[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6462-H6468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3534, CONSOLIDATED LAND, ENERGY,
AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ACT OF 2010; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 5851, OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS WORKER WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF
2010
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1574 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1574
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3534) to provide greater efficiencies,
transparency, returns, and accountability in the
administration of Federal mineral and energy resources by
consolidating administration of various Federal energy
minerals management and leasing programs into one entity to
be known as the Office of Federal Energy and Minerals Leasing
of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments
specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour, with
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources
and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
[[Page H6463]]
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except
those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question. All points of order against
such amendments are waived except those arising under clause
9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Natural Resources or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5851) to
provide whistleblower protections to certain workers in the
offshore oil and gas industry. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment printed in
part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 4. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3534, the Clerk
shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 5851, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 3534;
(2) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(3) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 5851 to the
engrossment of H.R. 3534, H.R. 5851 shall be laid on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentlewoman from Maine is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1574 provides for consideration of H.R.
3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010,
under a structured rule; and H.R. 5851, the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010, under a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, April 20, 2010, became a day that will live in history
as one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. When explosion
and fire ripped through the Deepwater Horizon, the first priority was
saving the lives of the crew. Sadly, for 11 men it was too late.
{time} 0920
As the oil flowed out of the well and as BP unsuccessfully tried to
stop it, the Nation watched, captivated by the story and by the untold
damage to gulf coast communities. We learned a new language, the
language of the offshore oil and gas industry. Terms like ``blowout
preventer'' and ``top kill'' became common words to the American
people, to news shows and on the House floor. The evening news was soon
filled with pictures of oil-coated beaches, dead pelicans, and
fishermen who were afraid that their way of life was slipping away.
Today, as we debate these two very important bills, I wonder why it
has taken us, Congress, so many years to act on the issues we are
taking up today. The problems and challenges facing the management of
our resources, like offshore oil and gas, are not new. In 2007, before
I was elected to this body, Chairman Rahall recognized that we needed
to reform the dysfunctional system that allowed BP to run the Deepwater
Horizon rig without regard to the safety of their workers or to the
health of the environment. Additionally, the ideas behind the CLEAR Act
are not new. They are commonsense reforms that should have happened
years ago. Maybe, if they had happened, the workers on the Deepwater
Horizon would still be alive and the gulf would not be soaked in oil.
Mr. Speaker, we need to continue responding to the disaster in the
gulf and not forget that catastrophic environmental damage has been
done. We need to clean up and repair the gulf, to hold BP accountable
for its oil spill, to enact stronger environmental, technological, and
spill response standards, to conserve our natural resources, and to
invest in an American clean energy future.
We must also remember that, in addition to cleaning up the mess,
repairing the damage, and cracking down on big oil companies, we also
have to get serious about ending our dependence on oil and creating new
sources of clean energy. If we had a clean energy economy, powered by
wind and solar and tidal power, we probably wouldn't be here having
this discussion today.
Frankly, it is almost impossible for me to imagine what would have
happened if my State, the State of Maine, had experienced a massive oil
spill that had polluted the Gulf of Maine. It is almost impossible for
me to imagine the devastation to our fishing families, to our tourism,
and to our beautiful coastline if millions of gallons of crude oil were
to begin washing offshore, but it is possible for me to imagine the
same Gulf of Maine dotted with floating offshore wind turbines, wind
turbines which would create good-paying jobs and provide an endless
source of clean energy without the risk of environmental disaster.
Today, we are considering two bills that will help address some of
our most egregious problems. This bill will provide protection for
whistleblowers who alert the government to dangerous violations of
Federal law. Nobody should be forced to choose between his or her job
and reporting unsafe conditions. It will also improve the leasing
process, making sure all companies follow the environmental and safety
rules, and it will ensure royalties are paid on all oil drilled or
spilled.
The CLEAR Act reorganizes the Department of the Interior to provide
better management of the Nation's energy resources located on Federal
lands and water. The act eliminates conflicts that arise when the same
agency which is in charge of the environmental reviews of leases, of
issuing leases, and of making sure the leaseholders and rig operators
are in compliance with safety and environmental laws, then turns around
and collects royalties from these same companies.
The disaster in the gulf makes it clear that we should be working to
transition our economy to a clean energy future. Investments in clean
energy will help in the recovery of our economy, and supporting
renewable energy projects, like offshore wind, will strengthen the
economy and help create good jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
I am glad that language is included in the bill that will reform
royalty collection. I am proud of the work that we have done on this
issue, and I thank Chairman Rahall for working with me on language
included in this manager's amendment that will guarantee that BP pays
royalties on every drop of oil spilled in the gulf.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we are, Mr. Speaker, today, a brand new day. It is the 35th time
this Congress that I have handled a rule. Once again, it is another
closed rule. In fact, as we aim for our 6-week recess, we recognize how
important it is for Members of this body to go back home and to receive
feedback about what a great job we are doing here in Congress, to have
the American people be very supportive of increasing taxes and
[[Page H6464]]
of more rules and regulations. Today, we are sticking it to the
consumer again at the gas pump because we are going to take it out on
energy companies. It is going to be a very interesting recess.
Mr. Speaker, as I talk about this being my 35th time during this
session to handle a closed rule, in fact, the Democratic majority has
not allowed one open rule, not for me and not for my colleagues. There
has not been one open rule this entire Congress. Yet, this week, we are
passing two appropriations bills, which, under normal rules and
regulations, at least before the Democrats took over, would have been
open to all Members to have come in and to have not only openly debated
but to have shown up on the floor and to have offered their ideas about
appropriations bills.
I just don't believe that closing down debate, limiting Members'
abilities to come talk, having limited amendments, and really shutting
out Republicans and Democrats--that is, unless you are in the
leadership of the Democratic Party--is really the way that we should
run this ship. Once again, during the break, I think the American
people are going to have a chance to provide some feedback to Members.
It is my hope that we will listen.
Today, we are discussing two bills that are reactions to the gulf oil
spill crisis. While reforms are clearly needed to make the American
offshore drilling safer and cleaner, today's legislation requires new
blanket regulations without a good sense of, I think, what the problem
was and what the facts say. The investigation of events should be
completed so that Congress can act intelligently and correctly. The
focus should be on permanently stopping the leak, on cleaning up the
oil, on assisting gulf coast communities, on holding BP accountable,
and on finding the cause of the disaster. We ought to wait until we get
that.
What we are doing is trying to put through a bill here where we
already assume that we understand what the problem is, and, of course,
if you are in Washington, you understand these energy companies just
need to be taxed more. We need to raise taxes on them to discourage the
drilling in the gulf.
There was a comment made a few minutes ago that the Democrat majority
wants to save jobs from going overseas. In fact, that is exactly what
this will do. It will keep America continually reliant on energy from
other nations around the globe, nations that not only do not like
America but, perhaps, even worse than that, will use those resources
that we give them against America. It is a bad deal. Anybody who
listens to this debate can figure out in half a heartbeat that using
American resources, keeping American jobs and more fully working with
the industry instead of trying to punish the industry would be what any
rational American would do.
Once again, we are not rational in this town. It is about punishing
people. It's just like President Obama, who wants to pick a fight with
everybody in town in order to go and ruin the free enterprise system.
Well, that is what we are doing again today. We are on record. We are
going to have the vote today. We are going to lose thousands of jobs.
Yesterday, the gentleman Mr. Scalise from Louisiana and the gentleman
Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana came forward to the Rules Committee. They
talked about this moratorium in the gulf and that, if it continues,
thousands of jobs will be lost in their home State. Thousands of middle
class Americans who need to have work, once again, will be in trouble.
The Obama moratorium on deepwater drilling has already cost tens of
thousands of jobs. This bill will eliminate even more American energy
jobs, making it harder and more expensive to produce both energy on-
and offshore. Additionally, this legislation will only further enhance
our economic troubles in the gulf region and throughout the Nation
because it will create a diminished supply of energy which will be
available at a higher cost, and the American consumers will be the
people who will be paying for this--I'm sorry--the taxpayers, also,
because they will be the people who will be unemployed.
{time} 0930
Mr. Speaker, my good friends on that side of the aisle are using H.R.
3534 to exploit this oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to
rush to Washington and put energy items on their agenda.
The underlying bill imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes.
This underlying bill imposes job-killing charges and higher taxes for
both onshore natural gas and oil production and offshore. The bill
creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending, $30 billion in new
mandatory spending for two new government bureaucracies that have
absolutely nothing to do with the oil spill. It raises taxes over $22
billion in 10 years. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that
will raise energy prices for American families, businesses, hurt
domestic job creation, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. But
don't worry, I'm sure we can blame George Bush for the passage of this
bill and the outcome that will come from that.
Additionally, H.R. 3534 requires a Federal takeover of State
authority to permit in State waters which reverses 60 years of
precedence of law in this country. Why are we rewarding the
mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the Federal
Government and giving them expanded authority now? They were a joint
partner down in the gulf, and they failed too. We should not empower
them even more.
The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators,
which could effectively eliminate all independent producers from
offshore drilling if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover
their operations. However, this does not mean that drilling up and down
our coasts will stop. Nope. Countries like China and Russia are in the
process of negotiating with Cuba for access to these same oil fields
right now, which means that others will come and reap the benefits,
sell it to us at an exorbitant price, and we will be shipping American
jobs overseas.
According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight: ``By 2020,
an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would
eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in Federal,
State and local taxes from the gulf region over 10 years.''
The gulf region has suffered enough, Mr. Speaker. Our consumers and
businesses need an adequate supply of natural gas and energy. What this
Congress does is only going to diminish jobs, lower local revenue in
areas, and cause our businesses to be noncompetitive because we will
pay more for the energy to supply the needs to business.
Week after week, Mr. Speaker, I come down to this floor to debate the
importance of economic growth and job opportunities, and my friends on
the other side of the aisle continue this same agenda, the same agenda
that does not work. And then they question, Why don't you Republicans--
at least one of you--come vote for this? Well, the answer is, We're not
going to vote for what's not going to work. And what does not work, Mr.
Speaker, is the taxing, the borrowing, the spending policies that week
after week after week diminish jobs and push our economy into further
debt.
Unemployment is the highest it's been. More people are unemployed in
this country than since the time of the Great Depression and for a
longer period of time. That is not a record of success, Mr. Speaker.
It's one that I would be embarrassed about. Americans want solutions.
They want Congress to produce results, and this bill does not do that.
It's my hope that when we go home for the August break once again that
the American people say what's on their mind, and I think it's up to
us, as Members of Congress, to listen.
Additionally, in the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Cassidy
from Louisiana offered an amendment that passed the committee without
any objections for Congress to establish a bipartisan independent
commission to investigate the oil spill, yet it has been stripped from
the bill, and that amendment was not made in order last night in the
Rules Committee. This Democrat majority continues to use their power to
shut out bipartisan solutions to everyday issues that are here on the
floor.
Under this rule, we're also providing consideration for H.R. 5749,
the Offshore Whistleblower Protection Act. While providing
whistleblower protections for offshore workers is essential to the
safety of those workers and others, I remain concerned that H.R. 5749,
[[Page H6465]]
which was just introduced on Monday evening of this week, should have
gone through regular order review, allowing Members the appropriate
time not only to read the bill--I'm sorry, did I say read the bill?
Yes, Members need to be able to read the bill, understand the content,
have some dialogue, and then it would allow them an opportunity to
provide feedback. Of course, I know and you know, Mr. Speaker, that in
the Rules Committee, anything that deals with common sense,
bipartisanship, or that might be a position taken by some part of the
free enterprise system is shut out of the Rules Committee week after
week, day after day.
So with the current fiscal crisis our government faces and record
unemployment, why do we have this bill on the floor today? To make
unemployment even worse--in particular, in Louisiana and Mississippi--
increase taxes, further implode the debt and the deficit. Mr. Speaker,
it makes no sense why week after week this Democrat majority does that.
We should be doing job-saving and job-creation bills, not job-killing
bills. But once again, this is the agenda of the Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear.
Americans need this Congress to get it. We need pro-growth solutions
that will encourage job creation and keep America competitive with the
world. This legislation further diminishes private sector jobs while
adding billions to our national debt.
So I don't know when my friends on the other side of the aisle are
going to catch on; but it is my hope that at the August break, they
will have an opportunity to hear from Americans who are unemployed,
seeking an opportunity to find a job who look to this Congress to do
something about the jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the question once again today, Where are the jobs? Where
is the agenda on this floor that will be about saving jobs? And, Mr.
Speaker, perhaps more pointedly, when will we quit killing jobs in this
country with an agenda by the Democratic Party that the Democratic
Members vote for that diminishes America's ability to compete?
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I very happily yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the
Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me and for her
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I rise in
strong support of the underlying bill. And to my friend from Texas who
talks about listening to our constituents, let me assure him, I listen
to my constituents every week when I go home. And what I hear from them
is that they are sick and they are tired of my friends on the other
side of the aisle continuing to rise on this floor to be apologists for
Big Oil. What my constituents want and I think what the American people
want is smart regulation, better safety standards, whistleblower
protection. They want to make sure that a repeat of what we just saw in
the gulf never happens again.
My friend talks about jobs. How many jobs have been lost because of
this oil spill? How many fishermen are out of business? How many hotels
and restaurants have lost business because of this terrible crisis? You
know, this crisis has had such a negative impact on jobs that I can't
even begin to quantify. So my friend talks about jobs, it is because of
the recklessness and the lack of oversight by the Bush administration
that got us here, and we don't want to see this repeated again and
again and again.
So this is a good bill, and it's a smart bill. If you want to
apologize for Big Oil, go right ahead. But the American people are not
on your side on this one.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise to express my strong support for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund program and particularly for the Stateside
program. The Stateside program provides matching Federal grants to
States and local communities to develop outdoor recreation facilities
and parks and conserves brilliant natural spaces throughout the
country. Since the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
program in the 1960s, funding levels for the Stateside program have
fluctuated widely.
{time} 0940
This is especially evident over the past decade. Between fiscal years
2002 and 2005, between $91 million and $140 million per year was
appropriated for the Stateside program. Unfortunately, in sharp
contrast, only $19 million to $40 million has been appropriated between
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, representing less than 10 percent of the
total land and water conservation funding per year. The Stateside
program is a good program that benefits communities across the country.
It is a good, strong program that deserves adequate funding.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have serious concerns about the funding
levels for the Stateside LWCF program. I am pleased that that the CLEAR
Act provides for permanent funding for the entire LWCF program, but I
remain concerned that there is no statutory program supporting
equitable funding for the Stateside program.
As you know, unfortunately, the Stateside program has been
chronically underfunded. I think we can all agree that these programs
positively contribute to the vibrancy of our communities, and actually
create jobs. Stateside funding has widespread support, and I seek your
assurance that we can find a way to provide increased funding for the
Stateside LWCF program.
I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts yielding.
The Stateside LWCF program does provide vital support for States and
local communities for access to outdoor recreation. My home State of
West Virginia, for example, has benefited greatly from these formula-
driven matching grants, and I am pleased that the CLEAR Act will
provide stable, permanent funding for the Stateside program.
I agree with the gentleman that the funding levels for Stateside in
recent years have been completely inadequate, and I look forward to
working with you, our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, the
administration, and others who support this critical program to ensure
it receives adequate and equitable funding going forward.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 30, 2010 on Page H6465 the following appeared: funneling
levels for Stateside in recent
The online version should be corrected to read: funding levels
for Stateside in recent
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from Interior Secretary
Salazar that acknowledges the Stateside program needs additional
funding to carry out its work.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McGovern: Thank you for your interest
and support for the Stateside Assistance portion of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). President Obama has
committed to fully fund LWCF by 2014 through the budget
process. If Congress decides to include a full funding
provision in the CLEAR Act and full funding occurs in 2014 or
earlier, there will be excellent opportunities to develop a
vibrant Stateside Assistance program that will help us to
meet the conservation needs of the 21st century.
As the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources and as a U.S. Senator from Colorado, I have
demonstrated my commitment to local and state parks and the
State-side program. While in the U.S. Senate, I was a
principal sponsor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
of 2006, which created additional funding for State-side LWCF
programs.
The Department of the Interior is committed to finding the
best ways to improve and strategically invest LWCF funds. I
also understand that States need additional funding in order
to expand outdoor recreational opportunities and to conserve
important places. If we are to accomplish these goals and
achieve the full potential of the State-side LWCF program in
challenging economic times we must work together.
We have an opportunity with the growth of LWCF funds to
build a program that will address these needs. Through the
President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we are
hearing from state and local governments, recreation
advocates, nonprofit organizations, and other supporters
about ways to enhance the State-side Grant program. In
addition to the great projects now funded by the State-side
program, there is strong support for investments in (1) the
creation and expansion of urban parks and river greenways
close to where people live, (2) providing rural communities
with better recreational opportunities, and (3) connecting
our local and
[[Page H6466]]
state public recreation lands with Federal lands throughout
the Country.
It's important that we chose our projects carefully to
ensure that these funds make a big difference in our states
and communities. We need to remind the American people of the
value that outdoor recreation and land conservation offers
everyone and how it makes our society a richer place in which
to live and raise our families.
As we do this, I look forward to working with you on the
best ways to protect our treasured landscapes.
Sincerely,
Ken Salazar.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank Chairman Rahall for allowing me the
opportunity to address my concerns, and for working with me toward
ensuring the Stateside program receives the funding it deserves.
Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from Maine for the time. I will
close by urging my colleagues to support the rule, support the CLEAR
Act, and let this Congress go on record as standing with the people of
this country and not standing with Big Oil.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear back from my
colleagues about how this change is doing such a great job for their
constituents back home. Robust, I am sure, economic times in
Massachusetts to where they don't have to worry about an adequate
supply of energy or the costs associated with that.
But, Mr. Speaker, today I received a copy of a Key Vote Alert from
the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber represents employers and employees
all across this country. They have some things to say about this bill,
too, which every single Member of Congress has a chance to receive.
That doesn't mean they agree with it or want to read it.
But it says this: ``There's a bright line between increasing safety
and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for business that oil
and gas companies that operate in the United States will take their
business elsewhere. That line is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R.
3534.''
I continue from this Key Alert, U.S. Chamber. ``At this time, it is
premature for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the
causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that led to the
catastrophe have not yet been conclusively determined.''
Mr. Speaker, once again it's a ready, aim, fire by our friends the
Democrats, who bring bills to the floor, once again a mundane bill that
really nobody knew was going to be here on the floor, and here it is. I
continue, ``The bill would make it economically nonviable to lease or
explore offshore for energy resources, and the offshore energy industry
would be driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would increase
U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in the short-and long-
term, and could cripple the gulf coast economy by jeopardizing the
46,000 jobs''--they should say that remain--``the 46,000 jobs that the
oil and natural gas industry supports in the gulf coast region.''
Mr. Speaker, they've got it right. They've got it exactly right what
this bill does. What they fail to talk about is the reason why. The
reason why is it's an assault on the free enterprise system. It's a
continued assault on people who are workers in this country, a
continued assault to raise the price at the pump and to raise the price
of heating and fuel that fuel our businesses.
Mr. Speaker, as we already understand, and we know this, the cost of
energy now exceeds the cost of employees. And if we keep this dangerous
trend up, rather than providing reliable sources of energy at a cost-
effective price, it means that America will continue to be
noncompetitive. Once again, a direct result of this Congress, a direct
result of the votes that take place in this body.
The facts of the case are the Chamber also strongly opposes new
energy taxes, which will cost consumers $25 billion at the pump and in
their homes. It's a continued assault on America. And I am
disappointed. The Chamber nailed it. They got it right, Mr. Speaker.
Congressional and Public Affairs,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than three
million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,
and region, strongly opposes H.R. 3534, the ``Consolidated
Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010,'' in its
current form. There is a bright line between increasing
safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for
business that oil and gas companies that operate in the
United States will take their business elsewhere. That line
is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534.
As the Chamber has stated in prior communications, Congress
should resist the rush to act on legislation in the midst of
the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf; priority number one must
remain permanently sealing the well and mitigating the
extensive environmental damage. At this time, it is premature
for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the
causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that
led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively
determined. The Obama Administration's National Commission on
the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has
not yet reported its findings, and the Chamber believes that
an independent commission, similar to the one included in
bipartisan legislation reported by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, would inform the legislative
process by providing important data, technical analysis, and
expertise.
H.R. 3534 would have serious and negative impacts on U.S.
energy and economic security. The bill would make it
economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for
energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be
driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would
increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in
the short- and long-term, and could cripple the Gulf Coast
economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs that the oil and
natural gas industry supports in the Gulf Coast region.
Provisions eliminating the cap on liability provided in the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 could discourage major integrated
oil companies as well as independent producers from exploring
in domestic waters, as they would be unable to afford
adequate insurance to cover the potential liability risk, if
they could obtain insurance coverage at all. Independent
producers, which hold approximately 90 percent of Gulf leases
and produce approximately 30 percent of the oil and 60
percent of natural gas in the Gulf, would be particularly
hard hit. Moreover, the retroactive application of the
liability cap raises serious constitutional issues that may,
if stricken down by the courts, force Congress to readdress
the issue in the future.
H.R. 3534 would force the CEOs of energy companies to
attest personally that their systems will never, ever fail
and that their companies are in strict compliance with all
environmental and natural resource laws. Violations would
subject CEOs to civil penalties, through citizen suits and
enforcement actions, and criminal liability, which could
include imprisonment. In practice, these provisions in H.R.
3534 are unworkable, and few--if any--companies could meet
them. The intent of this provision appears to be political
demagoguery of energy company CEOs. However, the real impact
of these provisions would be severe; few domestic or foreign
energy companies would be willing to explore for energy in
U.S. waters.
The Chamber strongly opposes the new energy taxes included
in H.R. 3534, which Congressional Budget Office analysis
indicates would ultimately cost consumers $25 billion. Termed
a ``conservation tax,'' it would do nothing of the sort; all
monies raised by this tax would go directly to the federal
treasury for Congress to appropriate. Congress should not
exploit the tragedy in the Gulf as a rationale to levy
excessive new energy taxes on American consumers and
producers. The nascent economic recovery cannot afford
additional extreme taxes on domestically produced commodities
that the entire United States depends on every day.
Ultimately, such new taxes could encourage American operators
to move investments elsewhere. Excessive taxes levied
exclusively on domestically produced energy would also
increase U.S. dependence on imported energy as it did in the
1980s, further increasing the risks to U.S. energy security.
The Environmental Diligence provisions, purportedly
intended to ban BP leases, would set conditions so that
virtually no firm could develop Gulf energy resources. H.R.
3534 would create a ``doomed to fail'' policy, making certain
isolated violations of safety, health and environmental
statutes punishable by a ban on leasing or exploration on
federal land. When viewed in conjunction with the CEO
liability provisions, the Environmental Diligence provisions
would create, in essence, a system whereby making even one
mistake could bar future access to leasing. Rather than
enduring the hostile and risky relationship with federal
regulators that this legislation would force upon both
regulators and the regulated community, firms would likely
forgo further investments in U.S. waters.
H.R. 3534 would expand dramatically the reach and scope of
federal environmental law by imposing unnecessary layers of
duplicative environmental reviews, prolonging decisions on
permits, and changing the criteria agencies must consider
when issuing a lease or permit. Furthermore, the legislation
would minimize the ability of federal regulators to consider
the economic benefits of
[[Page H6467]]
energy exploration projects. As a result, the economic growth
of communities along the Gulf Coast and U.S. energy security
would become much less relevant to federal regulators under
H.R. 3534.
The provisions of H.R. 3534 that would expand the scope of
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act and establish a
massive new regulatory framework for shallow water energy
exploration would essentially eliminate this industry in its
current form. Shallow water drilling does not present the
same risks as deepwater exploration and has operated with an
exceedingly high level of environmental performance for more
than 50 years.
Even in the area of renewable energy, H.R. 3534 would pose
new challenges to domestic energy security. By expanding the
scope of the OCS Lands Act to offshore renewables, H.R. 3534
would subject the deployment of new offshore technologies to
the same plethora of unworkable requirements for oil and gas
exploration. As a result, not only would oil and gas energy
production be forced from American waters, but renewables
would not necessarily be erected in their place.
The Chamber opposes the ``Build America'' provisions in the
bill, which would require that offshore facilities be built
in the United States with only limited exceptions. Similar
Build and Buy American provisions have been proven to be
counterproductive. Not only would such provisions harm United
States' global standing, it could inhibit the ability of
companies to adopt the best technology from around the world.
Moreover, the U.S. shipbuilding industry does not have the
domestic capacity to build large mobile drilling rigs.
Ultimately, this provision would increase costs and be very
difficult to implement given the complexity of offshore
platform supply chains.
The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 3534 in its current form
because of its negative impact on energy and economic
security. The Chamber urges Congress to take the time
necessary to understand the causes of the Gulf spill before
proceeding with legislation to purportedly ``fix'' the
problem. The Chamber may include votes on, or in relation to,
this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has any
remaining speakers. I am the last speaker for my side, and I am going
to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman for letting me know that she is through with
her speakers.
Mr. Speaker, here we are on the floor talking about raising energy
prices, diminishment of jobs, further debt, a Federal Government that's
going to be empowered to do more in the gulf with regulation, and yet
we haven't even taken time to find out what really happened, what needs
to be corrected, and how that needs to take place.
Secondly, we learned very clearly that a bipartisan idea about us
making sure that we do look into this, to give the American people the
confidence that we can work together in Washington that went through
the Natural Resources Committee without objection on a bipartisan
basis, goes up to the Rules Committee, rejected. Rejected straight up.
We learned again today, no open rule in this entire Congress. My 35th
time to come to the floor leading the charge for Republicans on a rule,
not an open rule. Today we had an opportunity just a minute ago to
provide the information from the U.S. Chamber. What's the impact of
this bill? Diminishment of American jobs. More taxation on consumers at
the pump. And perhaps worst of all, people who will lose their jobs.
Tremendous job loss.
And in the long run, we learned that what happens is that it's not an
unintended consequence when these jobs move overseas; it is a direct
result of the pressure, the taxation, the rules, the regulations, the
absolute meaning of the bill to diminish American jobs and to push our
reliance on foreign oil and jobs overseas. That is the agenda of the
Democratic Party: higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, pushing
jobs overseas. We don't need those jobs here. Higher prices for
consumers and incredible unemployment and debt.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, that instead of us being on the floor
to diminish and kill jobs, which is what this Democratic majority does,
we should be enhancing jobs. I am disappointed to know that, as the
gentleman from Louisiana came to talk about people who they represent,
those ideas were tossed out of hand. It's a real shame.
We do not have a body that's interested in encouraging economic
development, investment, or the creation of jobs. In fact, what we are
for is a political agenda that we are working through now, about two-
tenths through this agenda, that will net lose 10 million American
jobs, the continued assault against employers and certainly the workers
of this country.
{time} 0950
Mr. Speaker, I think it's, once again, another sad day. I know it's
another new day in Washington, but a sad way to look at this.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the National Association of
Manufacturers, and what they say is, ``While we appreciate efforts made
earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534,'' meaning their members
lobbied, I assume, Speaker Pelosi, ``NAM members continue to oppose
this bill, as it would, in its current form,'' the form that we have
here on the floor, ``drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in the
availability of supply and adversity affect U.S. jobs.''
Once again, these are people that are job creators and people that
are trying to hang on at a time of continued assault against the
American worker by the Democratic Party. I think Mr. Jay Timmons,
executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers,
has it right. They are asking all Members of Congress, regardless of
party, please oppose this job-killing, tax-increasing, consumer-higher-
payments-at-the-pump bill that will result in more unemployment, higher
costs.
National Association of
Manufacturers,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade
association representing small and large manufacturers in
every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to
oppose H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic
Resources Act of 2010.
Our nation continues to face a setback in energy security
and independence every day the drilling moratorium remains in
place. Thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry have
been lost. Companies that make and supply equipment,
services, engines, boats and materials such as steel and
concrete will soon feel massive economic consequences from
the moratorium.
Manufacturers believe it is critically important to
understand the causes of the Gulf of Mexico accident and its
long-term environmental impacts before enacting policies that
could make a serious problem much worse. While we appreciate
efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534, NAM
members continue to oppose the bill, as it would, in its
current form, drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in
the availability of supply and adversely affect U.S. jobs.
While there appears widespread agreement in the industry
and on Capitol Hill that the $75 million liability cap needs
to be updated, requiring an unattainable level of insurance
coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer
Continental Shelf is not the solution. By eliminating the
cap, H.R. 3534 would effectively retain the moratorium on
offshore drilling for all but a handful of the world's
largest international companies, forcing the vast majority of
American companies out of U.S. waters.
NAM members support energy policies that: (1) expand
domestic supplies in an environmentally safe way; and (2)
lower costs for U.S. consumers and for manufacturers, which
use one-third of our nation's energy. Access to competitively
priced energy helps U.S. companies compete in the global
economy and preserves high-paying jobs here at home.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes related to H.R. 3534, including votes on procedural
motions, may be considered for designation as Key
Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
jay Timmons,
Executive Vice President.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to
rein in the current spending spree, and the best way to do it is not to
tax and not to lose jobs. The creation of jobs is how you go about
turning this economy around.
There was talk about Social Security earlier. It is the Democratic
Party that is losing the jobs in this country, and that is why Social
Security is in trouble. I think blaming someone else is a sad way to go
through life.
Republicans, like the American people, would like some transparency
and accountability. They should expect it. American people should
expect it from their leaders, Members of Congress, and I don't think
they're getting it. Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to
raise $22 billion worth of new
[[Page H6468]]
taxes and over $300 billion in new, unrelated mandatory Federal
spending.
I don't see a lot of people down here who are exactly worried about
this on the Democratic side. I hear people who are down here talking
about that it's the right thing to do, and that is what the Democratic
majority will get credit for with this bill: more taxing, more
spending, more rules and regulations, more unemployment, more high
debt, pushing jobs offshore.
Mr. Speaker, reforms are needed to make America more competitive. The
reforms should be about making sure that the drilling that takes place
in the gulf or anywhere else is done safely and that we do follow best
practices and rules and regulations. It should be done to encourage the
government to work successfully with business, with industry, with the
American worker, but that's not what we have here. What we have is a
bill designed to kill the industry, to diminish its effectiveness, to
increase costs for consumers, and to make pump costs and costs on
natural gas more expensive.
I think that this economic plan by the Democratic majority they
should get full credit for: higher taxes, more spending, assault on the
free enterprise system, more unemployment, more debt, more things that
are not working.
I'm going to give the Democratic majority credit today. Good for you.
Now we know what that is. I know you're two-tenths through this agenda
of killing 10 million American jobs, but you need to know this. You're
going to get credit for this, and I hope the American people, in just a
few days, when we go home, talk to their Members of Congress about
changing that, because we ought to have a jobs bill on this floor to
create jobs, not kill jobs.
The Republican Party is for the creation of jobs. We are for
balancing the budget. We are for stopping the assault on employers, and
we're for empowering the American people to have a brighter future, not
one that simply empowers Washington, DC.
Mr. Speaker, the numbers are stunning. Over the time that President
Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise
system jobs, and yet 500,000 Federal Government jobs have been added in
that period of time. The assault on the common man of this country is
unrelenting by the Democratic majority.
For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question
to bring some fiscal sanity and sense and restraint to this body, and
I'm going to offer a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case are simple. The American people
have got it. It is time for a real change.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, throughout the spring and summer,
the public outrage has been palpable--in Washington, among the pundits
and talking heads, in my own State of Maine and, truly, everywhere in
this country.
In Maine, we have a special understanding about the impact the BP oil
spill is having on the people of the gulf coast. Just like them, our
lives and livelihoods are closely linked to the ocean. Off the Maine
coast, there is an amazing renewable resource--strong winds and tides
that can power our economy and create good-paying jobs and reduce
greenhouse gas pollution. I think it's time for us to start using it.
As someone from a community who relies on its working waterfront, I
am asking that we stand with the hardworking men and women of the gulf
coast in their time of need and make sure that those responsible are
the ones that pay for the spill and that we strive to ensure that a
spill like this never happens again.
I urge my fellow Members to vote for the rule and the underlying
bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the
CLEAR Act which would, among other provisions, provide full and
dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Congress created LWCF in 1965 on the principle that some funds from
the sale and extraction of oil and gas from federal lands be used for
the protection of important lands and waters; so they remain available
for the enjoyment of all Americans. Only once in 45 years has LWCF
received its full funding.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the $2.00 per
barrel conservation fee will be an undue burden on consumers. One
fourth of a cent per gallon at the pump, 2 cents per tank, is well
worth it for preserving Yellowstone, the Everglades, a battlefield, or
building a local park in Shrewsbury or a playground in Lawrence
Township.
This bill ensures that $900 million will be provided annually for
LWCF without appropriation and achieve a long-awaited, much-needed
balance between resource extraction and resource conservation. I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule
allowing for consideration of H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy,
and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010.
Congress has a responsibility to take action to respond to the
terrible tragedy in the Gulf region and work to ensure that such an
event never happens again. However, in doing so, we must also be
careful to only advance legislation that is narrowly focused on
responding to the root causes of the Gulf Oil Spill. Unfortunately,
that is not the case with H.R. 3534, which I believe is overreaching
and will have negative effects on domestic onshore production and on
independent oil producers' ability to continue operating offshore.
Among my concerns is subjecting oil and gas wells to new and
unnecessary Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, storm water discharge
permitting requirements. A report from the Department of Energy has
shown that should the storm water provisions pass, it could result in
the loss of up to 10 percent of domestic oil and gas production.
My colleagues, Congressman Harry Teague and Congressman Jason
Altmire, offered amendment to this legislation in the Rules Committee
to remove these problematic provisions. However, it was not made in
order. I believe that the inclusion of this amendment would have
improved this bill by helping to more limit its scope towards
responding to the oil spill and not place new unnecessary burdens on
onshore development. Without this amendment, and because of my concerns
about the impact these provisions will have on North Dakota's growing
energy sector, I am voting against this rule.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________