[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14834-14840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CONSOLIDATED LAND, ENERGY, AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ACT OF 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1574 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3534.

                              {time}  1315


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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

[[Page 14835]]

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, with Mr. Jackson of Illinois in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 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.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) each will control 20 minutes. The gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the typographical error made by somebody 
has been corrected in the supplemental report just filed and we are now 
on line for consideration of this bill.
  Today the House is considering H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, 
Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010, better known as the CLEAR 
Act. This legislation is aimed at shedding light on longstanding 
inadequacies in the management of our Federal oil and gas resources and 
to address the lessons learned in the aftermath of the Deepwater 
Horizon disaster.
  On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare 
began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil platform stationed 6 
miles off the coast suffered a blowout. For 11 days, oil workers 
struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, around 5,000 barrels of 
crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into an 800-square-mile 
slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought thick tar to beaches, 
marring 35 miles of coastline. At the time, it was the worst 
environmental disaster this country had experienced and heralded the 
beginning of the environmental movement, but that paled in comparison 
to the events in the aftermath of the tragic explosion that occurred in 
the Gulf of Mexico on the evening of April 20, 2010.

                              {time}  1320

  The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon took the lives of 11 brave 
workers, unleashed up to 5 million barrels of oil over nearly 100 days, 
wreaking havoc on the gulf. It soiled over 600 miles of pristine gulf 
coast shoreline, and enforced the largest fishery closure in history. 
The souls of those 11 men cannot be recouped, but we, in part, can 
redeem them by taking action on this legislation.
  Prior to this incident, I led the Committee on Natural Resources in 
the vigorous oversight of America's flawed oil and gas program. We 
uncovered billions of dollars that were never paid to the American 
people, countless examples of agency regulators sleeping around with, 
instead of keeping an eye on, the oil and gas industry, and the 
flagrant mismanagement of America's public energy resources. We had 
amassed a mountain of evidence that something was wrong. The American 
people were being cheated. The environment was being degraded, and Big 
Oil was writing their own rules.
  As a result of a decade of investigations by the inspector general 
and the GAO, as well as holding countless oversight hearings held by my 
committee, we crafted a comprehensive package to completely overhaul 
and reform America's oil and gas leasing program. The CLEAR Act was 
introduced last September, and it seeks to make several important 
changes to current law in an effort to create greater efficiencies, 
transparency, and accountability in the development of our Federal 
energy resources.
  Since April 20, our Committee on Natural Resources has led 
congressional efforts to investigate this tragedy, which was clearly a 
game changer for the way we manage our public energy resources. Through 
the work of the Natural Resources Committee and other committees, it 
became obvious that additional reasonable reforms were necessary to 
protect and prevent against such a catastrophe in the future.
  While we may not know the exact cause of the incident at this time, 
we clearly know what contributed to it--a culture of cozy relationships 
that had regulators interviewing for jobs on the same rigs they were 
supposed to be inspecting, drilling plans that were rubber-stamped in a 
matter of minutes with only the most cursory environmental reviews, a 
``trust but don't verify'' attitude towards safety standards, and an 
agency in charge that was spending too much time on the sidelines as 
the oil and gas industry wrote their own rules.
  The CLEAR Act addresses these issues. It directly responds to the 
Deepwater Horizon disaster while also looking forward and attempting to 
prevent the next catastrophe. It will create strong new safety 
standards for offshore drilling and the revolving door between 
government and industry. It will require real environmental reviews, 
hold BP accountable, help restore the gulf coast, and ensure that the 
American people get the best bang for their buck for the use of their 
resources.
  The CLEAR Act will dismantle and reorganize a dysfunctional Minerals 
Management Service so that conflicts of interest between leasing, 
policing, and review collecting are permanently abolished. It 
establishes a new training academy for Federal oil and gas inspectors 
who will be required to adhere to strict new ethical guidelines. Thanks 
to Chairman Oberstar and his Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, the bill before us today also ensures that oil companies are 
held fully accountable and that drilling rigs meet strict U.S. safety 
standards.
  Finally, the CLEAR Act fulfills a 45-year-old promise to the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, which was based on the premise that money 
obtained from the sale of the public's resources should be used to 
protect and conserve our natural, historical, and recreational 
resources. The bill establishes a new Ocean Restoration and 
Conservation Assistance Fund, known as ORCA, so that funds raised from 
drilling in our oceans will also go toward protecting and improving our 
oceans. We take so much from our oceans, Mr. Chairman, that it is about 
time we gave something back.
  We will, undoubtedly, hear horror stories today from the oil and gas 
industry about what they allege this bill will do to them. It happens 
every time, but this is sheer hyperventilation from an industry that 
has had its way with the public lands for 8 years. The industry should 
take a look at the spill in the gulf to see how an overly permissive 
attitude can turn into a real horror story for the entire industry and 
for the American people.
  The Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent damage that has 
occurred over the past 102 days is, indeed, a game changer. It is time 
that we act to protect America's families, America's workers and 
businesses, to rebuild the gulf coast, to hold oil companies 
accountable, to work to ensure that a spill of this kind never happens 
again, and to secure our domestic energy resources.
  In this day and age, in this America, whether it is a coal mine in 
the congressional district that I am honored to represent or an oil rig 
deep in the Gulf of Mexico, there is no room for an environment where 
working men and women leave their homes in the morning and do not know 
if they will return in the evening. This is what this legislation is 
about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is being sold as the response to the ongoing 
gulf oil crisis. Though what has not been mentioned until right now is 
that it is stuffed with page after page of provisions that are totally 
unrelated to the spill. This legislation, if passed, will

[[Page 14836]]

kill jobs. It will raise taxes, and it will increase Federal spending 
and cause even greater economic pain to the gulf coast and their 
families and communities.
  Republicans believe the Federal Government should be focused on 
permanently stopping the leak, cleaning up the oil, holding BP and 
those responsible for the spill fully accountable, and then finding 
out, Mr. Chairman, what went wrong. Republicans believe educated 
reforms are needed to make American deepwater energy production the 
safest in the world, but these reforms must be based on the full facts 
of what caused and contributed to this tragedy.
  Here in Washington, though, Democrats are exploiting the oil spill as 
an excuse to impose a job-killing combination of tax increases, 
government spending, and greater bureaucratic regulations. Democrats 
are pushing ahead of the facts to enact unrelated policies that 
wouldn't stand on their own merits if they weren't hitched to this 
vehicle and to this tragedy. They are not even waiting for the results 
of the many ongoing investigations, including the President's own hand-
picked commission on this matter. This tragic oil spill and the 
President's arbitrary deepwater drilling moratorium have already cost 
thousands of jobs in the gulf and across the Nation.
  Congress should not be passing a law that will inflict deeper 
economic and unemployment pain. The unlimited liability in this bill 
will devastate small operators and lead to, it is estimated, 300,000 
lost jobs. The budgets of States and the Federal Government, because of 
this action, could face a $147 billion deficit in their budgets from 
lost revenue. The new $22 billion energy tax in this bill will not only 
cause more lost jobs; it will raise energy and gas prices on American 
families and businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, this is what is very interesting:
  This tax is imposed on just American oil and gas from Federal leases. 
Foreign countries won't pay this tax. So the argument can be made that 
this tax actually hurts American workers and gives advantages to 
foreign competitors.
  Now, if what I have detailed is not bad enough, this bill includes 
over $30 billion in new mandatory spending--spending on programs 
totally unrelated to the oil spill. To make matters worse, Democrat 
leaders have inserted specific language in the bill allowing every 
single dollar to be earmarked. This makes this bill a giant earmark ATM 
that automatically hands out over $1 billion a year from now until the 
year 2040.

                              {time}  1330

  This bill is supposed to be about the gulf oil spill, yet it goes 
far, far beyond offshore drilling. It imposes taxes and restrictions 
for onshore energy production. But the impact is not just on natural 
gas and oil onshore. It also affects renewable energy like wind, solar 
and geothermal; and I will say, it affects it in a negative way.
  But it doesn't stop there. In response to the Federal Government's 
failure to regulate Deepwater Horizon in Federal waters, this bill 
requires a Federal takeover of permitting in State waters. In what 
bizarre world, Mr. Chairman, does this make sense? It is a gross 
violation, in my view, of the Tenth Amendment and is opposed by an 
association of 38 States who regulate energy production on their land 
and waters.
  Now let's take two steps back and consider what the Democrats are 
doing with this bill. I believe, and I think all Americans believe, 
that BP is responsible for the gulf oil spill, and they should be held 
100 percent accountable for paying the costs of the cleanup and 
repairing the damages. I believe that Chairman Rahall agrees with that. 
I believe everyone in the House agrees that it is BP's responsibility 
to pay for this and not the taxpayers.
  So, Mr. Chairman, why does this supposed ``oil spill response bill'' 
impose a $22 billion energy tax on Americans and increase unrelated 
spending by over $30 billion? BP is supposed to pay, not the taxpayers. 
There shouldn't be a new energy tax or billions in new spending in this 
bill. The fact is, the Democrats are using this oil spill tragedy as an 
excuse for unrelated tax and spending increases.
  While this bill will cost billions in new taxes and higher spending, 
Mr. Chairman, the real toll is the potential lost jobs because of the 
actions of this bill. American jobs will be lost, and many will be sent 
overseas because of this bill. Why is this being done, I wonder, to the 
people of the gulf coast? The gulf coast has already taken a terrible 
economic hit. By what measures, Mr. Chairman, do they deserve this 
Democrat Congress taking action on a bill that will inflict even 
greater economic pain and suffering?
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the CLEAR Act and 
insist on a bill which we can all agree on regarding the safety and 
soundness of drilling in the gulf.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act 
of 2010, and I want to congratulate my good friend and Transportation 
Committee colleague, Mr. Rahall, the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee, for the splendid work that his committee has done, for the 
bill that he, personally, has championed, and the hours of work put 
into this legislation in crafting a true comprehensive response to the 
oil spill in the gulf, the causes of that failure and the cleanup that 
is necessary.
  I was going to be rather brief; but after listening to the gentleman 
from Washington, I didn't recognize the bill that is before us. I have 
never considered cleanup responsibilities to be a tax. I don't know 
where that confection has been created, but it is certainly not in my 
vocabulary.
  The blowout from the mobile offshore drilling unit, the Deepwater 
Horizon, killed 11 people on the crew--at least none of them have been 
found. They are all presumed dead. There were 116 people injured in one 
way or another. Millions of gallons, millions of barrels of oil 
spilling from a source that is unknowable, a resource whose volume is 
unknown, and it continued relentlessly until just a few days ago. Our 
committee held three hearings to investigate the causes of this 
disaster, and I particularly appreciate the splendid work done by 
subcommittee Chairman Elijah Cummings, the chair of the Coast Guard and 
Maritime Subcommittee.
  While the causes of that disaster are still under investigation, 
there are some elements that are clearly known and that we must and can 
deal with and that we do deal with in this legislation that emerge also 
from our hearings. We received extensive testimony on how the Deepwater 
Horizon was built in South Korea, registered in that great maritime 
nation of the Republican of the Marshall Islands, and the registry is 
held by a foreign entity maintained in Reston, Virginia. No 
accountability, no oversight, no responsibility, and no rigorous laws 
of the country of registry to govern the MODU, the drilling unit. And 
the vessel itself, because it was registered in the Marshall Islands, 
was not subject to the rigorous safety inspection standards of the U.S. 
Coast Guard that a U.S. flagged vessel would be subject to.
  We also learned that shortcuts were taken in the development, 
approval, and implementation of the oil spill response plans for the 
Deepwater Horizon drilling operation. Those response plans were totally 
inadequate to address the worst-case scenario. We also learned that in 
May of 2008, the Minerals Management Service of the previous 
administration exempted BP from filing an oil spill response plan--
exempted because they're a big worldwide multibillion-dollar 
corporation with experience in deep-water drilling. In their permit, 
they filed a 52-page document that said: In the unlikely event of a 
surface or subsurface spill, we are capable of handling with existing 
industry technology up to 175,000 barrels a day. They couldn't handle

[[Page 14837]]

what came out of that, and they couldn't measure what came out of that 
oil reservoir. That gulf has been seriously injured and damaged for 
generations because of that failure.
  It also demonstrated the inadequacy of the limits of liability, 
including financial responsibility for the responsible parties, 
inadequate, insufficient to address a worst-case scenario for a release 
of oil in an offshore operation. The expected cost will be in the tens 
of billions. And even though BP agreed to set aside $20 billion in an 
agreement with President Obama as an escrow to cover potential costs, 
the $75 million cap that exists in current law is grossly, grossly 
inadequate and must be repealed; and it is repealed in our version of 
this legislation.
  We also investigated the unprecedented use of 1.5 million gallons of 
chemical dispersants. Our witnesses called into question the potential 
short-term and long-term impacts that increased use of these 
dispersants, such as COREXIT, would have on the waters, the water 
column and the aquatic creatures and the plants in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Dr. Sylvia Earle, a world-renowned ocean biologist who spent 50 years 
of her career studying and evaluating and understanding the Gulf of 
Mexico, said, There never was any testing of COREXIT on underwater 
creatures in the water column, that COREXIT itself was determined to be 
toxic to the human respiratory system. It had adverse effects on the 
kidney and lungs and heart, and yet it was used extensively, well over 
a million gallons of it, as a dispersant in the response to the oil 
spill. We will have the burden of decades to understand what the effect 
of this chemical is on the water column and on the creatures whose 
livelihood depends on this water.
  Our bill has several provisions to address liability, financial 
responsibility, improvements in safety, increased oversight of oil 
spill responses, improvements in environmental protection. We repeal or 
adjust existing liability limitations for offshore facilities to ensure 
that the responsible party or parties will be responsible for 100 
percent of the cleanup costs and damage to third parties and will 
extend the provisions of OPA '90, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which 
has very rigorous provisions in it, to protect even the migratory 
waterfowl which come from northern regions, from Canada and from 
northern Minnesota and other northern-tier States and winter in the 
gulf.

                              {time}  1340

  Our State bird, the loon, winters in those marshes that are now oil-
infested. And I want to be sure that BP pays for every oiled loon, 
which are the joy of Minnesotans in the summer as we recreate outside 
and enjoy our great outdoors.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the 
gentleman from California, I would just like to tell my friend, the 
chairman of the Transportation Committee, that the taxes that I 
referred to are on page 224 of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before we add more bureaucracies to the equation, shouldn't we be 
asking how did the existing ones do? This administration ignored the 
oil spill contingency plan that NOAA's former response coordinator says 
could have burned off 95 percent of the oil spill from day one. It took 
them 8 days just to do a test burn.
  In the 2 weeks after the spill, 13 countries offered the assistance 
of their surface oil skimmers. The administration told them, ``Thanks, 
but no thanks.'' As the oil approached shore, the administration shut 
down oil skimming barges for lack of life jackets. Apparently, it never 
occurred to them to simply bring out more life jackets. Skimmers that 
could have removed 95 percent of the surface oil were blocked by the 
EPA for a month because they didn't remove 99.9985 percent. For more 
than a month, the governors of the States begged the administration for 
permission to take emergency action to protect their shorelines, to no 
avail. And now we want more bureaucrats?
  The problem is not a lack of bureaucracy. The problem is a tangled 
mess of rigid regulations, political posturing, contradictory edicts, 
and administrative incompetence that produced an emergency response 
worthy of the Keystone Kops. More of the same is not the answer.
  My advice to this administration and its congressional majority is 
this: If you can't lead and won't follow, then get out of the way.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to how much time is remaining on 
each side of the aisle.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Washington has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
West Virginia has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in opposition to this bill. Obviously, I 
am not opposed to improving safety and regulation in the OCS. But I do 
want OCS drilling to continue.
  I want to thank Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey. The 
Energy and Commerce bill that was reported out, I believe 48-0, did 
improve safety, but it did allow drilling to continue domestically. In 
my opinion, with the taxes in this bill, with the punitive nature of 
this bill, if it were to pass and become law we would not have OCS 
drilling, and it would lessen the ability to develop our domestic 
resources, would increase costs to the American consumer, and make us 
more dependent, not less dependent, on foreign oil.
  There are some good things in the bill. Some of the safety provisions 
from the Energy and Commerce bill that are included on CEO 
certification and things of this sort are worthwhile. But overall, it 
is a bad bill, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a gentleman with whom we 
have worked very closely in the development of this legislation, and 
who has conducted a number of investigations and hearings on his own, 
Mr. Waxman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just over 3 months ago, the Macondo well exploded in the Gulf of 
Mexico, causing the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. 
Eleven workers on the oil rig died.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee has held nine hearings into the 
chain of events that caused the blowout of BP's well and its impact on 
the gulf coast. These hearings revealed that BP and its partners made a 
series of risky decisions that undermined well safety. Our committee 
then passed the Blowout Prevention Act, H.R. 5626, 48-0, to strengthen 
Federal drilling regulations. This bill before us today contains key 
provisions from our legislation. I want to thank Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Rahall for working with us to include these 
provisions.
  BP chose a risky well design on the Macondo well that provided 
minimal barriers to prevent dangerous gases from flowing to the 
wellhead. They ignored their contractors' urgent warnings about how to 
cement the well safely. This legislation will ban these dangerous 
practices. It's too late to stop the explosion, but this legislation 
can hold the appropriate parties accountable and make sure this type of 
catastrophic blowout never happens again.
  Just over three months ago, BP's Macondo well exploded in the Gulf of 
Mexico, causing the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. 
Eleven workers on the oil rig died. The well poured thousands upon 
thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, threatening an 
entire way of life along the Gulf Coast. While BP has capped the well, 
the well has still not been permanently sealed.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce has held nine hearings into the 
chain of events that caused the blowout of BP's Macondo well and its 
impacts on the Gulf Coast. The hearings revealed that BP and its 
partners made a series of risky decisions that undermined well safety. 
These decisions

[[Page 14838]]

saved time and money for BP, but increased the risks of a catastrophic 
blowout.
  And based on what we found in our investigation, it is time for 
Congress to act. Investigations are ongoing and will continue to 
provide more details about the causes of this accident. But we know 
enough already about the weaknesses in the regulatory regime to craft 
commonsense legislative solutions.
  Building on our oversight, the Energy and Commerce Committee 
developed the Blowout Prevention Act of 2010 to establish new federal 
regulatory requirements to prevent future spills from oil and gas 
wells. The Committee reported this bill by a bipartisan vote of 48 to 
0. Ed Markey and I worked with the Ranking Member of our Committee, Joe 
Barton, as well as Fred Upton, Gene Green, Charlie Melancon, and other 
members to craft the Energy and Commerce bill. I want to thank them for 
their constructive suggestions.
  Key elements of the Energy and Commerce Committee bill have been 
incorporated into the legislation we are considering today. I want to 
thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rahall for working with us 
to include these provisions.
  When BP's CEO Tony Hayward appeared before our Committee, we asked 
him to explain BP's risky decisions. He tried to dodge responsibility, 
telling us repeatedly that he was not involved in the critical 
decisions. And he tried to shift blame to others. It was clear that Mr. 
Hayward and other top BP officials paid virtually no attention to the 
risks the company was taking. To ensure greater accountability, this 
legislation requires oil company CEOs to certify that their well 
designs and blowout preventers are safe and that the company can 
promptly control and stop a blowout if these well control measures 
fail.
  BP chose a risky well design on the Macondo well that provided 
minimal barriers to prevent dangerous gases from flowing to the 
wellhead. They ignored their contractor's advice about how to properly 
cement the well. They failed to conduct a critical cement test. And 
they failed to properly circulate well fluids.
  The legislation we are considering today will set strict new 
requirements to ensure that these basic well control practices cannot 
be ignored at offshore wells.
  BP says it relied on the well's blowout preventer as the last line of 
defense. But we know blowout preventers are not foolproof--not even 
close. To increase the reliability of this essential safety device, 
this legislation sets minimum standards for blowout preventers, 
including the requirement that blowout preventers have two sets of 
blind shear rams and redundant emergency backup control systems that 
can activate when communications from the rig are severed.
  We were careful to provide regulatory flexibility so that the minimum 
requirements can evolve as the technology improves.
  To ensure compliance with these new requirements, the legislation 
requires that blowout preventers, well designs, and cementing programs 
and procedures be certified as safe by independent, third-party 
inspectors selected by the federal regulator, not the oil companies. 
But the costs of these independent certifications will be paid for by 
the oil companies.
  BP also took advantage of a lack of resources and a failure in the 
regulatory culture at the Minerals Management Service. This legislation 
puts an end to this culture of complacency. It requires the Department 
of the Interior to set tough standards and creates a committee of 
independent experts to check their work and make sure they do their 
jobs. This independent committee will review available technologies, 
assess industry practices and regulations, and provide the best, most 
up-to-date technical and regulatory advice so that we have the best 
possible set of rules for drilling offshore wells.
  It is too late to stop the explosion and blowout on the Deepwater 
Horizon. But, with this legislation, we can hold the appropriate 
parties accountable and make sure that this type of catastrophic 
blowout never happens again.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  There are many things about having more safety and environmental 
protection in the gulf that we can all agree on. Unfortunately, this 
bill goes way beyond those agreement type of provisions. There is a $2-
a-barrel tax increase in this bill. And there is a proportional tax 
increase on natural gas production as well. And as was pointed out 
earlier, it's not just on offshore oil and gas production, but on 
onshore Federal lands. So it goes way beyond the discussion we are 
having about the gulf.
  It's going to add up to $22 billion. And this is not the time to be 
raising taxes on energy. We're trying to come out of a recession. Many 
of us are asking, Where are the jobs? And taxing energy and making the 
consumer and industry pay more for energy, it's just not the right time 
to do that. And we're putting this, if the bill takes effect, on 
existing oil and gas production. That's blatantly unconstitutional. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that we as the Federal 
Government will have to refund about two-thirds of that $22 billion, or 
$14 billion, the proportion that applies to existing oil and gas 
production, back to the producers because it's unconstitutional. It's 
an impairment of contracts to come in the middle of a contract and say, 
by the way, we are adding a big tax increase to your energy production.
  So why are we taxing industry and the consumer when we're trying to 
come out of a recession? This bill doesn't make sense, and I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the updated 
Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act, the CLEAR Act, 
and thank the gentleman for yielding time on this important subject. I 
am very proud of it and other legislation to ensure a continued strong 
response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  In passing these bills today, we will uphold our commitment to 
America's families and businesses to rebuild the Gulf Coast and make 
families whole, and to ensure that the size of this spill and the scope 
of it never happen again.
  The CLEAR Act responds to the BP oil spill not simply with criticism. 
In fact, we waited an amount of time so we could get the facts, make 
the judgment, and write legislation that is responsible and targeted.
  Visionary that he is, Mr. Rahall 1 year ago began work on this 
legislation. We have benefited from the work that his committee, that 
of Energy and Commerce and the leadership of Chairman Waxman, and 
Transportation and Infrastructure under Mr. Oberstar, have done in 
preparation for this, as well as the work of Mr. Miller on Education 
and Labor.

                              {time}  1350

  This legislation is about safety, about establishing new safety 
standards--safety for the workers on the rigs, safety for those in the 
cleanup have been a priority for us in all of the legislation that has 
come to the floor in response to the spill.
  It's about integrity. Integrity of the representations made by BP, 
whether it's about the effectiveness of the drilling, whether it's 
about the prevention of a blowout, or whether it's about the integrity 
of their representations about the integrity of the cleanup, what would 
happen if such a spill were to occur and do we have the technology to 
clean up. It's also about the integrity of the infrastructure, that the 
infrastructure would do what it was designed to do: drill, prevent 
blowouts, and, of course, respond to it.
  So there's been a lack of integrity on both parts in terms of 
representations that were made and the integrity of infrastructure. 
This legislation addresses that.
  It's about accountability. Reforming the Minerals Management Service 
is really a very important part of this legislation. Some of this was 
addressed by President Obama in having an Executive order to this 
effect or administrative policy to this effect. Now it is in statute. 
Very, very important. Because that accountability about who sets the 
standards, who makes sure that those standards are met is very, very 
important to us honoring our responsibility to the American people.
  And it's about the families. And this always comes down to people who 
have suffered so much, by removing the cap on economic damages paid by 
oil companies to residents and small businesses affected by the oil 
spills.
  The CLEAR Act is good for families, our environment, and the health 
of our

[[Page 14839]]

natural resources in many ways. This week, we were informed that it was 
also good for our budget, saving taxpayers more than $5 billion over 
the next 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and up 
to $50 billion over the next 25 years, according to the Government 
Accounting Office.
  This measure is just one component of a broader package of actions we 
are taking to hold BP accountable, support the families and businesses 
of the gulf coast, and prevent and prepare for future disasters, 
hopefully avoiding them.
  Today, we will vote on the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower 
Protection Act, which was debated earlier, managed by Mr. Miller, to 
protect workers who put the people's interests first, speak up and 
inform State and Federal authorities of violations and practices that 
endanger the public and the workers.
  In recent weeks, we have passed the Oil Pollution Research and 
Development Program Reauthorization Act to develop new methods and 
technologies to clean up oil spills. That was under the leadership of 
Chairman Bart Gordon of the Science and Technology Committee. He also 
presented the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research 
and Development Program to develop safer drilling technologies and 
prevent future oil spill disasters. One of them was the Gordon Act and 
one was the Woolsey Act.
  The Spill Act. The Spill Act was one we passed maybe a month ago 
amending the Death on the High Seas Act to ensure fair compensation for 
the families of those killed or injured in the BP spill.
  Many of us were humbled and honored to receive the families of those 
who lost their lives at the time of this explosion, at the time of this 
disaster. They came here. They talked about their family members that 
they had lost. They are the backbone of America. They worked hard. They 
played by the rules. They came here, really, using their suffering--and 
I say that in the best possible way--to help others. Their generosity 
of spirit insists that we turn this into the law but also to help those 
families and other families.
  We passed legislation to give subpoena power to the President's Oil 
Spill Commission and permit the Coast Guard to obtain needed resources 
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to help with cleanup costs. 
Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
  I would like, again, to acknowledge Chairman Nick Rahall, Jim 
Oberstar, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, and George Miller for their 
leadership on this package of bills that we have before us today, and 
Mr. Gordon, Bart Gordon, for what he had done before.
  In the wake of the BP oil spill, Members from both parties should 
agree that the current system is not working for the American people. 
As their representatives and their leaders, we must change course. We 
must do what we can to help the gulf recover and rebuild.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this critical oil 
spill response legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to a leader and member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which had part of this 
bill, one of the leaders of crafting our particular portion, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, just this morning, in an article entitled, ``Stop 
Spending, Start Cutting,'' columnist Cheri Jacobus wrote in The Hill 
newspaper, ``While it's one thing for Americans to be livid at their 
elected officials over of out-of-control spending and unthinkable 
levels of debt that will be passed down to children yet to be born, we 
now have reason to be not only angry, but very, very afraid.''
  The Congressional Budget Office just told us the painful, 
unvarnished, frightening truth this week that unless Federal spending 
is reined in dramatically and/or revenues increased, we are headed for 
certain sudden economic catastrophe that would make this current 
economic crisis seem like a day at the beach.
  Now we are about to pass a bill that has $30 billion in just land 
purchases. Then there are all the new taxes. This bill creates a new 
tax on all existing and new Federal onshore and offshore leases. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this tax on oil and a new 
tax on natural gas will total $22 billion in 10 years, and eventually 
these taxes will climb to $3 billion per year. And the CBO also 
estimates that the new energy taxes will create another $14 billion in 
litigation costs alone. All of these costs, both direct and indirect, 
will eventually be passed on to the American consumers of energy--small 
businesses, families, and farmers.
  Of course, this new tax applies only to American energy, giving a 
distinct advantage to foreign oil and gas and jeopardizing American 
energy jobs. A professor at LSU said this in testimony in front of the 
Natural Resources Committee, These provisions are simply job killers 
for a large number of oil and gas employees along the gulf. He said, 
Unfortunately, the proposed bill under consideration today would 
eliminate even emerging opportunities and shut down tens of thousands 
of jobs for Louisiana oil and gas workers.
  Dennis Stover, executive vice president of Uranium One, testified 
before the committee that this bill will decrease U.S. exploration and 
development. And he said, ``By introducing great uncertainty regarding 
the lands ultimately available for uranium exploration and development, 
a leasing system will only serve to increase the United States' 
reliance on foreign sources of uranium.''
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chair of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson).

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I rise to speak strongly in support of H.R. 3534, the Consolidated 
Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010. While this legislation 
cannot stem the oil that continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, it 
takes solid strides forward to preventing such an event from occurring 
in the future.
  As a Congress, it is our duty to look forward and ensure we have 
protections in place for future similar spills in these deepwater 
areas. We also need to review the current oil and gas regulations and 
ensure that we have safety and environmental protections in place for 
all types of onshore and offshore operations and facilities.
  This legislation will help to make sure we are better prepared going 
forward, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  I am pleased that Title VII of this legislation, the ``Oil Spill 
Accountability and Environmental Protection Act of 2010,'' was largely 
taken from the bill that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure passed out of committee. This title covers a number of 
areas of critical concern: liability provisions; safety measures; and 
provisions to protect the environment.
  The legislation makes much-needed changes to the liability caps for 
both offshore oil facilities, as well as vessels. With regard to oil 
facilities, liability caps for economic damages are removed. This is as 
it should be.
  This provision eliminates future incentives for oil companies to 
ignore the true impacts of their activities and engage in riskier 
behavior than they otherwise would. As a Congress, we should not enable 
or subsidize risky behavior on the part of companies simply because 
they want to do something.
  This legislation also includes a number of other important safety and 
environmental provisions.
  It requires that, going forward, there is one individual in true 
control of the safety of the vessel--and conflicting lines of authority 
will not result in mishaps, as with the Deepwater Horizon.
  This legislation also forces EPA to take a much more rigorous look at 
oil spill dispersants than has been the case in the past. It is my view 
that there is a time and a place for the use of some dispersants.
  However, it is altogether disturbing that such large volumes of 
dispersants have been used at the Deepwater site (1,843,786 gallons to 
date), while so little is known about their impacts to human health, 
water quality, and marine life.

[[Page 14840]]

  As a result, we are requiring that EPA study the potential impacts of 
given dispersants to human health and the environment, get independent 
verification of effectiveness and toxicity, and then allow for the 
public disclosure of the chemical ingredients for any product that is 
``pre-approved'' for use. Finally, EPA approval will be required for 
any use of a dispersant in relation to a future oil spill.
  I urge all Members of the House to join with me in supporting this 
well-considered legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the 
committee.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, Americans want the spill cleaned up, BP to 
pay for it, jobs to be restored, and the Federal Government to do a 
better job of inspecting for worker safety and environmental safety. To 
my colleagues in the majority party, we agree. Take ``yes'' for an 
answer.
  But what does this bill do? It raises taxes, it removes the BLM land 
managers from doing land management and over the objection of the 
Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Only Congress would view 
this bill as a response to what Americans want.
  No wonder Congress has an approval rating of 11 percent. This is 
nuts, Mr. Chairman. This is nuts.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings) has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has 7 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The other side is cherry-picking the letter from the Congressional 
Budget Office. The gentleman from Tennessee was giving quotes from it, 
as far as what this conservation fee does, et cetera, and also nothing 
to do in this legislation. We jettisoned the part related to uranium 
leasing.
  But the bottom line is that CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3534 
would reduce future deficits by $5.3 billion.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, the huge human and environmental catastrophe has 
brought to light glaring deficiencies in the way we oversee, regulate, 
and hold accountable those who produce oil and gas on our public lands.
  This bill will accomplish several good things such as imposing safety 
standards on drilling and strengthening the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund thanks to Chairman Rahall. It is important that it will also 
clarify and improve liability laws thanks to Mr. Oberstar.
  Under the current law, BP is responsible for the removal costs of the 
spill. They are liable only for $75 million, however, for economic and 
natural resource damages. For a spill of this magnitude, a limit as low 
as $75 million is laughable.
  After the spill began, I led 85 of my colleagues in introducing the 
Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, which would raise the liability cap now 
and retroactively. Of course the polluters should pay. The escrow 
account created by the administration and BP will have a short-term 
fix, but the CLEAR Act will ensure that BP is legally liable for all 
economic and natural resource damages it has caused. The public will 
know the buck stops with the oil companies, that the costs will not 
spill over to taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Stupak) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________