Empowering More Productive and Lasting Opportunity Act of 2011

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Westmoreland amendment.

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.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I do rise as the designee for the gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, Representative Gardner from Colorado.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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.

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