PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.296 / 103rd Congress

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

Executive Comment Requested from Commerce, Interior, EPA.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 1993

Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to change from discretionary to mandatory the Secretary of the Interior's authority to cancel a lease or permit within such lands in specified circumstances. Revises the condition that the Secretary must determine that continued activity would probably cause serious harm or damage. States that lease or permit cancellation shall occur if the activity has resulted in or poses a threat of serious harm or damage and that the environmental or other resources harmed or placed at risk are of substantial value. Prohibits the cancellation of a lease or permit unless its operation has been suspended or temporarily prohibited by the Secretary or the Congress. (Current law provides for suspension by the Secretary alone.) Decreases the due extension of such suspended lease term from five years to one. Allows the compensation for a cancelled lease to be made in the form of currency, forgiveness of the lessee's obligation to pay rents or royalties on another issued lease, or against bonus payments for future lease purchases. Changes the administrative procedure for processing comments received from a Governor modifying a proposed Outer Continental Shelf leasing program that affects his or her State. Requires the national interest of lands within the Outer Continental Shelf to be determined by application of a balancing process that gives equal weight to obtaining oil and gas supplies and to protection of the environment. Directs the Secretary to accept a Governor's recommendation providing a reasonable balance between the national interest and the well-being of the citizens of such affected State, unless found to be based on a material error of fact or arbitrary or capricious. Sets requirements for peer review and publication deadlines for certain environmental studies.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Panetta, Leon [D-CA-17] · D–CA

Committees

  • Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
  • Natural Resources Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Executive Comment Requested from Commerce, Interior, EPA.

    2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Oceanography, Gulf of Mexico, and the Outer Continental Shelf.

    3. Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

    4. Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

    5. Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

    6. Introduced in House

    7. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.296 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.296 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.296 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.296 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.

    View full prompt & sources