Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4195 has once again been adequately explained by the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. However, I would like to emphasize--and I

think this is important in the discussion we're having today--that this project would be planned, constructed, and maintained using non-Federal funds. We ought to look at that probably more often in programs we address here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park was authorized as a unit of the National Park System in 1935 as one of the first battlefield parks. Most of the park consists of Confederate positions. This bill will allow the Wallis House, one of the few remaining structures associated with Union forces, to be added to the park.

This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 8 acres that are owned by Cobb County and will be donated to the National Park Service. Congressman Gingrey should be commended for his work on this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Andrea Lawrence was a successful Olympic skier, a long- time member of the Mono County Board of Supervisors, and founder of the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers. This bill, as was explained, designates an unnamed 12,000-foot peak located on the boundary between the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area and Yosemite National Park as Mt. Andrea Lawrence.

This designation is a fitting tribute to Andrea Lawrence, who died last year at the age of 76 after a long career as a pioneering woman and civic leader. Congressman McKeon should be commended for his work on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the measure's many sponsors recognizing the anniversary of the Blue Ridge Parkway, which was first proposed by Senator Harry Byrd in 1933, but was completed under President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses support for the goals and ideals of National Estuaries Day, which has been designated for September 25, 2010.

We have no objection to this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution would celebrate the 200th anniversary of John James Audubon's arrival in Henderson, Kentucky. John James Audubon spent nearly a decade living in Henderson, Kentucky, and it is certainly appropriate that residents of this community would want to celebrate the accomplishments of one of its most famous citizens.

I want to compliment the author of this resolution, Congressman Ed Whitfield, who is a classmate of mine, who worked extremely hard on this resolution.

I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to, as I mentioned, the author of this resolution, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, having Congress authorize semipostal stamps to raise funds to support causes is indeed a rare event. As the ranking Republican on the Insular Affairs, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Henry Brown, was tireless in clearing this bill through the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, the Committee on Natural Resources, and through the Senate. So I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for his persistence and leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5131 proposes to create a new unit of the National Park System honoring the Colt family and their contribution to our Nation through the innovation of precision manufacturing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has been so little precision, apparently, in developing this legislation, that even the National Park Service has opposed the bill.

I know the sponsor of this bill has worked extremely hard on this legislation, but the National Park Service conducted a study on this proposal and found that although the Coltsville site is ``nationally significant,'' there are so many unresolved issues that they were unable to conclude that the park proposal is feasible. In fact, they were unable to determine which parts of the site they would own or even manage.

Further complicating this proposal, the Park Service found--or rather I should say didn't find--that the public would have basic access to the site because it is under private ownership, among a variety of parties, including 55 condominiums and nine cottages.

It probably goes without saying that visitors to this park would want to see the factory where the famous revolvers and other firearms were produced. Upon their arrival, they will probably be very disappointed because, quoting the Park Service, ``no commitments to permit visitors internal access to the Colt Fire Arms factory building currently exist.''

How about a stop at the historic home of Samuel Colt? It is now a private, multiunit residential complex whose owners have determined that visitors touring through their homes would be, as the Park Service report states, ``problematic.''

Regardless of the will of these property owners, this legislation would create Federal boundaries around their property and raise serious questions about whether their property rights are being violated. We talked about that a few times earlier today. This is yet another reason why this bill in my view is not ready to move today.

In addition to the Park Service report, the agency testified in June on this legislation, and to quote from that testimony: ``The department does not support enactment of this legislation due to the uncertainty associated with the ownership and long-term financial sustainability of the Coltsville development project.''

They continue, ``In concert with the lack of feasibility, the study was also unable to determine the need for the National Park Service management, or specifically which resources the National Park Service would manage.''

As a very basic matter of priorities, I would remind my colleagues that the National Park Service already has a $9 billion maintenance backlog. Authorizing $10 million more for a new park that the Park Service doesn't believe is feasible to me makes no sense.

The American public is pleading for this Congress to stop out-of- control spending. While the concept and the intent behind this proposal may have merit, and I think it does have merit, we need to also acknowledge that the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars in rehabilitation costs just to prepare this site for visitors, if the visitors could get in, plus additional millions to manage the site from now to eternity.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that at the request of this Congress,

the National Park Service conducted a study on this proposal and found substantial obstacles to it becoming a successful park. They reiterated that in testimony in June in front of the Natural Resources Committee. While this proposal may have its day, and I think it should have its day because of the historical significance of the Colt factory, in my view we are not there yet. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We may as well have a discussion here. If you need time, I will yield the time.

First of all, I can see the passion that the gentleman has on this issue. Coming from the West, where that manufacturing facility won the West, I can understand that and respect that, but I do want to point out that there is a process here.

We had a hearing on this in June. The Park Service expressed their concerns here in testimony. I quoted part of those concerns. They expressed their concerns, and we expressed some concerns that we may have had because the private property aspect to it was part of the dialogue. We marked the bill up in July, once again, expressing our concerns.

I am one who respects when Members want to put something in their districts. Listen, they know their districts better than anybody else, and they should be given a lot of leeway; but there is a responsibility, if we are going to have national input, to know what the facts are so that we can respond accordingly, as it is not just the citizen taxpayers of Connecticut who are funding this; it is the taxpayers of the 50 States, so we need to have some answers.

Now, this bill was put on the suspension calendar last night. I have checked with my staff. We have yet to hear from the Park Service as to if it has changed its mind or not. You alluded to that fact, but we haven't gotten anything at all.

The gentleman knows that the approval rating of this Congress is very, very low, and it is precisely for these reasons. Even though we don't have the answers, albeit on a project that is small in terms of the overall scope of the Federal Government, it deserves to have answers, especially when we have been working on this. You said that you've been working on it, I think, if not publicly, then in private conversations for at least 10 years. These concerns that we have raised go back to this summer. They should at least be raised or answered, and they have not been adequately answered.

So, in the waning days of this session, I will tell the gentleman that I am more than willing to work with him, if this does not pass the Congress this year, to get these things resolved so that, indeed, we can memorialize that factory. Yet, with the information I have right now, I respectfully say to my friend that we have focused on the Park Service, but there is a cost associated with this, which I alluded to in my opening remarks, and there is a private property aspect. Those are all important issues.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I have to say that I oppose this, and I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' though I certainly want to revisit this sometime in the future so we can get this legislation passed.

Mr. Speaker, I have made my points on this. I appreciate the gentleman's input, but I stand by my opening remarks on this just because we haven't got the information. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3534 because it does not comply with clause 9(a) of rule XXI, because the committee report to accompany the measure does not contain a statement that this bill contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

I would point the Speaker to page 125 of the accompanying report. The report contains a statement that H.R. 3435 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. That is not the proposition that we are considering today. Today we are considering H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009. However, the proposition identified in the committee report is H.R. 3435, a bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save program. As it happens, that measure was signed into law on August 7, 2009, and is Public Law 111-47. So it cannot be the proposition that we are considering today.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI prohibits the consideration of ``a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' The rule specifies ``the'' proposition, not ``a'' proposition. Thus the statement in the committee report fails to meet the test because it describes a proposition rather than the one which is the subject of the report.

Normally, clause 9(d) would preclude the Chair from even entertaining this point of order. However, it also specifies ``the'' proposition and not ``a'' proposition and thus is inapplicable in this case.

I would also note that the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3534 specifically exempts clause 9 of rule

XXI from the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill; so the bill is exposed to this point of order.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this bill is being sold as the response to the ongoing gulf oil crisis. Though what has not been mentioned until right now is that it is stuffed with page after page of provisions that are totally unrelated to the spill. This legislation, if passed, will kill jobs. It will raise taxes, and it will increase Federal spending and cause even greater economic pain to the gulf coast and their families and communities.

Republicans believe the Federal Government should be focused on permanently stopping the leak, cleaning up the oil, holding BP and those responsible for the spill fully accountable, and then finding out, Mr. Chairman, what went wrong. Republicans believe educated reforms are needed to make American deepwater energy production the safest in the world, but these reforms must be based on the full facts of what caused and contributed to this tragedy.

Here in Washington, though, Democrats are exploiting the oil spill as an excuse to impose a job-killing combination of tax increases, government spending, and greater bureaucratic regulations. Democrats are pushing ahead of the facts to enact unrelated policies that wouldn't stand on their own merits if they weren't hitched to this vehicle and to this tragedy. They are not even waiting for the results of the many ongoing investigations, including the President's own hand- picked commission on this matter. This tragic oil spill and the President's arbitrary deepwater drilling moratorium have already cost thousands of jobs in the gulf and across the Nation.

Congress should not be passing a law that will inflict deeper economic and unemployment pain. The unlimited liability in this bill will devastate small operators and lead to, it is estimated, 300,000 lost jobs. The budgets of States and the Federal Government, because of this action, could face a $147 billion deficit in their budgets from lost revenue. The new $22 billion energy tax in this bill will not only cause more lost jobs; it will raise energy and gas prices on American families and businesses.

Mr. Chairman, this is what is very interesting:

This tax is imposed on just American oil and gas from Federal leases. Foreign countries won't pay this tax. So the argument can be made that this tax actually hurts American workers and gives advantages to foreign competitors.

Now, if what I have detailed is not bad enough, this bill includes over $30 billion in new mandatory spending--spending on programs totally unrelated to the oil spill. To make matters worse, Democrat leaders have inserted specific language in the bill allowing every single dollar to be earmarked. This makes this bill a giant earmark ATM that automatically hands out over $1 billion a year from now until the year 2040.

This bill is supposed to be about the gulf oil spill, yet it goes far, far beyond offshore drilling. It imposes taxes and restrictions for onshore energy production. But the impact is not just on natural gas and oil onshore. It also affects renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal; and I will say, it affects it in a negative way.

But it doesn't stop there. In response to the Federal Government's failure to regulate Deepwater Horizon in Federal waters, this bill requires a Federal takeover of permitting in State waters. In what bizarre world, Mr. Chairman, does this make sense? It is a gross violation, in my view, of the Tenth Amendment and is opposed by an association of 38 States who regulate energy production on their land and waters.

Now let's take two steps back and consider what the Democrats are doing with this bill. I believe, and I think all Americans believe, that BP is responsible for the gulf oil spill, and they should be held 100 percent accountable for paying the costs of the cleanup and repairing the damages. I believe that Chairman Rahall agrees with that. I believe everyone in the House agrees that it is BP's responsibility to pay for this and not the taxpayers.

So, Mr. Chairman, why does this supposed ``oil spill response bill'' impose a $22 billion energy tax on Americans and increase unrelated spending by over $30 billion? BP is supposed to pay, not the taxpayers. There shouldn't be a new energy tax or billions in new spending in this bill. The fact is, the Democrats are using this oil spill tragedy as an excuse for unrelated tax and spending increases.

While this bill will cost billions in new taxes and higher spending, Mr. Chairman, the real toll is the potential lost jobs because of the actions of this bill. American jobs will be lost, and many will be sent overseas because of this bill. Why is this being done, I wonder, to the people of the gulf coast? The gulf coast has already taken a terrible economic hit. By what measures, Mr. Chairman, do they deserve this Democrat Congress taking action on a bill that will inflict even greater economic pain and suffering?

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the CLEAR Act and insist on a bill which we can all agree on regarding the safety and soundness of drilling in the gulf.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I would just like to tell my friend, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, that the taxes that I referred to are on page 224 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the committee.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let's be pretty specific on what this particular fund is all about, and I will explain why I think it is a very, very bad idea.

The fundamental goal of the Natural Resources Damages Act, that's the fund we are talking about, is to ensure the protection and restoration of all resources on Federal lands, water and land. This includes restoration of damages caused by fires, invasive species, oil spills, ship groundings and vandalism.

What this amendment attempts to do is to shift funds from the restoration of our national parks and national wildlife refuges to the purchase of nonimpacted land.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I just find this amendment ironic. Since the legislation, the underlying legislation that we are debating, already mandates--let me emphasize that, Mr. Chairman, mandates--up to $30 billion, with a ``B,'' dollars to spend on land acquisition for the next 30 years, why do we need this amendment?

Why, for goodness sakes, will we take a fund, the Natural Resources Damages Fund, if you will, and say, okay, now you can use that for land acquisition.

Is $30 billion not enough? Is $30 billion not enough?

Let me put it in a different way, Mr. Chairman. One of the issues that we have in our country with public lands is a maintenance backlog. This is analogous to maintenance backlog.

We talk about we haven't got enough money to maintain our natural resources. In fact, that figure, last I heard it, was $9 billion. Here is a fund that is, in part, part of the restoration and one could say maintenance of our Federal lands, and we want to take money away from that and acquire more land.

What is the goal here? Is the goal here to increase the $9 billion to 10, 11? Who knows how high we can't maintain.

Is there not enough? This amendment, in my view, ought to be defeated. It's not well intentioned at all. It has taken another tragedy, using the tragedy of the Gulf of Mexico and simply saying, aha, another opportunity to take a fund and buy more Federal land.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand I have the right to close, Mr. Chairman?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In due respect, you acknowledged that this could be used to buy additional land with a damage fund, is that correct?

Yes, it clarifies, but it adds a very important part. It allows land acquisition.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota to finish his remark.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's trying to clarify that.

I have to say, in my reading of this, that this will lend itself to more acquisition, and I will simply say this, reading the language here, ``provides a substantially greater likelihood of improving the resilience of whatever is lost.'' Now, having said that, let me put this analogous to at least my part of the country as it relates to refuges. If a refuge burns in my area and it might damage something, the way I envision the interpretation of this is the refuge manager can say, boy, this is irreparably lost and there might be some private land right next door, I think I will buy that private land.

Now, in due respect, that is the way I interpret it. Listen, I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right, but I have a very strong wariness of any attempt--especially in a bill, I say to my friend, the Transportation chairman, especially when we are authorizing $30 billion of land acquisition. Surely, surely there must be a way to massage that to satisfy at least what the gentleman's amendment purports to do. But I have to say, for this Member, I am always weary when I see we are taking another fund and using that to acquire even an extension of Federal lands.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, which I don't have, I appreciate the gentleman's trying to help me through this. I still urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this amendment. From the beginning we have said that the first priority is stopping the leak, cleaning up the gulf, and making the communities and the people of the gulf States whole, and BP needs to be held accountable for this disaster. Having said that, we need to be cognizant that our actions taken here or the actions of the administration do not in and of themselves jeopardize American jobs and domestic energy production.

Part of holding BP accountable in this case, should BP America file for bankruptcy, is to ensure that the parent company that shares in the profits cover whatever debts that may not be covered by BP America. That is what this amendment does, and I am pleased to join my support for this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't intend to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a new fine on spills larger than 1 million barrels, and has a retroactive date of April 1, 2010. Now, I won't debate the fact that making this fine retroactive means that it will likely face a constitutional challenge.

But I will debate the fact that once fines are paid by violators to the Federal Government, that money becomes taxpayer money. If we then spend that money on gulf restoration to clean up the mess caused by BP, we would be spending taxpayer dollars to clean up the BP spill.

Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers should not be on the hook for the cleanup of the BP disaster. If there are projects in the gulf that demand restoration because of damage from the spill, then BP must be held accountable. If the gentleman has projects that demand greater attention, then I offer to work with him, just as I am working with other members of our committee from Louisiana, to ensure that the Federal oversight gets the gulf cleaned up and the gulf made whole. But I reject the premise that we must use taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess made by BP.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire how much time I have?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I simply make the point that, yes, I understand these dollars come from the affected party. But if it gets into the Federal Government Treasury, then the Federal Government is the government of the people, it becomes taxpayer dollars. That's the only point I am making.

I support the amendment. I think it makes perfectly good sense. It has broad support of those Members that are affected by this spill. But I just wanted to simply make that point, probably more to emphasize than anything else that BP is truly responsible for this, and we all recognize that.

I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, instead of directly addressing the gulf oil spill tragedy, Congress is voting this week on legislation, the CLEAR Act, that is stuffed full of unrelated items, legislation that will kill American jobs and raise energy prices.

Simply put, Democrats are using the oil spill as an excuse to raise taxes and increase spending. The bill imposes a new $22 billion energy tax and has over $30 billion of new unrelated mandatory spending. What the Democrats are doing, Madam Speaker, is rushing ahead of the facts and writing laws before investigations into the spill are finished.

Reforms are needed to make American offshore drilling the safest in the world, but that doesn't require tax increases or billions of dollars of unrelated spending and inflicting greater economic pain and lost jobs on Americans.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the CLEAR Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, included in this legislation are a great many important anti-

crime, anti-violence provisions that will assist and support Indian tribes across the country. There is considerable bipartisan support for what this bill aims to do, and yet today it is being considered before the House using a process and procedure that elicits opposition.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: The objections that I will express today are focused squarely on the matter in which the House leaders have chosen to have this bill debated.

Violence and crime against Indians is a serious problem deserving the attention of this Congress. Such an important issue as this should not be relegated to the suspension calendar where innocuous bills are often given just cursory consideration. The process being used today to consider this legislation is normally reserved for bills such as naming post offices and congratulating sports teams on winning championships. Addressing crimes against Indians deserves to be considered in a much more serious, thorough process.

Furthermore, the manner in which this bill was passed in the Senate and being considered in this House is unfair to not only all 435 Members of the House but also to every Indian constituent that they represent. A procedure is being used to consider this bill that denies every House Member the ability to offer a suggestion to improve it, even Members whose Indian constituents may seek such improvements.

The bill before us today, H.R. 725, started out as an Indian Arts and Craft Amendments Act of 2010. It was an innocuous 10-page bill with almost no cost whose purpose was to address counterfeit arts and crafts wrongfully marketed as Indian-made product. There was almost no disagreements over the merits and policies of this bill when it first passed this body.

The Senate took H.R. 725 and attached the tribal law and order provisions. Again, these are policies that merit action by Congress on which I believe there is a great deal of agreement. Yet the process and manner by which this is being done is generating opposition. When a widely supported arts and crafts bill that is just a few pages in length and which costs nothing is changed by the Senate to run over 100 pages with authorized spending of over a billion dollars, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable.

As I said, I oppose this controversial process and procedure being used on a bill of this magnitude. I opposed such procedures in the past, and I've opposed such a process as the ranking member of this committee, most notably on the omnibus lands bill that passed last year.

So I regret that I must stand here today and oppose passing this bill using this process. Indian Country deserves more attention and better treatment than to have this legislation appear on a suspension calendar which is most often used, as I mentioned before, to name post offices. A bill on an issue as important as this should not be heard because it does disrespect to the committees. And it should be given more than 40 minutes of the House's attention.

The Members of this House deserve a fair opportunity to improve legislation--not to be totally blocked from offering any suggestions including any sought by their Indian constituents. Again, when a process is used to transform a several-page, no-cost bill on Indian arts and crafts into a 100-page billion dollar bill on violence and crime, then it should not be considered in this manner. It deserves the true attention of all Members of this House.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill under this unfair process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, because I have expressed my opposition to this because of the process which has been acknowledged by several Members on my side of the aisle, the last time legislation like this was taken up was in the 101st Congress. The bill was introduced, I think, on the first day. There were hearings held in the House on that legislation, and then it went through committee markup. It was amended in committee, sent to the House floor, and it was passed on suspension, but that was after the committee had done its work.

It went to the Senate where there were hearings in the Senate. The bill was further amended in the Senate committee. It went to the Senate floor where it was amended again and then came back to the House. The House concurred and amended it one more time. It went back to the Senate, they concurred, and the bill was finally passed.

I point out that that process involved in that case both Houses. Both Houses had ideas on how to improve this legislation. But apparently this year, while a similar bill was introduced in the House, there was only a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. We had no hearing on the incidence of crime in our committee, which I think would have probably provided some insight. I only bring this up, Mr. Speaker, to say that the process in passing legislation should involve both Houses and not just one House.

But I find it rather curious in this instance where those on the other side are saying the Senate did all the work in its wonderful process. I wonder if everybody on the other side of the aisle feels that way with the other issues that are pending here where we seem to have a problem getting concurrence on major issues like the supplemental budget, for example, and a few other issues that are floating around. Maybe we should just yield all of the wisdom in this House to the Senate, as we have on this bill.

Now, I say that somewhat factitiously, obviously, Mr. Speaker, but that is the reason why I feel compelled to make a point of opposing this bill on the process. But we shall see if these other issues are taken up in a like manner by this House, and I won't hold my breath.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1053 has been adequately explained by the ranking member of the committee. We are pleased that, despite the difficult economic environment, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is committed to completing this project without Federal appropriation. So I urge

my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.