Floor Statements

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, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The gentlelady is correct on one point: that it is up to us. It is up to us to protect and defend the middle class. It's up to us to work toward the development of American jobs. It's up to us to reduce the reliance on foreign oil. It's up to us to make sure that we have an opportunity to buy American from North Dakota, from Pennsylvania, from New York, from Colorado. We have an opportunity to buy energy from those States.

What about Ohio? What about Pennsylvania?

This will allow us to produce energy in this country, to buy energy from this country instead of growing our dependence on overseas energy, the Keystone XL pipeline, opportunities to look at our Federal resources for coal, for solar, for wind, traditional and renewable energy.

This bill is about American jobs, about lowering the price at the pump. We have seen over the past 3 years as gasoline prices have gone up nearly 100 percent.

We talk about putting people back to work. We talk about protecting the middle class. You know what will help people rise above it? You know what will help people move forward? It's making sure that they can afford the gasoline that they put into their tank, that they're not trying to sacrifice groceries for gasoline.

A one-penny increase and the price of gasoline will cost American consumers and businesses millions and millions of dollars a day.

You want to talk about things that we could do to help this country, it is an abundant and affordable energy policy, one that weans us off of foreign energy, makes sure that we are producing it here, and one that makes sure we are taking advantage of all of our energy-- renewable, traditional--in the sense that we're not just looking at quick-fix politics, but we're looking at long-term supply solutions.

But once again, we are met with opposition that includes more politics, less energy; more rhetoric, less opportunity. This isn't about smoke and mirrors. This is about putting Americans back to work producing American energy and making sure that we are watching out for our constituents, lowering the price of energy so that they can improve their lives and that of their families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this motion to recommit. Let's move forward with American jobs, American energy, and support the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time my side has remaining.

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry), my freshman colleague.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to another freshman, Mr. Gosar from Arizona.

I am prepared to close. I have no further requests for time.

I would just inquire how much time I have remaining.

I thank the Chair and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Sixty four thousand eight hundred five jobs, $4.3 billion in wages, $14.9 billion in annual economic impact. That is the number of jobs, the amount of wages, and the economic impact that we would have seen today if not for the backlog of BLM projects over the past 3 years.

Sixty-five thousand jobs. There are 22 proposed projects in the Western United States that would create nearly 121,000 jobs.

Over the past few years, we have seen gas prices increase dramatically: $3.50, $3.60, $3.70. Since we've heard debate on the House floor tonight, they're going down. Even a flood can be lowered by a foot the next day, but it's still a flood. Our constituents who are paying $60, $70 to fill up with a tank of gas to drive their families to school, trying to put food on the table, to get to work, cannot afford high energy prices year after year.

This bill presents us with an opportunity to create jobs to build on American energy independence, to make sure that we are doing the one thing that we set out to do, and that is improve the economic chances of this country, our competitiveness, and the lives of our constituents. But they can't do it with gas prices exceeding $3, $4. What's next? Because here we are again.

The policies presented in this bill will allow us to cut through red tape and to increase exploration on our great lands in the Western United States across this country in an environmentally responsible fashion. It will allow us to make sure that when we access the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because of a supply problem that we're also addressing a long-term supply fix instead of just quick-fix politics.

We have an opportunity to make sure that when it comes to the regulations that are driving up the price of gasoline--and they have a real impact; we have both heard before our committee testimony from EPA administrators who say, yes, it will increase the price of gasoline--we stop and take a look before we leap to make sure that we are analyzing to understand the impact they will have on our constituents, who continue to suffer.

The best way to improve our economy is to make sure that we are unleashing every sector of our economy. And yes, that means renewable energy. This bill includes renewable energy. It takes a 4-year look at renewable energy on public lands, to take advantage of our opportunity with solar on Federal lands, with wind on Federal lands. But we will not sit idly by while our constituents pay thousands of dollars a more each year to put fuel in the tank, competing with the food on their table.

And so, Mr. Chair, this bill presents us all with a great chance to increase our energy supply, create American jobs, and make sure that we understand the full ramifications of regulations and drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve before we act. And I think it's important that we send one strong message to our constituents that we've heard you. We've heard you loud and clear. And we are going to do everything we can to improve our economy, bring down the cost of energy, create jobs. That's when this Congress will do our job. This Congress will do our job when we pass this legislation, and I urge passage of H.R. 4480.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion on this very issue in the Energy and Commerce Committee,

and we made very clear that the language dealing with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve did not affect existing land management policies or management policies, or those policies in place to protect our resources.

So, again, we actually adopted an amendment by Chairman Dingell, the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus, to make sure that we restated that this does not change or affect our Federal land management policies and those intended to protect our Federal resources. So we made that clear in the Energy and Commerce provisions in this bill as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, we heard a lot of powerful words there: ban, bar, block. The fact is that this bill does not ban, bar, or block these regulations. In fact, nothing prevents and nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. And nothing bars, bans, or blocks the EPA from protecting the public health and the environment as the law requires them to do so. In fact, it's quite commonly known that the EPA is unlikely to even finalize these rules prior to the completion of the study.

We've already got tremendous protections in current law, stringent regulations, some of which were just issued in the past few months. But I think we ought to take a look to understand what impact regulations are going to have on the cost of people's energy.

Our colleague mentioned picking up the tab. I'll tell you who else is picking up the tab: people in poverty are picking up the tab of increasing energy costs, which is making it more and more difficult for them to make ends meet. They are picking up the tab of rising gas prices, costing $50, $60, $70 a tank to fill up with gas to drive to work. That's who is picking up the tab, our constituents who are trying to lift themselves up and out of poverty and are having difficulty trying to make ends meet because of rising energy prices, because this Congress refuses to enact legislation that says, Hey, let's look before we leap and understand the impact these regulations are going to have on the price of gasoline.

Again, the purpose of the bill is to require a study. Nothing in this bill relieves the administrator of the EPA from the responsibility to issue rules required by the Clean Air Act or any other legal obligation. Nothing in this bill changes the EPA's obligation to protect the public health. Nothing in this bill prevents the EPA from developing and proposing new regulations, taking public comments, or from preparing a final rule, a process that typically requires at least a year. In fact, it would be highly unlikely, as I said before, that they could even both propose and finalize this rule before the study was finished.

Our colleague also mentioned that we don't know enough information about proposed regulations to study them. EPA's own action development process--the internal ways that the EPA works, their own internal action development process--requires that the analysis of a regulation start early in the rule development. So they're already talking about what impact these have, including the President's own executive orders that require agencies to perform analysis and consider the cumulative effects of regulations. So this is an unnecessary amendment.

Our colleague mentioned some of the most toxic emitters of air pollution. There's a lot of people around the country that believe the most toxic emitter of air pollution is Congress. In this case, some of those arguments have been used in the bill on this amendment.

I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, again, I'm not in a position to tell constituents who may find it tough to make ends meet that it's okay if we increase your price of gasoline by a penny here and a penny there, a couple of pennies, maybe even a nickel.

Reclaiming my time, we know that a penny increase in a gallon of gasoline, the Federal Trade Commission has said, can be a significant burden, meaning as much as $4 million to individuals and businesses around the country for every single penny in the increase of the price of gasoline.

Again, this does not prevent the EPA from developing rules on the current schedule. It says, Look before you leap. That's why I object to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Again, I believe this amendment is unnecessary, talking about ambiguities and the silence in the law when it comes to the Clean Air Act in the determination of cost. Here the issue of cost was silent, and we are simply saying we ought to have the issue of cost brought into this.

When the term ``public health'' appeared in the first Federal Clean Air legislation in 1955, its ordinary meaning was ``the health of the community.'' In the American Trucking decision, as you pointed out, the Supreme Court affirmed that the definition of public health is ``the health of the public'' and does not refer to the health of nonliving entities.

The Clean Air Act requires that ambient air quality standards be established to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. Nothing--nothing--in H.R. 4480 changes the definition of ``public health.'' Again, let me say that: Nothing in H.R. 4480 changes the definition of ``public health'' in the Clean Air Act or any obligations. It doesn't change any obligations to set such human health-based standards.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague from Texas. We've worked on a couple of pieces of legislation together over the year and a half that I have been on the committee. I have the honor of serving with him on the Energy and Commerce Committee. But I also must rise again to oppose the amendment from our colleague from Texas.

Once again, under this bill, nothing in the gasoline regulations act stops the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule. Nothing in this prevents the EPA from protecting the public health and the environment, as the law requires them to do.

But as we talked in the previous amendment, consideration of the cost and the feasibility of these major rules is elsewhere throughout the law. And it is warranted because, in this case, a failure to consider those costs could hurt jobs and the economy. We need to know.

In fact, costs are required in other parts of the Clean Air Act. And EPA must consider costs in the context of setting New Source Performance Standards, automobile emission standards, aircraft emission standards, fuel additives, and reformulated gasoline standards. And it's also a matter that you have to consider costs when setting future drinking water standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

And if you hearken back to last year when President Obama decided that he was going to withdraw his last ozone rule, one of the comments that he made when he was withdrawing that ozone rule, which we argued would have greatly imperiled our economy--here's a quote from President Obama:

I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing

regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly

as our economy continues to recover.

So when the President was talking about the Clean Air Act, he recognized ozone; he recognized the importance of taking a look at our economic uncertainty and the economic uncertainty of his last ozone rule.

So I appreciate our colleague's amendment, but I certainly have to oppose it at this time. I urge the rest of my colleagues to oppose it as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, to repeat, to reiterate, to restate this point: Nothing in this bill--nothing in this bill--changes the EPA's obligation to protect the public health with an adequate safety margin. Nothing changes the obligation to protect the public health.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell a little bit of a story. I grew up and live in a very small town in the eastern plains of Colorado. There are about 3,000 people who live in this small town. And when I was growing up, there was a mother and her daughter who lived across the street from where I was growing up in a little home. They had an older car. And in this small town, the grocery stores, gosh, can't be more than four blocks away. But when they went to the grocery store, they walked.

As the years went by and the mother got older, they still walked to the grocery store. In the winter, a lot of times they walked. And in the summer, they walked. I remember asking them one time, they have a car, how come they're not driving? It's just four blocks away. And as she got older and it was more difficult to walk, her response was because we can't afford the gas. That's four blocks of driving. It can't use much gasoline. But the fact is, the price of gas mattered to that family. It made the difference of getting groceries, putting food on the table.

We talk about people's ability to afford health care. If you're left with the option of getting to work or buying health care insurance, what are you going to do? What choice are you going to make?

By making sure that we have abundant, affordable energy, we are making sure that families can make ends meet easier, that they can make those choices to go see the doctor when they need to, because high prices of energy certainly impact the ability of families to lift themselves out of poverty to make sure that they're improving their own lives.

Your amendment would stop the look that we're asking to take at what regulations do when it comes to the price of

gasoline, when it comes to the price of energy. Nothing in this bill prevents the EPA from developing rules on their current schedule, but it does say we need to understand the impact that they are going to have on the price of gasoline, because I bet those neighbors of mine are very interested in what government is doing to increase the cost of them getting to the grocery store or not, and maybe they could drive when it's cold outside.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time so that I can have the ability to close on my amendment, and I appreciate my colleague's debate on this.

But again, this issue is not about stopping or blocking the EPA from doing it, because they're fully able to develop rules on their current schedule. Nothing prevents them from protecting the public health and the environment as the law requires them to do--nothing. So your amendment, though, when you talk about rules affecting gas prices should be delayed until the report is completed because those rules could increase gas prices; that's all we're trying to do. Allowing a single member of this committee, which your amendment would do, to circumvent the analysis would defeat the purpose of the act.

Gas prices impact, as we know, all parts of our economy, and we need to have multiple experts. But the EIA, of which your amendment deals with, doesn't have the expertise in national competitiveness. They don't have the expertise in job impacts or agriculture or health benefits analysis.

Again, I think we have just got to be at the point where we let the American people know what's happening to the price of gasoline because of these regulations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Colorado State Senator Bob Bacon for his 14 years of service in the Colorado State Legislature.

After serving for 6 years in the Colorado House of Representatives and 8 years in the Colorado Senate, Bob is retiring from elected office to uphold the Colorado State Legislature's commitment to term limits.

I had the opportunity to serve alongside Senator Bacon in the State legislature and know that Coloradans will miss a true champion for northern Colorado. As an educator for over 35 years, Senator Bacon's insight into the classroom and education system helped shape the policies that support Colorado students.

Senator Bacon served Coloradans well and has a genuine passion to help the students and citizens of Colorado. He was twice elected to the Poudre School District for the board of education before he served in the State legislature, and his commitment and service were recognized by the naming of Bacon Elementary School in Fort Collins in his honor.

Today, I would like to formally recognize Senator Bacon's outstanding commitment and thank him for his hard work, dedication, and selfless nature when serving the citizens of Larimer County and the students of Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I'm offering along with my colleague, Mr. Welch from Vermont, addresses an important issue relating to Coast Guard facilities.

We've offered this same amendment to the two other appropriations bills this week, and they've passed by a voice vote. And while my colleague from Vermont is not here this evening, I want to commend him for his hard work on these amendments, and energy savings performance contracts in general.

I think the passage of these amendments sends a clear signal that Congress understands the importance of saving energy and, therefore, saving costs for the Federal Government.

This amendment does one simple thing. It says that the Coast Guard should provide an inventory of ways to improve efficiencies in their buildings, which is already a directive under current law.

Under current law, energy savings performance contracts, or ESPCs, are provided as a mechanism for private companies to come into Federal buildings and make energy efficiency upgrades. ESPCs result in savings for the Federal Government and create well-paying private sector jobs at no cost to taxpayers. It creates a win-win situation of reducing debt and creating jobs. The private sector company must guarantee the project improvements will produce energy savings sufficient to pay for the project.

In this fiscal climate, there is no reason we shouldn't be helping the Federal buildings find ways to save money and upgrade Federal buildings with cleaner and more efficient facilities.

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

Offered By: Mr. Gardner

Amendment No. 3: Page 21, line 24, insert before the period

at the end the following:

: Provided further, That of the funds made available under

this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be

available to the Secretary of Homeland Security to comply

with the Coast Guard's energy management requirements under

section 543(f)(7) of the National Energy Conservation Policy

Act (42 U.S.C. 8253(f)(7))

Offered By: Mr. Gardner

Amendment No. 20: Page 29, line 10, insert before the

period at the end the following:

: Provided further, That of the funds made available under

this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be

available to the Secretary of Energy to comply with the

Department's energy management requirements under section

543(f)(7) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 8253(f)(7))

Thank you, Mr. Welch, for allowing me to sponsor this amendment with you.

Energy savings performance contracts present a great opportunity for this government to do two of our highest priorities: number one, create jobs and, number two, reduce spending. It's an opportunity that we can all work together, something that has bipartisan support to make sure that we're doing the right thing when it comes to making our government buildings more efficient, and do it in a way that actually creates private sector jobs.

By some estimates the Federal Government can save $20 million or more by implementing energy savings measures in Federal buildings. Again, this is a program that's been approved, it's in law, and it's something that we have seen before used in a way that can create jobs, private sector opportunity, but benefit all taxpayers by reducing spending.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont for the opportunity to work with him and ask and urge the adoption of this amendment.

Offered By Mr. Gardner

Amendment No. 7: Page 29, line 10, insert before the period

at the end the following:

Provided further, That of the funds made available under

this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be

available to the Secretary of Energy to comply with the

Department's energy management requirements under section

543(f)(7) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 8253(f)(7)).

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ma Ying-jeou will be inaugurated as President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on May 20, 2012. On January 14, 2012, he won reelection and I sincerely congratulate him for his achievement.

I would like to applaud the effort that President Ma and his people have put forth to develop a strong democracy that promotes freedom, liberty, and the rule of law. To people around the world, Taiwan is a beacon of democracy and it is an honor to recognize their continued commitment to this distinguished ideal.

The United States and Taiwan have a long history of economic cooperation and friendship over the years. As a friend of Taiwan in the United States Congress, I would like to add that many of my colleagues and I strongly support our commitments to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act. This partnership between the United States and Taiwan is invaluable and we look forward to continuing to work together in the future. We also support Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Again, on the occasion of Mr. Ma's inauguration, we wish Mr. Ma and his people continued success in all their endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Lieutenant Colonel David Arnett from Greeley, Colorado, for his 29 years of service in the United States Air Force.

Colonel Arnett retired from service as the flight commander of the 137th Space Warning Squadron in Greeley this past month. His extensive accomplishments in the United States Air Force are rivaled only by his service and involvement in the Greeley community.

Colonel Arnett was recognized for his outstanding performance as a combat field commander, and the 137th Space Warning Squadron was recognized as the Nation's top nonflying Air National Guard combat squadron six times, which is unprecedented.

After 16 years of service in Greeley and a dozen major and minor combat inspections by the United States Air Force, Colonel Arnett was additionally recognized as one of the Nation's top space and missile operators and flight commanders. In the Greeley community, Colonel Arnett was the Boy Scouts of America Scout Master of the Year and is a loving husband to his wife, Cindy, and father of their four children.

Today, I would like to formally honor and congratulate Colonel Arnett on his retirement and thank him for his service and commitment to our Nation.

I thank the gentleman from New York for his words and for his comments on sequestration, on defense spending, on the challenges that we face in this country. I also want to thank the Speaker, who is our colleague from Alabama, for her work in making sure that we are providing the leadership necessary for our Armed Forces.

The gentleman from Virginia mentioned a key word. He mentioned the word ``leadership.'' The leadership is obvious that this House has shown in making sure that we are strengthening and keeping our defense strong in this Nation while also addressing the very serious crisis that we face with our national debt and deficit: passing a reconciliation plan, working with Members of this House to make sure that we come up with ways to find spending cuts, to reduce spending but to do so in a way that is responsible, to do so in a way that provides the leadership that our Armed Forces deserve and that the people of this country deserve.

Last week, a week ago yesterday, I had the incredible opportunity to go to the Iwo Jima Memorial where I was able to join over 100 veterans from my district in northern Colorado who had served in World War II and the Korean war. These veterans came from Greeley, Fort Collins, and from across the State's eastern plains. They were there to spend one day in Washington to visit the World War II Memorial and to visit the various monuments that are here in their honor for their service and their sacrifice.

I met three brothers who served on the same ship in the Korean war. I met a gentleman who was 92 years old who had never been on an airplane since his time in World War II. As I was leaving, as they were departing for their bus, a gentleman who was 85 years old came up to me and put his hand on my shoulder. He stopped me and I turned around.

He said, You know, I don't have much time left here--I really didn't know where he was going and what he was talking about--but he said, We're counting on you.

And I've thought about that. I thought long and hard about those words: ``we're counting on you'' to do the right thing, to do what is right for our country, to do what is right for our military, to do what is right for our men and women across this country who go to work each and every day to try to make ends meet but who are protected by people they've never met around the globe.

There is no doubt that we have a very serious fiscal challenge in front of us. There is no doubt that we are $15 trillion in debt. There is no doubt that $1.5 trillion deficits must make tough decisions around this place happen. The one thing that we cannot do is jeopardize the safety and security of this country and put our men and women in uniform at risk.

I am somebody who has come to the House floor time and time again, who has gone back to the district, and who has stood with many of my colleagues--with the gentleman from New York--to say, You know what? I believe we can reduce spending at the Department of Defense. I believe there are ways that we can reduce spending. We can find waste, abuse. We can reduce duplicative programs, including those programs that may be within the Department of Defense. But we can never, never jeopardize the security of this country, the security of our men and women in uniform--those people who are serving on the front lines of freedom around the world--by cutting too far and too deep.

The question that, I think, every American and every person in this Chamber ought to be asking is: Where is the leadership from the White House? Where is the plan to avoid these cuts that jeopardize not only our men and women but the very security of this country? Where is that plan to avoid very costly cuts that jeopardize the future of this Nation?

We passed a plan out of this Chamber to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion but to do so in a way that provides the leadership that this Nation desperately needs.

Our men and women are standing up around this country--those men and women I met at the Iwo Jima Memorial a week ago, who stood in the trenches in Korea and World War II, who are counting on us to do what is right. Their legacy of freedom didn't end when the wars ended. It continues to this very day as they stand with their brothers and sisters in arms to make sure that this country has the ability to protect and defend itself.

Ultimately, the leadership provided by this House will make sure that we continue to fund our defense, that we continue to fund our men and women in uniform appropriately, and that our national security will remain protected against any and all threats. I believe the Secretary of Defense has even recognized the grave challenges that the sequestration poses for our men and women in uniform. But I think it's time the question be asked to the President of the United States:

Mr. President, where is your plan to protect our men and women in uniform? Where is your plan to continue the great protection of this country?

While my colleague from New York and my colleague from Virginia come and speak about the great risks and challenges that we face, everybody recognizes that we have to address our debt-and-deficit situation. It reminds me of a time when Zell Miller, a Senator from Georgia, asked the question: What are we going to do? Are we going to provide the ammunition for our men and women in uniform with spitballs, or are we going to do what is right, by providing them the ability to defend themselves?

With that, I thank again our colleague from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) for her leadership on this very important issue.

I know our friend from Virginia talked about the concerns of the Secretary of Defense, yet we still have no plan from this White House on how to deal with the very serious problem that faces our troops and jeopardizes our country's security.

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for her leadership tonight.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, as well, for his work and leadership on this bill today and yesterday. We voted long into the morning this morning, and certainly appreciate his time and consideration.

The appropriations bills before us present an opportunity to provide oversight that is one of the most important duties and functions of this Congress, to make sure that we are looking at the ways our Federal Agencies, our administration is spending money and making sure that it is carried out properly.

One of the areas where I believe this Congress needs to further its oversight and step up its oversight concerns the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's asset forfeiture fund. This is money that is comprised of fines paid by individuals who violate the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The act, as many Members know, is the primary law governing fish management in our Federal waters, and it is responsible for managing fisheries, promoting conservation, producing bycatch, and ending overfishing.

The money in NOAA's asset forfeiture fund can only be used for express purposes that are laid out in statute, such as paying costs associated with providing any temporary storage of property seized during civil or criminal proceedings, paying off valid liens or mortgages against forfeited property, or reimbursing any Agency that assisted NOAA in enforcing the law.

Unfortunately, what we have seen is a pattern of unaccountability, a pattern of abuse of this money, including a purchase of a $300,000 yacht that was used for personal use by certain officials within NOAA.

This amendment simply says that the law, the money in the asset forfeiture fund should only be used for those express purposes as defined in statute, making sure that these abuses do not continue and making sure that this Congress steps up its role in oversight when it comes to funds of the United States.

With that, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment to make sure that we are accountable for the funds from the taxpayer, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the occasion of Honor Flight Northern Colorado's eighth flight to Washington, D.C. bringing Veterans of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam to see their memorials. On behalf of a grateful delegation, state, and country, we welcome these heroes.

The 122 Veterans on this flight include 48 from the Korea conflict, and 8 Purple Heart recipients from the Vietnam War. The Honor Flight program, founded in 2005, was intended to first honor all WWII Veterans that could make the trips, but then to afford the same to those from the Korea and Vietnam eras. We are, this day, honoring those Veterans from Korea (the Forgotten War) and Vietnam, our longest conflict in modern times, as they get to see their memorials. These trips are provided to our Veterans at no cost to them or their families.

The fact that these soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen would uproot themselves from their homes and families and put themselves in harm's way for our country is very humbling. The sacrifices they--and the families they left behind--made are truly incredible. The debt of gratitude we owe them can never be repaid, for without their honor, courage, commitment, and above all--sacrifice we would not able to enjoy the freedoms have today.

Please join me in thanking Charles Agnew, Lewis Ashcraft, Robert Barnd, Eugene Bonkiewicz, Carson Bright, Frank Brown, Wayne Bullock, William Castor, Lowell Dart, Donald Draxler, Robert Duntsch, Jose Duran, Joseph Edwards, George Emerick, Jack Endacott, Marvin Fowler, Robert Gillham, Warren Garst, Joseph Graham, William Hampton, Walter Hayword, Roland Kaiser, Willis Kramer, Victor Lazar, David Leon, Verne Lewellen, Harry Livingston, Mary Livingston, Gilbert Lopez, Russell Mam, W. Dennis McHenry, Raymond Mega, Gerald Monroe, Donald Morrison, Bernard Nettesheim, Reynolds Olson, Homer Phillips Jr., Richard Porter, Marion Raines, James Rauenbuehler, Frederick Reck, Gilbert Rohde, Walter Sapp, Henry Schmitt Jr., John Shedd, Alan Schultes, Bill Shupe, Waldo Smith, Charles Smoot, Fredrick Stein, William Stromberg Sr., Gene Thorson, Clyde Treadway, Theodore Wahler, Arthur Wartburg, Crowell Werner, James White, Robert Williams, Evans Woodhouse, Darryl Anderson, Raymond Anderson, Donald Armagost, James Ball, Eugene Ball, Harry Ball, Leslie Brumley,

Orlis Charboneau, Dale Crist, Robert Cupp, Timothy Daley, Bobbie Desmond, Edward Eson, Clarence Ehrlich, Alvin Eurich, Francis Fleming Jr., James Flynn, Leslie Fraley Jr., George Frysinger III, Richard Gero, John Goad, Virgil Hanson, Roman Herrmann, John Hess, Billy Hettinger, Donald Hoffner, Marguerite Ingram, Robert Kramer, Robert Kruger, Lindy Leifheit, Chester McCoy, Chester McGuire, William Miller, Raymond Nuss, James Ochsner, Louis Peterson, Marshall Petring, Arnold Piel, Wayne Pimple, Richard Reagan, Gerald Rice, Harry Rieger, Edward Roebuck, Gerald Ross, Alan Seaman, Dick Sears, Joseph Sellers, William Shirey, Norris Slechta, Robert Stanley, Elizabeth Strahan, Clarence Strahan Jr., William Striffler, Darrell Viegut, Sam Warner, Doyle Biggs, Paul Delgado, Edward Fast, Dennis Henneberg, Donald Hess, Daniel Menzies, Jack Roberts and Steven White for their dedication, commitment, and service to this great nation.