[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14827-14834]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS WORKER WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2010

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1574, I call up the bill (H.R. 5851) to provide 
whistleblower protections to certain workers in the offshore oil and 
gas industry, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1574, the 
amendment printed in part C of House Report 111-582 is adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5851

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Offshore Oil and Gas Worker 
     Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS; EMPLOYEE PROTECTION FROM 
                   OTHER RETALIATION.

       (a) Prohibition Against Retaliation.--
       (1) In general.--No employer may discharge or otherwise 
     discriminate against a covered employee because the covered 
     employee, whether at the covered employee's initiative or in 
     the ordinary course of the covered employee's duties--
       (A) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide 
     or cause to be provided to the employer or to a Federal or 
     State Government official, information relating to any 
     violation of, or any act or omission the covered employee 
     reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et 
     seq.), or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or 
     prohibition under that Act, or exercised any rights provided 
     to employees under that Act;
       (B) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding 
     concerning such violation;
       (C) assisted or participated or is about to assist or 
     participate in such a proceeding;
       (D) testified or is about to testify before Congress on any 
     matter covered by such Act;
       (E) objected to, or refused to participate in any activity, 
     policy, practice, or assigned task that the covered employee 
     reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of 
     such Act, or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban 
     under such Act;
       (F) reported to the employer or a State or Federal 
     Government official any of the following related to the 
     employer's activities described in section 3(1): an illness, 
     injury, unsafe condition, or information regarding the 
     adequacy of any oil spill response plan required by law; or
       (G) refused to perform the covered employee's duties, or 
     exercised top work authority, related to the employer's 
     activities described in section 3(1) if the covered employee 
     had a good faith belief that performing such duties could 
     result in injury to or impairment of the health of the 
     covered employee or other employees, or cause an oil spill to 
     the environment.
       (2) Good faith belief.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), 
     the circumstances causing the covered employee's good faith 
     belief that performing such duties would pose a health and 
     safety hazard shall be of such a nature that a reasonable 
     person under circumstances confronting the covered employee 
     would conclude there is such a hazard.
       (b) Process.--
       (1) In general.--A covered employee who believes that he or 
     she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against 
     (hereafter referred to as the ``complainant'') by any 
     employer in violation of subsection (a)(1) may, not later 
     than 180 days after the date on which such alleged violation 
     occurs or the date on which the covered employee knows or 
     should reasonably have known that such alleged violation 
     occurred, file (or have any person file on his or her behalf) 
     a complaint with the Secretary of Labor (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Secretary'') alleging such discharge or 
     discrimination and identifying employer or employers 
     responsible for such act. Upon receipt of such a complaint, 
     the Secretary shall notify, in writing, the employer or 
     employers named in the complaint of the filing of the 
     complaint, of the allegations contained in the complaint, of 
     the substance of evidence supporting the complaint, and of 
     the opportunities that will be afforded to such person under 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Investigation.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     receipt of a complaint filed under paragraph (1) the 
     Secretary shall initiate an investigation and determine 
     whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the 
     complaint has merit and notify, in writing, the complainant 
     and the employer or employers alleged to have committed a 
     violation of subsection (a)(1) of the Secretary's findings. 
     The Secretary shall, during such investigation afford the 
     complainant and the employer or employers named in the 
     complaint an opportunity to submit to the Secretary a written 
     response to the complaint and an opportunity to meet with a 
     representative of the Secretary to present statements from 
     witnesses. The complainant shall be provided with an 
     opportunity to review the information and evidence provided 
     by employer or employers to the Secretary, and to review any 
     response or rebuttal by such the complaint, as part of such 
     investigation.
       (B) Reasonable cause found; preliminary order.--If the 
     Secretary concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe 
     that a violation of subsection (a)(1) has occurred, the 
     Secretary shall accompany the Secretary's findings with a 
     preliminary order providing the relief prescribed by 
     paragraph (3)(B). Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     notification of findings under this paragraph, the employer 
     or employers alleged to have committed the violation or the 
     complainant may file objections to the findings or 
     preliminary order, or both, and request a hearing on the 
     record before an administrative law judge of the Department 
     of Labor. The filing of such objections shall not operate to 
     stay any reinstatement remedy contained in the preliminary 
     order. Any such hearing shall be conducted expeditiously. If 
     a hearing is not requested in such 30-day period, the 
     preliminary order shall be deemed a final order that is not 
     subject to judicial review. The Secretary of Labor is 
     authorized to enforce preliminary reinstatement orders in the 
     United States district court for the district in which the 
     violation was found to occur, or in the United States 
     district court for the District of Columbia.
       (C) Dismissal of complaint.--
       (i) Standard for complainant.--The Secretary shall dismiss 
     a complaint filed under this subsection and shall not conduct 
     an investigation otherwise required under subparagraph (A) 
     unless the complainant makes a prima facie showing that any 
     behavior described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 
     subsection (a)(1) was a contributing factor in the adverse 
     action alleged in the complaint.
       (ii) Standard for employer.--Notwithstanding a finding by 
     the Secretary that the

[[Page 14828]]

     complainant has made the showing required under clause (i), 
     no investigation otherwise required under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be conducted if the employer demonstrates, by clear and 
     convincing evidence, that the employer would have taken the 
     same adverse action in the absence of that behavior.
       (iii) Violation standard.--The Secretary may determine that 
     a violation of subsection (a)(1) has occurred only if the 
     complainant demonstrates that any behavior described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F) of such subsection was a 
     contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the 
     complaint.
       (iv) Relief standard.--Relief may not be ordered under 
     subparagraph (A) if the employer demonstrates by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the 
     same adverse action in the absence of that behavior.
       (3) Orders.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the receipt 
     of a request for a hearing under subsection (b)(2)(B), the 
     administrative law judge shall issue findings of fact and 
     order the relief provided under this paragraph or deny the 
     complaint. At any time before issuance of an order, a 
     proceeding under this subsection may be terminated on the 
     basis of a settlement agreement entered into by the 
     Secretary, the complainant, and the person alleged to have 
     committed the violation. Such a settlement may not be agreed 
     by such parties if it contains conditions which conflict with 
     rights protected under this Act, are contrary to public 
     policy, or include a restriction on a complainant's right to 
     future employment with employers other than the specific 
     employers named in the complaint.
       (B) Content of order.--If, in response to a complaint filed 
     under paragraph (1), the administrative law judge determines 
     that a violation of subsection (a)(1) has occurred, the 
     administrative law judge shall order the employer or 
     employers who committed such violation--
       (i) to take affirmative action to abate the violation;
       (ii) to reinstate the complainant to his or her former 
     position together with compensation (including back pay and 
     prejudgment interest) and restore the terms, conditions, and 
     privileges associated with his or her employment; and
       (iii) to provide compensatory and consequential damages, 
     and, as appropriate, exemplary damages to the complainant.
       (C) Attorney fees.--If such an order is issued under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary, at the request of the complainant, 
     shall assess against the employer or employers a sum equal to 
     the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including 
     attorneys' and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred by 
     the complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing of 
     the complaint upon which the order was issued at the 
     conclusion of any stage of the proceeding.
       (D) Bad faith claim.--If the Secretary finds that a 
     complaint under paragraph (1) is frivolous or has been 
     brought in bad faith, the Secretary may award to the 
     prevailing employer reasonable attorneys' fees, not exceeding 
     $1,000, to be paid by the complainant.
       (E) Administrative appeal.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the receipt of findings of fact or an order under 
     subparagraph (B), the employer or employers alleged to have 
     committed the violation or the complainant may file, with 
     objections, an administrative appeal with the Secretary, who 
     may designate such appeal to a review board. In reviewing a 
     decision and order of the administrative law judge, the 
     Secretary shall affirm the decision and order if it is 
     determined that the factual findings set forth therein are 
     supported by substantial evidence and the decision and order 
     are made in accordance with applicable law. The Secretary 
     shall issue a final decision and order affirming, or 
     reversing, in whole or in part, the decision under review 
     within 90 days after receipt of the administrative appeal 
     under this subparagraph. If it is determined that a violation 
     of subsection (a)(1) has occurred, the Secretary shall order 
     relief provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C). Such 
     decision shall constitute a final agency action with respect 
     to the matter appealed.
       (4) Action in court.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary has not issued a final 
     decision within 300 days after the filing of the complaint, 
     the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de 
     novo review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which action shall, at the request of either party to 
     such action, be tried by the court with a jury. The 
     proceedings shall be governed by the same legal burdens of 
     proof specified in paragraph (2)(C).
       (B) Relief.--The court may award all appropriate relief 
     including injunctive relief, compensatory and consequential 
     damages, including--
       (i) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     covered employee would have had, but for the discharge or 
     discrimination;
       (ii) the amount of back pay sufficient to make the covered 
     employee whole, with prejudgment interest;
       (iii) exemplary damages, as appropriate; and
       (iv) litigation costs, including reasonable attorney fees 
     and expert witness fees.
       (5) Review.--
       (A) In general.--Any person aggrieved by a final order 
     issued under paragraph (3) or a judgment or order under 
     paragraph (4) may obtain review of the order in the 
     appropriate United States Court of Appeals. The petition for 
     review must be filed not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the issuance of the final order of the Secretary. Review 
     shall be accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States 
     Code. The commencement of proceedings under this subparagraph 
     shall not, unless ordered by the court, operate as a stay of 
     the order.
       (B) No other judicial review.--An order of the Secretary 
     with respect to which review could have been obtained under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to judicial review in 
     any other proceeding.
       (6) Failure to comply with order.--Whenever any employer 
     has failed to comply with an order issued under paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary may obtain in a civil action in the United 
     States district court for the district in which the violation 
     was found to occur, or in the United States district court 
     for the District of Columbia, all appropriate relief 
     including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and 
     compensatory damages.
       (7) Civil action to require compliance.--
       (A) In general.--Whenever an employer has failed to comply 
     with an order issued under paragraph (3), the complainant on 
     whose behalf the order was issued may obtain in a civil 
     action in an appropriate United States district court against 
     the employer to whom the order was issued, all appropriate 
     relief.
       (B) Award.--The court, in issuing any final order under 
     this paragraph, may award costs of litigation (including 
     reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees) to any party 
     whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.
       (c) Construction.--
       (1) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this section preempts 
     or diminishes any other safeguards against discrimination, 
     demotion, discharge, suspension, threats, harassment, 
     reprimand, retaliation, or any other manner of discrimination 
     provided by Federal or State law.
       (2) Rights of employees.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of 
     any employee under any Federal or State law or under any 
     collective bargaining agreement. The rights and remedies in 
     this section may not be waived by any agreement, policy, 
     form, or condition of employment.
       (d) Enforcement of Nondiscretionary Duties.--Any 
     nondiscretionary duty imposed by this section shall be 
     enforceable in a mandamus proceeding brought under section 
     1361 of title 28, United States Code.
       (e) Posting of Notice and Training.--All employers shall 
     post a notice which has been approved as to form and content 
     by the Secretary of Labor in a conspicuous location in the 
     place of employment where covered employees frequent which 
     explains employee rights and remedies under this section. 
     Each employer shall provide training to covered employees of 
     their rights under this section within 30 days of employment, 
     and at not less than once every 12 months thereafter, and 
     provide covered employees with a card which contains a toll 
     free telephone number at the Department of Labor which 
     covered employees can call to get information or file a 
     complaint under this section.
       (f) Designation by the Secretary.--The Secretary of Labor 
     shall, within 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     designate by order the appropriate agency officials to 
     receive, investigate, and adjudicate complaints of violations 
     of subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act the following definitions apply:
       (1) The term ``covered employee''--
       (A) means an individual performing services on behalf of an 
     employer that is engaged in activities on or in waters above 
     the Outer Continental Shelf related to--
       (i) supporting, or carrying out exploration, development, 
     production, processing, or transportation of oil or gas; or
       (ii) oil spill cleanup, emergency response, environmental 
     surveillance, protection, or restoration, or other oil spill 
     activities related to occupational safety and health; and
       (B) includes an applicant for such employment.
       (2) The term ``employer'' means one or more individuals, 
     partnerships, associations, corporations, trusts, 
     unincorporated organizations, nongovernmental organizations, 
     or trustees, and includes any agent, contractor, 
     subcontractor, grantee or consultant of such employer.
       (3) The term ``Outer Continental Shelf'' has the meaning 
     that the term ``outer Continental Shelf'' has in the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent

[[Page 14829]]

that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and submit extraneous material for the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before 
the House today closes a loophole in current law regarding the rights 
of workers to blow the whistle over unsafe conditions on offshore oil 
rigs.
  As the Obama administration told Congress, individuals working on the 
Outer Continental Shelf, like on the Deepwater Horizon, shockingly have 
zero whistleblower protections. This is unconscionable. There is no 
good policy reason for treating onshore and offshore workers 
differently. This is because the whistleblower may be the only thing 
that's standing between a safe workplace and a catastrophe.
  H.R. 5851, the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection 
Act, will fix this glaring omission. Whether it is refineries, 
underground coal mines, or oil drilling rigs, our enforcement agencies 
cannot be at all workplaces at all times. That's why it's up to workers 
to be the eyes and the ears when these agencies can't.
  While the precise cause of the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon 
tragedy is still under investigation, two things are clear from the 
media reports and from the congressional hearings. First, workers on 
the rig had safety concerns prior to the tragedy. And second, workers 
believed that they would lose their job if they raised these safety 
concerns with management.
  Not long before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, rig worker Jason 
Anderson told his wife that working conditions on the rig were not 
safe. He talked to her about getting his will and getting his affairs 
in order. But he wouldn't talk about his safety concerns when he was on 
the rig. He once told his wife he couldn't talk about the safety 
concerns because ``the walls are too thin.'' Jason did not survive the 
explosion. He perished, along with 10 others. He left behind a wife and 
two young children.
  No worker should ever have to choose between his or her life and 
their livelihood, but that's a decision these workers face. As 
Deepwater Horizon worker Daniel Barron said, safety is only convenient 
for employers when they needed it. There was a lot of rhetoric that 
everybody had the right to call a timeout for safety, but when push 
comes to shove, if you called that timeout, Daniel Barron said, you're 
going to get fired.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is narrowly tailored and will protect offshore 
workers who call for a timeout for safety. It simply extends the 
whistleblower protections to workers engaged in oil and gas 
exploration, drilling, production, and oil spill cleanup on the Outer 
Continental Shelf. It mirrors other recently enacted whistleblower laws 
contained in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and the 
Federal Railroad Safety Act.
  Specifically, H.R. 5851 will prohibit discrimination against 
employees who report violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act. It protects workers who report injuries or unsafe conditions to an 
employer or the government, and protects workers who refuse to perform 
on the assigned task when there is a reasonable belief of injury or 
spill. The bill will also require employers to post notice and provide 
training that explains these rights.
  Finally, like other modern whistleblowing statutes, the bill provides 
for a fair process for resolving whistleblower complaints at the 
Department of Labor or through the courts if necessary. The Education 
and Labor Committee recently approved strong mine safety and OSHA 
reform bills that include nearly identical whistleblower protections.
  I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Markey, and his staff for 
their work on this legislation, and Mr. Conyers and the Judiciary 
Committee for their constructive advice and suggestions.
  I again want to thank Mr. Markey. He offered very similar 
whistleblower language in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and they 
reported that language out as part of a larger oil spill response bill 
48-0.

                              {time}  1230

  I urge my colleagues to support the closing of this dangerous 
loophole and provide the protections for these workers. Workers in the 
oil and gas industry deserve a voice on safety issues regardless of 
whether or not they work onshore or offshore.

                                       Committee on the Judiciary,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Miller: This is to advise you that, as a 
     result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 
     5851, the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower 
     Protection Act of 2010, that fall within the rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able 
     to agree to waive seeking a formal referral of the bill, in 
     order that it may proceed without delay to the House floor 
     for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5851 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward, so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       I would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request, 
     and for the cooperative relationship between our two 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John Conyers, Jr.
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                   Committee on Education & Labor,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conyers: I am writing in response to your 
     letter of July 29, 2010, concerning the Committee on the 
     Judiciary's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 5851, the 
     Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 
     2010.
       Acknowledging your jurisdictional interest in matters being 
     considered in H.R. 5851, we have consulted with your 
     Committee on several provisions and appreciate the 
     contributions you have made in crafting the legislation. 
     Thank you for your willingness to allow the bill to proceed 
     to the floor expeditiously by waiving any referral.
       We will continue to appropriately consult and involve your 
     Committee as the bill moves forward and will support your 
     request to have Judiciary conferees appointed during any 
     House-Senate conference. I will submit a copy of your July 
     29, 2010, letter and this response to the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Miller,
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, whistleblower protections are a longstanding part of our 
Federal safety and health laws. Simply put, they protect workers' 
ability to speak freely about dangers in the workplace. They allow 
working men and women to protect themselves and their coworkers. The 
ultimate goals of our worker safety laws should be that no worker ever 
needs to blow the whistle. We need a culture of safety in our 
workplaces, a system in which employers have the information and 
resources they need to comply with the law and avoid unnecessary risks 
to workers' health and safety.
  But in those rare instances where employers are not following the law 
and workers' safety is at risk, we offer protections to those 
individuals who speak up. These protections are widely available to 
workers and enforced by the Whistleblower Protection Program at the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  However, we recently became aware that a gap may exist in those 
protections. Safety on offshore oil rigs is overseen by the Coast Guard 
and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,

[[Page 14830]]

unlike most workplaces where safety is overseen by OSHA. As a result, 
it is not clear whether these workers are covered by the OSH Act's 
whistleblower protections or any of the 17 other statutes enforced by 
OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program. Some might argue oil rig 
workers are covered by the Maritime Transportation and Security Act, 
while others point to a 1983 agreement in which OSHA retained 
whistleblower authority for these workers.
  In the few days since this legislation was introduced, we have found 
confusion and conflicting information. This confusion was illustrated 
in recent news accounts detailing the experiences of workers on the 
Deepwater Horizon who were concerned about safety practices on the rig 
but were afraid to voice those concerns. If workers themselves believe 
they can be fired or otherwise retaliated against for identifying 
safety concerns, we must create or restate those protections. It is as 
simple as that. Yet the bill before us is not so simple.
  H.R. 5851 creates a brand-new whistleblower framework for any 
individual directly or indirectly involved with a company that drills 
on the Outer Continental Shelf. We all agree on the need to clarify 
protections for workers on the rigs, but what about other workers, 
those who are already covered by other law?
  H.R. 5851 adds a new layer of legal processes, deadlines, and 
remedies for workers who are already covered. It creates legal 
confusion, particularly for those workers who would now be covered by 
parallel and possibly conflicting statutes.
  I'm also troubled by the differences between these new whistleblower 
protections and those existing under current law. This bill seems to 
prioritize resolution by the Federal courts, adding costs and delaying 
results for workers who simply want to remain on the job.
  These are the types of questions normally addressed through hearings 
and committee votes. Members weigh the opinions of Federal regulatory 
officials, legal experts, industry personnel, and workers themselves. 
We evaluate which agency would be best suited to enforce protections 
and remedies under the law, and we prevent duplication and confusion by 
clearly defining which workers are covered.
  Unfortunately, we did not use that process for H.R. 5851. It was 
never given a committee hearing. It was never given a committee vote. 
Last month, the committee held a hearing to examine broad 
jurisdictional questions about which Federal agency is ultimately 
responsible for worker safety on offshore oil rigs. We heard from the 
Coast Guard, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
OSHA, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Those agencies told us 
they did not know which Federal whistleblower laws, if any, applied to 
workers on oil rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf. There was 
confusion.
  Since that time, the committee has heard no further testimony, 
received no further information, and considered no legislation. Yet, on 
Monday of this week, the majority introduced H.R. 5851 and promptly 
announced Members of the full House would be asked to cast a vote on 
whether these are the best protections for workers on oil rigs. And, as 
has become all too common, we are here under a closed rule with no 
amendments being considered.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue and it deserves a serious 
process, one it has not been given.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), the subcommittee chair on the Education 
and Labor Committee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5851, the 
Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010.
  Chairman Miller, I want to thank you and commend you for the 
commitment to the health and safety of American workers. And Ranking 
Member Kline, thank you very much for outlining exactly the confusion 
that we are faced with regarding employee safety, particularly on our 
oil rigs.
  Now, following the Gulf of Mexico disaster, it is clearer than ever 
that providing strong protections to offshore oil and gas workers would 
be a positive step in encouraging workers to speak out about work 
safety and health issues at the worksite. Obviously, inspectors cannot 
be at all workplaces at all times, and so the system relies on 
willingness of employees to come forward, because these employees, 
these workers, know their worksite better than anyone else. Yet too 
many workers fear doing so because they fear repercussions. They don't 
fear imagined repercussions; they fear real ones.
  We heard this from the families of the 29 miners who were killed at 
the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and from the families of 
those miners who died at the Crandall Canyon, Darby, Sago, and Aracoma 
mines. We've heard this in the wake of other workplace disasters as 
well.
  And now we have discovered that before the BP disaster in the gulf 
which took the lives of 11 workers, workers did not come forward about 
safety hazards because they were afraid they would lose their jobs. 
Sadly, their fears were well-founded. Those brave souls who blow the 
whistle often do lose their jobs and suffer other indignities such as 
harassment, intimidation, and blacklisting. In this situation of the BP 
disaster, they lost their lives.
  In May of 2007, my Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a 
hearing on the adequacy of whistleblower protections. The now famous 
whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, who ``blew the whistle'' on Big Tobacco, 
testified at that hearing. He was not protected by any antiretaliation 
law when he lost his job. He was not protected when he was threatened, 
harassed, and intimidated for his actions.
  Like Mr. Wigand, offshore gas and oil workers have no whistleblower 
protections. This is absolutely unacceptable, and we know it.
  In crafting H.R. 5851, we ensure workers are actually encouraged to 
come forward to report unsafe conditions by providing a meaningful 
process to adjudicate complaints that also comports with due process, 
and by providing sufficient remedies to whistleblowers, including 
temporary reinstatement, backpay, and other damages.
  H.R. 5851's provisions are similar to the whistleblower provisions in 
the Protecting America's Workers Act, which brings the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act into the 21st century. H.R. 5851 also emulates 
other modern whistleblower statutes, such as the Consumer Product 
Safety Improvement Act.
  I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the Offshore Oil and Gas 
Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
to protect all vulnerable workers.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to not traffic the well 
when other Members are under recognition.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Colonel Kline, 
for the wonderful leadership that he has provided on our committee and 
the focus that he's given to this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, never let a crisis go to waste. It's the defining 
principle of how this administration and how this Congress govern.

                              {time}  1240

  We're facing a devastating crisis right now, an oil spill which has 
ravaged the Gulf of Mexico both economically and environmentally. Out 
of this crisis there have been reports raising the issue of worker 
safety on oil rigs. Now, such reports raise very serious questions, 
which should be dealt with in a very serious manner, matters that 
require probing and oversight by Congress so that workers are 
adequately protected and free to report safety concerns.
  However, what we've gotten from this majority is an unserious 
response, a political response more interested in

[[Page 14831]]

taking advantage of the latest crisis. Remember, never let a crisis go 
to waste.
  The bill before us today was introduced just this week. There's been 
no hearing on it, no committee consideration, no input from members of 
the committee, certainly on our side. Another rush to the floor, don't 
read the bill, don't read the bill, don't worry about it. Remember, 
never let a crisis go to waste.
  And so what's the result? Confusion. With little time to review, we 
don't know what if any existing Federal whistleblower laws already 
apply to workers on offshore oil rigs and other employees in these 
companies. We don't know which agency is best equipped to enforce these 
new whistleblower protections. These are things that would normally, 
Mr. Speaker, in the course of activity come out during a committee 
hearing, during a normal open committee process. But no committee 
hearing, no committee hearing here. Remember, never let a crisis go to 
waste.
  With this Congress, all the serious policy issues are secondary to 
the politics. Instead, what we get is a bill that establishes a whole 
new bureaucracy, a whole new whistleblower framework for a specific 
class of workers. It's an expansive set of protections that applies to 
health and safety and environmental and any other standards under the 
OCS Land Act; and yet it's untested, without an explicit description of 
which agency would even enforce the program.
  Digging into the language a little deeper, it appears to favor 
resolution of complaints in Federal court, adding costs and inviting 
litigation. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste.
  The Department of Labor only had 300 days to issue a final decision 
on a complaint or it gets kicked to the U.S. district court. Perhaps 
this wouldn't be a problem but there's an incentive to stretch out 
cases. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because bad-faith claims are not deterred. 
Employers can only recoup $1,000 total in attorneys' fees, which for 
some law firms--I know this won't come as any surprise to the Speaker--
for some law firms less than a day's work; and even if the Department 
of Labor decides on a complaint before that deadline and defines it to 
be nonmeritorious, the case could still move on to court, creating a 
Federal right to sue. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste.
  Now, later, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are going to offer a motion to 
recommit which is a better solution. Our positive solution gets to the 
heart of the issue, ensuring that workers are adequately protected and 
free to report safety concerns. It's not simply taking advantage of the 
latest crisis or rewarding plaintiff's trial lawyers for their support 
of the Democrat Party.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the positive 
appropriate solution, the Republican motion to recommit, and defeat the 
partisan bill now before us.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a coauthor of this legislation and the 
author of the whistleblower protection provisions of the Energy and 
Commerce bill.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman, and I thank 
George Miller for his decades of work in ensuring that whistleblower 
protections are built into the laws of our country in order to ensure 
that workers are not living in terror, that they stand up for safety.
  During the last 3 months, Congress has conducted a vigorous 
investigation into the causes and response of the BP Deepwater Horizon 
disaster. What we've found was that BP was woefully unprepared for this 
kind of a spill. From the beginning, BP has been making it up as they 
go along. BP said the rig could not sink. It did. They said they could 
handle an Exxon Valdez size spill every day. They couldn't.
  Early on in the disaster, BP was talking about using a junk shot 
where they shoot golf balls into the well. Well, when we heard that 
they were bringing in the best minds and that they were working on this 
problem, we thought they meant MIT, not the PGA.
  BP also talked in the first 3 weeks about deploying nylons and hair 
to soak up the oil. The American people expected a response on the par 
with the Apollo Project, not ``Project Runway.''
  And from the start, BP has been more interested in protecting its own 
liability than preserving the livability of the Gulf of Mexico. BP 
started by saying this spill was 1,000 barrels a day. It wasn't. They 
knew it. They said it was 5,000 barrels per day; they knew that it was 
not. And by now, we know it was much, much larger, upwards of 60,000 
barrels a day.
  Our investigation uncovered that no major oil company would have been 
able to respond to this type of spill any better than BP. In fact, the 
Gulf of Mexico oil spill response plans from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, 
ConocoPhillips and Shell were 90 percent identical to BP's. They were 
such dead ringers for each other that they listed the phone number for 
the same long-deceased expert as the person to call. The response plans 
also included plans to evacuate walruses from the Gulf of Mexico, even 
though walruses haven't called the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 million 
years. It seems that the only spill response technology that the oil 
industry had invested in is a Xerox machine. No oil company took this 
responsibility seriously.
  The legislation that we will vote on today will ensure that there 
will be accountability, stronger regulations, and a requirement that 
before oil companies drill ultra-deep that they have the technology 
necessary to make it ultra-safe and can respond to a spill ultra-fast.
  We need whistleblowers to make sure that we never again see what has 
happened in the Gulf of Mexico, and that is the important piece of 
legislation that we are debating right now: whistleblower protection. 
In this legislation, we are putting into place state-of-the-art 
protections for oil and gas workers who are retaliated against because 
they report safety concerns or they report a failure on the part of 
their employer to have a good blowout response plan.
  We know from our investigation both into this disaster and another BP 
rig operating in the gulf, the Atlantis rig, that BP has cut corners on 
safety, even if it meant risking workers' lives and environmental 
calamity. For example, an employee working on the BP Atlantis rig 
warned in 2009 that BP was failing to meet its requirement to maintain 
accurate engineering drawings aboard the rig which would enable an 
effective response to an accident. The whistleblower was fired after 
making his disclosure. BP continues to deny this problem on the 
Atlantis rig exists, even though former Federal district court judge 
Stanley Sporkin who was hired by BP to serve as an independent 
ombudsman has confirmed that the whistleblower's allegations are true.
  And on the BP Deepwater Horizon, workers were also fearful of the 
extent of the problems aboard the Deepwater Horizon. Jason Anderson 
told his wife that he couldn't discuss his concerns because, quote, the 
walls are too thin. Mr. Anderson died in the April explosion.
  This bill will ensure that all workers who report safety or blowout 
response plan concerns who are then fired, demoted or otherwise 
retaliated against by their employers will be protected. These workers 
will be entitled to due process at the Department of Labor; and if the 
Department of Labor fails to act, they will be entitled to a jury 
trial. They will also be entitled to receive appropriate damages to 
ensure that they are made whole.

                              {time}  1250

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, we have heard that 
the workers aboard the rig had safety concerns. But in the end, they 
were powerless to stop the cascading string of bad decisions by BP that 
led to the

[[Page 14832]]

disaster. They clearly feared for the loss of their jobs and of their 
livelihoods.
  Our legislation will protect these brave Paul Reveres in the oil 
industry who sound alarms in the future. I thank Chairman Miller for 
his historic work on this legislation. I thank all of the Members who 
are focusing on this issue, so that people who stand up to protect the 
safety of workers do not have to lose their jobs.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I know how hard you worked to try to 
get the accurate figures of what the blowout meant in terms of volume 
of oil going into the gulf.
  I just wonder, if we had had whistleblower protections and one of the 
employees at BP who knew what the real volume was as opposed to what 
the executives were telling the American people and the rest of the 
world, we might have had information sooner which would have allowed us 
to respond in a different fashion than we did when we had bad 
information because of the concealment of the accuracy of which we 
found when you finally got the cameras turned on.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. The gentleman put his finger right on 
it. There would be a completely different response if the spill were 
not 1,000 barrels or 5,000 barrels per day but, rather, 30,000 to 
60,000 barrels per day. It delayed the response. Much more harm has 
been done to the people in the Gulf of Mexico. There was a greater 
delay in bringing in all of the skimmers, all of the new technologies 
to be able to deal with this spill. If a whistleblower knew that it was 
not 1,000, knew that it was not 5,000, they should not have to fear 
that they would lose their job if they wanted to protect the oceans of 
America and the workers in the Gulf of Mexico rather than being afraid 
that they would lose their own job and their own family's livelihood. 
That is why this legislation is so important.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I rise in 
strong support of H.R. 5851.
  A couple of speakers before me, the gentleman from Georgia on the 
other side of the aisle kept repeating the mantra of ``never let a 
crisis go to waste,'' and he was deriding this side because apparently 
he thinks that we should always forget a crisis and we should not take 
into account what we've learned because of the crisis.
  You know, it is because of this crisis that we really need to 
redouble our efforts to protect people who live all around the Gulf of 
Mexico, to protect the workers, to protect the public from companies 
that really couldn't care less about them; and this Whistleblower 
Protection Act is going to do exactly that.
  Now I'm on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I sat through every 
hearing that we had with oil officials and with the BP officials. And 
I'll tell you the truth; it was insulting the way Mr. Hayward came and 
wouldn't tell us anything because he was obviously told by his lawyers 
not to tell us, and the arrogance dripping from his mouth where he just 
seemed to not care at all about the havoc that BP had put forward in 
the gulf and even with the people who were killed.
  So today we are passing this Whistleblower Protection Act which will 
protect, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said, people 
who come forward and say, ``Hey, you know what? What's going on isn't 
right, and it needs to stop, and I don't want my job to be in jeopardy 
because I'm telling the truth.''
  We're also going to vote on the CLEAR Act as well. And I want to 
remind my colleagues that we desperately also need comprehensive clean 
energy and climate legislation after this. The BP explosion in the gulf 
has been disastrous. It has led to 11 deaths, devastated the gulf 
economy, and just polluted the environment.
  We heard testimony in the Energy and Commerce Committee from Tony 
Hayward. We asked him serious questions, and he refused to answer our 
questions. BP has not been truthful at all about what has been 
happening in the gulf from the very beginning. They've used and abused 
the system, and we cannot allow that. We have to work to ensure that 
oil companies like BP are not permitted to treat the environment as 
their own private playground, or put at risk the livelihoods of 
thousands upon thousands of hardworking Americans.
  I want to be perfectly clear here--this is BP's spill and BP should 
pay for it. There should be no taxpayer money spent on cleanup. But BP 
had the gall to announce this week that they're looking to cut their 
losses at the expense of the American people by claiming tax benefits 
for costs associated with this oil spill. That is shameful, and that's 
wrong, and it ought to be stopped.
  That is why today I am introducing the Denial of Tax Benefits to 
Offending Oil Polluters Act of 2010. This legislation would prohibit 
oil polluters from receiving tax benefits for costs associated with an 
oil spill.
  I look forward to passing this legislation today, H.R. 5851, and 
debating my bill in the future to be sure that we hold bad actors like 
BP accountable for their irresponsible decisions and their devastating 
actions.
  I thank the chairman for his strong leadership in this regard.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and I 
thank you for your constant forward thinking on the workers of America.
  Coming from the gulf region, I don't know if any of you have ever 
seen an oil rig, particularly one as large as Deepwater Horizon. It is 
the home of the workers. It is their home away from home. They eat 
there, they sleep there, they work very hard there, and they recreate 
there. They're there 24 hours a day. Some may be a cook. Someone may be 
a sophisticated engineer. Some may be a seaman and that is their 
profession. But they're working there; and, therefore, they are looking 
to ensure that their home away from home is safe.
  As I've listened to administration officials who are now all about 
the gulf, I can tell you that the workers who love their industry and 
love their jobs are excited about the call for transparency and 
protection and increased safety for this industry. They're excited 
about what is going on as it relates to those who would engage in 
telling the truth. If you look at the facts in some of the hearings 
that we've been in, you will know that there have been a lot of 
conversations with subordinates trying to talk to supervisors. 
Something was awry, but no one listened. We may have even heard that 
some companies left the rig early on because they were disturbed. Or as 
my colleague mentioned, the young man by the name of Jason who even 
told his wife, ``Prepare my will.'' And so it is important today that 
we stand up for the workers.
  This is a concise, articulate, whistleblower language and 
legislation, prohibiting an employer from discharging or otherwise 
discriminating against anyone who talks to State or Federal officials 
or anyone else; telling the truth, saving lives. As well, it protects 
them if they prepare or testify in front of any governmental entity 
talking about unsafe conditions. Imagine how many lives that could save 
in any other industry as well.
  The bill establishes a process for an employee to appeal, giving them 
the justice of the Constitution that does not deny you benefits without 
due process. Is that a problem? They live there. This is their home. It 
makes an aggrieved employee eligible for reinstatement and back pay. 
Some of these jobs are the only jobs these men or women can secure to 
protect and provide for their family. We live in the

[[Page 14833]]

gulf. We're shrimpers and fishermen and oystermen; and yes, we work in 
this industry. It requires employers to post a notice that explains 
employee rights and remedies under the act.
  I look forward to working with the chairman as we look at other ways 
of helping these employees who are under stress, providing mental 
health services and counseling after this terrible devastation. It may 
have to continue even after BP finishes their work. But this is the 
right direction to go. This speaks well of this Congress who will stand 
alongside of workers and make a difference in their lives and the lives 
of their families.
  I ask you to vote for this legislation.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 5851--the Offshore Oil and Gas 
Worker Whistleblower Protection Act. We are all well aware of the 
disaster that occurred when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, but it 
might have been prevented if we had listened to voices expressing 
concern. The men and woman who bravely come out and expose the 
injustices and violations that take place at their place of work are 
the eyes and ears for the American public. These people should be able 
to speak out freely with no fear of unfair repercussion.
  In the aftermath of the disaster, it became clear that workers on the 
Deepwater Horizon rig harbored safety concerns prior to the explosion, 
but chose not to vocalize them over fear of retribution. Take, for 
example, Jason Anderson, who told both his wife and father that working 
conditions were not safe on the Deepwater Horizon. According to his 
wife Shelley's testimony before the Senate's Commerce, Science and 
Transportation committee, Jason was reluctant to talk about these 
concerns while on the rig and told her: ``I can't talk about it now. 
The walls are too thin.'' Another worker, Dewey Revette, reportedly had 
concerns with BPs plans to begin shutting down the well on the day it 
exploded. He continued to work despite his reluctance and lost his life 
hours later.
  Workers on oil rigs, like the Deepwater Horizon, risk losing their 
jobs if they report dangerous workplace conditions. The workers 
performing clean-up activities on the Outer Continental Shelf similarly 
have no protections against employer retaliation for raising health and 
safety concerns. It is essential that workers be protected when they 
raise concerns about unsafe working conditions, and they must have the 
right to stop working if they fear they could be injured or killed. All 
workers, especially those in dangerous jobs, are in the best position 
to discover safety hazards. You can't have inspectors at all facilities 
at all times--these workers are enforcement agencies' eyes and ears 
when it comes to safety compliance.
  Currently, there is no Federal law that protects offshore workers for 
blowing the whistle on workplace health and safety problems. This bill 
extends whistleblower protections to workers regarding Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration, drilling, production, or 
cleanup, whose employers are engaged in those activities.
  Federal whistleblowers have attempted to expose government actions 
that violate the law or harm the environment for decades. Their 
disclosures have helped the Federal Government improve environmental 
protection, nuclear safety, and national security, and their claims 
have helped safeguard the welfare of American citizens. Whistleblowers 
have gained credibility in recent years thanks in great part to 
organizations like the National Whistleblower Center (NWC), the Liberty 
Coalition, and the Government Accountability Project. The NWC is a non-
profit, tax exempt educational and advocacy organization dedicated to 
helping whistleblowers make their case to lawmakers and other 
government leaders--a modern day safe haven for those who are willing 
to put their careers on the line to improve their government.
  The bill is modeled after other modern whistleblower statutes and 
would prohibit an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating 
against an employee who reports to the employer, or a Federal or State 
Government official that he or she reasonably believes the employer is 
violating the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The 
legislation would also protect covered employees who prepare and/or 
testify about the alleged violation, report injuries or unsafe 
conditions related to the offshore work, refuse to work based on a good 
faith belief that the offshore work could cause injury or impairment or 
a spill, or refuse to perform in a manner that they believe violates 
the OCSLA.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential to protect workers with the courage to 
speak out when they see life-threatening safety-hazards or shortcuts. 
If we do not, we risk dire consequences. Whistleblowers are often 
forced to choose between remaining silent about a dangerous or illegal 
situation and risking their careers by telling the truth. We must 
reverse this unacceptable and unsustainable choice by passing this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the best way to keep our workers and our workplaces safe 
is through compliance. We write workplace safety laws for a reason, and 
we expect employers to follow those laws. This is true for factories 
and family-run businesses, and it is true for offshore oil rigs.
  We never want to see a workplace where laws are not followed and 
worker safety and health is put at risk. But if that happens, workers 
must be able to report those risks without fear of being discriminated 
against or losing their job. This is where whistleblower protections 
come.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces 18 
separate Federal whistleblower statutes for workers who report 
violations of worker safety, airline, commercial motor carrier, 
consumer product, environmental, health care reform, nuclear energy, 
pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad and securities laws.
  Yet somehow, in this maze of whistleblower protections, it seems that 
workers on offshore oil rigs may not be fully protected. When we asked 
the agencies responsible for overseeing rigs on the Outer Continental 
Shelf, they told us they did not know which statute might apply. This 
is unacceptable.
  I fully support the effort to ensure workers on offshore oil rigs 
have access to whistleblower protections. But I have concerns and 
questions about how H.R. 5851 approaches this goal, and I have serious 
objections to the manner in which this legislation was brought floor.
  There has been no hearing, no markup, no committee report. There has, 
quite simply, been no legislative process, and it's no way to treat the 
oil rig workers we are supposed to be protecting.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the 
House, I hope that all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will support this Whistleblower Protection Act.
  I hope that they understand that many, many thousands, millions of 
American workers work in work sites where every day they pose an 
inherent danger to those workers. The question of whether or not those 
workers will be safe or not very often is decided by the employer, who 
decides how they will structure the work site, what the work rules will 
be, and how the work and the process will proceed.
  But very often those employers sometimes shortchange safety. They 
choose to pick production over the safety of their workers. They choose 
to pick cost cutting over safety of their workers.
  They choose to pick hurrying up the job over the safety of their 
workers. They choose to pick getting certain parts of the job done and 
get them off-site over the safety of their workers.
  In today's economy, and in every economy, for many of these workers, 
it's a terrible choice to think about if I raise my hand on behalf of 
safety, will I lose my job? If I raise a question about the process 
that we are about to engage in here and how dangerous it is, will I 
lose my job?
  I represent a district where people work in these industries, in the 
chemical industry and the refining industry. You know what? We lose 
workers in those jobs all too often, and all too often we find out the 
mistakes that were made and we wonder. And even those workers, who are 
covered by whistleblower protection, know the trade-off.
  Because, don't forget, all whistleblower protection does is give you 
a right to try to proceed to get your job back. Many times that's 
delayed and workers go months and months without pay because they had 
the courage to invoke their rights.
  This Whistleblower Protection Act is consistent with the other 
Federal protections for workers throughout this

[[Page 14834]]

country, but these workers today on the Outer Continental Shelf have no 
protection at all with respect to their personal safety, and we are 
simply filling that gap and making sure that they will have that right.
  Now, many companies--and I have talked to the CEOs of some of these 
companies--say, you know, we give you the right at any time to pull the 
switch, to shut down the job, to stop it, if you think it's unsafe. One 
company gives out a card. You get a card and you put the card down. 
It's sort of like in the World Cup--you get a time-out.
  Do you know what the supervisors tell the employees that card is? A 
get-fired card. Play that card, get fired. So the company says play 
this card any time you want, but the supervisors make it clear what the 
pressure is.
  That's why we need this whistleblower protection for the workers on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. I have to believe, given the concerns that 
are documented in the hearings of this Congress, that had these workers 
had that kind of protection, there would have been a far greater chance 
that they would have said, wait a minute, because they had concerns 
about the procedure as they started to withdraw from this drill site. 
They had concerns about the condition of the rig. They had concerns 
about the overriding of safety alarms. Yet we saw the explosion and the 
tragedy and the loss of life of these workers.
  Let's do something in their memory that will protect their colleagues 
on the Outer Continental Shelf. Let's pass this bill with large 
bipartisan support.
  In the name of these workers, these workers who fell into a gap in 
the protection laws of this Nation, let's fill that gap. Let's provide 
them the protection, and let's make their death not be in vain with 
respect to their coworkers.
  I ask for support of this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1574, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 5851 is postponed.

                          ____________________