PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 14, 2013
Maximize Offshore Resource Exploration Act of 2013 or MORE Act of 2013 - Declares without force or effect all federal prohibitions against the expenditure of appropriated funds to conduct natural gas leasing and preleasing activities for any area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Revokes all withdrawals of federal submerged lands from leasing for oil and natural gas exploration and production.
Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from granting an oil or natural gas lease for any OCS located within 25 miles of a state coastline unless the state has enacted a law approving the issuance of such leases by the Secretary.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth an allocation schedule for a: (1) 75% state share of revenues derived from U.S. royalties under qualified oil and gas leases on submerged lands located within the seaward boundaries of a state, and (2) 90% state share of revenues derived from royalties under leases that are located within 25 miles of the coastline of a state and within the seaward boundaries.
Extends the jurisdiction of state civil and criminal law, as appropriate, to the Alaska, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic OCS Region State Adjacent Zones and OCS Planning Areas.
Establishes a separate account in the Treasury to be known as the Renewable Energy Reserve, consisting of 12.5% of revenues derived from U.S. royalties under such oil and gas leases located within the seaward boundaries and 5% of revenues derived from leases located within 25 miles of the coastline of a state and within the seaward boundaries.
Makes the Reserve available to offset the cost of subsequently enacted legislation to: (1) accelerate the use of cleaner domestic energy resources and alternative fuels; (2) promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices; and (3) increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies and job training programs for those purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-42] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1165 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1165 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1165 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1165 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.