Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, my constituents in Colorado, like all Americans, are demanding that Congress cut spending. We must look for every opportunity, large and small, to cut wasteful government programs. This amendment does just that. The Weatherization Assistance Program, otherwise known as ``Cash for Caulkers,'' and part of the failed stimulus package, has been plagued by bureaucratic mismanagement. This $5 billion program was supposed to create jobs, but we all know that didn't work out so well. In fact, with unemployment ticking up for 2 months in a row, we must reverse course and cut all unspent stimulus dollars. In the stimulus, $5 billion was injected into ``Cash for Caulkers'' through the Department of Energy in an attempt to help lower the cost of energy and increase efficiency for people who qualified. The goal was to make 593,000 homes more energy efficient by March 2012. This program, however, has been marked by mismanagement, fraud, waste, and abuse. Most notably is the case of Delaware, where Federal auditors found mismanagement issues and potential fraudulent activities. Reportedly, subsequent repairs and other inspections will cost the State a sizable amount of their remaining funds. Issues have arisen in other States as well. When large sums of money are spent too quickly, the opportunities for waste and abuse are rampant. The Obama administration, in its haste to create government jobs, failed to thoughtfully and prudently assess how money was spent. In these tough fiscal times, we must have accountability for every dollar spent by the Federal Government. States have until March of 2012 to use Cash for Clunkers funds or risk having them returned to the Treasury. I am concerned that this could leave a large slush fund of $1.5 billion in the hands of federal bureaucrats. They could spend that money with very little Congressional oversight. My amendment is simple. It will prevent the Secretary of Energy from reallocating funds remaining from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act from one State to another. This will leave up to $1.5 billion that can be returned to the Treasury next March, thus reducing our massive deficit. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Steve Martyn, Field Representative and Case Worker for the 5th district of Colorado, and would like to express my gratitude for his service and congratulate him on his well-earned admission to the University of Colorado School of Law. Mr. Martyn's career has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to public service as he has been involved in numerous service activities at the state and federal level. He has been a tremendous researcher, team leader, event planner, writer, and more specifically, an invaluable member of my staff. He has represented me and my office with excellence and has given his best efforts to serve the wonderful citizens of Colorado Springs. For the past two years, Mr. Martyn has proven himself to be an exceptional case worker, field representative, and respected team member among his colleagues. Thousands of constituents have been directly aided and positively influenced by the expertise, customer service, and distinguished work ethic of Mr. Martyn. As he transitions into life as a full-time law student, I am greatly honored to acknowledge and thank him publically for his service. The benefits that my wife and I, our staff, and the many citizens of the 5th district of Colorado have received due to his hard work are beyond measure. Mr. Martyn has set an impressive precedent for service, proof of his path to a highly successful career. I would like to join in celebration with his colleagues, family, and friends as we congratulate him on his achievements as he continues to further his commitment to public service through the practice of law.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment and consider it harmful to our Nation's defense. We already know President Obama is no fan of missile defense based on his budget priorities. He cut this same program, Ground Based Midcourse Defense, by $445 million in fiscal year 2010. His request for 2012 cuts this program by another $185 million. Remember, this program is the only defense we have against an intercontinental ballistic missile fired by a rogue country or a terrorist group. On top of Obama's cuts, this amendment would cut another $100 million. All we have today is a couple of dozen Interceptors on the west coast. We have nothing on the east coast. We should be adding money, not slashing it. The general in charge of the Missile Defense Agency said in April in a hearing before our subcommittee that he wants more money than what the President requested for testing and additional Interceptors. The Secretary of Defense said in January we have underestimated the threat from North Korea from its missile and nuclear programs. The Director of National Intelligence said in February that Iran's missile technology could be used for ICBMs. Now is not the time to slash our only defense for intercontinental threats from countries like North Korea or Iran. The threat is real. The consequences would be devastating. We must reject this reckless amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 63rd anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, declared on May 14, 1948. Israel has provided Jews from all over the world with the opportunity to reestablish and participate in a Jewish state and society in their ancient homeland, the Land of Israel, with the city of Jerusalem as its undivided capital. Not only is Israel home to many religious sites sacred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but Israel has provided a refuge to Jews who survived the unprecedented horrors of the Holocaust and Jewish refugees who fled persecution around the world. The people of Israel have established a pluralistic democracy that includes the freedoms cherished by the people of the United States, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and government by the consent of the governed. Israel continues to serve as a shining model of democratic values by regularly holding free and fair elections, promoting the free exchange of ideas, and vigorously exercising in its Parliament, the Knesset, a democratic government that is fully representative of its citizens. Additionally, Israel has bravely defended itself from terrorist and military attacks repeatedly since independence. With thousands of rocket attacks from violent extremist groups in Gaza against Israeli civilian targets in recent years that have caused hundreds of casualties and have destroyed homes, schools, buildings, roads, power lines, and other significant infrastructure, Israel has stood strong. Even with the deaths of over 1,000 innocent Israelis over the last several years at the hands of murderous, suicide bombers and other terrorists, the people of Israel stand strong. Israel continues to seek peace with their Palestinian neighbors and have signed landmark peace treaties and successfully established peaceful bilateral relations with neighboring Egypt and Jordan. Moreover, Iran, which continues to reject Israel's right to exist as a nation, remains a continued threat to Israel's safety and security, both through its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and through its ongoing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. A strong and valuable ally, the United States and Israel enjoy a strategic partnership based on shared democratic values, friendship, and respect. The United States share a deep affinity with the people of Israel and view Israel as a strong and trusted ally. Not only was the United States the first nation to offer de facto recognition, but did so only 11 minutes after the creation of the state of Israel. In recognizing the 63rd anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, I reaffirm enduring, bipartisan support for the alliance and friendship between the Governments and peoples of the United States and Israel, for Israel to exist as a democratic Jewish state, and for its right to defend itself. I look forward to continued cooperation in resolving future mutual challenges and extend warm congratulations and best wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate independence.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee who represents a district right on the gulf coast and is passionate about what is happening and not happening down there and what should be happening, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Equal Access to Justice Act provisions in this bill are necessary to avoid costly delays to domestic energy development based on the extreme anti-energy agenda of a few groups. The Equal Access to Justice Act was intended to allow people and small businesses with limited financial means the ability to challenge the actions of the Federal Government. However, it is now being abused by deep-pocketed special interest organizations. For example, in 2005, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council received nearly $200,000 in taxpayer dollars after suing the Federal Government in an offshore energy project in California. The Sierra Club has annual revenues of $85 million, and the Natural Resources Defense Council has annual revenues of over $100 million. There is no justification for forcing the American taxpayer to pay the attorneys' fees of special interest groups that have ample funds of their own. Wealthy, ideological groups opposed to more American-made offshore energy can continue to sue to their hearts' content, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill. I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Taxpayer dollars should not go to lawsuits being filed by special interests that are making millions and millions of dollars in annual revenue. I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's stand back and look for a moment at the big picture. This administration has been held in contempt of court for slow-walking permits and is currently trying to appeal a Federal judge's warning that ordered them to act on stalled deepwater permits. While the administration continues to hold up the permitting process, thousands of Americans remain unemployed, and American energy is locked up. This legislation encourages courts that are hearing permitting cases to act as expeditiously as possible. Environmental groups are already working to prepare lawsuits aimed at stalling and holding up offshore energy production. This bill encourages the courts to work expeditiously so that lawsuits can be settled quickly. Now, in seeking to replace the word ``expeditiously'' with ``justly,'' we are doing something that is totally unnecessary. Those of us supporting this bill already assume that the courts will act justly. That's what they're appointed for, and that's what we expect and require them to do. So it is superfluous and unnecessary to say that they have to act justly when that's what they're going to do. At least that's our assumption over here anyway. Yet we need to say that they act expeditiously as well as justly because of the slow-walking nature of this current administration's approach to permitting. The effect of this amendment, were it to be adopted, would slow down American energy production at a time when prices are skyrocketing. We need judges to move cases in an expeditious manner so that we can use American energy. This bill ensures that everyone will have their day in court, but it also ensures that the slow walking of permits by this executive branch will not continue. I urge a ``no'' vote and for my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I would say that those judges certainly would have a closeness to the situation that would be helpful. But the circuit, I believe it's the 11th Circuit, includes a number of other States that are not as situated like Alabama and Florida. So in choosing the Fifth Circuit, all the States there are Gulf Coast States.

Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, I would say that we would have a more legitimate issue to debate. We could go into that. But it's too late, the amendment doesn't say that. And so that's not an option in front of us.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. LAMBORN. If the gentleman wanted to make sure that the judges of Alabama and Florida were included, then maybe the amendment should have been written that way, and I think we would have a strong point of debate and that would be a legitimate item to discuss. However, that's not how the amendment is drafted. The amendment talks about letting in judges of the entire country, circuits of the entire country. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is the Judiciary Committee did not have any problems with this particular revision. But having discussed all the issues around this amendment, I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In order to ensure that there is a circuit court that is familiar with the legal issues surrounding civil actions involving gulf energy production, it is important that venue be restricted to the Fifth Circuit so that those district and appeals court judges would have the essential experience and legal precedent to fairly rule on these technical cases. For that reason, I oppose this amendment. The Fifth Circuit, as was pointed out earlier, does include Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, all Gulf Coast States. If various district courts and courts of appeal throughout the country were able to hear these cases, there may be a result of having no uniformity in decisionmaking, and judges who do not have as much expertise or background could be making vital decisions in which the energy security of our Nation hangs in the balance. It is essential that there be one Federal judicial circuit that understands the technical aspects of these cases with judges who have a background in understanding offshore energy policies and practices. That will ensure that all cases are handled fairly and expeditiously and uniformly without any confusion or delay. By requiring all cases to go through the Fifth Circuit, we accomplish this important goal. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I would just point out that it is skewing the statistics and not accurate to say that the U.S. only has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. When you look at Btus, energy production, we have more energy available in this country than any other country in the world; and looking at oil specifically, we have 145 billion barrels of recoverable oil, according to the CRS. So that is much larger than what some people say. On the point of whether the President has taken a position, this is the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, and there is no veto threat in here. So if we are fortunate to see this bill not just pass the House but the Senate as well, I am sure the White House will seriously consider this, and I would be hopeful that it would be signed into law. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, the intent of H.R. 1229 is to put Americans in the gulf back to work and to ensure a steady domestic supply of oil for our citizens and our consumers, thereby lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil. I must oppose this amendment. The effect of the amendment is that we are going to hold ourselves hostage to foreign energy unless we can prove that domestic energy meets some abstract standard and satisfies some bureaucrat. Where I disagree with this amendment the most is the assumption that domestic energy production might not be good for America and might not be allowed. More supply cannot help but to lower prices, reduce dependence, generate revenue and create jobs. I see all these results of domestic energy production as good: good for America, good for consumers and good for our balance of trade. This is true whether the impact from a single well is sufficient in and of itself to move the price of oil prices overseas or not. The real result of this amendment would be that we don't create jobs, revenue and more energy. For these reasons, Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will do my best to be brief. The purpose of H.R. 1229 is to get residents of the gulf back to work in producing offshore energy. It is not only good for them; it is good for the entire country. This amendment, whether intended or not, would allow the administration to continue to impose a de facto moratorium that would delay American energy production and keep thousands of people out of work. The residents of the gulf are simply in a holding pattern, waiting for their jobs to come back. Some of them are even seeing their jobs outsourced to other countries as rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, bound for other parts of the world. Now, there is an established process for the administration to propose and advocate for funding and resources, which is different from what this amendment addresses. This annual process, the budget process, provides ample opportunity for considering what is needed to safely and responsibly oversee offshore energy production. Let us note that the House Republican majority, in enacting a budget, acted to increase funding for reviewing and approving offshore permits for the current year, which was not done by the Democratic Congress last year. This amendment would delay American energy production. For that reason, I oppose it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I will conclude by saying that what this bill wants to accomplish is that the administration must reach a decision on whether a permit should be issued. This amendment proposes to remove the final deadline that the administration would have to meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de facto moratorium is instituted. This amendment would simply further delay offshore energy production. That does not help jobs. It does not help the supply or cost of energy in this country. It would allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that would cost thousands of jobs. I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. I want to apologize. I was confused as to whether the gentleman was asking a rhetorical question or really wanted to have a colloquy. By the time I figured that out, he had moved on to the remainder of his argument. I would have been happy to and hopefully in the future I could have a colloquy on that with him. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation on the floor today is designed to put Americans in the gulf region back to work and to ensure that permits are processed in a timely fashion and that bureaucratic delays are not hampering the Nation's energy production. There are critics of the timeline that is proposed in this bill on both sides of that timeline. Some say it's too short. Others say it is too long. It's important that people understand that nowhere in this bill do we require the administration to do anything but reach a decision, whatever that decision might be. They may deny an application at any time in the process as long as they provide a clear description of why they are doing so. Prior to the incident in the gulf, the administration was very capable of processing permits in 5 to 15 days on average. The 30-day timeline in the bill is significantly longer, and allows the administration extensions. In the end, the administration must reach a decision. The provision this amendment proposes to remove is the final deadline that the administration must meet and one that should be firm to ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and that no de facto moratorium or permitorium is instituted. This amendment, if adopted, would simply further delay offshore energy production. It would continue to allow the Department to arbitrarily impose a de facto drilling moratorium that could cost thousands of jobs and allow higher prices on energy with less supply. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

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