed by offshore drilling and spilling. to advocate gress on behalf of the people living in my coastal district. he american people have a vested interest in the health of their environment and the wealth of their local communities. essential the public is aware of the companies who are extracting oil from our shores them accountable in the event of a disaster or an
accident. impacts more ing than coastal communities. it impacts future generations of americans. transparency is a key democratic principle. itizens deserve to know which companies are drilling off our shores, the location of their acilities, and the safety and state of their operations. in orange county, this critical make sure helps generations can come and harbor, to sail newport become junior lifeguards, catch halibut and enjoy our pristine beaches. this amendment is essential to life,ining our quality of and i thank our colleague from south carolina for his leadership. i urge my colleagues on both to support myisle amendment and passage of this bill. reserve the i balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the recognition?k
mr. bishop: i am claiming time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i guess kind of in opposition. there really is no opposition to itself dment in and of except it illustrates some of the problems the democrats have n creating this approach to an energy policy coming through here. because the inspection fees by the amendment, if you tack it onto the bill itself, really are based on the cost of the administration of this particular inspection. actually -- it no longer becomes cost of a service. it actually becomes a tax levied the committee. but what it illustrates is a eeper problem on how the democrats decided to put these three bills up here on their energy week. also maybe indicates why they don't really expect it to go any urther because the offsets are so bizarre. in each of the bills, the democrats have decided to use -- the rules require an offset. in each of the bills, there is a that's t offset required. for the one we'll talk about
tomorrow, it will be $900 million. this one is $400 million. the next one is $200 million. havech bill, the democrats decided to use the same offset to pay for each bill. ironically, if you did the one tomorrow and then you paid or the bill with that offset, then you would have taken that off the table. that's not good enough here. now, we're using that same pay for this o particular bill. i'm sorry. simply an - this is accounting smoke and mirrors trick that's being used by the to actually get these three bills onto the floor. for that, i don't really mind per se, because it doesn't affect the impact of it, but it of trying to y cover the bases and check the and using the money in double and triple amounts. if this offset is actually the we're doing offsets in the future, then my parks bill doesn't have a problem going thisrd because you can use money for that at the same time. although, it is ironic that the
money that they're going to use offset these bills will be reduced because you're stopping he energy production in all these areas. everything comes together in some particular way. cute.s -- this is this is not necessarily effective, but it's cute and rules for e way the offsets were intended to try and bring clarity to the situation house.the with that i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. rouda: thank you, mr. chair. appreciate my colleague's comments. i do appreciate, i think i hear the other side does support transparency and accountability, which is today's atmosphere of politics to have greater transparency and accountability. i am prepared to close, but will reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is prepared close as well. mr. bishop: i'll make it easier for you, i'll yield back. back as well,ield mr. chair. the chair: the question is on
amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. no.e opposed, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. to.amendment is agreed it is now in order to consider number 6 printed in 116-200.of house report the hat purpose does gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 of house part f report 116-200 offered by mr. levin of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentleman mr. levin, and a
each will sed, control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you, mr. chairman. my bipartisan amendment a moratorium on in the atlantic ocean. i'd like to begin by thanking my riends, chairman lowenthal, chairman grijalva, and congressman cunningham for this bill and for working with me on this provision. i also thank my co-sponsors for their partnership and long-standing commitments to leading on this issue. during seismic testing, ships pull giant air guns through the ocean that release loud pressurized blasts of air into the sea floor in search of oil and gas. the best evidence from scientists tells us that noise from these air guns can
disturb, injure, or kill marine animals from zoo plannington, the base of the food web, all the way up to large whales. in addition air gun noise can reduce catch rates for fish and disrupt essential behaviors in marine mammals, including dolphins and whales. i believe we need to be building a clean energy future, but seismic air gun blasts lay the groundwork for more dangerous fossil fuel extraction that is bad for our economy and the environment. i'm proud to support h.r. 1941, the coastal and marine economics protection act, because i share the concerns of so many of my own constituents have reached out to me urging congress to reject proposals that open our waters and coast lines to expanded offshore drilling. in the seven years following the 2010 b.p. deep water horizon disaster, the u.s. oil and gas industry experienced more than 4,000 explosions, collisions, and related
incidents, including 34 oil spills of more than 2000 gallons each. this bill will help us end these disasters once and for all. i thank my friend congressman cunningham for his leadership here. my bipartisan amendment takes an extra step to make this legislation stronger yet. even if we ban offshore drilling, the department of interior's bureau of ocean energy management could still issue permits for seismic testing in the atlantic. we know, for example, that it is currently reviewing applications from seismic testing companies looking for oil and gas beneath the atlantic ocean floor. a legal prohibition on seismic testing which my amendment includes is the surest way to prevent such testing in the atlantic, protecting our environment, marine life, and the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions of people involved in tourism, recreation, fishing, and
associated sectors. my bipartisan amendment is about saving the whales for sure, but it's also about saving people, save our economy, and save our planet. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve he balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does do you rise? mr. bishop: i claim time in opposition, sir. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm opposed to this amendment simply because the seismic activity that we are talking about has not been updated since the 1980's. and so the biggest problem we have here is if you're going to deal with the atlantic you are doing this in the darkness of not understanding or knowing what the scientific results will be. this will eliminate that permanently. so the technology for seismic studies has improved significantly over the years and is getting better at all time, but now we have a
situation where the underlying bill stopped production on these lands and this amendment would stop any scientific study to know what we could have done or what we should do at this time. but it is a little bit more insid with us than that. -- insid ue with us than that. this amendment only stops seismic study for oil and gas development t doesn't stop seismic study for anything else. if the argument is that the seismic study hurts the animals, that flipper is offended by these seismic studies, all this amendment does is say, flipper can be offended and harmed if you are going to put in a windmill, but flipper can't be offended and harmed if you are going to put in an oil rig. and no one really knows because we won't do the study whether flipper is going to be offended. for all we know flipper is out there laughing at us right now going through this silly exercise. but this amendment is not comprehensive, it doesn't meet the need, and it stops us once again from doing any science to
know about it. once again, this bill, these approaches, this is politics. this is not science, this is pure politics. and for that reason i oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. testimony the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague for his comments. would only point out that that the seismic testing nvolved in preparing for possible offshore wind is orders of magnitude less disruptive. it's not at all comparable to the seismic testing done for oil and gas exploration. and it doesn't have the -- anywhere similar level of harm. that's why it's a different matter. i appreciate the gentleman's comments. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i yield the remainder of my time to mr. gosar of arizona.
the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar klan i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding. part of this body's responsibility is the public charge of looking at the resources of the american people. these resources do not belong to a single state, whether it be south carolina, california, new jersey, wyoming, or anything else. these are the public charge of the american people to this body of congress. and part of the public charge is to understand what type of resources and the value those resources have to the public charge in regards to the people of this country. so doing our due diligence, it is a mandatory aspect that we undertake this charge to understand what that responsibility is to the american people. in some of the next amendments you'll see some of that public charge in that regard. so this is an undertaking that is specifically null and void based upon what we owe the american people for the due diligence of this body on regards to the ownership of which they have -- the outer
continental shelf. inconsequential application. i ask everybody to vote against his amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. mr. bishop: yes,'s understand it we would have the right to close on this particular amendment because we are defending the committee position. the chair: the gentleman from utah has the right to close. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield one minute for my esteemed colleague from virginia, representative beyer. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. levin, for his leadership on this amendment. i have been invested in this issue throughout my time in congress. earlier this year my republican colleague, chris smith, and i introduced the atlantic seismic
air gun protection act, a stand alone bill that would amend the outer contint nental shelf seismic activities. in the north atlantic, mid-atlantic, south atlantic, and straits of florida. this amendment would do just that. our coastalline counts on healthy ecosystems that generate $95 billion in gross domestic product every year and support nearly 1.4 million jobs every year. seismic blasting poses a major threat to marine life, including the critically endangered north atlantic right whale, on the verge of extinction. because they are extremely loud, these die night-like blasts will have widespread impacts on the behavioral fish and wildlife. if these are impacted it's serious danger to our coastal economies this. will protect our marine life and coastal economies. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from
michigan. mr. levin: i thank my colleagues for his tremendous leadership on this issue. i reserve but i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. levin: i yield back, thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. once again as we talk about seismic, realize there is a different approach to it but not this administration but the prior administration said there is no scientific policy that says any seismic study actually hurts any of the animals whether it's for fossil fuels or for alternative types of energy. but the issue at hand is, if you are going to die -- try and deny any seismic so you don't have any studies and we are going to go in the darkness and not really know what we are talking about, you do it for everything. to try to distinguish between
oil and gas and alternatives is simply an arbitrary reason that has no purpose in being there. however, in the underlying bill passes and you are not going to be drilling there anywhere, in which case we basically say as congress we don't care about understanding what we are doing we think it's the right thing to do and we'll do t this is badpolicy. this is bad policy for the underlying bill. it's bad policy for the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. -- is agreed to. apologize. for what purpose does the entleman from utah rise? it for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise?
mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman suspend. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part f of house report it 116-200. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part f of house report number 116-200, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house 548, resolution 548, the gentleman from arizona is recognized and amendment opposed to each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment that allows section 2 moratorium in this bill to go into effect when the department
of the interior in consultation with the department of labor certifies that the offshore energy moratorium in the bill will not kill a substantial number of minority and women jobs. under the current administration, unemployment has reached record lows. in august, the national unemployment rate sat at 3.7%. with the unemployment rate for african-american workers sitting at 5.5%, breaking the previous record of 5.9%, which was set in may of 2018 under the same administration. according to a recent job report from "the washington post," hardly a bastion of conservative credentialing, nearly 90% of the jobs, think about that, nearly 90% of the jobs added under this administration have gone to minority communities. this is astounding. this can be attributed for the first time a majority of new hires are people between the ages of 25 and 54.
and they are from the minority communities. according to statistics, published by the american president trump institute, minorities will comprise 1/3 of the total work force in the oil and gas sector by 2030. women are already comprise more than 15% of oil and gas work force. these are good-paying jobs, paying $90,000 that hardworking families depend upon. this legislation puts these employment opportunities as risks by putting off limits potentially viable and valuable offshore energy opportunities in the eastern gulf of mexico that are property of the american people. nor the first time since the 1950's, the united states will soon be a net exporter of oil and natural gas. something that at one time was unthinkable. america's energy renaissance has boosted the economies of previously left behind towns throughout the country. and turned them into vibrant communities. mr. chairman, this is
commonsense amendment protects minority and women jobs and puts the interests of the american work force first and foremost. it is very clear-cut, something that the american people can fully understand. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. lowenthal: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: you are recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chair, this amendment has nothing to do with the bill and is simply an attempt to block protections for the atlantic and pacific coasts and it's based upon a false concern for women and minorities jobs. we know that members from both sides of the aisle understand that our existing coastal economy are incompatible with more offshore oil and gas
development. i believe that enacting this underlying bill and protecting the atlantic and pacific coasts from the dangers of offshore drilling will in itself safeguard jobs in the coastal tourism and recreational industries, many of which are held by women and people of color. support tackle shops. whale watching shores, and seafood markets. and oil free beaches and bays in virginia, and the carolinas, drive businesses for local restaurants, for vacation rentals, and outfitters. people from all walks of life from diverse backgrounds and from both political parties cherish these special places and rely on healthy oceans,
clean beaches, and abundant fish and wildlife that come with them. last week the business alliance for protecting the pacific expressede to this body alliany their strong support for the underlying bill. ccording to the business coalition which represents more han 4,000 businesses along the west coast offshore drilling 746,000 jobs ly and nearly 53 billion dollars in g.d.p. so the real threats to jobs in communities would be failing to protect our shorelines from dangerous oil drilling. this is an unserious amendment hat does nothing to protect jobs belonging to women and
minorities and keeps the and pacific coasts at risk. urge ese reasons, i opposition to the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. he chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i thought i heard that this has nothing to do with the bill. case, i take's the up bridge with that because maybe we should take it up with parliamentarian. you know, the majority actually put this in order. pertain to t does this bill. ow, i also heard we can't have our cake and eat it too. hat it's all about visitation and enjoying the outdoors. well, how does that work for colorado? how does that work for wyoming? how does that work for arizona? we have our cake and we can eat it too. remind again, i want to
everybody that these are -- these are the properties of the states. you are close to it. you are implicated in some way or form. i also want to remind you, in the pacific, oil exists naturally. it's something that nature takes care of. it is very pect, important. the power of a job is very, very important. people.ers it doesn't victimize them. it is very important we are to where we're putting people to work. oh, by the way, if we don't have travel to how can we go visit these wonderful sites, enjoy a boat ride, going out and in those areas? when you start to look at where plentiful playgrounds at these areas, look at alaska. one of the most plentiful areas for fish and wildlife. people come from around the actually see that, and yet, they have their cake and they can eat it too. want to make sure
that these people that are empowered for these good-paying particularly those that are minority, those of gender, applicationsortant that help people to upwards mobility. this is a very timely amendment, is very vastly overdue. we need to consider the when we do actions that are consequential. this is a very timely amendment. ask everybody to vote for this amendment and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. oppose the l: i amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on offered by t that's the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. have it. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. amendment is not agreed to. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. chair: pursuant to clause 6
18, further proceedings the e amendment offered by gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it's now in order to consider number 8 printed in 116-200.f house report for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. amendment number 8 printed in part f of house report 116-200 offered by mr. rounda of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentleman from california, mr. rounda, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rouda: thank you, mr. chair. amendment adds a provision to the bill that would require the department of commerce to an economic impact study of potential damage drilling. offshore this assessment would include tourism, commercial and boating, al fishing, transportation, and other aterfront and coastal-related businesses. 69 zambus santa barbara oil spi ow ranks third after deepwater horizon, and the 1989 exxon valdez spill, killed thousands and marine animals, commercial fishing was plunged., and tourism california's economic drivers are concentrated along coastline.'s an oil spill from a federal ipeline, platform, barge-transporting oil would have a catastrophic impact on alifornia's and the nation's
economy and natural resources. in fact, 40% of all goods into the united states come through the long beach and os angeles ports of entry, and these goods go to all 435 districts across the united states. very community would be impacted. offshore drilling for oil and threatens key economic drivers in coastal districts and tates, disasters on the scale of the 2010 deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico, one of the largest environmental disasters in american history, cost our country more than $60 in economic damages -- nvironmental damages beyond calculation. let's not lose sight. ven a small spill has an important to devastate important marine and coastal resources and the communities and businesses that depend on them. california's home to more than 00 miles of coastline, and its coastal economies annually generate hundreds of billions of ollars in wages nationally and
nearly $2 trillion in g.d.p. risk ster could put at west 76 -- 646,000 coast -- 7,000 west -- 746,000 west coast jobs. i thank representative cunningham for his important leadership on this important to protecthe efforts the coast from new oil and gas leasing. sides of bers on both the aisle to support my amendment and i thank you and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the utah rise?rom mr. bishop: i may or may not be opposed to this amendment but i in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. clearly, the best thing that can be said about his amendment, it is the last one of this particular bill. and we can move on. negative part you have to
say about this amendment is the same thing we said about the other amendments. study that is halfway there. it's not comprehensive. doesn't cost all elements that should be studied and in fact it will produce a skewed it narrowly comes from within. there should be a study, what the jobs that will or will not happen from this? that would be a study. hat would be a portion of it that would be worth it. but it's not covered in what we're attempting to do here. in fact, if you think about it, is kind of bizarre -- of a bizarre approach to this. is a base bill that will be passed that will ban this activity and then we will a whole bunch of studies to see if we should have done the base bill the first way. totally backwards. if you believe in the study and want to get the data, for eaven's sake, do that before you introduce a bill that bans the activity in the first place. back.hat i yield the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized.
mr. rouda: thank you. i appreciate my colleague's comments. i do want to point out the is simply to s make sure that if we are going offshore leases the we fully understand economic impact in the event of occurring.l disaster that seems to be a reasonable members of f congress to taxpayers of america and working families across sure that we e protect them against future environmental disasters. back the hat i yield remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from time.rnia yields back his the gentleman from utah, you're recognized? mr. bishop: no. i have the right to close. yielded back, once s n, same thing, it's superfluous. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. thoepdz. -- those opposed, no.
in my opinion, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? you, mr. thal: thank chair. mr. chair, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman, the chair of the -- mr. chairman. madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on having e of the union 1941nder conversation h.r. directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee had under consideration h.r. 1941 and has come to no resolution thereon.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and to heir remarks insert extraneous material on h.r. 205. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. madam jalva: thank you, chair. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 548 and rule 18, the chair declares the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 205. chair appoints the gentleman from florida, mr. lawson, to preside over the committee of the whole.
he chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the h.r. 205, which the clerk will report by title. the lerk: a bill to amend gulf of mexico energy security act of 2006 to permanently moratorium on leasing in certain areas of the gulf of mexico. the chair: pursuant to the rule, bill is considered as read the first time. not exceed te shall one hour equally divided and and olled by the chair ranking minority member of the resources.n natural the gentleman fro arizona -- an from the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chair. .r. 205, the protecting and securing florida's coastline act, would permanently protect the eastern gulf of mexico from and gas drilling. nearly all of the eastern gulf emains protected under a leasing moratorium until 2022 gulf of mexico energy security act of 2006. this bill would permanently moratorium and in doing so would safeguard resources, rine environment, coastal tourism -- tourism economy. some of florida's more valuable assets are tied to its beaches ecosystems. these drive a tourism economy in florida that brings in billions dollars each year and jobs.ts over $1.4 million
over 2,000 florida businesses, including restaurants, hotels, expressed ers have their strong support for permanently protecting the know n gulf because they firsthand the economic consequences of an offshore oil spill. . following the 2010 deepwater horizon disaster, florida suffered $4.6 billion loss in tourism revenue and bookings for hotels and for-hire fishing trips also dropped significantly. even for places that were left unscathed by the perception of oil-covered shores was enough to redirect vacationing tourists to other coastal states. that's why voters in the sunshine state, democrats and republicans alike, have made clear time and time again that offshore drilling has no place near florida's shores. the eastern gulf of mexico also has incredible value as a military test and training range, and enactment of this is critical for america's national
security and military preparedness. in 2015, the department of defense determined that offshore oil and gas in the eastern gulf of mexico would jeopardize the ability of the military to conduct operations in the region. even the trump administration, which bends over backwards to support the oil and gas industry, understands how deeply unpopular offshore drilling is in florida and has manipulated the offshore leasing process for political reasons. five days after proposing to offer all of america's oceans to oil and gas companies, former interior secretary ryan zinke rushed down to tallahassee to meet with then-governor -- then -florida governor rick scott, understanding that governor scott was facing a tough senate race, but could never oppose anything from the trump administration. secretary zinke tweeted that he was, quote, removing florida from the draft offshore plan at the governor's behest. however, secretary zicky --
zinke was contradicted less than two weeks later had a top interior department official stated that florida was in fact still under consideration for offshore leasing. then in one of our hearings in the natural resources committee, secretary zinke seemed to say that florida was both safe and yet still being considered. the problem for secretary zinke was that oil and gas industry really wants to drill in the eastern gulf and this administration wants to do whatever this industry wants. but the people of florida do not want the industry near the shores and this administration needs florida to vote for it next year. now the administration has paused the new leasing program because they can't show the true intentions before the next election. with a wink and a nod toward industry, the administration has paused the plans for new leasing. but it's only a sham disguised to convince florida that it is
safe, while also making it clear to the industry that if they get a second term, the eastern gulf will be open for drilling. in may, i wrote to interior secretary bernhard requesting a copy of the leasing programs as they currently exist. so we could settle the debate over whether florida was in or out. unsurprisingly, secretary bernhard has failed to turn over that plan. the fact is that florida's beaches will not be safe from the threat of offshore drilling until we have passed the two bills we are debating today. this one, to protect florida's gulf coast and h.r. 1941 to protect florida's -- florida's atlantic coast. florida voters should not have to worry over the next 16 months whether drilling rigs will one day appear on the horizon. h.r. 205 provides florida's gulf coast permanent protection from offshore oiling drilling and deserves the body -- oil drilling and deserves the body's full support. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. we have three bills in this package of supposed democrat energy. this is different than the other two. in the last bill we were talking about here on the floor, at least by the people that were actually here on the floor to talk about it, that was an ideological approach. this is different. this deals with the military. this deals with a military issues on land, water -- i'm sorry, water in this case, that is legitimately put off-limits for its military purpose. there are military bases of significance in florida. specifically eggland. there is a military -- what do you call those things? test and train -- training range on the water in florida. they are significant. they are important.
and indeed they need to be preserved for our military. if indeed the military has an area that is essential to military preparedness and readiness, we should be cognizant of that. there's no problem with that. the problem was, and this military line, it was simply arbitrarily drawn. you take the longitude and you go down the line. which means the line itself is bizarre. and arbitrary. the line itself is actually closer to new orleans than it is to florida. the line itself has a greater impact on the economies of alabama, mississippi and louisiana than it does in florida. and what we should have done, where we rise in this process, some kind of nc variance to make sure that the science was actually used, we don't just take a rural and draw a straight-line on some map. already in the areas that are west of this line, the other things that are already open for oil and gas exploration, there is cooperation between the
interior department and the department of defense in how do you it. 36% of all the drilling that is done in the rest of the gulf is already under some kind of stipulation with the department of defense. there's a memo of understanding between the department of defense and the department of interior that's been there since 1983 which mandates they cooperate and they consult and they work through these things in an appropriate way. were something like that to be part of this bill, i think there is, at least i know i could support it and everyone else on the floor would argue to do the same thing. the sad part is this bill doesn't do that. instead, it simply locks up the issue on the one line that happens to be there. now, here is where i don't blame anyone seated on the floor. the six of us that are actually here. i do blame the rules committee. the rules committee made a very bad rule and abusing some of the powers that the rules committee has to deal with it. not only did they make several amendments self-executing, and
i'm sorry, i was on the rules committee for a long time, i thought when we did that, that's lousy policy. but it was also lousy policy in this rule to make rules, some of the amendments self-executing. en they forgot other amendments that could have brought something into conclusion so that we could simply say, if there is a military reason, then, yes, allow the military -- and allow the military to make that decision. that would have been something i would have bought and i would have been happy to support this particular bill. but instead, the rules committee insisted that they are -- that these miscellaneous amendments are brought up here and nothing can be done to bring some kind of cooperation together. so we are now faced with a bill that will be done on an arbitrary standard without study, it will be done on an arbitrary line without science being give be to -- given to it. it will be an arbitrary line that will simply call everything out, simply because somebody drew a line on a map.
without thinking about it. and it did not have to be that way. that is the sad part about this particular bill. i respect the sponsor of this particular bill. i respect what he's trying to do. i agree with most of what he's trying to do. but this could have been a much better bill. this could have been a bill that i could support and i think most other people could support and we could move forward that would have a much better option and chance of actually passage in the senate, as well as passage by a president who would sign it, rather than actually putting forth an s.a.p., which indicates that he would be advised to veto it. that did not have to happen. and the reason it did not -- the reason it is not happening in a better way is simply because the rules committee refused some of the options that were in front of them and they should have done it. they could have done it. and it would be a much better situation. so in this situation, because we now have a bill which once again takes science and throws it into the trash can, like the other bill did and like the next one
tomorrow will do, i have a bill here which i have to oppose. and did not have to be that way in the long run. with that, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield five minutes to the original sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. rooney: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 205, the protecting and securing florida's coast line act, which makes the existing moratorium in the eastern gulf of mexico permanent. i want to thank representative krafter, our colleague, for
effort with me and our bipartisan florida delegation for their support. i've talked repeatedly about the existential threat offshore drilling poses to us on the wes and our coast of florida. it jeopardizes our tourist and regular -- recreational economy. last year 70% of floridians voted to ban offshore drilling because tourism accounts for million in g.d.p. and 6,000 jobs. following deepwater who are ines disaster, the west coast florida faced lost economic value for fishing and many canceled tourist trips, despite the fact there was no impact to to our coastline. perception became reality. a 2018 study by the gulf restoration network describes the continual spills in the gulf. the taylor energy leak, for example, has released approximately one million gallons of oil over the last 14 years. even shell, which is a good operator, had a spill from a jumper pipeline in 2016 that dumped 1,900 barrels of oil into the gulf.
the following year, llog had a similar leak that dumped as much as 9,350 barrels into the gulf. as long as humans and complex pipeline and well bore connections are involved, there will be significant environmental risk. these undersea connections are and icult to maintain examine. additionally, as documented in a study by the pew research institute, large quantities are released into the water while drilling. my colleagues have raised concerns about energy security and energy independence. that's an important thing. we is import chart shows, are energy independence and have become net energy exporters. it was radically different. 10 years ago these big lines were coming that way. now it's coming that way. the exploitation -- let's put this on this thing for a second. so everybody can see real good.
the exploitation of shale deposits via horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking has revolutionized the energy industry. we have brought exetive innovation to energy to change the game. in the basin of west texas, for example, there are three shale zones. one of them is said to contain 20 billion barrels of oil and gas. yes. billion. we have more reserves in the united states now than russia or saudi arabia have from conventional reserves. a radical shift in the import and export floes of oil and natural gas has taken place. the eastern gulf is the home of the gulf test range. 120,000 square mile range that stretches from the florida panhandle to the keys. this unimpeded training and testing area is a crucial national security asset. it cannot be replicated anywhere else in the united states or possibly the world. its large scale supports testing of hydrosonic weapons, combat ma
nuferse, drone testing and evolving weapons technology that needs space for testing and restrictions for classified work. in may, 2018, the d.o.d. published a report preserving military readiness in the eastern gulf of mexico, which report examines the ongoing operations of the gulf testing range, its inability to co-exist with oil and gas operations, and he projected use of the range. what this chart shows here is that the projected use of the range, here's the line right here, south of thingland air force base, alabama -- of eggland air force base, alabama's way over here. it's not alabama. it's deften, florida. it shows the most intensive projected use in the foreseeable future for this testing range is right out here, smack dab next to the military mission line. we can't let this thing move an inch east. let me put that here for a moment so everybody can see it. this is why we need to ban drilling east of the line. in 2006 this moratorium was
enacted by a bipartisan congress , president george w. bush, and aided and led and abetted by governor jeb bush. as we look forward to extending -- i might say, bill nelson and mel martinez teamed up on this. as we look forward to extending this moratorium now, we are unified team in the florida house delegation, working with senator rubio and governor desantis. we've been doing that for some time on a combined strategy. all of them agree that we must protect this national security asset in florida's coast line. as we move forward, we'll work together to convince president trump of the critical importance of this moratorium to florida. speaker pelosi, majority leader hoyer and natural resources chairman grijalva have all stepped up and committed to protect florida. . now we need the senate and administration to do the same thing. i ask my colleagues to vote yes this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. member from utah reserves?
mr. bishop: no. i yield three minutes to the south carolina, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. opposition to g --. 205 which is unnecessary which unnecessarily takes domestic resources off the table. this overly restricts offshore and development, which would eliminate opportunities to create jobs, increase conomy, and u.s. energy development to lower prices for consumers. 2018, offshore oil and gas development for ated over $3 billion the united states treasury ndover $200 -- and over $200 million for the gulf states. why would we stop all the americanwe made in the energy renaissance? tobers of congress that like drive their cars, they still like to fly in airplanes. 24/7, 365 base and power supply that heat homes, provide ele --
provides electricity for their drinks. admiral mike mullen said there going to weaken our national security by taking areas off the table for production.and what that means is, we're going o be more reliant on foreign sources of energy. i talked about new england states receiving l.n.g. ships to provide natural gas, which we have an abundance here in this country, but new getting tates are natural gas from russia? horrid.hat and abysmal. resources in he this country to provide the energy to meet our needs. focusing on anti--energy -- anti-energy 205, we should have safe, reliable and affordable american people through free market solutions.
e are in an american energy renaissance thanks to president trump and pro-growth policies. hampers these hard-earned gains. taking domestic energy roduction off the table would mean one thing -- i reiterate -- reliance on foreign energy, and hat is wrong when we have the resources here in this country. we should explore. find, we should develop, we should produce, we hould benefit from those productions, and we should benefit from the royalties that come back to the states and the treasury.tes to fund things like the land and water conservation funds that aside for prosperity. funded through royalties through offshore.s production how are you going to fund the land and water conservation fund royalties off se the table? i tell you, america, what they're going to do is raise they like u because the conservation policies. they're going to fund it with taxes.
royalties provide that funding for conservation. i strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. madam jalva: thank you, chair. would recognize the original mr. onsor, along with rooney, this legislation before s, 205, the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor, for as much time as she may consume. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized for as much time as she may consume. you, madam thank speaker. i want to thank chairman champion or being a for america's natural resources, nd in doing so, you are a champion for jobs and the economy. and we know this in florida. in strong i rise support of h.r. 205, protecting securing florida's coastline
act of 2019. it's a pleasure to be here on the floor with my republican francis roany. e's passionate about pro -- rooney. he's passionate about protecting the state of florida because our you f life is at risk when bring oil rigs off of our beaches. life.eatens our way of and he understands very well, as when essful businessman, you threaten our way of life and you threaten our natural beaches, t and our you're threatening our economy and jobs. even though it was nine years ago, the b.p. horizon disaster is still fresh in my mind, and it's resh in the minds of my neighbors that live all across the gulf coast. devastating. april 20, 2010. ou all probably remember because cnn had the oil well,
oil well that the continued to spew oil into the mexico through may, of ugh all of june, all july, august, and they didn't the well until late in september. not just on voc, florida's economy and not just environment, ful but on people's lives. i remember very well holding a in my arms who was a small business owner from the learwater area, the oil didn't even wash up on the shores of tampa bay or the beautiful coast beaches or down anabel island, but the economy took a hit. they lost everything they had. wiped out mom and pop businesses, restaurants, hotels, everyone that relies on clean and clean beaches for
their livelihoods. fishermen couldn't fish. it was a catastrophe. menu.eafood was off the that meant people weren't coming to the mom and pop restaurants meals.ir in addition to all that, whether t was deformed fish and species, there was permanent ecosystem.he researchers that i work with at the university of south florida that even today, on the floor of the gulf of mexico in off the beautiful florida panhandle, there's still what they call dirty snow. remember, they had to put chemicals onto the to make surelowout that the oil did disperse. didn't just disappear. it ended up in the food chain ecosystem, andre it's still out there today
impacting the food web and we love about the florida. in fact, the university of south college of marine did 12 separate vowages on the weather bird. hey say interestingly, the areas where you have oil rigs, determined that fish pecies in the area of the gulf are gone. there's -- there's lack of there.ty impacted. food web is this is going to impact us for decades to come and there's no make it up. the deep sea is not recovering. visible clearly abnormalities have been chronicled just recently. is he environmental impact
right in front of us. the economic impact as well as owners, the iness u.s. travel association stimates that we lost $22 billion due to the b.p. disaster. never l will ensure that happens again, because it says permanently that moratorium that bipartisan of the vote the congress took in 2006 to say drill in you can't that part of the eastern gulf of mexico, this bill will extend that permanently. because this is a dangerous, dirty business. and florida, over time, has not to industrialize its coastline. our economy is based on clean clean water, and floridians have spoken, by the way. a t november there was constitutional amendment on the ballot that said we're going to an offshore oil drilling in state waters. it's often just a few miles off the coast. 69%.ssed by so i wish the trump administration would listen, but you install an oil lobbyist
as head of the interior guess we know that big oil is calling the shots. well, we're going to say no today. say the people of florida, in a bipartisan way, with a united florida going to say, re no, it's not needed, it's not future.and it's not the it's not needed because america oil ready an exporter of and gas. we don't need to expand into reas that are too precious to drill. it's not wanted. welcome. even the department of defense said this is an important ilitary testing area off the bases in the panhandle. they have already weighed in to ay, don't bring the oil rigs into this military testing zone. it's too special to drill. today, once again, a united florida delegation is asking congress to continue to part of florida as a special place and to ontinue the moratorium permanently.
because floridians and folks all over the country that come to to vacation, state they know it's not wanted, it's our future is clean energy. that is what we should be investing in. is what we should be debating and spending time here today. united the future of the states of america. that's where the jobs of the from. are going to come jobs in solar and wind energy surpassing jobs in fossil fuels. requires thatisis america be smarter and we don't double down on the dirty of the past, dirty oil drilling. reasons, of those let's demonstrate here today, push back on the trump attempt to open up the gulf beaches to oil drilling. let's say no. got a bipartisan florida elegation that is standing up united and i want to thank all
of my colleagues from florida andtheir leadership year in year out on this issue. vote today. strong let's send a strong message 205. and vote yes on h.r. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from florida yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. three hop: i yield minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam chairman. thank you to the gentleman from utah. i rise in opposition to this bill and my colleagues' efforts growth of he rapid american energy exploration. this bill is flawed in a number recounted we have here already during this debate. first and foremost, it's clear hat banning offshore energy exploration will increase the prices that families pay at the prices they pay to power their homes. unfortunately, a tax on our energy producers aren't
new. we know what happens when overnment intervenes by imposing burdensome regulations and senseless moratoriums like seeing today. for years, new england states have pushed restrictive energy what we're considering here on the floor is no exception. stateful of governors and ledge salute ours are are wly -- legislators having policies and you know in?t they resulted they've increased prices for consumers. hey have not done to reduce fossil fuels. as congressman duncan recounted few minutes ago, last year it culminated in a russian tanker harbor. the boston why? there weren't enough pipelines to bring gas from nearby pennsylvania. heard it right. despite being a few00 miles from hundred miles from the marcellus shale, our states to import gas from
vladimir puttin. he advocates of this bill doesn't seem to have a problem with that. now they want to implement these federal level. the event in boston shows us the egislation before us would not essen our impact from fossil fuels. we have to import from our adversaries. to add to the madness, the bill completely irreconcilable for the land and conservation fund, one of the biggest priorities of resources committee in this congress. lwcf receives its revenues from coasts like my home state, louisiana. on the very same day the natural resources committee marked up this bill to ban oil and gas exploration, the committee marked up another bill to permanently fund the lwcf. to see rity wants mandatory spending of $900 lwcfon per year out of the but at the same time they want to completely eliminate its funding source. that's simple nonsense.
our country is blessed with abundant of natural resources. the means to use those god-given resources to foster wayomic growth and pave the to an era of american energy dominance. oppressive policies like the nes before us today have been our own worst enemy, forcing us to rely on hostile foreign nations to meet our energy demands. we simply can't do that any longer. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i yield the my time.f thank you. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. utah ntleman from reserves, and the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam chair. yield to the gentleman from florida three minutes, mr. gaetz. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. gaetz: thank you, madam speaker. if drilling off of florida is the only thing that's going to keep us from having high energy prices and a reliance on foreign energy, i don't know why that hasn't happened yet. right now we are not drilling off the coast of florida and we are energy-dominant in the world. we're not drilling off the coast of florida and we continue to see energy prices dropping.
as my colleague said, 69% of floridians do not want to see drilling off our shores. so if you'd like to drill off the coast of louisiana or south carolina, i'd say have at it. but leave my beloved florida alone. there are many reasons to oppose drilling off of florida's shores. our environment, our tourism economy, our real property values. but i come to the floor today to plead the case for northwest florida's military mission. the gulf of mexico test range is one of the only places in the world where we launch live fire over water and land it on land. and i cannot believe that i have to come here to actually make the argument that it is an incredibly stupid idea to launch experimental missiles over active oil rigs. that would seem to be obvious to most people. i know it's obvious to many in my district. this military mission is what keeps us safe. it is ludicrous to suggest that we have more to fear from l.n.g.
from russia than we have from a china that continues to close the technological capability edge with our country. the gulf test range is one of the places where we will be testing hypersonic and supersonic weapons. if we do not continue to maintain that advantage, everybody better brush up on their mandarin, because we won't be able to protect our country and that is the far more significant venture. in florida, we will protect our environment. please, from the congress, don't do anything to harm us. i thank the chairman. i thank my florida colleagues. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. i appreciate the last gentleman's statements. you still have the land range in utah to use. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam chairman. i respect the bill's author and i understand he's representing the opinions of the majority in his district to seeking to
permanently replace the offshore drilling. all of our nation's coastlines are beautiful. they support all sorts of tourism and commercial activities and military activities important to their local communities and our nation. for more than a century, offshore energy development has shown itself to be entirely compatible with these uses. and suggests that it is in some places but not in others is manifestly silly and wrong. for 22 years in the california legislature, i represented california's channel islands, including the santa barbara channel, which by the way is the home of the pacific missile test range. and, yes, in 196, an outdated drilling technology produced the third largest oil spill ever recorded. devastating tourism and fishing that year. and i fully understand the fears of the supporters of this bill. but a little perspective is needed. the economic losses caused by the spill were fully compensated and the environmental damage quickly healed.
and i might add that this second largest oil spill in history was the wreck of the oil tanker exxon valdez which is the alternative to offshore production. for more than 50 years, offshore production in the channel islands has been an immense positive for the region and entirely compatible with military operations there. it is supported -- it has supported thousands of jobs, it has pumped a fortune into the local economy, and it's generated enormous revenues into local, state and federal coffers. by the way, you ask any sports fishermen in the region where's the big fishing, he'll tell you it's by the rigs. i'm not here today to argue what's right for local communities in other states and other regions. i understand that offshore production suffers from what was called the paradox of the scene and un-- seen and unseen. we see the danger of a blowout like santa barbara in 169 or deep water horizon in 2010 -- deepwater horizon in 2010, but what we don't see are the near
mouse economic benefits generated day in and day out by american energy production or the critical role it plays in our nation's prosperity. and this is where the national interest must put ahead of not-in-my-backyard protests. procedures have been long established to assure that offshore production can occur alongside commercial fishing, recreation and, yes, military testing and training. and they have proven themselves to be entirely compatible during many decades of practical experience. indeed, one of the many ironies of this movement is that commercial fishing and military operations are highly dependent on precisely the abundant and affordable petroleum produced by offshore drilling. so too by the by a is -- too by the way is the land and water conservation fund. offshore production is the main funding source for this program and another short-sighted irony
is that the same markup that produced this bill to shut down offshore production off the florida coast also permanently re-authorizes the very fund that depends on offshore production for its very existence. if the congress were to enact a permanent moratorium on production for one part of our coast skwline -- coastline, it begs the question, why are some people more equal than others? madam chairman, we are all advocates for our local districts and the bill's author is an able and respected advocate for his. but our collective responsibility of congress is not to local interests, but to the national interest. and it's in the national interest that our nation be energy-independent, prosperous and strong, and this bill undermines these vital national objectives. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. for the record, this bill will
not affect the lwcf fund at all. all of the money for the fund comes from the existing oil and gas activities in the central and western gulf of mexico. the land and water conservation fund is credited with the first $900 million in offshore revenues. last year, those revenues were $4.7 billion. projections are that existing activity in the gulf of mexico are enough to keep the fund going for a long, long time. so we don't need to drill in the atlantic or the pacific or near florida to find more money. revenues are not a problem. the real problem is that only twice in the history of the fund has congress appropriated the full $900 million that it should get. in fact, over time, we have collected $37.8 billion of revenue that should have been spent on lwcf, but congress has only appropriated less than half. $18.4 billion. so revenue is not the issue.
and this permanent protection for the florida coastal areas is not going to hurt the fund, it's been stated three times already by my friends on the other side of the aisle, that is false, it's completely false. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: at this point i would like to introduce under general leave into the record a statement of administrative policy on this particular bill, as well as i'd like to insert into the record at this point a letter in strong opposition to the bill signed by 20 entities, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, consumer of energy alliance, and a letter in opposition by the laborers international union of north america. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. bishop: with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam chair. i reserve the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: can i ask the chairman if he has other speakers? or are we just playing games? you're done with speakers? all right. then do i have a couple more still to go through. -- i do have a couple more still to go through. i apologize for that. let me then recognize mr. graves, the gentleman from louisiana, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the ranking member for the recognition. to talk about this legislation. madam chair, we're talking about legislation that has to do with energy policy and energy production. we're talking about the goals here, as i heard different speakers talk about, protecting our fisheries and our environment.
i heard speakers talk about protecting our military mission, those military service members and that military edge and the technology we have. i heard people talking about jobs and the threat of spills. madam chair, i support those objectives. i support those objectives. and i know that this may sound counterintuitive, this bill undermines the very objectives that it is purported to advance. let's go through them. let's go through those things. so, number one, talking about the environment. that this bill will cause damages to the environment and it will undermight be -- it will undermine ecological productivity. if you look at this graphic right here, you probably think this is where energy infrastructure is. you probably think that's what this is. this depicts the intensity of energy infrastructure in the
gulf of mexico. from the texas coast to right there in alabama. in reality, oh, my goodness, look at that. if it's not red snapper landings. this is actually where the fish are. this shows the landings of where the fish are. this actually increases ecological productivity, by creating habitat for fisheries. so i heard a speaker on the other side talk about how there was a devastation of fisheries. a devastation of fisheries. in the state of florida. after the spill, the disaster in 2010. in 2011, the state of florida had 117 million pounds of fisheries, in 2011. that is actually more than the fisheries they produced in the most recent year recorded. let me say that again. in the immediate aftermath of the spill, in 2011, there were more fisheries landed, worth
more money than there was in the most recent year recorded, which is 2017. i hate to sit here and continue to undermine all these narratives, but let's go on. we're saying that this is going to -- this bill's going to -- is designed to protect our environment. well, actually you can look at statistics and as far as i understand, they use cars, airplanes and have air conditioning in homes in florida. that requires oil and gas. and so since you're producing it and you need it, the safest way to transport it is to produce it domestically and put it in a pipeline. not my statistic, it's a national research council -- it's the national research council. so once again, didn't -- you're not protecting habitat, you're actually preventing habitat from being established. you're not helping ecological productivity, you're undermining it. you're not protecting the
environment or preventing spills, you're providing greater risk for that, as my friend from california, mr. mcclintock, made reference to the valdez spill. that was a boat. but let's go on to the other one. the military. the military. now, now, i heard a speaker say that, oh, we can't have energy production here because, because that's going to prevent our ability to fly and do weapons, practice weapons in the gulf of mexico. madam chair, when we go into war and we go up against adversaries, do we say, hey, look, i need you to take that building down so my missile can shoot straight in? no, that's absurd. you operate under real conditions. which includes, in some cases, obstructions. and, i just want to make reference here, we're talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of square miles. you can produce here with very, very little surface infrastructure. zeroof it is sub-c, having
impact, zero -- im-- zero impact. you know what the moratorium has provided an exchange for? moving the military mission line to the east. there was an agreement. the 181 east and south leasing areas. that was agreed to. we actually added more production areas in exchange for a temporary moratorium. but what's being proposed now is greater threat to the environment, it's putting a moratorium in place, and it's not doing any type of balance. we can step in and protect our military mission, we can protect our environment, and we can have jobs and energy production in the united states. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bishop: i yield him another two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. graves: madam chair, i also heard talk about the land and water conservation fund. and, yes, the irony of the fact
that there's legislation that the chair pushed that permanently authorizes the land and water conservation fund. legislation moving that permanently funds it at $00 million. $150 a million a year go -- $150 million a year goes to the historic preservation fund. but in reality, it's not limited today 900 million. it's not -- $900 million. it's not. that's not accurate. there's an additional, an additional $12.-- 12.5% that comes from revenue sharing that also goes to the land and water conservation fund. but the putting it over $1 billion a year. plus you add the $150 million from historic preservation fund, plus, just to put it in perspective, madam speaker, when you add up just between 2011 and $55 5ds5 billion, $55 -- billion was generated for the u.s. treasury from energy production. on federal lands and waters. madam chair, that doesn't just fund land and water conservation
fund and historic preservation fund, it funds environmental programs and health care for our elderly, it funds early childhood education, it funds infrastructure. this, according to the government accountability office, is one of the largest nontax streams of revenue. . fund. conservation. we are talking about stopping it. production doesn't go on in perpetuity. layers.d additional it takes 10 years to go from leasing to production. planning now tart to produce safely, to ensure we an continue to have a vibrant economy, jobs, to continue safe environment. this bill undermines the very that it was purported to advance. urge objection to this uninformed legislation, and i yield back. thank you. yields r: the gentleman back. he gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from grijalva.
mr. grijalva: thank you, madam chair. point of -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: as a point of the b.p., madam chair, oil spill cost the fishing least, at the minimum, $94.7 million. at the maximum $1.6 billion in 2010. because, you know, oil spills are not necessarily good for fisheries in the long haul. that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from three is recognized for minutes. mr. gosar: i thank the ranking member bishop for yielding time the eak in opposition to bill. like the previous bill, previous legislation, this bill step backwards in ensuring american energy security. y permanently making certain sections of eastern gulf of mexico permanently off-limits to this d gas development, legislation once again ties one hand behind our nation's back.
s the chairman of the congressional western caucus, and ranking member of the house committee on natural resources, on energy and mineral resources, i have a america's ght into energy issues. many of the western caucus and epublican members on the resources committee have a different vision for america, a vision that doesn't pick winners losers and includes a true all-of-the-above energy strategy solar, braces wind, nuclear, hydropower, coal, oil, natural gas. encourages innovation and less burdensome mandates. we know responsible energy protecting our environment go hand in hand. the offshore coalition, a group members, st 17 including the u.s. chamber of laborer's and the international union of north carolina, sent a letter opposing h.r. 2015, h.r. 1941, and h.r. 1146. in the coalition's letter they state, and i quote, for more
than seven decades, energy in the gulf of mexico has worked club are atively along -- club are along tourism, defense department training activities. 205 will permanently extend gulf of mexico moratorium on oil and gas activities. grow a on them to prosperous future. americans deserve clean, safe, abundant, and affordable energy so that our families, communities, usinesses can share all the opportunities america's energy creates. our country cannot afford to access to new energy supplies and risk losing our energy advantage. oppose hy we ask you to legislation being considered by the u.s. house of representatives this week that surveys, scientific prevent access to new sources of merican offshore energy in the outer continental shelf, end of quote. our previous speaker actually to this very aspect. it takes 10 years to go from
military use? the military that makes that decision. i am sorry. in the past they have simply it , no, they don't need all. so if we were wise, if we were really doing the right thing for this country, if we were really thing on this issue, we would simply say the military can exclude what the needs and what they on't need should be allowed to open for other kinds of exploration. hat could benefit mississippi and alabama and new orleans and texas because they happen to be florida the line than is. that's the right thing to do. do an arbitrary rule that just says, take the ruler and make the damn line of the map.dle that is wrong. that is a violation of logical.g that is that is a violation that is everything that is scientific that we're supposed to do. violation of even taking away the ability of the military to make decisions for themselves.
failed 's why this is a opportunity on our part. had the rules committee simply more rules into effect, we could have modified to make it something that almost everybody in this room could have accepted but the refused to do that for whatever political purposes they had in mind, they refused to do that. so we had the option of instead of doing a bill that's the right and a good thing to do, we have a bill that's going to be questionable here. questionable in the senate. it will be on the deck. we could have done the right thing. right ld have done the thing. hopefully before this bill is all the way through the system, right thing.e but for that, this is a failed opportunity, and i do blame the for refusing to try and expand the discussion so make a bill ly that's viable. with that i appreciate the appreciate all
those who have spoken on this bill, appreciate mr. grijalva, sir.'ll yield back to you, the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back the balance of his time. is gentleman from arizona recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, madam chair. time today.r the talking ai'd close by little bit about -- because it relates to the discussion we are protecting about these very valuable coastal this country. y republican colleagues introduced the american energy first act today and, frankly, quite frightening. it's really the earth isn't burning fast enough legislation, as i like to call it. america's already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. administration is lifting protections on hundreds of millions of acres of public more drilling. our republican colleagues feel enough.ot
it's never enough. for them, for president trump's anti-environment, anti-climatening agenda needs to be moving further. a bill to lling out give more money away to the oil friends.olluter this republican bill that was introduced today by the minority force the florida gulf coast to offshore -- for oil and gas. et states decide where energy development should happen on federal public lands. review environmental times. give vast amounts of public states in the t gulf of mexico and make americans pay if they want to object to a government decision. it.k about right now oil and gas companies lands forinate public leasing without paying a dime. if republicans had their way, oil and gas companies would keep the free ride and anyone that wants to protest a lease would to challenge free
them. these ideas are destructive. in an uldn't even pass all-republican -- government. everything,ntrolled the house of representatives, presidency.the these people are so pro-polluter, so backward looking, they weren't able to them in the house under republican control. if my house colleagues just won't take climate change seriously, then we shouldn't take this bill seriously at all. american people want us to act on climate. trump ject the administration pro-polluter agenda. to 's why we're voting protect our coast today. that's why i urge our colleagues and i yield n 205, back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. n amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the ext of rules committee print 116-29 printed in part an of ouse report 116-200 is adochted. -- is adopted. the bill shall be considered for original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the in , as amended, shall be order except those printed in part b of the report. amendment may er be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally and olled by the proponent opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 116-200. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? crist: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. he clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house eport 116-200 offered by mr.
crist of florida. the chair: pursuant to house 548, the gentleman rom florida, mcrist, and a member oppose -- mr. crist, and a member opposed, will each minutes.ive the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. i was governor when the deepwater horizon went into gulf of mexico. i witnessed firsthand the tar balls on our beaches, the marine drowning in oil, and the billions of dollars of economic inflicted on countless families and small businesses. offshore oil spill in american history, this walkup ave been a huge call to everyone. floridians said never again, and voted almost 70% in the last election to ban offshore drilling. as we learned, drilling doesn't have to take place right shores to upend your way
of life. my amendment is simple. reinstates two critical rules regarding offshore drilling and regulations. the well control rule and the rule tion safety systems that were put into place after he deepwater horizon disaster itself. sadly, the current administration has chosen to past the mistakes of our and has instead weakened these rules. pening the door to self-regulation and less stringent standards. that's why my amendment codifies these rules in their previous form, reinstating critical requirements, and reducing the risk of another tragedy. thank the bipartisan co-sponsors of my amendment, the making the tee for amendment in order, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. barragan, and the gentleman from price, arolina, chairman
for their tireless efforts to support these regulations. on behalf of florida's 13th district, i give my to the lt thanks distinguished bipartisan olleagues from florida, representative castor, representative rooney, for their leadership on the underlining bill to keep -- to keep drilling out of the gulf of mexico for good. in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to drill at all, but as drilling does occur in the western and central gulf, deepwater the horizon spill, we must do everything in our power to make ure that history does not repeat itself. i urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment so no state ever endure another deepwater horizon, and now i'd like to ield 30 seconds to my colleague, the chairman of the natural resources committee, the arizona, chairman grijalva. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 30 seconds.
mr. grijalva: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from florida for his thoughtful and necessary amendment that will restore offshore drilling regulations, that will reduce the risk to that gulf community -- that gulf communities face from offshore development. i want to thank him for that and support the amendment very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: the administration rightfully took a second look at the well-controlled and -- well control and production safety system rule that was implemented by the prior administration. they didn't make a whole lot of changes, about a 17% change to the overall rule was all that was done there. but the colleagues that i've heard and also those in the press who have talked about this have been opposed to the revised rules because they eroneously argue that they allow them to
issue the so-called waivers to oil companies that give them a free pass to comply with the well control rule. in reality, that is not what shapping. the rule allows them to approve alternative compliance measures for companies that can prove there is a better way of handling a particular requirement, that is at least as safe as the original regulatory rules were. so in fact, the practice is nothing new. in the obama administration they approved these types of measures more than the current administration is doing. the average during the obama administration was roughly four times per day. the current administration does it roughly 2.3 times per day. bessy isn't allowing oil companies to get away with not complying to the well control rule, they have simply found a better way of doing it. to codify this rule the way it was before takes away the flexibility and the ability to use technology and new ideas and
new science to come up with a better way of actually solving the problem. this amendment does great harm, not only to the process, but to attach it to this bill, which ought to be about the military line, simply means were this to pass, this amendment would make it more difficult for the ultimate bill to reach a solution in the senate. so it's an amendment to the wrong bill. should have been on the earlier can one. but it's an amendment that's not -- earlier one. but it's an -- an amendment that's not needed. it takes away the administration's ability to do right way.at the i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crist: thank you, madam chair. first, he want to thank the chairman for his support of the bill -- i want to thank the chairman for his support of the bill. i appreciate that very much. in response to my colleague from across the aisle, what is necessary and what is important
is to make sure that we have stringent rules on this dangerous industry. make sure that we protect our ecosystem and our environment. as i said, we as floridians already understand it. voting almost 70% of the vote in the latest election to ban offshore drilling from our beautiful coasts. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: once again, i'm somewhat confused as to the point and direction of this particular amendment. if it's about the military line, this amendment does nothing to it. if it's about protecting the coast of florida, this amendment does nothing to it. it's about having a better way of doing the system, to provide more protection. it actually moves us back and moves the ability of the department in this situation to protect and realize that because it takes away their creative tenches. there are always best -- alternatives. there are always better ways of doing things. this is the wrong amendment on the wrong bill that gives us the wrong direction. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-200. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 116-200 offered by ms. barragan of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentlewoman from california, ms. barragan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. barragan: thank you, madam chair. earlier this year i introduced a bill called the safe coast act to protect our coasts from offshore oil and gas drilling.
a vital element of that bill was to protect the offshore oil and gas operations program. this critical piece of the safe coast act is offered in this amendment. as this body may remember, in december of 2017, the administration placed a stop work order on a critical study of the inspections program for offshore oil and gas operations in an attempt to delay the study and alter its management. the administration later changed its mind and resumed the study. but it doesn't mean the administration can't change its mind again and halt it. or take away the study from the national academy of sciences and contract it to an oil and gas industry-friendly entity. we can't take that chance because this study is too critical. for example, this study ensures that vital aspects of the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement's regulatory mission are being met. the study would evaluate the bureau's current risk assessment inspection process and provide
recommendations for its -- for its improvement. it will also evaluate and migrate best practices into the bureau's inspection protocols. lastly, it will assess the potential role of safety enhancing technologies, such as a plote and realtime monitoring -- as remote and realtime monitoring. it will assess potential risks and improve safety and environmental protection practices. our coasts need these protections. my amendment will ensure the study remains operational and the objective and trustworthy hands of the national academy of sciences. i urge my colleagues to help protect our oceans and support my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. bishop: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i don't want to try and be snarky on these kinds of amendments. but it's already being done.
it's a nice concept. it was stopped. but the also started again. so this calls for an amendment for a study to continue and resume. they've already done it. so back in october, in the interior department, they already resumed the meetings, they're ongoing, everything you want is actually happening. i think a better study may be figuring out how five noes can be outweighed by three ayes. but nonetheless, this is a redundant amendment because it's already happening. reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. barragan: thank you, madam chair. the bottom line, is this administration cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting coastline. this administration already once stopped the order, changed its mind. again, there is nothing to prevent this administration from changing its mine again. or, as i mentioned, from taking it away from the national academy of sciences. this amendment just ensures that
the study remains operational and in the hands of the national academy of sciences so there can't be a change. this is a protection we need for the coast and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm sorry. i'm just going to end with the final conclusion again. that it's a redundancy because it's already being done. actually, why don't you just mandate that everything we're doing in every other department be done at the same time? it would have the same kind of impact, the same kind of effect. this is cute, but it's a waste of our time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-200.
for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman is recognizes -- i'm sorry. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 116-200 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification offered by mr. gosar of arizona. strike director of the united states fish and wildlife service and insert secretary of labor. the chair: is there objection to the modification? seeing none, without objection, the modification is agreed to. the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: madam chair, i rise today to offer an amendment that allows section 2 moratorium in this bill to go into effect when
the department of the interior in consultation with the department of labor certifies that the offshore energy moratorium in the bill will not kill a substantial number of minority and women jobs. we heard arguments from the democratic members on the other side of the aisle against a similar amendment that this amendment doesn't matter and is meaningless. how callous that response. i tell opponents of this amendment to tell that single mother working to put food on the table for her two children that her job doesn't matter. how about the minority family who just moved into a new neighborhood so their kid could go to a better school? tell those hardworking minority parents those jobs don't matter either. under the current administration, unemployment has reached record lows. in august, the national unemployment rate sat at 3.7%, with the unemployment rate for african-american workers sitting at 5.5%. breaking the previous record of 5.9%, which was set in may of 2018. according to a jobs recent
report from "the washington post," once again, the bastion of conservative reporting, nearly 90% of the jobs added under this administration have gone to minority communities. this can be attributed to that for first time a majority of new hires are people between the ages of 25 to 54. and are from minority communities. according to statistics published by the american petroleum institute, minorities will comprise 1/3 of the total work force in the oil and gas sector by 20 306789 women already comprise more than 15% of the oil and go gas -- oil and gas work force. these are good paying jobs, paying $90,000, that hardworking families depend upon. this legislation puts these employment opportunities at risk by permanently putting off limits potentially viable -- invaluable offshore energy opportunities in the eastern gulf of mexico. for the first time since the 1950's, the united states will soon be a net exporter of oil and natural gas. something that was once
unthinkable. america's energy renaissance has boosted the economies of previously left-behind towns throughout the country and turned them into vibrant communities. madam chair, this is a commonsense amendment, protects minority and women jobs and puts the interests of the american work force first and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: i yield myself as uch time as i may consume. this amendment -- first of all -- let's start with a premise here. the premise of protecting jobs for women and people of color is a laudable one. but on the eastern coast at this point there are no jobs to lose or protect because there's no jobs. if there was to be any activity, it would be until when the moratorium would be lifted in
2022. so -- the point of this amendment has nothing to do with the bill. and it's simply an amendment to block protections for the eastern gulf, based on a fake concern for jobs for women and people of color. i recall the meeting that -- hearing we had yesterday about interior bureau of land management reorganization. and their transfer of central activities to grand junction, colorado. and in that, we asked the question, the majority asked the question about, what about the retention of senior female and of color staff in this move, how many are we going to lose, do they need to be protected? and at the hearing, the minority told us -- members told us that was not an issue. we shouldn't worry about it.