[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.
____________________