PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 11, 2019
Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act
This bill revises provisions related to oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.
(Sec. 2) The Department of the Interior must publicize reports regarding onsite inspections of each facility on the Outer Continental Shelf that is subject to safety and environmental regulations. Interior must also publicize information about each payment made into the Ocean Energy Safety Fund, including the facility name, operator name, and the payment amount.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) The bill prohibits Interior from offering any tract for oil and gas leasing or preleasing in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf planning area (North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the Straits of Florida) or the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf planning area (Washington/Oregon, Northern California, Central California, and Southern California).
(Sec. 4) Interior must collect non-refundable fees from the operators of facilities subject to inspection under this bill, including inspection fees for offshore energy facilities and oil drilling rigs. All fees collected must be deposited into the Ocean Energy Safety Fund.
(Sec. 6) Interior must report to Congress on whether this bill poses a risk to national security due to potential increase in dependence on foreign oil.
(Sec. 7) The Government Accountability Office must report on the impacts of offshore drilling on coastal communities and coastal economies.
(Sec. 8) The bill prohibits conducting geological or geophysical activities in support of oil, gas, or methane hydrate exploration and development in any area located in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.
(Sec. 9) The Department of Commerce must conduct a study to determine the potential economic impact of offshore drilling on tourism, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, boating, transportation, and other waterfront-related and coastal-related businesses.
People & committees
Rep. Cunningham, Joe [D-SC-1] · D–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 238 - 189 (Roll no. 525).
House roll call 525 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 238 - 189 (Roll no. 525).
House roll call 525 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 194 - 233 (Roll no. 524).
House roll call 524 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Graves (LA) motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a new section to the bill that Section 2 of this Act shall take effect on the date the President certifies that the enactment of this Act will not increase the national average price of gasoline.
Mr. Graves (LA) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H7636)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1941.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7634-7638)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1941 as unfinished business.
On motion that the Committe rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Lowenthal moved that the Committe rise.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rouda amendment No. 8.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Gosar amendment, the Chair put the question on the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Gosar demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing to the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gosar amendment No. 7.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Levin (MI) amendment No. 6.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rouda amendment No. 5.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Langevin amendment No. 4.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Lesko amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Gosar amendment, the Chair put the question on the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Gosar demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing to the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Gosar amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 548, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the McClintock amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1941.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 548 and Rule XVIII.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Henry Cuellar to act as Chairman of the Committee.
Providing for consideration of H.R. 205, H.R. 1146, and H.R. 1941.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 548. (consideration: CR H7606-7622; text: CR H7615)
Rule H. Res. 548 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 548 Reported to House. Providing for consideration of H.R. 205, H.R. 1146, and H.R. 1941.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 117.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-157.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 116-157.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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.1941 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.1941 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.1941 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.1941 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.