H.Res. 1574

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. Chair, I rise to speak on H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act.

I would like to recount the facts of April 30th, 2010 for this House and the American people. First, let us remember the names of the eleven brave men who tragically lost their lives in the Deepwater Horizon explosion:

1. Jason Anderson, 35;

2. Aaron Dale Burkeen, 37;

3. Donald Clark, 34;

4. Stephen Curtis, 39;

5. Gordon Jones, 28;

6. Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27;

7. Karl Klepping, 38;

8. Blair Manuel, 56;

9. Dewey Revette, 48;

10. Shane Roshto, 22; and

11. Adam Weise, 24.

What the eleven names do not reveal is that there are families with children, widows, and many other family members who are still mourning the loss of their loved ones. I believe we have a moral obligation to remember all of the lives affected by the loss of these eleven dedicated oil rig workers. They were tough workers, but also gentle fathers, brothers, husbands, as well as friends to many. Congress must always consider how to best protect American lives, and in doing so protect the safety of the American oil industry worker. In addition to the lives lost, every individual, business and community adversely affected by

the oil spill must be taken into account as we consider legislative responses. Unfortunately, now with more than 92 million estimated gallons of oil spilled and the fishing, tourism, boating, shrimping industries, and the oil industry itself brought to a grinding halt, we can anticipate other losses.

This tragedy begs the American people to act to promote safety, spur technology, and to protect people in the Gulf Region. We owe it to them to provide the kind of protection and legal framework that will ease their minds, and help them receive what they are entitled to through the claims process. Unfortunately, the original claims system was an abomination with numerous claims unresolved, unpaid and ignored. BP has received many claims and has issued many statements and reports, but the fact of the matter is they have not delivered on those early promises. We must make sure that they do what is right, and meet their financial obligations to the many claimants still waiting to reconstruct their lives and livelihoods.

The urgency of the energy situation in our country calls for immediate action by Congress in developing a national energy policy. I would have fully supported targeting the culprits in the Gulf oil spill and getting the Gulf region back on track, as long as we also develop effective policies to ensure that we set a high bar of expectations for these companies in a system based on culpability. The people in the Gulf region need to be assured that we will preserve their way of life, while ensuring that their best interests are taken to heart. Their jobs must be restored and preserved for future generations who may want a livelihood in the oil and gas industry. I do not believe you can graft a broader national energy policy for the future onto a bill meant primarily to address the myriad of complex issues currently facing the energy industry.

Regarding the Remedies Act, on July 1, 2010, I introduced a bill to address some of the larger issues raised by oil spill related developments in the Gulf of Mexico. Although a pronouncement of the issue, I believe it captures the most substantive matters. I have tried to adapt some of the provisions of that bill as amendments to the CLEAR Act, to try and make a weak bill better.

I introduced an amendment under which applicants for permits to drill in the Gulf of Mexico will be required to have spill prevention, mitigation, and recovery plans that are vetted by impartial experts, rather than rubber stamped by industry friendly regulators; the amendment would also require that there be legitimate, effective back- up plans in case the first response is ineffective. Another of my amendments would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish, immediately, an independent claims process for those whose property and livelihoods have been damaged by oil spills much like the process only now being set up under Special Master Feinberg. Finally, I am proud to cosponsor Representative Teague's (NM-2D) amendment, introduced the same Amendment which will allow several small companies working together in joint venture and partnerships to pool their financial resources for the necessary Certificate of Oil Field Responsibility, the price of admission to work in the Gulf. Without the option of pooling their resources, or joint insurance, independent oil companies will be driven from the Gulf, leaving it the province of only three or four massive, multinational oil companies. If we can not preserve the independent oil companies, responsible for 80 percent of the drilling in the Gulf and 30 percent of the oil, then we are likely to doom an industry that is one of the most prolific job generators in the nation, particularly at a time when job creation in most American industries is stagnant or minimal at best.

We must also take into consideration the importance of the environment as it relates to our national energy policy and the quality of life in the Gulf and the rest of the country, not to mention the rest of the globe. We have no idea what the long-term impact of the Gulf oil spill will be, as we are just beginning to understand the issues of connectivity related to the environment and ecological system. When birds nest in polluted wetlands and migrate to other parts of the U.S. and the globe, what impact might their exposure to oil have on the environmental quality of the environment in that part of the world?

There are many complicated questions that we must answer before we proclaim that we have a solution to protecting the environment to massive oil spill in one bill. It is impossible to accomplish, and at best any environmental strategy is merely a band-aid approach rather than the comprehensive environmentally policy we need to consider. For example we really need a major direct clean-up fund, and we have to provide for environmental inspections. I urge a sense of immediacy as it relates to the environment and to protect the people of the Gulf from the long-term health consequences of the spill.

As a person who has lived in, worked in, and knows the Gulf region well, I see the vibrant mixture of businesses there, from fishermen to oil workers, who represent the quintessential hardworking American. These Americans deserve applause for their contribution to our productivity. We owe it to them to demand of the oil companies the same high level of excellence that these hardworking men and women have demonstrated. We must provide for appropriate penalties for safety violations and breaches of compliance, while recognizing the importance of the industry to job creation and job growth. As we did in this tragic incident, we must come down hard on BP, but not eliminate them from the picture, lest the whole industry be penalized.

There are some good things in this bill, although some of my ideas were not adopted as part of the manager's amendment. For example, one amendment would have required that businesses applying for permits to drill and produce crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico submit detailed spill mitigation and recovery plans as part of the permitting process. Not only must they have recovery plans, but they will be required to have backup plans, in case their first response fails. Additionally, those plans must be vetted by impartial experts, rather than rubber-stamped by insufficiently vigilant regulators.

Most important Representative Teague's amendment, which I cosponsored, will prevent small, independent oil companies from being driven out of the Gulf of Mexico. The problem with the current requirements for the Certificate of Oil Field Responsibility (COFR) is that smaller operators will be unable to establish the $300 million necessary COFR to even begin exploration and development. By allowing smaller companies--who frequently work together in joint ventures--to pool their resources for COFR purposes, we will prevent the Gulf from becoming the exclusive province of companies big enough to self-insure, and allow the small businesses of the Gulf Coast communities to continue to provide jobs and drive our economy.

Again, Mr. Chair, my central concern is that we promote job creation, ensure long term investment and fiscal discipline, guarantee safety, focus on the industry and accountability as we work to craft an effective energy policy, and utilize energy related to fossil fuels in a more responsible way, while we continue to make investments in research and development, rather than pitting industries against each other.

We just witnessed the development of a prescriptive policy related to the coal industry, as a result of a tragedy with the mines in West Virginia. That legislative business model is a useful example of how we can develop energy policy related to oil. We must also continue to promote new forms of green energy, while we keep our promise to the American people to protect jobs in the oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately, our job is made very difficult when we see major global energy companies and domestic industry excluded from a sensible national energy policy. We must promote a strong process that will help us deliver on these promises, both to the stakeholders and to the American people. Everyone needs to buy-in to a national energy policy in order for it to be successful.

Let me say that we must establish a seamless energy policy that all sectors of the energy industry can support, cementing the United States in the energy industry as the most independent producer globally, while making it the worlds' leader in green energy.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with my Colleagues on this approach to America's energy future. In addition, I strongly support the Buy America Provision in the bill and the American Worker Provision. As the CLEAR Act moves to the Senate, we must remember the interests of the communities of the Gulf Coast, and of all those affected by the devastation of the oil spill. We must remain committed to protecting lives, protecting jobs and protecting the environment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 3534, ``The Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act.'' The manager's amendment provides a number of provisions that will ensure that there is greater chance of preventing an incident such as the April 30, 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

The Manager's amendment includes my amendment which requires redundancy in accident and spill response plans as part of the permitting process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

Specifically, my amendment will require that businesses applying for permits to drill and produce crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico submit detailed spill mitigation and recovery plans as part of the permitting process. Not only must they have recovery plans, but they will be required to have backup plans, in case their first response fails. Additionally, those plans must be vetted by impartial experts, rather than rubber-stamped by insufficiently vigilant regulators. With this additional layer of response planning, there is a better chance that we will be better prepared to respond to future incidents like the Gulf oil spill.

The Manager's amendment also includes provisions that do the following:

Clarifies that the Secretary of the Interior may enter into cooperative education and training agreements with safety training firms in establishing the National Oil and Gas Health and Safety Academy.

Clarifies that the Secretary is permitted to consult with industry representatives regarding training program curricula, but is not authorized to utilize industry representatives as instructional personnel for the trainings.

Imposes civil penalties on CEO's who certify to false information about a company's capability to prevent or contain an oil spill.

Establishes a Citizen's Advisory Committee composed of non-energy industry individuals to assist the Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force in its work.

Clarifies that the Regional Assessment and Regional Strategic Plan created by the Great Lakes Regional Coordination Council shall include only renewable and not non-renewable energy resources.

Ensures that Gulf residents would have the right of first refusal for processing the claims filed due to the oil spill.

Replaces the requirement for dispersant manufacturers to disclose their product's chemical formula with a requirement to disclose dispersant products' ingredients.

Provides that discharges resulting from salvage activities consistent with the National Contingency Plan or as directed by the President are exempt from liability under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Authorizes a study of the economic, safety, and environmental impacts of requiring a relief well be drilled in tandem with the drilling of some or all wells.

Requires the GAO to complete a study to determine whether the reforms to the Department of the Interior mandated in this legislation have increased oversight and decreased conflicts of interest within the department.

Includes in the Environmental Study an analysis of the cumulative impact of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Requires oil and gas companies to pay royalties on all oil that is discharged from a well, including spilled oil.

Directs GAO to study the impact of assessing a fee on the processing of oil and gas leases and using the proceeds to fund the gathering of baseline environmental data necessary for the permitting process.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to arrange with the National Academy of Engineering to study and report to the Secretary regarding whether the accuracy of collection of royalties on production of oil, condensate, and natural gas under leases of federal lands would be improved by implementing certain prescribed measures; and

Amends the liability provisions in the Oil Pollution Act to protect claimants from signing broad liability releases, and to clarify that the new cause of action under OPA for damages to human health does not supersede remedies under other federal law.

Mr. Chair, I support this manager's amendment which includes my amendment that will require redundancy in accident and spill response plans as part of the permitting process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1

minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this debate has been very interesting because most of the talk on the other side of the aisle has been on the oil spill. Most of the talk on this side of the aisle has been on the increased taxes and on the increased spending.

There is broad agreement that we have to respond in a responsible way to what happened, to the tragedy in the gulf. Nobody argues with that. There is broad support on this side. What we object to--and we have said this over and over and over again--is the extraneous material that is added to this bill.

I didn't hear anybody, for example, on the other side defend the huge tax increases that are embodied in this bill. I didn't hear anybody on the other side of the aisle defend the $30 billion entitlement that is embodied in this bill. That is what our concern is because that is in this bill. As a matter of fact, in my opening remarks, I made reference to the tax increases, and my good friend, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, wondered about the tax increases. I pointed them out to him. They're on page 224. To his credit, he came up here and said, You're right. I appreciate that very much because that really is what the issue is.

If you want to get bipartisan approval dealing with the gulf coast oil crisis, we can do that in a bipartisan way, but don't add extraneous material. That is our objection to this bill, because extraneous material is increased taxes, more spending, resulting in a loss of jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following:

Office of the Governor,

Cheyenne, WY, July 27, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, Office of the Speaker, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: The State of Wyoming has deep concerns

at the haste with which Congress is attempting to legislate

new oil and gas regulatory processes under H.R. 5626.

Provisions which have been added to this bill would affect

onshore leasing and energy production and rob the States of

their traditional role of overseeing energy production within

the States. I urge you to delay action until more definitive

information can be obtained and provided to Members of

Congress.

Based on the hearings and focus that Congress to date has

brought to bear on the tragedy in the Gulf, an expansion of

the intended reach of any legislation to respond to this

offshore spill and precipitously cover onshore energy

production would be a mistake. The State of Wyoming has had

effective regulation of the oil and natural gas industry

through a variety of programs designed to gather and share

information, technology and best regulatory methods for

several decades.

The implications of the bill's encroachment to onshore

energy leasing and production are ominous as it represents a

takeover of state regulation of well construction and

permitting and gives it to the Federal government at the

expense of long-established State authority. Such preemption

would occur whenever the Department of the Interior

determines that a state is not adequately regulating oil and

gas, or because of citizen lawsuit. This is overreach of the

first order.

The State of Wyoming has a proven history of oversight of

the energy industry and has effectively overseen industry

activity without federal oversight for decades. Regulatory

requirements and inspections of well sites are important

components of our state program and the prevention of

accidents and environmental protection are among our highest

priorities.

It is my view that the federal government lacks both the

justification and the expertise to effectively oversee oil

and natural gas production in the State of Wyoming and I urge

you to reject the preemption of Wyoming's and other State's

authority to perform this important function.

Sincerely,

Dave Freudenthal,

Governor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment consolidates 17 Democrat amendments and one Republican amendment. Inside this lengthy amendment are a number of significant changes to oil and gas policies, royalties, collections, and studies. That might be fine, but I am not aware that any of these provisions have been subject to hearings in our Committee on Natural Resources, and I think that we should certainly have a better understanding of the impacts before we pass this on the House floor.

I want to point out two provisions in this amendment. There is one provision stripping biomass from the regulation from the bureau. Now this, I think, is a fine amendment, but I think it would have been better accomplished if we had simply made in order the Lummis amendment. The gentlelady from Wyoming had an amendment to take out all of the language on onshore activity. That would have been a much, much better way to do it, especially in light of the fact that the administration in this regard says that, and I quote, It would be most effective if this reorganization focused exclusively on the OCS at this time, end quote. But, of course, that wasn't done. So this is, I suppose, a small victory.

The second, however, is a much more insidious amendment that includes a cumulative impact of oil and gas on marine mammals. Now I don't know exactly--and I don't think anybody really knows--how to measure what those impacts are, plus or minus, good or bad. I think it would be good for us, from the standpoint of making policy, to know the full impact of that. And, really, the only way you can know the full impact of that is to have hearings on this subject. To my knowledge, we have not had any hearings on that.

So all in all, I would say, Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a pattern that we see on a regular basis on this floor where there are amendments--we saw this earlier today. We saw a whole bill, for example, brought to the floor today that was introduced literally minutes before it was debated. That is not the way the American people think we ought to do business here. We ought to look at these things in a way that we can make the proper decisions. And these two issues that I highlight in this manager's amendment, in my view, fall within that category. So I am disappointed in the way this is being done, probably more than what is the content of the manager's amendment. Therefore, I am left only to oppose the manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), one of the newer Members of our House and a very valuable member of our Republican Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chairman, the last speaker made an interesting point when he was talking about the oceans and how this bill is going to save the oceans. I don't think there is anybody in this body that doesn't want to make sure that our oceans are in a healthy, robust way. But it begs the question why are there restrictions, if this is an oceans bill, and if it's a gulf oil bill, why does this bill deal with onshore oil and gas regulation and restrictions? That question, honestly, has not come up once in the debate even though that reference has been made many times by Members on this side of the aisle.

This amendment, of course, is on the manager's amendment. As I mentioned, it is 17 Democrat amendments and one Republican amendment. There may be some good things involved with this amendment. In fact, there are. But why is there always this tendency to throw so much more into these amendments when many of the subjects that are covered in them have not been fully vetted throughout the committee process? That's the concern. And it's a pattern that we see over and over and over again. And frankly, it's a pattern that I think the American people see and respond to when asked about how they feel this body is in a favorable or unfavorable way. Because this body has very low favorable ratings. I think this is part--not the only thing--but this is certainly part of that.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against the manager's amendment. I am certainly going to ask them to vote against the underlying bill because the underlying bill, while it's purported to be in response to the gulf oil spill, we saw it was expanded just a moment ago, at least in remarks by the gentleman from Massachusetts, to all of the oceans. In fact, the gentleman from California said the same thing come to think of it.

But yet what this bill really is all about, when you look at the substance and how it affects the American people, is another gigantic tax increase, and an addition of mandatory spending on top of the mandatory spending we have within our government right now. We all know, all of us in this body knows that the mandatory spending in this Congress and our Federal Government is unsustainable over time. And yet here we are, albeit on a small level, adding to mandatory spending.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Rahall amendment and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

We are more than happy to accept it on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though I'm not opposed to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, our main purpose here today is supposed to be, as I've said several times, to be addressing the gulf oil spill and ensuring that offshore drilling is the safest in the world. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned again many times, the Democrats have used this vehicle to put extraneous material on this particular bill.

One of the most glaring unrelated items that I had mentioned several times, also, is the $30 billion in new mandatory spending. An oil spill is not an excuse to spend more money, especially when the money is going towards provisions that are completely unrelated to the gulf oil spill. Regardless of your views of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund--and I know I would probably disagree if it were my friend from Wisconsin on that--everyone should agree that that bill has no business being here in this particular bill.

However, I fully support our Nation's sportsmen and would like to see more of our public land open for a variety of purposes such as hunting, fishing, recreation, and economic development. Given that the Democrat majority and the Obama administration continually are looking for ways to lock up our land and block public access, it's encouraging to me to see some of my colleagues across the aisle supporting increased access, and I thank the gentleman for that. I hope that we will work with this in the future to ensure that all Americans, including sportsmen, have greater access to public lands.

However, as I had mentioned, this bill is not the appropriate vehicle to address this issue. I think we can do it in a much more ordered way if we take this up on its own, because there is some merit to the gentleman's proposal. But I will not stand in the way of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material for the Record.

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.

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.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the subcommittee chair on the Education and Labor Committee.

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.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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 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.

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.

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. 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. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi.

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).