[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14802-14808]
[From the U.S. 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 
     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

[[Page 14803]]

     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 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

[[Page 14804]]

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, 
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

[[Page 14805]]

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.
  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 state public recreation lands with Federal 
     lands throughout the Country.

[[Page 14806]]

       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

[[Page 14807]]

     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 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.

[[Page 14808]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________