99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–68 

RESTARTING AMERICAN OFFSHORE LEASING NOW ACT 

MAY 2, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1230] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1230) to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

certain offshore oil and gas lease sales, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1230 is to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct certain offshore oil and gas lease sales. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provides a system for offshore oil and natural gas exploration, leasing, and development in federal waters. The federal government develops fiveyear plans to determine where and when offshore leasing and energy production will occur. 

The current five-year plan (2007–2012) included a lease sale off 

the Virginia coast in 2011 (#220), two Gulf of Mexico lease sales 

(#216 and #218) in 2011, and another Gulf of Mexico lease sale 

(#222) to have taken place in 2012. All of these sales have been either canceled or delayed by the Obama Administration, threatening 

to make 2011 the first year since 1958 that there will have been 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

no lease sales in the OCS. As a result, the President’s budget predicts that OCS revenues from bonus bids and rents will be only 

$150 million, approximately 1.5% of the 2008 revenue generated by 

OCS sales, which was $9.85 billion in FY2008. This loss of billions 

in revenue will have a real impact on the federal budget and, in 

future years, delay new American energy production. These are the 

direct results of conscious decisions by the Obama Administration 

that have real impacts on our economic and energy security. 

In 2008, both Congress and the President lifted the decades-long 

ban on offshore drilling. This opened 500 million additional acres 

to offshore drilling—including off the Atlantic coast. The lifting of 

this ban allowed the scheduled Virginia lease sale in 2011 to proceed. However, in 2010 the Secretary of the Interior delayed the 

Virginia lease sale until 2012 and then later announced that no 

areas off the Atlantic Coast would be available for leasing and energy development in the next five-year plan (2012–2017). In 2010, 

the Secretary of the Interior also canceled or delayed two scheduled 

Gulf of Mexico lease sales from 2011 until 2012. H.R. 1230 will reverse the Administration’s delays by validating the existing completed Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), prepared for these 

lease sales under the National Environmental Policy Act, and ensuring these lease sales move forward in a prompt, timely and safe 

manner. H.R. 1230 expands American energy production, creates 

jobs and generates revenue for taxpayers. 

It is important to note that the EIS work for the Gulf lease sales 

is complete, thorough, and sufficient to safely and responsibly conduct lease sales. The EIS for the Virginia lease sale is to be completed within one year. Furthermore, this is not the final analysis 

these leases will undergo. Each lease will undergo a lease sale Environmental Assessment along with additional environmental review of the submitted Exploration Plan. In totality, before an oil 

and natural gas project on a lease in federal waters takes place, 

there will be at least four separate environmental reviews that look 

at the overall environmental effects of development down to the 

site-specific review of impacts. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1230, the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, 

was introduced on March 29, 2011, by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R–WA). The bill was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to 

the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On April 6, 

2011, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a 

hearing on the bill. On April 13, 2011, the Full Natural Resources 

Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated 001 to 

the bill; the amendment was ruled out of order. Congressman Rush 

Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated #A; the amendment 

was not adopted by a roll call vote of 12–28, as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 4 HR68.001
4 

Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated 

#B; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14–28, 

as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 6 HR68.002
6 

Congressman John Sarbanes (D–MD) offered amendment designated 008; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 

14–28, as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 8 HR68.003
8 

Congressman Ben Lujan (D–NM) offered amendment designated 

009; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14–28, 

as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
9 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 HR68.004
10 

Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated 

007. Congressman Holt offered an amendment to the amendment 

which was adopted by unanimous consent. The amendment, as 

amended, was not adopted by voice vote. Congressman Ben Lujan 

(D–NM) offered amendment designated 005. Congressman Lujan 

offered an amendment to the amendment which was adopted by 

unanimous consent. The amendment, as amended, was not adopted 

by a roll call vote of 16–26, as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HR68.005
12 

Congressman Edward Markey (D–MA) offered amendment designated 002; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 

15–27, as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
13 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR68.006
14 

Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated 

#D; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 14–29, 

as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
15 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR68.007
16 

The bill was then favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 29–14, as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
17 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR68.008
18 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in 

carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee 

has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 

bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under 

clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 28, 2011. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1230, the Restarting 

American Offshore Leasing Now Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen Gramp. 

Sincerely, 

PETER H. FONTAINE

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1230—Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act 

Summary: H.R. 1230 would establish statutory deadlines for 

sales of certain oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). If the bill were enacted, the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) would be required to auction leases in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico within four and eight months of enactment, respectively. The legislation also would direct DOI to auction leases 

for an area off the coast of Virginia within one year of enactment. 

Enacting H.R. 1230 would affect direct spending; therefore, payas-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce net direct spending by $25 million over the 

2011–2016 period and about $40 million over the 2011–2021 period. 

In addition, CBO estimates that DOI would spend about $2 million to implement the legislation, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
19 

H.R. 1230 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1230 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 950 (undistributed offsetting receipts). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012– 

2016 

2012– 

2021 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING a

Estimated Budget Authority .. 0 0 0 ¥10 ¥15 ¥20 ¥7 4 4 4 ¥25 ¥40 

Estimated Outlays ................. 0 0 0 ¥10 ¥15 ¥20 ¥7 4 4 4 ¥25 ¥40 

a In addition to the estimated impact on direct spending, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1230 would cost about $2 million over the 

2012–2016 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

1230 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2011 and that DOI 

will conduct the sales of federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico according to the schedule included in the President’s budget request for 

fiscal year 2012. Bonus bids, rental fees, and royalty payments for 

OCS leases are recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts, which 

are an offset to direct spending. 

Direct spending 

CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have no significant effect on proceeds from lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico because the proposed schedule is similar to the plan included in 

DOI’s budget for 2011. CBO expects, however, that directing DOI 

to hold a lease sale off the Virginia coast soon after enactment 

would increase the number of lease sales in that area relative to 

current policies. 

Under existing law, DOI can auction acreage if it is included in 

an approved five-year plan. The Administration’s plan for the 

2007–2012 period included a proposed sale in 2011 of about 4 million acres off the coast of Virginia. That lease sale was canceled in 

2010, however, to allow for further review of the impact of oil and 

gas development on military operations and the environment. A 

final leasing plan for the 2012–2017 period has not yet been adopted. Recent guidelines for that plan recommended preparing the environmental studies needed for seismic assessments of the Mid-Atlantic region (including the coast of Virginia), but did not include 

any lease sales in that area over the 2012–2017 period. As a result, 

CBO’s baseline projections assume that the Virginia OCS would 

not be opened for leasing until after June 30, 2017, under current 

law. 

Based on information from DOI on the oil and gas resources in 

the Mid-Atlantic region, CBO estimates that enacting the bill 

would increase net offsetting receipts (and thus decrease direct 

spending) by about $40 million over the 10-year period. That estimate reflects CBO’s expectation that holding a Virginia lease sale 

soon after enactment would increase proceeds in the next five years 

but also would reduce the amount collected in auctions held after 

2017. For this estimate, CBO assumes that DOI would incorporate 

the Virginia lease sale into the five-year plan for 2012–2017 after 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
20 

completing the assessments and consultations required by the bill 

and existing law. Given the time needed to complete those assessments, conduct sales, and issue leases, CBO anticipates that proceeds from leasing in those areas would be collected after fiscal 

year 2014. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

Based on spending patterns for similar activities, CBO estimates 

that DOI would spend about $2 million over the 2012–2016 period 

to complete the necessary environmental and other assessments 

necessary to conduct the Virginia lease sale, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1230, THE RESTARTING AMERICAN OFFSHORE LEASING NOW ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES ON APRIL 13, 2011 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011– 

2016 

2011– 

2021 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Impact .............. 0 0 0 0 ¥10 ¥15 ¥20 ¥7 0 4 4 ¥25 ¥40 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1230 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required 

by clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 

authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of 

this bill would reduce net direct spending by $25 million over the 

2011–2016 period and about $40 million over the 2011–2021 period. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does 

not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
21 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(22) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 1230 because it is a blatant political attempt to 

use rising gasoline prices as an excuse to grant enormous, multinational energy companies more access to the Gulf with less oversight. Enacting this legislation would have no impact on the price 

of gasoline but would make another catastrophic oil spill more likely. 

The short title of H.R. 1230 asserts that the purpose of the legislation is to ‘‘restart’’ offshore leasing. Of course, the legislation is 

belated given that the Obama Administration restarted offshore 

drilling in February and has already announced plans to offer all 

three Gulf of Mexico lease sales mandated in the bill later this year 

or early next year. As a result, H.R. 1230 ‘‘restarts’’ nothing, but 

would mandate that the lease sales go forward within unreasonable 

time limits and without proper environmental review. 

In addition to destroying beaches, livelihoods and lives, the BP 

Deepwater Horizon disaster destroyed any notion that pre-spill environmental reviews were adequate. As is too often the case, these 

environmental review documents turned out to be amalgamations 

of wildly speculative industry claims, outdated or inaccurate information and cookie-cutter, boilerplate verbiage. Virtually every assumption these reviews were based upon washed away in the BP 

spill. 

The existing environmental impact statements for the Gulf lease 

sales were completed in 2007, long before the BP spill. Amongst 

other deficiencies, these reviews assume ‘‘the most likely size of an 

offshore spill greater than or equal to 1,000 barrels that is predicted to occur is 4,600 barrels’’ of oil. The 2007 analysis concluded 

that the total volume of oil that would be spilled from all spills in 

the central and western Gulf over the next 40 years would be 

roughly 47,000 barrels. That is less than what was spilled during 

the Deepwater Horizon disaster in one day. Finally, these reviews 

concluded that in a worst case scenario, only 19 to 31 miles of Gulf 

coastline would be impacted by a spill. In reality, the Deepwater 

Horizon disaster resulted in oil reaching over 950 miles of the Gulf 

coastline, according to NOAA. Nevertheless, H.R. 1230 would 

‘‘deem’’ these outdated and demonstrably inadequate reviews as 

satisfying the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act for these new lease sales. 

Rigorous engagement in the review process required under 

NEPA would provide the ideal forum to review these assumptions 

in light of the BP spill, gather expert as well as public input, and 

formulate policy to allow drilling to proceed without repeating the 

mistakes which led to the BP calamity. H.R. 1230 prohibits that 

process. 

H.R. 1230 would also force the Interior Department to conduct 

a lease sale off the coast of Virginia within one year. Opening up 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
23 

the coastline of the East Coast to drilling within one year, before 

any new safety standards for offshore drilling have been enacted by 

the Congress, is reckless and would endanger the economies and 

the environment of the Mid-Atlantic coastal states. 

Energy and Mineral Subcommittee Ranking Member Holt offered 

amendments to cure the NEPA deficiencies in the bill, which were 

rejected in lock-step by the Majority. Further, Ranking Member 

Markey offered an amendment to insure that, if these lease sales 

are to go forward, they must provide a fair return to the American 

taxpayers; that too was rejected. Representative Sarbanes offered 

an amendment to remove the ill-considered lease sale off Virginia, 

which was also defeated. Finally, Representative Lujan offered an 

amendment seeking to guarantee that the energy resources produced pursuant to these leases would at least remain in the United 

States. That basic assurance was also rejected by the Majority. 

Witness after witness before the Natural Resources Committee 

has made clear that the price of oil is determined on an international market, largely controlled by OPEC. Increases in U.S. domestic production can easily be offset by reductions in OPEC production in order to maintain high prices. 

H.R. 1230 will not change this reality. All it would do is insist 

on denying the reality of the BP spill and put the Gulf and the Nation back on the dangerous path that led to that tragic event. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

PETER A. DEFAZIO. 

JOHN P. SARBANES. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO

SABLAN. 

DALE E. KILDEE. 

NIKI TSONGAS. 

BETTY SUTTON. 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N. 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr. 

COLLEEN HANABUSA. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA. 

JOHN GARAMENDI. 

RUSH HOLT. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS