[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 95 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3918-H3930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DOMESTIC ENERGY AND JOBS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4480.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Roe of Tennessee). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 691 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4480.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0911


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4480) to provide for the development of a plan to 
increase oil and gas exploration, development, and production under oil 
and gas leases of Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, 
and the Secretary of Defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum 
reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with Mr. Poe of Texas 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
June 20, 2012, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 17 
printed in House Report 112-540 offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Rigell) had been postponed.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H3919]]


       Add at the end the following:

                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. __1. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF 
                   LEASES.

       (a) Issuance of New Leases.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not 
     offer new leases under a plan required by subsection (k) of 
     section 161 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
     amended by section 102 of this Act, to a person described in 
     paragraph (2) unless the person has renegotiated each covered 
     lease with respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify 
     the payment responsibilities of the person to require the 
     payment of royalties if the price of oil and natural gas is 
     greater than or equal to the price thresholds described in 
     clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (2) Persons described.--A person referred to in paragraph 
     (1) is a person that--
       (A) is a lessee that--
       (i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the 
     Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or
       (ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to 
     another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate 
     of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) any other person that has any direct or indirect 
     interest in, or that derives any benefit from, a covered 
     lease.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means a 
     lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that 
     is--
       (A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 
     304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
       (C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on 
     market price that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (2) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or 
     other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or 
     under common control with, a lessee.
       (3) New lease.--The term ``new lease'' means a lease issued 
     in a lease sale under this Act, the amendments made by this 
     Act, or any plan, strategy, or program under this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, much of this bill deals with new giveaways to 
Big Oil. The issue that I'm raising right now is to deal with a 
continuing longstanding giveaway.
  The Big Five oil companies made a record profit of $137 billion last 
year; and in the first quarter of this year, they continued to 
capitalize on the pain that Americans are feeling at the pump, raking 
in $368 million in profits per day.
  Oil companies are not paying any royalties to the American people on 
oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico from leases issued between 1996 and 
2000. Zero. No royalties. They're pumping this oil for free without 
paying the taxpayers a single dime. Now they got this giveaway because 
of an incentive back in 1995 to companies to drill for oil when oil was 
selling for less than $20 a barrel.
  In recent years, the amount of free oil these companies have been 
pumping has gone through the roof as more of these faulty leases have 
gone into production. In fact, right now, more than 25 percent of all 
oil produced offshore on Federal lands is produced royalty-free, no 
payments to the taxpayers for the use of their land. These oil 
companies are getting a complete windfall on 25 percent of all the oil 
they produce offshore in the United States. They do not pay the 
American people one penny for this right, regardless of the fact that 
now oil is selling at about $80 a barrel.
  The number one entitlement program that should be on the chopping 
block for Congress shouldn't be Medicare. It shouldn't be Social 
Security. It shouldn't be health care for children. It should be the 
free drilling entitlement that oil companies are enjoying on public 
lands.
  According to the Interior Department, American taxpayers stand to 
lose about $9.5 billion over the next 10 years from this giveaway 
alone, this giveaway to Big Oil. The Government Accountability Office 
projects that all of this free drilling will cost us as much as $53 
billion over the life of these leases. My amendment would recover those 
revenues because they belong to the American people. These oil giants 
already receive $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. They don't need an 
additional $1 billion or more per year in free drilling.
  The amendment would offer oil companies a choice: they can choose 
either to continue to produce royalty-free oil in the gulf but not be 
able to receive new leases, or they can agree to pay their fair share 
and be able to bid on new leases under this bill. And this amendment 
would not force companies to give up their leases. It would just simply 
impose a condition on future leases.
  The Congressional Research Service has agreed repeatedly that this 
amendment would not be an abrogation of contracts or constitute a 
takings, as some of my colleagues have suggested it might. As CRS has 
stated:

       As a general matter, the United States has broad discretion 
     in setting the qualifications of those with whom it 
     contracts.

  These oil companies are the most profitable companies in the history 
of the world; yet they receive, as I said--and it's worth repeating--$4 
billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. They don't need to be drilling 
for free on public lands as well.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about 
paying down the deficit and realistically financing necessary 
investments in this Nation, then there is no excuse for not supporting 
this amendment to recover roughly $1 billion a year that is rightfully 
owed to the American people.
  It's time to end this taxpayer rip-off, this giveaway to Big Oil.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Well, I respect the relationship that I have with my 
friend and colleague from New Jersey. I appreciate the fact that Mr. 
Holt is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources. I appreciate the fact that he came to Denver recently for a 
field hearing that the subcommittee had on hydraulic fracking.
  So I do appreciate the work he does on the subcommittee, but I have 
to disagree with him on this amendment. And I would urge opposition to 
this amendment.
  It's identical to one that failed on this House floor by a bipartisan 
vote earlier this year in February. And I have to remind my friend and 
colleague that this issue has been repeatedly settled in the Nation's 
courts of law with the courts determining that rewriting the terms of 
these leases to include price thresholds, which the Clinton 
administration apparently forgot to include in the leases, would be a 
direct violation of contract law.
  Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Department of the 
Interior did not have the authority to rewrite these contracts that 
were issued during the Clinton administration under the 1995 law. And I 
will also remind the gentleman that the Department of the Interior has 
lost this issue in the district court, appellate court, and the Supreme 
Court.

                              {time}  0920

  If this amendment passed, the issue would most certainly be 
challenged once again in court, where the Department would use taxpayer 
dollars to lose again.
  Ultimately, this amendment seeks to force U.S. companies to break a 
contract negotiated under then-current government law or else be denied 
the opportunity to do business in the United States. The amendment aims 
to back companies into a corner and attempts to force them to break a 
legally binding contract.
  Again, this amendment has failed on the House floor before, and I 
would urge continued opposition and a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment breaks no contracts. We are here because 
the Congress, well over a decade ago when prices were less than $20 a 
barrel, decided this giveaway made sense. If it

[[Page H3920]]

made sense then, it certainly does not make sense now.
  Oil companies drill one-quarter of all offshore oil for free. If the 
other side is serious about addressing the deficit, this is revenue 
that should be received.
  Please support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge opposition once again to this 
amendment, as we have done before in the House, and I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Wittman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

              TITLE __--ADVANCING OFFSHORE WIND PRODUCTION

     SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited at the ``Advancing Offshore Wind 
     Production Act''.

     SEC. __2. OFFSHORE METEOROLOGICAL SITE TESTING AND MONITORING 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Definition of an Offshore Meteorological Site Testing 
     and Monitoring Project.--In this section, the term ``offshore 
     meteorological site testing and monitoring project'' means a 
     project carried out on or in the waters of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf administered by the Department of the 
     Interior to test or monitor weather (including wind, tidal, 
     current, and solar energy) using towers, buoys, or other 
     temporary ocean infrastructure, that--
       (1) causes--
       (A) less than 1 acre of surface or seafloor disruption at 
     the location of each meteorological tower or other device; 
     and
       (B) not more than 5 acres of surface or seafloor disruption 
     within the proposed area affected by for the project 
     (including hazards to navigation);
       (2) is decommissioned not more than 5 years after the date 
     of commencement of the project, including--
       (A) removal of towers, buoys, or other temporary ocean 
     infrastructure from the project site; and
       (B) restoration of the project site to approximately the 
     original condition of the site; and
       (3) provides meteorological information obtained by the 
     project to the Secretary of the Interior.
       (b) Offshore Meteorological Project Permitting.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall by 
     regulation require that any applicant seeking to conduct an 
     offshore meteorological site testing and monitoring project 
     on the outer Continental Shelf (as that term is defined in 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq.)) must obtain a permit and right of way for the project 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Permit and right of way timeline and conditions.--
       (A) Deadline for approval.--The Secretary shall decide 
     whether to issue a permit and right of way for an offshore 
     meteorological site testing and monitoring project within 30 
     days after receiving an application.
       (B) Public comment and consultation.--During the period 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
       (i) provide an opportunity for submission of comments by 
     the public; and
       (ii) consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Commandant 
     of the Coast Guard, and the heads of other Federal, State, 
     and local agencies that would be affected by issuance of the 
     permit and right of way.
       (C) Denial of permit; opportunity to remedy deficiencies.--
     If the application is denied, the Secretary shall provide the 
     applicant--
       (i) in writing, clear and comprehensive reasons why the 
     application was not approved and detailed information 
     concerning any deficiencies in the application; and
       (ii) an opportunity to remedy such deficiencies.
       (c) Nepa Exclusion.--Section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) shall 
     not apply with respect to an offshore meteorological site 
     testing and monitoring project.
       (d) Protection of Information.--The information provided to 
     the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to subsection (a)(3) 
     shall be treated by the Secretary as proprietary information 
     and protected against disclosure.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today, the House is taking an independent and important 
step forward to develop domestic sources of energy, create American 
jobs, and reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. And I'm a 
strong proponent of an all-of-the-above energy policy.
  As a scientist by trade, I understand the need to achieve a balance 
to foster development of American energy while at the same time 
protecting the integrity of our environment. We can achieve efficiency 
and protection, and this bill helps us achieve both goals.
  Offshore wind energy is an important component, furthering 
development of clean, renewable American energy sources. Unfortunately, 
the process is often unnecessarily slowed for years by bureaucratic 
hurdles in the permitting process and numerous other delays. The Cape 
Wind project in Massachusetts only recently received Federal permitting 
approval, a process 10 years in the making.
  The U.S. built the Hoover Dam in 5 years during the height of the 
Great Depression. Within a decade of President Kennedy's call to put a 
man on the Moon, the U.S. had won the space race. Americans have proven 
that we can accomplish great engineering and technical feats in small 
periods of time. However, today it's frustrating that this 
administration cannot point to one wind turbine operating offshore in 
Federal waters. They can, however, point to layer after layer after 
layer of regulations, bureaucracy, and red tape.
  While it is critical that energy development is safe and 
environmentally friendly, the process must become more efficient. This 
amendment facilitates the development of an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy by streamlining the process for the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management to develop offshore wind power.
  My amendment will speed the production of wind energy, as it sets a 
30-day time line for the Secretary of the Interior to act on permits 
for all weather testing and monitoring projects in the United States 
Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment will also streamline the 
environmental review process for these small wind testing towers.
  This amendment also requires coordination with the Department of 
Defense and other affected agencies so the projects do not disrupt 
national security or other critical projects. This provision is 
especially important for the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its active 
defense community.
  This amendment is identical to H.R. 2137, legislation I authored that 
passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee last July. This 
effort has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Ocean Industries Association.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment creates a brand-new, 
burdensome permitting scheme that would complicate the process for 
obtaining a permit to construct a meteorological tower offshore and 
undermine offshore wind development. Let me say that again. This will 
actually make it harder to build an offshore wind project, not easier.
  This amendment is similar to H.R. 2173, which was reported out of the 
Natural Resources Committee last year. When moving this bill through 
committee, the Republican majority was unable to find a single wind 
industry witness to come to testify on this bill, and that is because 
the industry that the majority is trying to help with this bill doesn't 
think that the measure is helpful.
  So the wind industry does not support this bill. I'll just make that 
clear, if you are interested in helping an industry to grow. The bill 
has not been endorsed by any offshore wind companies or trade groups 
and those kinds of

[[Page H3921]]

companies that have popped up all over the country now. None of those 
companies are endorsing this bill.
  I'm going to read a statement that is part of the legislative hearing 
record on this amendment. It is from Jim Lanard, the president of the 
Offshore Wind Development Coalition. Here's what he says on behalf of 
the coalition: Streamlining approvals of towers or buoys to test wind 
speeds offshore is an important goal. We believe that NEPA will allow 
this goal to be achieved.
  So NEPA clearly is not the enemy here. But in case there is still 
doubt, he says: Disregarding the bill's NEPA exclusion, we believe--
this is, again, Mr. Lanard speaking for the Offshore Wind Development 
Coalition--we believe that current practices are adequate for the 
approval of these towers or buoys.
  This bill represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the 
offshore wind industry really needs. A company is simply not going to 
invest millions of dollars engineering and constructing a huge 
meteorological tower on the Outer Continental Shelf unless they have a 
guarantee that they'll be able to use that area to build a wind farm.
  To be very clear, the industry wants a lease before they invest 
millions of dollars into a project. To get a lease, we should and we do 
require consideration of the impacts of development on the environment 
and the competing uses of these public waters. We should and we do 
require coordination with the other agencies using the Outer 
Continental Shelf, like the Navy, the FAA and FCC. This amendment would 
dismantle that process.
  This amendment says sorry, wind industry. You may have sunk millions 
of dollars into your meteorological tower, but it's time to tear it 
down. We let you build it without fully considering the impacts. And no 
wind farm either.
  Plain and simple, this bill certainly reduces the likelihood that we 
will see wind constructed off the shores of our country. The companies 
affected by this bill were not consulted before creating it.
  I have a document here from the Navy commenting on this bill. 
Essentially, it says the 30-day limit on consultations in the amendment 
is problematic. The Federal Aviation Administration has expressed 
similar concerns. The Federal Communications Commission has expressed 
similar concerns. This bill will make it harder to construct offshore 
wind projects, and maybe--and I think this is what it's all about--
that's the point after all.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleague, 
Representative Markey, that this administration has not yet seen the 
completion of a single wind tower off the shore of the United States in 
over 3 years. Not a single one. This is a sincere and genuine attempt 
to cut through some of the red tape that's causing this kind of delay. 
How in the world can you have less red tape being bad for the 
construction of wind towers? This is truly a good solution. I applaud 
this legislation.
  Representative Wittman has offered a bill that embodies the same 
concept that passed the committee by a bipartisan vote earlier this 
year. This is a good bill, a good amendment from that bill, and I would 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that President Bush's 
Interior Department sat on offshore wind regulations for 4 years. Do 
you want to hear that again? President Bush's Interior Department sat 
on offshore wind regulations for 4 years. Did not promulgate them. 
President Obama got them done in his first 6 months. The Obama 
administration passionately believes in new wind. In fact, there's 
35,000 new megawatts onshore, and they desperately want it offshore as 
well, and the process is working.
  We agree that during the Bush years, the Cape wind process did not 
work, but there were no rules that were promulgated. Obama did it. The 
project is now approved for Cape wind, and it should move forward. 
There's nothing wrong with the process, and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind folks that this 
bill does accommodate concerns that may be raised by the Department of 
Defense and other Federal agencies to make sure that all those thoughts 
and ideas are put into place in considering this permitting process. 
But it streamlines it. That's a simple, thoughtful process that gets to 
the point much quicker. So instead of taking 3 years to permit a tower, 
now it goes to 30 days. It seems to me it's counterintuitive to say 
that longer is better. In this case, since there are no active mills, 
windmills offshore, wind turbines offshore, it seems to me that we 
ought to quicken the process. This clearly does, yet it allows for 
proper due diligence, proper consideration of all of the different 
concerns. And this amendment, indeed, facilitates the development of an 
all-of-the-above energy strategy by streamlining the process with the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to develop offshore wind power and 
also to support good-paying American jobs. Let's not forget about that.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and expedite offshore 
wind energy development, and with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

     TITLE VIII--SERVICE OVER THE COUNTER, SELF-CONTAINED, MEDIUM 
                  TEMPERATURE COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATORS

     SEC. 801. SERVICE OVER THE COUNTER, SELF-CONTAINED, MEDIUM 
                   TEMPERATURE COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATORS.

       Section 342(c) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) The term `(SOC-SC-M)' means a medium temperature 
     commercial refrigerator--
       ``(i) with a self-contained condensing unit and equipped 
     with sliding or hinged doors in the back intended for use by 
     sales personnel, and with glass or other transparent material 
     in the front for displaying merchandise; and
       ``(ii) that has a height not greater than 66 inches and is 
     intended to serve as a counter for transactions between sales 
     personnel and customers.
       ``(C) The term `TDA' means the total display area (ft\2\ ) 
     of the refrigerated case, as defined in Air-Conditioning, 
     Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 1200.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Each SOC-SC-M manufactured on or after the date which 
     is 6 months after the date of enactment of the Better Use of 
     Refrigerator Regulations Act shall have a total daily energy 
     consumption (in kilowatt hours per day) of not more than 0.6 
     x TDA + 1.0.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my 
bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4480 with my colleague from Iowa (Mr. 
Braley).
  Like this legislation, the amendment we offer today would ease 
expensive and burdensome energy regulations and help save American 
jobs.
  By placing service-over-the-counter refrigerator units--which is a 
fancy

[[Page H3922]]

way of saying refrigerated display cases like you see in grocery stores 
and delis--into their own product classification, we can remove a 
burdensome regulation that could put this entire industry out of 
business.
  Currently, these deli display cases are in the same classification as 
commercial reach-in refrigerators, similar to those you have in your 
home. This means that they must also meet the energy efficiency 
standards of those refrigerators. But that doesn't make any sense. 
These two types of refrigerators are designed for completely different 
purposes. Your refrigerator at home is only opened so many times. It 
has a light that comes on only when you open the door. These display 
cases are well lit. There's a lot of glass, which makes it harder to 
keep the energy efficiency at the same level as a reach-in 
refrigerator. And if you don't want to reach in and grab your popsicle 
and just come up with a stick, we need to put this in a totally 
different classification.
  In my district, it's going to mean the cost of about 1,100 jobs. 
Across the United States, it's about 8,500 jobs that would be lost if 
these people are put out of business. As this bill does and as this 
amendment does, we think that it helps save jobs.
  So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Westmoreland 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Let's just get to the heart of the question of energy 
efficiency. Back in 1987, I was the author of the Appliance Efficiency 
Act of 1987, which is the constitution for energy efficiency in the 
appliance field. Since that time, the efficiency of appliances has 
increased so dramatically that we have reduced the need for between 100 
and 150 new coal-fired plants from ever having to be constructed in the 
United States. Why is that? Well, electricity that is not consumed 
results in less need for new coal-fired or any kind of fired 
electricity, saving the consumers, saving the environment, and just 
working smarter, not harder. If you can keep the popsicle cool with a 
more efficient refrigeration process, if you can have the toast pop up 
with a more efficient toasting process, if you can have every one of 
the appliances that we use, including the air-conditioning in this 
room--the air-conditioning in this room is just as good as it was in 
1987 but it is 50 percent more efficient in its generating capacity 
than it was in 1987. That reduces the need to generate new electricity 
that is needed. That saves money, and it saves on environmental damage 
as well.
  So right now we're about to consider something that deals with deli-
style refrigerators. Now, we're having this conversation having had no 
hearings on this issue in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've had 
no testimony from the industry, no testimony from the Department of 
Energy on what this amendment could mean in terms of its impact. And 
we've had no evidence of an incapacity to be able to comply with these 
rules except for the fact that no one ever wants to necessarily become 
more efficient if they have to go through the extra effort and have 
never been required to do so.

                              {time}  0940

  The reason that we have these energy efficiency rules is that we're 
doing it for the betterment of the whole country and moving industries 
along, making sure that we do not have to produce this additional new 
electricity.
  So, I think that it's better if we save money and save energy at the 
same time. That's what efficiency is all about. That's what working 
smarter, not harder is all about. The evidence is clear, since 1987, 
that we've done it. We've moved every other device along and made it 
more efficient, so I just don't know the reason why we would need a 
provision like this.
  At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, sometimes up here we have people that 
think they know more than the industry. This industry has jobs, it 
employs people, and they're trying to do the best they can with their 
technology. But we can't be up here and tell industry what's best for 
them if we don't know anything about refrigeration or the energy 
efficiencies that they're trying to do.
  These folks are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to do 
it to the best of their ability, but with these regulations, they're 
unable to do it right now. All we're asking for is to save 8,500 jobs 
across this country. And with unemployment in Georgia above the 
national average, it's 1,100 jobs just in Georgia. So I hope that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment, and 
let's save 8,500 jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself, again, as much time as I may consume.
  You know, this is just a continuation of the Republican obsession and 
opposition--obstinate, obdurate opposition--to increased efficiency in 
our society. Just a couple weeks ago they brought a bill out here on 
the floor that would roll back the efficiency of light bulbs in the 
United States, even though the entire industry has already complied 
with it. They were still trying to roll back the efficiency of light 
bulbs. Now we have the deli freezer, and we'll move on to product by 
product that they don't believe it is necessary to improve its 
efficiency whatsoever. And they just respond one by one almost to an 
incomprehensible set of demands made by, as yet, nonexistent experts 
telling us that it's impossible to comply.
  So, why don't we have a hearing? Why don't we get the evidence? Why 
don't we hear what every company in the United States says about deli 
freezers and then we can act upon it after we hear the evidence? But 
acting this way--you know, ``congressional expert'' is an oxymoron. 
We're not experts compared to real experts. We're only experts compared 
to other Congressmen. ``Congressional expert'' is an oxymoron, like 
jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife. I mean, there is no such 
thing as a congressional expert. We should not be acting this way on 
the House floor trying to make ad hoc changes in efficiencies rules. It 
just doesn't make any sense.
  Again, I oppose the way in which this is occurring, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on the Westmoreland amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Bass of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 10, strike ``The Committee'' and insert the 
     following:
       (1) In general.--The Committee
       Page 8, after line 13, insert the following:
       (2) Additional analysis.--The Committee shall conduct an 
     analysis of how to shield American consumers and the United 
     States economy from gasoline price fluctuations and supply 
     disruptions in the oil market by reducing the dependence of 
     the United States on oil.
       Page 8, line 15, strike ``analysis conducted under this 
     section'' and insert ``analysis conducted under subsection 
     (a)(1)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Bass) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, my Los Angeles district is home 
to one of the largest urban oilfields in the United States, the 
Inglewood Oil Field. My constituents suffer from anxiety and stress 
because of the oil drilling. In 2006, drilling operations were ramped 
up, and the release of harmful fumes forced nearby residents to 
evacuate their homes.
  In April 2012, the County of Los Angeles conducted a study in which 
over 70 percent of residents living near the oilfields expressed 
concerns about exposure to emissions from the oilfield. Meanwhile, my 
colleagues, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle continue to 
push for more domestic drilling and relaxed regulations.
  The bill before us today is based on two claims that appear to have 
become articles of faith. The claims are that

[[Page H3923]]

gas prices will fall if we weaken environmental protections and if we 
open more areas for drilling in the United States. The problem is that 
there is no empirical evidence supporting these claims. Oil prices are 
set on a world market, and no amount of domestic drilling in the United 
States will have a meaningful impact on that price. This isn't spin 
from some interest groups; this is the conclusion drawn by experts. It 
has been corroborated by the Associated Press and the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  The AP conducted a thorough study of gasoline prices and U.S. oil 
production over the last 36 years and found zero correlation between 
the two. In other words, changes in U.S. oil production had absolutely 
no effect on gasoline prices, but that doesn't mean there's nothing we 
can do to help American families burdened by high fuel costs.
  CBO recently released a study on energy security. They found that 
boosting U.S. oil production will not protect Americans from gasoline 
price spikes. Instead, CBO found that the only way to protect consumers 
from these spikes is to use less oil. The reason for this is simple: 
Gasoline prices are linked to the global oil market. That's why Japan, 
which imports all of its oil it uses, and Canada, which exports more 
than 75 percent of the oil it produces, experience the very same 
gasoline spikes we experience.
  The best way to save money at the pump is to drive right past it. The 
Obama administration has been helping consumers do just that. We know 
that efficiency works to reduce cost. The Energy Information 
Administration has found that the cost per mile of driving has fallen 
by more than 25 percent since 1980 due to improvements in the 
efficiency of our vehicles.
  President Obama has already taken action to reduce costs further. The 
new vehicle efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for model years 
2012-2016 will save consumers, on average, over $3,000 over the life of 
a vehicle, which is hundreds of dollars per year. The millions of 
Americans that have bought model year 2012 cars are already enjoying 
savings at the pump. In fact, the new standards are currently saving 
consumers 14 cents per gallon.
  Furthermore, the energy efficiency sector is a booming job-creating 
field. In my district, CODA Automotive, an electric car company, 
recently opened their new headquarters. In a few short months last year 
they created 300 new jobs, and hundreds more will be created in the 
coming years. This is the type of job creation and cost savings that we 
should be focused on.
  My amendment simply improves the bill by adding a provision that 
actually has something to do with gasoline prices. This amendment would 
require the newly created Interagency Committee to analyze how to 
protect American consumers from gasoline price spikes by reducing 
America's dependence on oil.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing that efficiency 
works and must be part of the solution. If not, this legislation will 
continue to ignore the only approach identified by CBO as helpful in 
protecting consumers from supply disruption and price spikes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. I have great respect for the gentlelady from California 
who joined this Congress in the class of 2010 election and served as 
Speaker of the House in California. It's great to work with you on the 
House floor, but unfortunately I am going to have to oppose the 
amendment.
  The best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to increase 
our energy opportunities right here in our own backyard. That's what 
the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act is all about. The components and 
pieces, the seven parts of this bill, are designed to reduce red tape 
to increase opportunity for American energy production--those 
productions occurring on our Federal lands, including renewable energy; 
the opportunity to create wind energy, solar energy on our Federal 
lands, making sure the Department of the Interior is planning for that, 
taking a look at.
  But, again, the best way to reduce our reliance on oil imports is 
domestic production, the opportunity to increase that production right 
here in our own backyard. That's what this bill is about.

                              {time}  0950

  It's about creating jobs and opportunity for the American people. 
It's about making sure that we can reduce the price at the pump.
  And let me talk just a little bit about reducing the price at the 
pump. The gentlelady from California mentioned the issue of CAFE 
standards, increasing efficiency in cars. Well, you know, you're only 
going to achieve those higher efficiencies through CAFE standards if 
you're able to afford a new car.
  But we know that that is going to make cars more expensive. It's 
going to cost $1,000 in the near term. It's going to add $3,000 by 2025 
to the cost of a vehicle. That's going to be higher if you talk to the 
National Automobile Dealers Association, the NADA.
  So if you're not struggling under the burden of higher gas prices, 
then I guess you can afford a new car. Maybe you can, I don't know. But 
the fact is, if we continue to allow energy increases to increase 
nearly 100 percent, as they have over the past 3 years, the American 
people, our constituents, will be priced out of the ability to even 
contemplate the purchase of a new vehicle, continuing their struggle to 
make ends meet, to heat and cool their home because of the cost of 
energy prices.
  We know that we have opportunities right here in our own back yard: 
the Keystone XL pipeline, North American energy, energy from the Bakken 
oil fields of North Dakota. The cause of gasoline price fluctuation is 
already known.
  The gentlelady from California mentioned the CBO study. The CBO study 
talks about demand as a factor in price, but seems to neglect that 
there is no supply connection. Supply matters. Supply and demand 
matters.
  Let's take a look at natural gas. Production of natural gas right 
now, the price is at low levels because we have almost a glut of 
natural gas. As a result, the price of natural gas is low. Supply 
matters.
  Secretary Chu testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that 
supply matters. It's not just a demand equation. You can't just turned 
around and say as more people consume oil that increases the price of 
oil without taking a look at the other part of the equation: supply. 
More supply. Secretary Chu said so.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, the best way to reduce our reliance on 
foreign imports is to create American jobs with American energy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BASS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I urge opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 22 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It is No. 
23.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 14, after line 9, at the end of title II, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 207. ENSURING FEASIBLE ANALYSES.

       (a) Determination of Feasibility of Analyses.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if the 
     Secretary of Energy determines that the analyses required 
     under section 203 are infeasible to conduct, require data 
     that does not exist, or would generate results subject to 
     such large estimates of uncertainty that the results would be 
     neither reliable nor useful, the requirements under section 
     203(a) shall cease to be effective.

[[Page H3924]]

       (b) No Report or Delay of Final Action on Certain Rules if 
     Analyses Are Infeasible.--If, pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     requirements under section 203(a) cease to be effective, then 
     the requirements under sections 204 and 205 shall cease to be 
     effective.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can all simply agree to this 
amendment.
  Among this bill's many provisions is one that creates a new 
interagency committee to do the impossible. It is charged with 
conducting an analysis of the EPA air quality rules that have not been 
proposed, using data that does not even exist. I'm concerned that this 
new interagency committee is being set up to fail.
  First, the bill before us requires the new committee to examine the 
potential impact of several EPA air quality rules on gasoline prices. 
There's one significant problem. These rules have not yet been 
proposed.
  Now, we can argue about whether they have been initiated, 
contemplated, discussed, mulled over, considered and so forth. But the 
fundamental fact is that the rules and their requirements have not even 
yet been proposed. The committee simply has nothing concrete to 
analyze.
  As a result, any report that this new interagency committee would 
complete would be the product of a series of best guesses, estimates, 
approximations, and assumptions that cannot possibly provide credible 
assessment of a potential impact of these potential rules on gasoline 
prices.
  Moreover, it may not even be possible for the interagency committee 
to complete this analysis, as insufficient as it will be, without a 
significant investment of resources at the Department of Energy.
  We asked the Energy Information Administration what it would take to 
complete such an analysis. EIA, which is better positioned than any 
other government agency to tackle this project, said that it currently 
does not have the analytic capability even to conduct the State or 
regional level breakdowns required by such a bill.
  The agency also would have to collect or purchase new data, despite 
the bill's hollow assurances that this isn't necessary. And the 
Department of Energy would have to devote significant new staff and 
contractor time to be able to comply with the bill's requirements. In 
essence, this bill proposes to devote scarce taxpayer dollars to 
produce a report that will not be reliable, credible, or even valuable 
to anyone.
  My amendment simply states that if the Energy Department determines 
that that analysis is not feasible to conduct, requires data that does 
not exist, or generates results that would not be reliable or useful, 
then the interagency committee does not have to complete the report. If 
it determined that such an analysis is infeasible, the 6-month delay of 
EPA rules then would not go into effect.
  This amendment is a good-governance amendment that ensures effective 
use of taxpayer dollars. It's common sense.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed serving on the committee with 
the gentlelady from California, but I must oppose the amendment.
  Talking about the process that we're going through on regulations, 
you know, this is the very heart of the bill, to understand the cost 
feasibility, what pressures regulations can put on the price of energy, 
the price of gasoline, and whether or not these regulations are going 
to cause price increases.
  In fact, we know very well that they are going to cause price 
increases because we've had testimony from the Environmental Protection 
Agency admitting that some of these regulations, proposed regulations 
that they have on the books, or that they have promulgated 
contemplating will increase the price of gasoline and other prices in 
other energy areas.
  These have real effects on consumers. In fact, if you just increase 
the price of gasoline by a penny a gallon, it will increase the daily 
cost to the American consumers and businesses millions and millions of 
dollars each and every day, one penny a gallon costing our economy 
millions and millions of dollars a day.
  And so with this we're trying to actually say let's take a look at it 
to understand. We're not stopping them from going forward with their 
plans or developing rules. Certainly, we want to encourage the 
protection of our environment and make sure they're doing their job to 
protect our environment.
  But we also need to have our eyes open and make sure that we have a 
chance to look before we leap when it comes to these regulations.
  Delving down into the EPA's own process, though, if you look at what 
happens under the regulatory process, the cumulative impact analyses 
are feasible and already required by President Clinton's Executive 
Order 12866 and President Obama's Executive Order 13563. As recently as 
March of this year, just a couple of months ago, the White House issued 
a memo reiterating that ``agencies should take active steps to take 
account of the cumulative effects of new and existing rules.''
  The EPA's own action development process, the internal process of the 
EPA, requires that the analysis start early in rule development. That 
doesn't say you wait until the rule is developed. It doesn't say you 
wait until it's all done, complete, out there. Early in the rule 
development process, action development process, taking a look at it.
  This information's available. They've got the data. They've got the 
studies. It's time that they use that information to understand the 
impact that it will have on our constituents back home who are finding 
it increasingly difficult to balance the cost of energy with costs like 
paying for their home mortgage, putting food on the table. And that's 
why we have an opportunity, with this bill, to create American energy 
security and to create jobs in this country.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, so I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. Chairman, as we know and as my colleague from Colorado has just 
illustrated, the bill creates redundant layers of bureaucracy and 
requires a study of key air pollution standards that are not even yet 
proposed by the EPA. This is clearly designed to postpone pollution 
cleanup.
  My amendment is a straightforward amendment which simply says if the 
Energy Department's analysis of the EPA's air quality rules is not 
feasible or not useful, we should not be spending taxpayer resources on 
it.
  I would note again that these EPA air quality rules that would be 
analyzed aren't even on the books yet. We shouldn't be wasting agency 
time and resources on tasks like the ones proposed here. This amendment 
is one of common sense. It is straightforward and very simple. So I 
hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Again, analyzing rules is part of its job. That's part 
of the EPA's job. It's part of the DOE's job. The DOE has a budget in 
excess of $26 billion. In fact, we found out just a couple of days ago 
that one program at the Department of Energy is costing $1.2 million 
per job created. It has the resources to do it within existing funds. 
This isn't going to cost any new money. What it is going to do is to 
make sure that we're protecting the American consumers before cost 
increases occur. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3925]]

the gentlewoman from California will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 17, strike ``and'' after the semicolon at line 2, 
     strike the period at line 9 and insert ``; and'', and after 
     line 9 insert the following:
       ``(G) the best estimate, based upon commercial and 
     scientific data, of the expected increase in domestic 
     production of geothermal, solar, wind, or other renewable 
     energy sources on lands defined as `available lands' by 
     section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, and 
     any other lands deemed by the Territory or State of Hawaii, 
     as the case may be, to be included within that definition.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds to title III, the 
Quadrennial Strategic Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy, by 
providing another subsection, G, which basically mirrors the language 
found in the prior section, which addresses the Indian tribal lands. 
This particular amendment includes in that the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act lands.
  As you are probably well aware, Hawaii is in a unique situation in 
that, in 1920, this Congress created the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act; 
and there is a special body of land, 203,000 acres approximately, which 
is under the control of Congress. Congress approves whether or not 
things can be amended in the act. Even upon statehood, that right was 
retained.
  As such, this amendment seeks to have all of the alternative and 
renewable energy sources, including geothermal, solar, wind, and other 
renewable energy sources and lands, defined as ``available lands'' 
under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in the strategic review. We 
believe this is not expanding this. It has no implications other than 
the fact that there is a body of land which somehow has been forgotten 
and that falls under Federal jurisdiction.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
  Native Hawaiian homelands are not managed as tribal lands by the 
Federal Government, which is why they were not included in the 
underlying legislation. However, Hawaiian homelands can provide another 
great source for domestic energy development; therefore, we are 
prepared to accept this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Speier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, strike lines 3 through 5.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I rise to introduce an amendment to the 
Strategic Energy Production Act. This bill is being pitched as an all-
of-the-above energy bill when, in reality, it is an oil-above-all bill, 
which is full of giveaways to big energy companies.
  Title IV of H.R. 4480 would impose arbitrary deadlines on the 
Interior Department's review of applications for permits to drill for 
oil and gas onshore. After 60 days, if the Interior Department has not 
completed its review of an application to drill, the permit would be 
deemed ``approved'' regardless of whether the Department ensured that 
the drilling was safe.
  My amendment is quite simple. It would just strike this unwise and 
unwarranted provision. First, a little context would be helpful.
  The United States is in the middle of a great drilling boom. In fact, 
the Obama administration has issued more drilling permits in the last 3 
years than were issued in the first 3 years of the Bush administration. 
A recent Citigroup report suggests that the U.S. is already the world's 
fastest-growing oil and natural gas producer. In counting the output 
from Canada and Mexico, North America is the ``new Middle East.'' 
Meanwhile, the top five oil companies made $137 billion in profits last 
year. They are reaping the benefits of this revival, and they are doing 
just fine.
  Oil and gas companies are currently sitting on 6,700 approved--and I 
underscore ``approved''--drilling permits that are not being used. 
Issuing more drilling permits more quickly is not the answer. What we 
should not be doing is tying the hands of Interior Department 
regulators by imposing an artificial and arbitrary shot clock in 
approving these drilling permits, especially when the risks of safety 
problems remain high. In fact, oil companies are already committing 
scores of serious safety violations when drilling on public lands 
onshore.
  According to a recent Natural Resources Committee report, more than 
2,000 safety and drilling violations were issued to 335 companies 
drilling in 17 States between 1998 and 2011. Overall, the analysis 
shows that only a very small percentage of these violations ever 
receive fines. In fact, of all of the fines issued, it only generated 
$273,000 out of the 2,000 violations.
  Here is an example: on dozens of occasions, oil and gas companies 
began drilling on Federal lands without the formal approval to do so. 
Many violations were issued because companies failed to keep proper 
records or to conduct routine safety tests. Some significant ones 
include: in 2009, an operator in Mississippi was found operating a well 
without any blow-out preventer or any equivalent well-control 
equipment. In 2010, an inspector at a New Mexico well found that one of 
the valves in the blow-out preventer, which is responsible for 
mitigating excessive pressure and flow, was leaking.
  We have many examples of when safety was not put first. Instead of 
preventing these sorts of safety violations, this bill puts profits 
first and safety and oversight last.
  I am pleased that the majority has acknowledged the important role 
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act 
play in the proper review of drilling permits and that it has included 
language to prevent permits from being deemed approved in cases where 
reviews under those laws are still ongoing after 60 days.
  However, I think it is important for us to look at the unintended 
consequences. If this provision is enacted, it could actually lead to 
more applications for drilling permits being rejected because the 
Secretary may have no choice but to reject any application for a permit 
to drill that was nearing the 60-day time limit if the safety review 
were not completed.

                              {time}  1010

  The bottom line here is that the United States oil and gas production 
is at an all-time high.
  Allowing for proper safety review of permits is a necessary safeguard 
for the American people, and this is a prudent step. Taxpayers deserve 
a process that ensures that any drilling on their public lands is held 
to commonsense safety standards. Let's not compromise the safety of 
drilling on public lands in a headstrong rush to give the oil and gas 
industry the free pass it demands.
  I respectively urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page H3926]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I do oppose this amendment.
  The legislation we're looking at today, H.R. 4480, aims to reduce 
bureaucracy and ensure much needed certainty to allow energy production 
and job creation to move forward. It will give permit applicants 
assurance that their permits will be processed by the government in a 
timely fashion and ensure that needless bureaucratic delays are not 
hampering energy production as they are sometimes today.
  The Department of the Interior is plagued with delays in permitting 
energy projects on Federal lands. These delays result in developers 
abandoning Federal lands to develop energy only on private land. This 
hinders the creation of thousands of American jobs. This legislation 
simply requires that a decision on a drilling permit be made. It does 
not require an approval, but simply a decision. The government must 
answer ``yes'' or ``no.'' It's not acceptable for the government to 
stall, drag its feet, or even not respond.
  These are decisions that State agencies are making in days, while the 
BLM is taking months. This amendment, however, would delete this 
deadline for the government to provide an answer. Under this amendment, 
the Federal Government could literally take forever to respond. A 
deadline is absolutely necessary to give energy producers the 
confidence they need to seek out Federal land for development rather 
than seeking to exclusively develop on private land.
  An identical amendment to the one offered by the gentlewoman from 
California failed during the Natural Resources Committee markup, and it 
failed on a bipartisan vote. So I would ask for the same response here, 
that we vote this amendment down. I urge its opposition.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                   TITLE _--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. ____. CERTAIN REVENUES GENERATED BY THIS ACT TO BE MADE 
                   AVAILABLE TO THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 
                   COMMISSION TO LIMIT EXCESSIVE SPECULATION IN 
                   ENERGY MARKETS.

       (a) Establishment of Treasury Account.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall establish an account in the Treasury of 
     the United States.
       (b) Deposit Into Account of Certain Revenues Generated by 
     This Act.--The Secretary shall deposit into the account 
     established under subsection (a) the first $128,000,000 of 
     the total of the amounts received by the United States under 
     leases issued under this Act, the amendments made by this 
     Act, or any plan, strategy, or program under this Act.
       (c) Availability and Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amounts in 
     the account established under subsection (a) shall be made 
     available to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use 
     its existing authorities to limit excessive speculation in 
     energy markets.
       (2) Subject to appropriations.--The authority provided in 
     paragraph (1) may be exercised only to such extent, and with 
     respect to such amounts, as are provided in advance in 
     appropriations Acts.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore full funding, 
per the President's request of $308 million, to the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission. The additional $128 million in funds would be 
raised through the sale of new leases.
  The current funding level for CFTC sets the commission up for 
failure. If the current funding level remains as is, Wall Street will 
be able to continue the risky manipulation of derivatives that brought 
on the last collapse, and Big Oil will continue to enjoy inflated 
profits every year due to erratic and artificially swollen oil prices. 
The losers will be the American people, who will pay more at the pump, 
or even worse.
  At this funding level, the House majority sets up taxpayers to pay 
for yet another costly bailout of Wall Street. Republican and 
Democratic experts agree that the CFTC needs to be fully funded. 
Republican Gene Guilford, President and CEO of the Independent 
Connecticut Petroleum Association, served in the Commerce and Energy 
Departments under Ronald Reagan. He has said that the funding level for 
CFTC is ``horribly counterproductive.'' It would ``weaken its ability 
to enforce the oversight laws necessary to protect the American 
people.''
  According to Brooksley Born, the former chair of the CFTC, the 
commission is ``desperately in need of additional funding.'' This 
budget, she argues, ``would leave us all vulnerable to future financial 
crises.''
  According to Gary Gensler, the current chairman of the CFTC, the 
agency is only 10 percent larger than it was in the 1990s, even as the 
futures market has grown to approximately $37 trillion notional.
  And through the Dodd-Frank reforms, Congress has added oversight of 
the $300 trillion swaps market, which is even more complex, and 
increased the number of trades under their jurisdiction by 334 percent 
in 2011.
  Gensler says, ``It is as if all of a sudden the National Football 
League expanded eight times to play more than 100 games in a weekend 
with the same amount of referees.''
  We know for a fact that the risky behavior in the derivatives market 
is what precipitated the 2008 financial meltdown. It's still happening. 
We have seen it at MF Global and J.P. Morgan. We also know for a fact 
that excessive speculation in oil markets causes gas prices to 
oscillate wildly. Even the CEO of Exxon has said as much.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to help to make sure 
that the CFTC has the resources to do its job, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is trying to deal with the 
rising prices of energy by addressing the very important issue of 
supply and demand. While I think there's nothing wrong with looking 
into the possibility of market manipulation, I do think this bill is 
trying to address another very important part of the price equation, 
and that is supply and demand.
  This issue has been studied, and it will continue to be studied. But 
I'll remind the gentlelady that we're dealing with an agency that has 
over $200 million already in its budget, and this amendment adding $128 
million would be a significant increase in funding for FY12 for the 
CFTC budget. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  If you would just look at what the CFTC has said, going back in 2008:

  The task force's preliminary assessment is that current oil prices 
and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are 
largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors.

  In 2009:

       We find little evidence that hedge funds and other 
     noncommercial (speculator) position changes cause price 
     changes; the results instead suggest that price changes do 
     precede their position changes.

  So we can go on and on about what the CFTC has already said, but this 
bill deals with the issue of supply and demand.
  With that, I would yield 2 minutes to a great leader from the State 
of Texas (Mr. Conaway) who has done tremendous work on this issue over 
at the CFTC and in commodity issues.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H3927]]

  I am the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm 
Commodities and Risk Management that does have oversight of the CFTC.
  I expected the arguments for this particular amendment to go a 
different direction, but it does occur to me that we are chastised, 
those of us on authorizing committees, Mr. Chairman, during the 
appropriations process, that trying to write policy in the approps 
bills is not allowed. Well, this is appropriating in an authorizing 
bill. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  The Subcommittee on Agriculture on the Appropriations Committee goes 
through these spending requests in detail, over and over, in a few 
weeks of committee work, and then they will come to their conclusion. 
They have, in fact, come to their conclusion, and they will bring this 
bill forward next week.
  It's a bit presumptuous to come in here to ask this body to spend 
another $128 million on an agency that the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Agriculture has already spent plenty of time deciding how much that 
agency needs to spend over the coming year.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. If I might just take a second to remind the gentleman 
from Texas that, in fact, this amendment was made in order. And in the 
body of the language, it does talk about it being subject to 
appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Back 10 years ago, about a third of all of the interest in the oil 
futures marketplace was controlled by speculators, but two-thirds was 
controlled by the airline industry, the trucking industry, industries 
that are dependent upon oil. Today it's just the flip. Today two-thirds 
of that oil futures marketplace is controlled by speculators, and only 
one-third is controlled by the airline industry, trucking industry, and 
others dependent upon the price of oil.
  So what happened? What happens is, all of a sudden, you have this 
crazy volatility where experts say that upwards of 20 percent of the 
price of a barrel of oil in the futures marketplace is related to 
speculation. It's not related to anything in the real marketplace. And 
so what happens? Well, that has a dramatically negative impact on 
truckers, on the airline industry because there are games being played 
out there.
  By the way, with the speculators, they make money on the way up and 
they make money on the way down. That's not true for ordinary companies 
because they're not in there playing a game. They are not speculators. 
They are not doing this as part of some kind of a casino that 
speculators thrive in.
  And here's the rule: On the way up, the big guy cleans up; on the way 
down, the little guy gets cleaned out. And that's what we're seeing 
over and over and over again.
  So the President has asked to increase the number of cops on the 
beat, the CFTC cops on the beat that can patrol to make sure that the 
games that are being played don't hurt the little guy. And what are the 
Republicans saying? They're saying they want to cut the President's 
request for more cops on the beat sixfold. And what happens then? Well, 
we're going to be deep-sixing the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations of 
ordinary companies who are still going to see these games being played. 
The DeLauro amendment makes it possible to put the CFTC cops back on 
the beat.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, again, we have to understand that the best 
thing that this Congress can do to drive down the price of gasoline is 
increasing our supply opportunities right here, to drive down the cost 
of energy by increasing our production right here.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We are not here as representatives of Wall Street, but 
we are representatives of the American people. We need the CFTC to 
oversee the risky behaviors to enforce the law. We are here to 
represent the American taxpayer, not Wall Street or big banks.
  The current funding that's being pursued by the majority is reckless. 
I urge my colleagues to put Main Street over Wall Street and support 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. Bass of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 112-540.
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman rise as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  Ms. BASS of California. I do rise as the designee for the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

   TITLE __--OFFICE OF ENERGY EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND OFFICE OF 
                      MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION

     SEC. _01. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF ENERGY EMPLOYMENT AND 
                   TRAINING.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     establish an Office of Energy Employment and Training, which 
     shall oversee the efforts of the Department of the Interior's 
     energy planning, permitting, and regulatory activities to 
     carry out the purposes, objectives, and requirements of this 
     Act.
       (b) Director.--
       (1) In general.--The Office shall be directed by an 
     Assistant Secretary for Energy Employment and Training, who 
     shall report directly to the Secretary and shall be fully 
     employed to carry out the functions of the Office.
       (2) Duties.--The Assistant Secretary for Energy Employment 
     and Training shall perform the following functions:
       (A) Develop and implement systems to track the Department's 
     compliance with the purposes, objectives, and requirements of 
     the Act.
       (B) Report at least quarterly to the Secretary regarding 
     the Department's compliance with the purposes, objectives, 
     and requirements of this Act, including but not limited to 
     specific data regarding the numbers and types of jobs created 
     through the Department's efforts and a report on all job 
     training programs planned or in progress by the Department.
       (C) Design and recommend to the Secretary programs and 
     policies aimed at ensuring the Department's compliance with 
     the purposes, objectives, and requirements of this Act, and 
     oversee implementation of such programs approved by the 
     Secretary.
       (D) Develop procedures for enforcement of the Department's 
     requirements and responsibilities under this Act.
       (E) Support the activities of the Office of Minority and 
     Women Inclusion and any other offices or branches established 
     by the Secretary within the Office of Energy Employment and 
     Training.

     SEC. _02. OFFICE OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION.

       (a) Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion not later 
     than 6 months after the effective date of this Act, that 
     shall be responsible for all matters of the Department of the 
     Interior relating to diversity in management, employment, and 
     business activities.
       (2) Transfer of responsibilities.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall ensure that the responsibilities described in 
     paragraph (1) (or comparable responsibilities) that are 
     assigned to any other office, agency, or bureau of the 
     Department on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     Act are transferred to the Office of Minority and Women 
     Inclusion.
       (3) Duties with respect to civil rights laws.--The 
     responsibilities described in paragraph (1) do not include 
     enforcement of statutes, regulations, or executive orders 
     pertaining to civil rights, except each Director shall 
     coordinate with the Secretary, or the designee of the 
     Secretary, regarding the design and implementation of any 
     remedies resulting from violations of such statutes, 
     regulations, or executive orders.
       (b) Director.--

[[Page H3928]]

       (1) In general.--The Office shall have a Director who shall 
     be appointed by, and shall report to, the Secretary of the 
     Interior. The position of Director shall be a career reserved 
     position in the Senior Executive Service, as that position is 
     defined in section 3132 of title 5, United States Code, or an 
     equivalent designation.
       (2) Duties.--The Director shall develop standards for--
       (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, 
     and gender diversity of the workforce and senior management 
     of the Department;
       (B) increased participation of minority-owned and women-
     owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the 
     Department, including standards for coordinating technical 
     assistance to such businesses; and
       (C) assessing the diversity policies and practices of 
     entities regulated by the Department.
       (3) Other duties.--The Director shall advise the Secretary 
     of the Interior on the impact of the policies and regulations 
     of the Department on minority-owned and women-owned 
     businesses.
       (4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (2)(C) may 
     be construed to mandate any requirement on or otherwise 
     affect the lending policies and practices of any regulated 
     entity, or to require any specific action based on the 
     findings of the assessment.
       (c) Inclusion in All Levels of Business Activities.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall develop and implement 
     standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent 
     possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, 
     women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all 
     business and activities of the Department at all levels, 
     including in procurement, insurance, and all types of 
     contracts.
       (2) Contracts.--The procedures established by the 
     Department for review and evaluation of contract proposals 
     and for hiring service providers shall include, to the extent 
     consistent with applicable law, a component that gives 
     consideration to the diversity of the applicant. Such 
     procedure shall include a written statement, in a form and 
     with such content as the Director shall prescribe, that a 
     contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the 
     fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of 
     the contractor and, as applicable, subcontractors.
       (3) Termination.--
       (A) Determination.--The standards and procedures developed 
     and implemented under this subsection shall include a 
     procedure for the Director to make a determination whether a 
     Department contractor, and, as applicable, a subcontractor 
     has failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities 
     and women in their workforce.
       (B) Effect of determination.--
       (i) Recommendation to secretary.--Upon a determination 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Director shall make a 
     recommendation to the Secretary that the contract be 
     terminated.
       (ii) Action by secretary.--Upon receipt of a recommendation 
     under clause (i), the Secretary may--

       (I) terminate the contract;
       (II) make a referral to the Office of Federal Contract 
     Compliance Programs of the Department of Labor; or
       (III) take other appropriate action.

       (d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an 
     annual report regarding the actions taken by the Department 
     of the Interior agency and the Office pursuant to this 
     section, which shall include--
       (1) a statement of the total amounts paid by the Department 
     to contractors since the previous report;
       (2) the percentage of the amounts described in paragraph 
     (1) that were paid to contractors described in subsection 
     (c)(1);
       (3) the successes achieved and challenges faced by the 
     Department in operating minority and women outreach programs;
       (4) the challenges the Department may face in hiring 
     minority and women employees and contracting with minority-
     owned and women-owned businesses; and
       (5) any other information, findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations for legislative or Department action, as the 
     Director determines appropriate.
       (e) Diversity in Department Workforce.--The Secretary shall 
     take affirmative steps to seek diversity in the workforce of 
     the Department at all levels of the Department in a manner 
     consistent with applicable law. Such steps shall include--
       (1) recruiting at historically black colleges and 
     universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, women's 
     colleges, and colleges that typically serve majority minority 
     populations;
       (2) sponsoring and recruiting at job fairs in urban 
     communities;
       (3) placing employment advertisements in newspapers and 
     magazines oriented toward minorities and women;
       (4) partnering with organizations that are focused on 
     developing opportunities for minorities and women to be 
     placed in energy industry internships, summer employment, and 
     full-time positions;
       (5) where feasible, partnering with inner-city high 
     schools, girls' high schools, and high schools with majority 
     minority populations to establish or enhance financial 
     literacy programs and provide mentoring; and
       (6) any other mass media communications that the Office 
     determines necessary.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Minority.--The term ``minority'' means United States 
     citizens who are Asian Indian American, Asian Pacific 
     American, Black American, Hispanic American, or Native 
     American.
       (2) Minority-owned business.--The term ``minority-owned 
     business'' means a for-profit enterprise, regardless of size, 
     physically located in the United States or its trust 
     territories, which is owned, operated, and controlled by 
     minority group members. ``Minority group members'' are United 
     States citizens who are Asian Indian American, Asian Pacific 
     American, Black American, Hispanic American, or Native 
     American (terminology in NMSDC categories). Ownership by 
     minority individuals means the business is at least 51 
     percent owned by such individuals or, in the case of a 
     publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock is 
     owned by one or more such individuals. Further, the 
     management and daily operations are controlled by those 
     minority group members. For purposes of NMSDC's program, a 
     minority group member is an individual who is a United States 
     citizen with at least \1/4\ or 25 percent minimum 
     (documentation to support claim of 25 percent required from 
     applicant) of one or more of the following:
       (A) Asian Indian American, which is a United States citizen 
     whose origins are from India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh.
       (B) Asian Pacific American, which is a United States 
     citizen whose origins are from Japan, China, Indonesia, 
     Malaysia, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the 
     Philippines, Thailand, Samoa, Guam, the United States Trust 
     Territories of the Pacific, or the Northern Marianas.
       (C) Black American, which is a United States citizen having 
     origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
       (D) Hispanic American, which is a United States citizen of 
     true-born Hispanic heritage, from any of the Spanish-speaking 
     areas of the following regions: Mexico, Central America, 
     South America, and the Caribbean Basin only.
       (E) Native American, which is a person who is an American 
     Indian, Eskimo, Aleut or Native Hawaiian, and regarded as 
     such by the community of which the person claims to be a 
     part. Native Americans must be documented members of a North 
     American tribe, band, or otherwise organized group of native 
     people who are indigenous to the continental United States 
     and proof can be provided through a Native.
       (3) NMSDC.--The term ``NMSDC'' means the National Minority 
     Supplier Development Council.
       (4) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of 
     Minority and Women Inclusion established under subsection 
     (a).
       (5) Women-owned business.--The term ``women-owned 
     business'' means a business that can verify through evidence 
     documentation that 51 percent or more is women-owned, 
     managed, and controlled. The business must be open for at 
     least 6 months. The business owner must be a United States 
     citizen or legal resident alien. Evidence must indicate 
     that--
       (A) the contribution of capital or expertise by the woman 
     business owner is real and substantial and in proportion to 
     the interest owned;
       (B) the woman business owner directs or causes the 
     direction of management, policy, fiscal, and operational 
     matters; and
       (C) the woman business owner has the ability to perform in 
     the area of specialty or expertise without reliance on either 
     the finances or resources of a firm that is not owned by a 
     woman.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 691, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Bass) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the designee to 
present Representative Sheila Jackson Lee's amendment No. 27 to H.R. 
4480, which would establish an Office of Energy Employment and Training 
as well as an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that would be 
responsible for all matters relating to diversity in management, 
employment, and business activity.
  This amendment simply recognizes the importance of developing a 
diverse and highly skilled technical workforce within the Department of 
the Interior. The Department of the Interior reviews permits, examines 
lease sales, and ensures that each application meets the highest safety 
standards. We should be focused on providing the Department of the 
Interior with trained technical engineers and other such necessary 
personnel to review drilling permit applications both carefully and 
thoroughly. Given the aftermath of the BP oil spill, it is easy to 
understand the importance of addressing all safety concerns prior to 
the issuance of oil and gas lease sales.
  Since the disaster, Federal safety regulations have been tightened, 
spill

[[Page H3929]]

containment response capability has been enhanced, and lessons have 
been learned. These lessons must be understood by everyone involved in 
reviewing and approving each and every application for permits and 
lease sales. Responsible onshore drilling includes having our best 
minds working to carefully and diligently review each application. This 
amendment is intended to include both women and minorities in the 
process.
  This amendment is designed to ensure that DOI is able to recruit, 
retain, and train skilled professionals, many of whom require a 
science, technology, or math background. The DOI would be encouraged to 
reach out to high school students, college students, and professionals.
  It establishes an Office of Energy Employment and Training, which 
will oversee the efforts of the Department of the Interior's energy 
planning, permitting, and regulatory activities related to this act. 
This office will be responsible for issuing quarterly reports to the 
Secretary, which will include the amount of jobs created by the DOI, as 
well as reporting the types of job training programs that have been 
implemented or proposed.
  This amendment also addresses the need to encourage diversity within 
the DOI by creating the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which 
is specifically designed to encourage diversity by reaching out to both 
women and minorities. Specifically, the DOI would have a director 
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior who will develop clear 
standards for equal employment opportunities and will address the need 
for increased racial, ethnic, and gender diversity at both the junior 
and senior management levels of the Department.
  This amendment would require the DOI to take affirmative steps to 
seek diversity in the workforce of the Department at all levels. The 
Department of the Interior would be required to sponsor job fairs in 
urban communities and partner with organizations that are focused on 
developing opportunities for both minorities and women in the energy 
industry.
  Again, it is the job of the DOI to ensure that all lease sales meet 
the highest reasonable standards for safety. This amendment is meant to 
ensure that women and minorities have a fair opportunity to participate 
in making these types of decisions within the Interior Department.
  I support my colleague Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I rise to oppose this amendment, reluctantly. I 
understand the gentlewoman's intentions of this amendment, and portions 
of this idea have strong merit.
  Let there be no doubt that the Department of the Interior can do a 
better job of both hiring and contracting in these areas, but this 
debate today isn't the most appropriate place for us to consider these 
particular reforms.
  Every provision in this legislation has been carefully vetted through 
the legislative process. The House Natural Resources and Energy and 
Commerce Committees have both held oversight and legislative hearings 
and committee markups on the underlying legislation.
  This subject, while it is something definitely worth considering, has 
not had this level of review under the legislative process and would 
insert a major programmatic and bureaucratic change in a simple bill 
that is geared toward expanding American energy production and jobs. 
Also, as currently drafted, the proposal is over 12 pages long and 
would add significant new Federal bureaucracy.
  If the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw her amendment, I will 
commit the Natural Resources Committee to work with her to address this 
subject, and if she will not withdraw, then I must reluctantly oppose 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BASS of California. I thank the gentleman for his offer, but 
given that I am the designee for Representative Jackson Lee, I don't 
feel it is appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment.
  I would simply close by saying that the purpose of the amendment is 
to recognize the importance of developing a diverse and highly skilled 
technical workforce within the DOI, and all studies have indicated that 
there is a serious lack of diversity.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, Representative Gardner from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank my colleague from Colorado for giving me the 
time on this amendment.
  I want to tell a little story. A year ago, I had the opportunity to 
visit a hydraulic fracturing site in my district, a county called Weld 
County in northern Colorado, and when you're dealing with hydraulic 
fracturing, what happens is about 2 or 3 in the morning the crews that 
are overseeing the hydraulic fracturing--at least in this particular 
area--get up, they go to their trucks that actually have this panoramic 
view of the well site so they can monitor everything that's taking 
place. They can monitor all the equipment. They have computers inside 
the truck that explain and expound upon what's happening in the 
operation at that point. It's filled with engineers.
  And on this particular tour site that I went to, the hydraulic 
fracturing, the production engineer was a woman. And I'm pretty sure 
that I would have been rejected by her college for the engineering 
program before I even applied. So it was an incredible opportunity to 
learn from her the work that she was doing. There were many other women 
members of that particular crew.
  And so I think the best way that we can get more women and more 
minorities hired and working in this country, whether it's energy or 
not, is to create more opportunity. More opportunity means more jobs. 
More jobs means more hiring. And when you have more hiring, we're going 
to put more people back to work: Men, women, minorities.
  That's the opportunity that this bill presents. It's an opportunity 
to create jobs, an opportunity to lower the price of gas so that men, 
women, and minorities are able to afford the price of a gallon of 
gasoline to get to their job.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today to debate my 
amendment No. 27 to H.R. 4480, the ``Strategic Energy Production Act of 
2012,'' which would establish an Office of Energy Employment and 
Training, as well as, an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that 
would be responsible for all matters relating to diversity in 
management, employment, and business activities.
  As well as establishing an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion for 
the purpose of addressing the need for diversity within the DOI and 
within the pool of businesses that the DOI engages.
  Texas serves as proof that the energy industry offers tremendous 
potential to provide jobs and foster economic growth. As a matter of 
fact, in 2008, Texas was one of the few States that saw its economy 
grow; grossing the second highest revenue of all States at $1.2 
trillion.
  As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Houston, 
Texas, I can attest to the importance of a healthy energy industry. My 
district is the energy hub of Texas and is recognized worldwide for its 
energy industry, particularly for oil and natural gas, as well as 
biomedical research and aeronautics. Renewable energy sources--wind and 
solar--are also growing economic bases in Houston.
  The energy industry and its supporting businesses provide my fellow 
Texans with tens of thousands of jobs, and have helped keep the State 
of Texas significantly below the national unemployment rate.
  This prosperity can expand well beyond Texas, if the Federal and 
State governments will act decisively and responsibly to expand 
domestic energy productions in an environmentally conscious manner, and 
keep billions of dollars and countless jobs here at home. However I 
must place emphasis on the need to act both decisively and responsibly. 
It remains to be seen whether this bill truly accomplishes those goals. 
My amendment is designed to address the need for training and diversity 
in the Energy sector.


                            AMENDMENT No. 27

  My amendment recognizes the importance of developing a diverse and 
highly skilled technical workforce within the Department of Interior.
  The Department of Interior reviews permits, and examines lease sales. 
Further, the DOT is responsible for ensuring that each application 
meets the highest safety standards.

[[Page H3930]]

  We should be focused on providing the Department of Interior with 
trained technical engineers and other such necessary personnel to 
review drilling permit applications both carefully and thoroughly.
  Given the aftermath of the BP Oil spill, it is easy to understand the 
importance of addressing all safety concerns prior to the issuance of 
oil and gas lease sales.
  Since the disaster federal safety regulations have been tightened, 
spill containment response capability has been enhanced and lessons 
have been learned.
  These lessons must be understood by everyone involved in reviewing 
and approving each and every application for permits and lease sales.
  Responsible onshore drilling includes having our best minds working 
to carefully and diligently review each application. This amendment is 
intended to include both women and minorities in the process.
  This amendment is designed to ensure that DOT is able to recruit, 
retain and train skilled professionals, many of whom require a science, 
technology, engineering, or math (STEM) backgrounds. The DOT will be 
encouraged to reach out to high school students, college students, and 
professional.
  My Amendment establishes an Office of Energy Employment and Training 
which will oversee the efforts of the Department of Interior's energy 
planning, permitting, and regulatory actives related to this Act.
  This Office will be responsible for issuing quarterly reports to the 
Secretary which will include the amount of jobs created by the DOT, as 
well as, reporting the types of job training programs that have been 
implemented or proposed.
  This amendment also addresses the need to encourage diversity within 
the Department of Interior. By creating an the Office of Minority and 
Women Inclusion which is specifically designed to encourage diversity 
by reaching out to both women and minorities.
  Specifically the DOT will have a Director appointed by the Secretary 
of the Interior who will develop clear standards for equal employment 
opportunities and will address the need for increased racial, ethnic, 
and gender diversity at both the junior and senior management levels of 
the Department.
  This amendment would require the DOT to take affirmative steps to 
seek diversity in the workforce of the Department at all levels of the 
Department.
  These steps would include recruiting at historically black colleges 
and universities, Hispanic-service institutions, and women's colleges 
and other majority minority service institutions. The Department will 
be able to find qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds if they 
expand the pool of candidates from which they select candidates.
  The DOT would be required to sponsor job fairs in urban communities 
and partner with organization that are focused on developing 
opportunities for both minorities and women in the energy industry.
  Again, it is the job of the Department of the Interior to ensure that 
all lease sales meet the highest reasonable standards for safety. This 
amendment is meant to include encourage and ensure that women and 
minorities have a fair opportunity to participate in making these types 
of decisions the DOI.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my Amendment No. 27 to 
H.R. 4480.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bishop of Utah) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 4480) to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil 
and gas exploration, development, and production under oil and gas 
leases of Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, 
and the Secretary of Defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum 
reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________