Offshore Worker Whistleblower Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, today, a brand new day. It is the 35th time this Congress that I have handled a rule. Once again, it is another closed rule. In fact, as we aim for our 6-week recess, we recognize how important it is for Members of this body to go back home and to receive feedback about what a great job we are doing here in Congress, to have the American people be very supportive of increasing taxes and

of more rules and regulations. Today, we are sticking it to the consumer again at the gas pump because we are going to take it out on energy companies. It is going to be a very interesting recess.

Mr. Speaker, as I talk about this being my 35th time during this session to handle a closed rule, in fact, the Democratic majority has not allowed one open rule, not for me and not for my colleagues. There has not been one open rule this entire Congress. Yet, this week, we are passing two appropriations bills, which, under normal rules and regulations, at least before the Democrats took over, would have been open to all Members to have come in and to have not only openly debated but to have shown up on the floor and to have offered their ideas about appropriations bills.

I just don't believe that closing down debate, limiting Members' abilities to come talk, having limited amendments, and really shutting out Republicans and Democrats--that is, unless you are in the leadership of the Democratic Party--is really the way that we should run this ship. Once again, during the break, I think the American people are going to have a chance to provide some feedback to Members. It is my hope that we will listen.

Today, we are discussing two bills that are reactions to the gulf oil spill crisis. While reforms are clearly needed to make the American offshore drilling safer and cleaner, today's legislation requires new blanket regulations without a good sense of, I think, what the problem was and what the facts say. The investigation of events should be completed so that Congress can act intelligently and correctly. The focus should be on permanently stopping the leak, on cleaning up the oil, on assisting gulf coast communities, on holding BP accountable, and on finding the cause of the disaster. We ought to wait until we get that.

What we are doing is trying to put through a bill here where we already assume that we understand what the problem is, and, of course, if you are in Washington, you understand these energy companies just need to be taxed more. We need to raise taxes on them to discourage the drilling in the gulf.

There was a comment made a few minutes ago that the Democrat majority wants to save jobs from going overseas. In fact, that is exactly what this will do. It will keep America continually reliant on energy from other nations around the globe, nations that not only do not like America but, perhaps, even worse than that, will use those resources that we give them against America. It is a bad deal. Anybody who listens to this debate can figure out in half a heartbeat that using American resources, keeping American jobs and more fully working with the industry instead of trying to punish the industry would be what any rational American would do.

Once again, we are not rational in this town. It is about punishing people. It's just like President Obama, who wants to pick a fight with everybody in town in order to go and ruin the free enterprise system. Well, that is what we are doing again today. We are on record. We are going to have the vote today. We are going to lose thousands of jobs.

Yesterday, the gentleman Mr. Scalise from Louisiana and the gentleman Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana came forward to the Rules Committee. They talked about this moratorium in the gulf and that, if it continues, thousands of jobs will be lost in their home State. Thousands of middle class Americans who need to have work, once again, will be in trouble.

The Obama moratorium on deepwater drilling has already cost tens of thousands of jobs. This bill will eliminate even more American energy jobs, making it harder and more expensive to produce both energy on- and offshore. Additionally, this legislation will only further enhance our economic troubles in the gulf region and throughout the Nation because it will create a diminished supply of energy which will be available at a higher cost, and the American consumers will be the people who will be paying for this--I'm sorry--the taxpayers, also, because they will be the people who will be unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, my good friends on that side of the aisle are using H.R. 3534 to exploit this oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to rush to Washington and put energy items on their agenda.

The underlying bill imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes. This underlying bill imposes job-killing charges and higher taxes for both onshore natural gas and oil production and offshore. The bill creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending, $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two new government bureaucracies that have absolutely nothing to do with the oil spill. It raises taxes over $22 billion in 10 years. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families, businesses, hurt domestic job creation, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. But don't worry, I'm sure we can blame George Bush for the passage of this bill and the outcome that will come from that.

Additionally, H.R. 3534 requires a Federal takeover of State authority to permit in State waters which reverses 60 years of precedence of law in this country. Why are we rewarding the mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the Federal Government and giving them expanded authority now? They were a joint partner down in the gulf, and they failed too. We should not empower them even more.

The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators, which could effectively eliminate all independent producers from offshore drilling if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover their operations. However, this does not mean that drilling up and down our coasts will stop. Nope. Countries like China and Russia are in the process of negotiating with Cuba for access to these same oil fields right now, which means that others will come and reap the benefits, sell it to us at an exorbitant price, and we will be shipping American jobs overseas.

According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight: ``By 2020, an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in Federal, State and local taxes from the gulf region over 10 years.''

The gulf region has suffered enough, Mr. Speaker. Our consumers and businesses need an adequate supply of natural gas and energy. What this Congress does is only going to diminish jobs, lower local revenue in areas, and cause our businesses to be noncompetitive because we will pay more for the energy to supply the needs to business.

Week after week, Mr. Speaker, I come down to this floor to debate the importance of economic growth and job opportunities, and my friends on the other side of the aisle continue this same agenda, the same agenda that does not work. And then they question, Why don't you Republicans-- at least one of you--come vote for this? Well, the answer is, We're not going to vote for what's not going to work. And what does not work, Mr. Speaker, is the taxing, the borrowing, the spending policies that week after week after week diminish jobs and push our economy into further debt.

Unemployment is the highest it's been. More people are unemployed in this country than since the time of the Great Depression and for a longer period of time. That is not a record of success, Mr. Speaker. It's one that I would be embarrassed about. Americans want solutions. They want Congress to produce results, and this bill does not do that. It's my hope that when we go home for the August break once again that the American people say what's on their mind, and I think it's up to us, as Members of Congress, to listen.

Additionally, in the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Cassidy from Louisiana offered an amendment that passed the committee without any objections for Congress to establish a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the oil spill, yet it has been stripped from the bill, and that amendment was not made in order last night in the Rules Committee. This Democrat majority continues to use their power to shut out bipartisan solutions to everyday issues that are here on the floor.

Under this rule, we're also providing consideration for H.R. 5749, the Offshore Whistleblower Protection Act. While providing whistleblower protections for offshore workers is essential to the safety of those workers and others, I remain concerned that H.R. 5749,

which was just introduced on Monday evening of this week, should have gone through regular order review, allowing Members the appropriate time not only to read the bill--I'm sorry, did I say read the bill? Yes, Members need to be able to read the bill, understand the content, have some dialogue, and then it would allow them an opportunity to provide feedback. Of course, I know and you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the Rules Committee, anything that deals with common sense, bipartisanship, or that might be a position taken by some part of the free enterprise system is shut out of the Rules Committee week after week, day after day.

So with the current fiscal crisis our government faces and record unemployment, why do we have this bill on the floor today? To make unemployment even worse--in particular, in Louisiana and Mississippi-- increase taxes, further implode the debt and the deficit. Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense why week after week this Democrat majority does that. We should be doing job-saving and job-creation bills, not job-killing bills. But once again, this is the agenda of the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, the voices of the American public have been clear. Americans need this Congress to get it. We need pro-growth solutions that will encourage job creation and keep America competitive with the world. This legislation further diminishes private sector jobs while adding billions to our national debt.

So I don't know when my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to catch on; but it is my hope that at the August break, they will have an opportunity to hear from Americans who are unemployed, seeking an opportunity to find a job who look to this Congress to do something about the jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the question once again today, Where are the jobs? Where is the agenda on this floor that will be about saving jobs? And, Mr. Speaker, perhaps more pointedly, when will we quit killing jobs in this country with an agenda by the Democratic Party that the Democratic Members vote for that diminishes America's ability to compete?

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear back from my colleagues about how this change is doing such a great job for their constituents back home. Robust, I am sure, economic times in Massachusetts to where they don't have to worry about an adequate supply of energy or the costs associated with that.

But, Mr. Speaker, today I received a copy of a Key Vote Alert from the U.S. Chamber. The U.S. Chamber represents employers and employees all across this country. They have some things to say about this bill, too, which every single Member of Congress has a chance to receive. That doesn't mean they agree with it or want to read it.

But it says this: ``There's a bright line between increasing safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for business that oil and gas companies that operate in the United States will take their business elsewhere. That line is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534.''

I continue from this Key Alert, U.S. Chamber. ``At this time, it is premature for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively determined.''

Mr. Speaker, once again it's a ready, aim, fire by our friends the Democrats, who bring bills to the floor, once again a mundane bill that really nobody knew was going to be here on the floor, and here it is. I continue, ``The bill would make it economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in the short-and long- term, and could cripple the gulf coast economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs''--they should say that remain--``the 46,000 jobs that the oil and natural gas industry supports in the gulf coast region.''

Mr. Speaker, they've got it right. They've got it exactly right what this bill does. What they fail to talk about is the reason why. The reason why is it's an assault on the free enterprise system. It's a continued assault on people who are workers in this country, a continued assault to raise the price at the pump and to raise the price of heating and fuel that fuel our businesses.

Mr. Speaker, as we already understand, and we know this, the cost of energy now exceeds the cost of employees. And if we keep this dangerous trend up, rather than providing reliable sources of energy at a cost- effective price, it means that America will continue to be noncompetitive. Once again, a direct result of this Congress, a direct result of the votes that take place in this body.

The facts of the case are the Chamber also strongly opposes new energy taxes, which will cost consumers $25 billion at the pump and in their homes. It's a continued assault on America. And I am disappointed. The Chamber nailed it. They got it right, Mr. Speaker.

Congressional and Public Affairs,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

and region, strongly opposes H.R. 3534, the ``Consolidated

Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010,'' in its

current form. There is a bright line between increasing

safety and creating a regulatory environment so unfit for

business that oil and gas companies that operate in the

United States will take their business elsewhere. That line

is crossed repeatedly throughout H.R. 3534.

As the Chamber has stated in prior communications, Congress

should resist the rush to act on legislation in the midst of

the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf; priority number one must

remain permanently sealing the well and mitigating the

extensive environmental damage. At this time, it is premature

for Congress to legislate prescriptive solutions when the

causes of the well blowout and any associated failures that

led to the catastrophe have not yet been conclusively

determined. The Obama Administration's National Commission on

the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling has

not yet reported its findings, and the Chamber believes that

an independent commission, similar to the one included in

bipartisan legislation reported by the Senate Energy and

Natural Resources Committee, would inform the legislative

process by providing important data, technical analysis, and

expertise.

H.R. 3534 would have serious and negative impacts on U.S.

energy and economic security. The bill would make it

economically nonviable to lease or explore offshore for

energy resources, and the offshore energy industry would be

driven largely out of U.S. waters. This outcome would

increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil at higher costs in

the short- and long-term, and could cripple the Gulf Coast

economy by jeopardizing the 46,000 jobs that the oil and

natural gas industry supports in the Gulf Coast region.

Provisions eliminating the cap on liability provided in the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 could discourage major integrated

oil companies as well as independent producers from exploring

in domestic waters, as they would be unable to afford

adequate insurance to cover the potential liability risk, if

they could obtain insurance coverage at all. Independent

producers, which hold approximately 90 percent of Gulf leases

and produce approximately 30 percent of the oil and 60

percent of natural gas in the Gulf, would be particularly

hard hit. Moreover, the retroactive application of the

liability cap raises serious constitutional issues that may,

if stricken down by the courts, force Congress to readdress

the issue in the future.

H.R. 3534 would force the CEOs of energy companies to

attest personally that their systems will never, ever fail

and that their companies are in strict compliance with all

environmental and natural resource laws. Violations would

subject CEOs to civil penalties, through citizen suits and

enforcement actions, and criminal liability, which could

include imprisonment. In practice, these provisions in H.R.

3534 are unworkable, and few--if any--companies could meet

them. The intent of this provision appears to be political

demagoguery of energy company CEOs. However, the real impact

of these provisions would be severe; few domestic or foreign

energy companies would be willing to explore for energy in

U.S. waters.

The Chamber strongly opposes the new energy taxes included

in H.R. 3534, which Congressional Budget Office analysis

indicates would ultimately cost consumers $25 billion. Termed

a ``conservation tax,'' it would do nothing of the sort; all

monies raised by this tax would go directly to the federal

treasury for Congress to appropriate. Congress should not

exploit the tragedy in the Gulf as a rationale to levy

excessive new energy taxes on American consumers and

producers. The nascent economic recovery cannot afford

additional extreme taxes on domestically produced commodities

that the entire United States depends on every day.

Ultimately, such new taxes could encourage American operators

to move investments elsewhere. Excessive taxes levied

exclusively on domestically produced energy would also

increase U.S. dependence on imported energy as it did in the

1980s, further increasing the risks to U.S. energy security.

The Environmental Diligence provisions, purportedly

intended to ban BP leases, would set conditions so that

virtually no firm could develop Gulf energy resources. H.R.

3534 would create a ``doomed to fail'' policy, making certain

isolated violations of safety, health and environmental

statutes punishable by a ban on leasing or exploration on

federal land. When viewed in conjunction with the CEO

liability provisions, the Environmental Diligence provisions

would create, in essence, a system whereby making even one

mistake could bar future access to leasing. Rather than

enduring the hostile and risky relationship with federal

regulators that this legislation would force upon both

regulators and the regulated community, firms would likely

forgo further investments in U.S. waters.

H.R. 3534 would expand dramatically the reach and scope of

federal environmental law by imposing unnecessary layers of

duplicative environmental reviews, prolonging decisions on

permits, and changing the criteria agencies must consider

when issuing a lease or permit. Furthermore, the legislation

would minimize the ability of federal regulators to consider

the economic benefits of

energy exploration projects. As a result, the economic growth

of communities along the Gulf Coast and U.S. energy security

would become much less relevant to federal regulators under

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman for letting me know that she is through with her speakers.

Mr. Speaker, here we are on the floor talking about raising energy prices, diminishment of jobs, further debt, a Federal Government that's going to be empowered to do more in the gulf with regulation, and yet we haven't even taken time to find out what really happened, what needs to be corrected, and how that needs to take place.

Secondly, we learned very clearly that a bipartisan idea about us making sure that we do look into this, to give the American people the confidence that we can work together in Washington that went through the Natural Resources Committee without objection on a bipartisan basis, goes up to the Rules Committee, rejected. Rejected straight up.

We learned again today, no open rule in this entire Congress. My 35th time to come to the floor leading the charge for Republicans on a rule, not an open rule. Today we had an opportunity just a minute ago to provide the information from the U.S. Chamber. What's the impact of this bill? Diminishment of American jobs. More taxation on consumers at the pump. And perhaps worst of all, people who will lose their jobs. Tremendous job loss.

And in the long run, we learned that what happens is that it's not an unintended consequence when these jobs move overseas; it is a direct result of the pressure, the taxation, the rules, the regulations, the absolute meaning of the bill to diminish American jobs and to push our reliance on foreign oil and jobs overseas. That is the agenda of the Democratic Party: higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, pushing jobs overseas. We don't need those jobs here. Higher prices for consumers and incredible unemployment and debt.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, that instead of us being on the floor to diminish and kill jobs, which is what this Democratic majority does, we should be enhancing jobs. I am disappointed to know that, as the gentleman from Louisiana came to talk about people who they represent, those ideas were tossed out of hand. It's a real shame.

We do not have a body that's interested in encouraging economic development, investment, or the creation of jobs. In fact, what we are for is a political agenda that we are working through now, about two- tenths through this agenda, that will net lose 10 million American jobs, the continued assault against employers and certainly the workers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's, once again, another sad day. I know it's another new day in Washington, but a sad way to look at this.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, and what they say is, ``While we appreciate efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534,'' meaning their members lobbied, I assume, Speaker Pelosi, ``NAM members continue to oppose this bill, as it would, in its current form,'' the form that we have here on the floor, ``drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in the availability of supply and adversity affect U.S. jobs.''

Once again, these are people that are job creators and people that are trying to hang on at a time of continued assault against the American worker by the Democratic Party. I think Mr. Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has it right. They are asking all Members of Congress, regardless of party, please oppose this job-killing, tax-increasing, consumer-higher- payments-at-the-pump bill that will result in more unemployment, higher costs.

National Association of

Manufacturers,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade

association representing small and large manufacturers in

every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to

oppose H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic

Resources Act of 2010.

Our nation continues to face a setback in energy security

and independence every day the drilling moratorium remains in

place. Thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry have

been lost. Companies that make and supply equipment,

services, engines, boats and materials such as steel and

concrete will soon feel massive economic consequences from

the moratorium.

Manufacturers believe it is critically important to

understand the causes of the Gulf of Mexico accident and its

long-term environmental impacts before enacting policies that

could make a serious problem much worse. While we appreciate

efforts made earlier this week to improve H.R. 3534, NAM

members continue to oppose the bill, as it would, in its

current form, drive up energy costs, create uncertainties in

the availability of supply and adversely affect U.S. jobs.

While there appears widespread agreement in the industry

and on Capitol Hill that the $75 million liability cap needs

to be updated, requiring an unattainable level of insurance

coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer

Continental Shelf is not the solution. By eliminating the

cap, H.R. 3534 would effectively retain the moratorium on

offshore drilling for all but a handful of the world's

largest international companies, forcing the vast majority of

American companies out of U.S. waters.

NAM members support energy policies that: (1) expand

domestic supplies in an environmentally safe way; and (2)

lower costs for U.S. consumers and for manufacturers, which

use one-third of our nation's energy. Access to competitively

priced energy helps U.S. companies compete in the global

economy and preserves high-paying jobs here at home.

The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that

votes related to H.R. 3534, including votes on procedural

motions, may be considered for designation as Key

Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress. Thank you for your

consideration.

Sincerely,

jay Timmons,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, and the best way to do it is not to tax and not to lose jobs. The creation of jobs is how you go about turning this economy around.

There was talk about Social Security earlier. It is the Democratic Party that is losing the jobs in this country, and that is why Social Security is in trouble. I think blaming someone else is a sad way to go through life.

Republicans, like the American people, would like some transparency and accountability. They should expect it. American people should expect it from their leaders, Members of Congress, and I don't think they're getting it. Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to raise $22 billion worth of new

taxes and over $300 billion in new, unrelated mandatory Federal spending.

I don't see a lot of people down here who are exactly worried about this on the Democratic side. I hear people who are down here talking about that it's the right thing to do, and that is what the Democratic majority will get credit for with this bill: more taxing, more spending, more rules and regulations, more unemployment, more high debt, pushing jobs offshore.

Mr. Speaker, reforms are needed to make America more competitive. The reforms should be about making sure that the drilling that takes place in the gulf or anywhere else is done safely and that we do follow best practices and rules and regulations. It should be done to encourage the government to work successfully with business, with industry, with the American worker, but that's not what we have here. What we have is a bill designed to kill the industry, to diminish its effectiveness, to increase costs for consumers, and to make pump costs and costs on natural gas more expensive.

I think that this economic plan by the Democratic majority they should get full credit for: higher taxes, more spending, assault on the free enterprise system, more unemployment, more debt, more things that are not working.

I'm going to give the Democratic majority credit today. Good for you. Now we know what that is. I know you're two-tenths through this agenda of killing 10 million American jobs, but you need to know this. You're going to get credit for this, and I hope the American people, in just a few days, when we go home, talk to their Members of Congress about changing that, because we ought to have a jobs bill on this floor to create jobs, not kill jobs.

The Republican Party is for the creation of jobs. We are for balancing the budget. We are for stopping the assault on employers, and we're for empowering the American people to have a brighter future, not one that simply empowers Washington, DC.

Mr. Speaker, the numbers are stunning. Over the time that President Obama has been in office, we have lost 2.5 million free enterprise system jobs, and yet 500,000 Federal Government jobs have been added in that period of time. The assault on the common man of this country is unrelenting by the Democratic majority.

For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and sense and restraint to this body, and I'm going to offer a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case are simple. The American people have got it. It is time for a real change.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1574 provides for consideration of H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010, under a structured rule; and H.R. 5851, the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010, under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, April 20, 2010, became a day that will live in history as one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. When explosion and fire ripped through the Deepwater Horizon, the first priority was saving the lives of the crew. Sadly, for 11 men it was too late.

As the oil flowed out of the well and as BP unsuccessfully tried to stop it, the Nation watched, captivated by the story and by the untold damage to gulf coast communities. We learned a new language, the language of the offshore oil and gas industry. Terms like ``blowout preventer'' and ``top kill'' became common words to the American people, to news shows and on the House floor. The evening news was soon filled with pictures of oil-coated beaches, dead pelicans, and fishermen who were afraid that their way of life was slipping away.

Today, as we debate these two very important bills, I wonder why it has taken us, Congress, so many years to act on the issues we are taking up today. The problems and challenges facing the management of our resources, like offshore oil and gas, are not new. In 2007, before I was elected to this body, Chairman Rahall recognized that we needed to reform the dysfunctional system that allowed BP to run the Deepwater Horizon rig without regard to the safety of their workers or to the health of the environment. Additionally, the ideas behind the CLEAR Act are not new. They are commonsense reforms that should have happened years ago. Maybe, if they had happened, the workers on the Deepwater Horizon would still be alive and the gulf would not be soaked in oil.

Mr. Speaker, we need to continue responding to the disaster in the gulf and not forget that catastrophic environmental damage has been done. We need to clean up and repair the gulf, to hold BP accountable for its oil spill, to enact stronger environmental, technological, and spill response standards, to conserve our natural resources, and to invest in an American clean energy future.

We must also remember that, in addition to cleaning up the mess, repairing the damage, and cracking down on big oil companies, we also have to get serious about ending our dependence on oil and creating new sources of clean energy. If we had a clean energy economy, powered by wind and solar and tidal power, we probably wouldn't be here having this discussion today.

Frankly, it is almost impossible for me to imagine what would have happened if my State, the State of Maine, had experienced a massive oil spill that had polluted the Gulf of Maine. It is almost impossible for me to imagine the devastation to our fishing families, to our tourism, and to our beautiful coastline if millions of gallons of crude oil were to begin washing offshore, but it is possible for me to imagine the same Gulf of Maine dotted with floating offshore wind turbines, wind turbines which would create good-paying jobs and provide an endless source of clean energy without the risk of environmental disaster.

Today, we are considering two bills that will help address some of our most egregious problems. This bill will provide protection for whistleblowers who alert the government to dangerous violations of Federal law. Nobody should be forced to choose between his or her job and reporting unsafe conditions. It will also improve the leasing process, making sure all companies follow the environmental and safety rules, and it will ensure royalties are paid on all oil drilled or spilled.

The CLEAR Act reorganizes the Department of the Interior to provide better management of the Nation's energy resources located on Federal lands and water. The act eliminates conflicts that arise when the same agency which is in charge of the environmental reviews of leases, of issuing leases, and of making sure the leaseholders and rig operators are in compliance with safety and environmental laws, then turns around and collects royalties from these same companies.

The disaster in the gulf makes it clear that we should be working to transition our economy to a clean energy future. Investments in clean energy will help in the recovery of our economy, and supporting renewable energy projects, like offshore wind, will strengthen the economy and help create good jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

I am glad that language is included in the bill that will reform royalty collection. I am proud of the work that we have done on this issue, and I thank Chairman Rahall for working with me on language included in this manager's amendment that will guarantee that BP pays royalties on every drop of oil spilled in the gulf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I very happily yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers. I am the last speaker for my side, and I am going to reserve my time until the gentleman has closed.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the spring and summer, the public outrage has been palpable--in Washington, among the pundits and talking heads, in my own State of Maine and, truly, everywhere in this country.

In Maine, we have a special understanding about the impact the BP oil spill is having on the people of the gulf coast. Just like them, our lives and livelihoods are closely linked to the ocean. Off the Maine coast, there is an amazing renewable resource--strong winds and tides that can power our economy and create good-paying jobs and reduce greenhouse gas pollution. I think it's time for us to start using it.

As someone from a community who relies on its working waterfront, I am asking that we stand with the hardworking men and women of the gulf coast in their time of need and make sure that those responsible are the ones that pay for the spill and that we strive to ensure that a spill like this never happens again.

I urge my fellow Members to vote for the rule and the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me and for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill. And to my friend from Texas who talks about listening to our constituents, let me assure him, I listen to my constituents every week when I go home. And what I hear from them is that they are sick and they are tired of my friends on the other side of the aisle continuing to rise on this floor to be apologists for Big Oil. What my constituents want and I think what the American people want is smart regulation, better safety standards, whistleblower protection. They want to make sure that a repeat of what we just saw in the gulf never happens again.

My friend talks about jobs. How many jobs have been lost because of this oil spill? How many fishermen are out of business? How many hotels and restaurants have lost business because of this terrible crisis? You know, this crisis has had such a negative impact on jobs that I can't even begin to quantify. So my friend talks about jobs, it is because of the recklessness and the lack of oversight by the Bush administration that got us here, and we don't want to see this repeated again and again and again.

So this is a good bill, and it's a smart bill. If you want to apologize for Big Oil, go right ahead. But the American people are not on your side on this one.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to express my strong support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund program and particularly for the Stateside program. The Stateside program provides matching Federal grants to States and local communities to develop outdoor recreation facilities and parks and conserves brilliant natural spaces throughout the country. Since the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program in the 1960s, funding levels for the Stateside program have fluctuated widely.

This is especially evident over the past decade. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, between $91 million and $140 million per year was appropriated for the Stateside program. Unfortunately, in sharp contrast, only $19 million to $40 million has been appropriated between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, representing less than 10 percent of the total land and water conservation funding per year. The Stateside program is a good program that benefits communities across the country. It is a good, strong program that deserves adequate funding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have serious concerns about the funding levels for the Stateside LWCF program. I am pleased that that the CLEAR Act provides for permanent funding for the entire LWCF program, but I remain concerned that there is no statutory program supporting equitable funding for the Stateside program.

As you know, unfortunately, the Stateside program has been chronically underfunded. I think we can all agree that these programs positively contribute to the vibrancy of our communities, and actually create jobs. Stateside funding has widespread support, and I seek your assurance that we can find a way to provide increased funding for the Stateside LWCF program.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from Interior Secretary Salazar that acknowledges the Stateside program needs additional funding to carry out its work.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior,

Secretary of the Interior,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2010.

Hon. James P. McGovern,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative McGovern: Thank you for your interest

and support for the Stateside Assistance portion of the Land

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). President Obama has

committed to fully fund LWCF by 2014 through the budget

process. If Congress decides to include a full funding

provision in the CLEAR Act and full funding occurs in 2014 or

earlier, there will be excellent opportunities to develop a

vibrant Stateside Assistance program that will help us to

meet the conservation needs of the 21st century.

As the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of

Natural Resources and as a U.S. Senator from Colorado, I have

demonstrated my commitment to local and state parks and the

State-side program. While in the U.S. Senate, I was a

principal sponsor of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act

of 2006, which created additional funding for State-side LWCF

programs.

The Department of the Interior is committed to finding the

best ways to improve and strategically invest LWCF funds. I

also understand that States need additional funding in order

to expand outdoor recreational opportunities and to conserve

important places. If we are to accomplish these goals and

achieve the full potential of the State-side LWCF program in

challenging economic times we must work together.

We have an opportunity with the growth of LWCF funds to

build a program that will address these needs. Through the

President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, we are

hearing from state and local governments, recreation

advocates, nonprofit organizations, and other supporters

about ways to enhance the State-side Grant program. In

addition to the great projects now funded by the State-side

program, there is strong support for investments in (1) the

creation and expansion of urban parks and river greenways

close to where people live, (2) providing rural communities

with better recreational opportunities, and (3) connecting

our local and

state public recreation lands with Federal lands throughout

the Country.

It's important that we chose our projects carefully to

ensure that these funds make a big difference in our states

and communities. We need to remind the American people of the

value that outdoor recreation and land conservation offers

everyone and how it makes our society a richer place in which

to live and raise our families.

As we do this, I look forward to working with you on the

best ways to protect our treasured landscapes.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar.

I want to thank Chairman Rahall for allowing me the opportunity to address my concerns, and for working with me toward ensuring the Stateside program receives the funding it deserves.

Again, I want to thank the gentlelady from Maine for the time. I will close by urging my colleagues to support the rule, support the CLEAR Act, and let this Congress go on record as standing with the people of this country and not standing with Big Oil.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule allowing for consideration of H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010.

Congress has a responsibility to take action to respond to the terrible tragedy in the Gulf region and work to ensure that such an event never happens again. However, in doing so, we must also be careful to only advance legislation that is narrowly focused on responding to the root causes of the Gulf Oil Spill. Unfortunately, that is not the case with H.R. 3534, which I believe is overreaching and will have negative effects on domestic onshore production and on independent oil producers' ability to continue operating offshore. Among my concerns is subjecting oil and gas wells to new and unnecessary Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, storm water discharge permitting requirements. A report from the Department of Energy has shown that should the storm water provisions pass, it could result in the loss of up to 10 percent of domestic oil and gas production.

My colleagues, Congressman Harry Teague and Congressman Jason Altmire, offered amendment to this legislation in the Rules Committee to remove these problematic provisions. However, it was not made in order. I believe that the inclusion of this amendment would have improved this bill by helping to more limit its scope towards responding to the oil spill and not place new unnecessary burdens on onshore development. Without this amendment, and because of my concerns about the impact these provisions will have on North Dakota's growing energy sector, I am voting against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the CLEAR Act which would, among other provisions, provide full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Congress created LWCF in 1965 on the principle that some funds from the sale and extraction of oil and gas from federal lands be used for the protection of important lands and waters; so they remain available for the enjoyment of all Americans. Only once in 45 years has LWCF received its full funding.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the $2.00 per barrel conservation fee will be an undue burden on consumers. One fourth of a cent per gallon at the pump, 2 cents per tank, is well worth it for preserving Yellowstone, the Everglades, a battlefield, or building a local park in Shrewsbury or a playground in Lawrence Township.

This bill ensures that $900 million will be provided annually for LWCF without appropriation and achieve a long-awaited, much-needed balance between resource extraction and resource conservation. I urge my colleagues to support it.