[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1222-H1246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OIL PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2000

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the enthusiasm of the 
Committee on International Relations to bring forward something to at 
least focus the Nation's attention on the energy price increase we have 
had in the

[[Page H1223]]

 last 3 or 4 months. I cannot applaud, though, their work product. I am 
going to oppose the bill. I am going to insist on a point of order on 
the amendments that should have been before the subcommittee that I 
chair, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  I want to point out one fact. In the fiscal year that just ended, the 
United States of America gave directly in foreign aid, military aid, 
economic aid and food aid to the OPEC nations $197.9 million. Based on 
$30 per barrel for oil, that is less than one day's supply of imports 
of oil to this country. So if the amendment as reported out of the 
Committee on International Relations had kept the teeth in it and if 
the President of the United States had dictated that all of our aid be 
suspended to the OPEC nations that have engaged in their cartel, it 
would have impacted the cartel by one day of oil imports to this 
Nation. I hope we will oppose the bill and work for responsible 
solutions.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this bill does absolutely nothing to help 
working families cope with higher energy prices but frankly we can 
expect an energy bill without content from a Republican Party without 
an energy policy. Just take a look at their record. They want to lay 
the blame elsewhere. But they slashed $1.3 billion from energy 
efficient programs that would reduce our dependence on gas and oil. 
They wanted to sell off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They wanted to 
abolish the Department of Energy. They will not reauthorize the 
President's authority to draw down from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. We had an opportunity here last night with amendments that 
were offered to set up a Northeast Petroleum Reserve in order to deal 
with home heating oil, to look at tax incentives for our domestic 
production of gas and oil, renewable sources of energy, all kinds of 
ways in which we could address the problem that people are facing today 
in this country.
  And what did they say? No. They said no because this is about 
politics. This is not about an energy policy. What we need to do is to 
look people straight in the eye and say, this is what we want to do to 
help you cope with the high cost of energy.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in support of this measure, the Oil Price Reduction Act, 
although it will not do that but I think it is important that we do 
send a signal that we are concerned about this issue and that we 
recognize this issue hits at the very heart of America's prosperity and 
it hits at every American family.
  I want to make a couple of observations, though. This is a bipartisan 
issue, and it really deserves some bipartisan solutions. Unfortunately 
my Republican colleagues in many instances chose to play politics. They 
denied concrete amendments which would have really done something, 
amendments to use the strategic reserve to calm the marketplace, 
amendments to provide incentives for greater production, a reserve that 
could help the Northeast with home heating costs. Those are real action 
items that we could have done on a bipartisan basis but they said no 
and blocked the amendments.
  Second, I want to observe that since they have been running this 
place for the last 6 years, they could have instituted an energy policy 
that would have made us self-reliant. They have not done so.
  Third, I want to observe that this bill is not a bad idea but it does 
not do anything more than the President already can do. So let us not 
oversell this. The President has the right to engage in these 
negotiations. He should and in point of fact he is doing so in the form 
of a quiet diplomacy that we believe will yield positive results when 
OPEC meets. But it is important that we do send a signal and Congress 
in fact does have a role.
  What am I saying? Simply this. We need to say to our foreign oil-
producing allies that there is a link between your cooperation and our 
generosity in foreign aid. When I look at the foreign aid request of 
Indonesia for $135 million, of Nigeria for $80 million, of Russia for 
$252 million, I believe these countries can play a constructive role in 
helping us lower oil prices. I do not think we should have to beg. I 
think we should send an important signal to them which this bill does. 
That is, that we are serious about oil prices in this country and we 
expect and hope that our allies will be supportive. I think that is an 
important first step. But we need to do more. It needs to be more 
concrete and we need to do it on a bipartisan basis.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara).
  Mr. MASCARA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to the threat that 
rising oil prices pose to our economy. We are witnessing the most 
drastic price increases since the oil crisis of the 1970s. Many of my 
colleagues recall the devastating impact of high oil prices during that 
period. Long lines at the pumps and rationing were only modest 
inconveniences compared to the economic impact of double-digit 
inflation, soaring interest rates and high unemployment.
  We are at a crossroads. We need to act now. Our country's economic 
well-being depends on how we respond to this crisis. The United States 
has been fair and generous towards oil-producing nations. We have 
invested in their economies; we have rescued their currencies from 
collapse; we have risked the lives of our men and women to defend their 
sovereignty.
  Now we must go begging for fairness. OPEC is playing Russian roulette 
with the world's economy. While there are serious questions as to 
whether this bill in its final form will be effective, our oil-
producing friends need to know and understand that we mean business.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this resolution is an imposter. Its very 
name, the Oil Price Reduction Act, is a trick and a deception. If we 
wanted to do something about it and we must, that is, the price of oil, 
we know what we have to do. But the majority party here has refused to 
do it. You have refused to allow a bill on the floor which will allow 
us to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to deal with price 
fluctuations. You have refused to allow a bill on the floor which will 
establish a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast to deal with the 
cost of home heating in that part of the country. You have refused to 
deal with a bill, and bring a bill out on the floor which will reduce 
the consumption of oil through transportation, particularly through 
automobiles. You have refused to bring legislation out on the floor 
which will allow this one to be amended which would allow for 
conservation and for the development of alternative energy.
  All of these things are needed. Yet you have refused to do any one of 
them. Instead, what you have done is dragged this imposter out here to 
pretend you are doing something when it is clear you are doing nothing.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members what this bill does, and 
I read: ``It shall be the policy of the United States to consider the 
extent to which major net oil exporting countries engage in oil price-
fixing to be an important determinant in the overall political, 
economic and security relationship between the United States and these 
countries.''
  This bill requires a report. It requires a study. And in fact if it 
does what I think it will do, it will label these OPEC nations as 
price-fixing. They have raised this price of oil at over $30 a barrel, 
and that has increased the price at the gas pump from 98 cents a year 
ago to, in my district, $1.55 this weekend.
  That is not acceptable. As I have told my constituents and as they 
have told me, we need to respond to this. What we ought to be doing if 
we can label these folks, any sixth, seventh grade economic individual 
can tell you, they have cut off our oil, which has raised the price. 
They have turned off the spigot not only to the United States but to 
the rest of the world as well and we ought to turn off the spigot on

[[Page H1224]]

them. Economic aid, foreign military aid, it ought to go until they 
open up the spigot back on us.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, Congress has awesome power when it wants 
to act but today that power is being squandered. American consumers are 
being price gouged by an unholy alliance of OPEC and big oil.
  The gentleman who preceded me wants to do a study to see if they are 
price gouging. Oh, come on. Did the gentleman see the movie Casa 
Blanca? This is ridiculous. We know price gouging, price fixing is 
going on. It is time, it is past time, to act. Concrete actions could 
be taken today on the floor but they will not be allowed by the 
majority because they fly in the face of big oil, their campaign 
sponsors.
  We could ban the export of oil from Alaska. We could file a complaint 
in the World Trade Organization for these violations of their charter. 
We could reinstitute programs which they decimated for conservation for 
renewable resources. We could give the President the authority to tap 
the strategic petroleum reserve. There are things we could do.
  They want a study. They want to undertake a concerted diplomatic 
campaign and take the necessary steps to begin negotiations. The White 
House has already done that and I think they are pathetic steps. You 
are even more pathetic by telling them to do what they are already 
doing.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, the problem is, we have to do something 
because the administration, by their own admission, has been caught 
napping and they are still napping. And the people of this country and 
the people of South Dakota cannot afford to wait until the alarm clock 
goes off. We have farmers and ranchers who are going to be going into 
the field to plant. We have tourism season coming on in our State, and 
we have people who travel a long distance between points to get to 
their destinations.
  There is no place that is more dependent upon a reliable energy 
supply than is my State of South Dakota. The administration has failed 
in the past. They are currently failing and that is why Congress needs 
to act. This legislation sends OPEC a very loud and clear message that 
time and time again we have come to their defense and it is high time 
for those nations to do what is right, to recognize the past support of 
the United States and to stop manipulating the supply of the world's 
oil.
  This legislation is an important first step. It calls upon the 
administration to take strong measures to see that if there is price-
fixing going on, that arms sales and other sales, economic and 
political measures, are taken to stop the abuse of the oil prices and 
oil supply crisis.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure held a hearing on matters pertaining to the soaring 
costs of gasoline and diesel fuel. Ostensibly the purpose of the 
hearing was to determine whether consumers would benefit from repealing 
a 4.3 cents Federal fuel tax, which they would not. Such a proposal is 
SSI, a simply stupid idea.
  Experts in the transportation field, including consumer groups such 
as the AAA, all said this proposal would have severe adverse effects on 
our country in terms of highway safety, congestion relief and 
employment while, at the most, saving the American consumer about fifty 
cents a week; the price of a pack of chewing gum, if that, because the 
oil companies would probably take that amount themselves.
  What every witness did support, however, is releasing oil from the 
SPR, and I join them in calling on the President to do so immediately. 
This is very important within the context of the measure we now 
consider. I am sure that the President and our former colleague, Energy 
Secretary Bill Richardson, are doing their best on the diplomatic 
front, but one cannot fight a cartel without weapons and our best 
weapon is to turn on the spigots, bring our fuel prices down and show 
OPEC that we will not be at its mercy, that we will not be held 
hostage.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on both 
sides, the Department of Energy that is caught napping and retired on 
active duty should be eliminated; that an energy policy where they said 
we were in the majority, I would like to remind my colleagues that the 
President vetoed our energy policy. The President vetoed our bill when 
we wanted to open up ANWR, and we are asking him to change that policy 
and to review those kinds of policies.
  I would ask the President, when he took over the Utah coal, who was 
his direct competitor? It was a guy named Mr. Trie. And guess what? He 
doubled the price of coal that he sells to China, and yet the DNC gets 
millions of dollars from Trie and Huang and Riady, and yet when we look 
at the Spratly Islands and China and the oil reserves there, fighting 
both Japan and the Philippine Islands, there has been zero taken care 
of and we are asking the President, any foreign policy to take a look 
and to change that. I think that is legitimate.
  I would say that I am just as upset at OPEC as my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. We had men and women die to support the 
freedom for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, and I think it is 
outrageous what they are doing.
  I agree with the gentleman, we in San Diego have seen price-fixing 
even during normal times. I agree with the gentleman. We ought to do 
something about that as well. In the meantime, I think it is legitimate 
to ask the President to come forward and review those policies, both 
the ones that he has supported and those that he has not; that we have 
supported. We will join with the President because like my colleague, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) talked about, it is the 
farmers, it is the truckers, it is the consumers that are paying the 
bill. It is the people in the Northeast that demand heating oil.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the reasoned statement of my 
colleague, the gentleman from California Mr. Cunningham) that he just 
made because that is exactly the tone in which we ought to be speaking 
today; not the continuous blame game that I have heard. That is why I 
rise to express my great disappointment in this legislation which 
pathetically fails to address any of the fundamental energy policy 
questions that Congress and the administration should be working on 
together to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources.
  Unfortunately, this legislation is a knee-jerk reaction which is 
targeted towards publicity far more than solving our long-term needs. 
Right now consumers are paying high gasoline and diesel prices at the 
pump and folks in the Northeast faced very high home heating costs this 
winter. These are very serious problems, just as critically low oil 
prices were serious problems only 14 months ago.
  Over a 2-year period, our Nation lost over 500,000 barrels per day of 
domestic oil and gas production when prices were so low that it cost 
more to find and produce crude than could be made by selling it.
  When prices are so low that our domestic producers are forced out of 
business, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil inevitably increases. 
Now that we depend on foreign sources for almost 60 percent of our fuel 
demands, we begin to see the folly of our earlier inaction.
  We cannot afford to continue ignoring the desperate need for a 
comprehensive energy policy which encourages and promotes domestic 
production of oil and gas, provides for incentives for renewable energy 
sources, and reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

[[Page H1225]]

  Congress should act, and to my friends on this side of the aisle they 
would be surprised how many Democrats are willing to reach out and work 
with them.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations, for stepping up to the plate 
at a time when the American people are being hurt and being hurt badly.
  The fact is, this administration, the Clinton administration, should 
have acted a year ago and finally it takes us in Congress and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and his leadership to step up to 
try to do something about this actual theft of money from the American 
people.
  What is happening? We are talking about hundreds of dollars being 
taken out of the pockets of each and every American family by an 
international, a criminal conspiracy, to control the prices on oil and 
gas.
  This was not a covert conspiracy. A year ago, OPEC openly worked, 
blatantly and openly decided that they were going to cut production in 
order to bring up prices. Where was the Clinton administration? It is 
supposed to be watching out for the well-being of our people. This is 
the worst regressive tax we can have. It is hurting the very poorest 
and middle-class people in America that can be hurt. This is taking the 
money out of people's salary; it is taking money out of their pockets 
that they would spend on food, et cetera.
  Let us make it clear here, what is happening is OPEC has gotten 
together in a conspiracy to raise prices. This administration did 
nothing over a full year and now the prices are going through the roof 
and the American people are seeing that their standard of living is 
going down. That is what is happening.
  Now the bottom line is that makes it even worse, this administration 
could have done something. Some of these people involved in this 
conspiracy to raise prices, we are defending them, whether it is Saudi 
Arabia or Kuwait, friends of ours. We have troops over there right now 
defending them. And this administration does not use that as leverage 
to try to get them to treat the American people fairly?
  This is an insult to the American people that after defending these 
people they end up taking us to the cleaners; they end up hurting our 
people; they end up decreasing the standard of living or the well-being 
of the American people down after we have defended them. That is an 
insult.
  It is incompetence on the part of this administration or cowardice 
that they have not confronted those people in OPEC, used the leverage 
that we have and said if they are going to abuse the American people we 
are not going to defend them anymore.
  Believe me, had we done that we would have gotten their attention. 
Instead, by the time this gets fixed, there will be billions of dollars 
being taken out of the pockets of the American people and it is going 
to hurt some people's lives here.
  I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for stepping up to 
the plate. I am just sorry that this administration did not do the 
same.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, legislation should not be necessary. The 
President and Congress should mutually sign a letter and send the 
letter to the kings and monarchs of these OPEC countries and tell them 
the next time they are attacked call Mobile Oil in the rotary because 
we are not going to defend them.
  Mr. Chairman, OPEC is not the only villain. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) should not have objected to the Traficant amendment. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) should not object to the Traficant 
amendment, and I may test the ruling of the Chair.
  In the 1970s, OPEC was blamed when American companies kept tankers 
out in the ocean denying the product, artificially driving up the 
prices.
  OPEC is not the only villain. American companies are taking license 
with this increase and gouging our citizens. My amendment would force 
an investigation and if it proves that this, in fact, occurred, a fine 
of up to $100 million would be imposed on American companies who rip us 
off.
  First of all, I think we should send the letter and say the next time 
they are attacked, call the rotary.
  I may appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I am asking the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to 
listen carefully to the Traficant amendment. It deals with the other 
side of the issue.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Oil Price Reduction Act encourages President 
Clinton to take stronger action against those involved in price-fixing, 
but he is already doing that. This energy crisis should really be a 
wake-up call for Congress to seriously reconsider our current energy 
policy, and there is no better time than now to take up real long-term 
solutions.
  Secretary Richardson's diplomatic efforts are the right thing to do, 
and I am hopeful like all of us are, that OPEC will reconsider its 
production policy when it meets.
  According to press accounts, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico, and 
Venezuela say they are in favor of raising production levels. Now this 
is good news. The President's initiative to strengthen America's energy 
security, particularly his $1.4 billion investment in energy efficiency 
and alternative energy technology, is a right step. However, now is the 
time for Congress to push for long-term solutions. Now is the time to 
encourage stronger energy efficiency standards.
  The State of California, for example, is leading the Nation in 
requiring the development of electrical and hybrid vehicles, which is 
an excellent example of how we both reduce emissions and also reduce 
our reliance on fossil fuels and also emissions.

                              {time}  1730

  Now is really certainly the time to invest in alternative fuels and 
renewable energy. Currently, in my district, Alameda Contra Costa 
Transit Company is taking great strides to invest in fuel cell engines, 
which offers a very promising alternative and is a zero emissions 
energy source.
  Now is the time to encourage a wider spread use of mass transits. As 
in many cities across the Nation understand, increasing our investment 
in buses and light rail will help reduce traffic congestion, pollution 
and our dependence on gas.
  Now is the time to end our dependence on OPEC oil. For example, there 
are numerous countries in Africa, such as Angola and some off the west 
coast of Africa, that are examples of oil-producing countries with 
promising opportunities for the United States.
  In my district in Northern California, prices rose by 15 cents to 
$1.66 in early March. Now my constituents are looking at gas prices of 
almost $2.00 and above. This has got to stop. Low-income wage earners 
can barely make it in many areas across our country with the high cost 
of housing. They can ill afford these high prices for gas and oil. Our 
response to their concerns must start by promising to never allow this 
to happen again by committing ourselves to long-term solutions.
  The time is now for us to really be for real, by getting down to work 
for a consumer-friendly national energy policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oil Price 
Reduction Act. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Gilman) for his timely response to address this energy 
crisis.
  I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Last 
winter we in the Northeast were feeling the economic sting of this oil 
crisis due to high heating oil and diesel prices. Now, with increased 
gasoline prices, the rest of the country is feeling the pain we in the 
Northeast have experienced for the last 3 months.
  I was going to offer an amendment today that would require a report 
from

[[Page H1226]]

the administration distilling what our national energy policy really is 
and how we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Although this 
amendment was printed in the Record, I have been informed that it is 
not germane.
  The thrust of my amendment was to address the question everyone is 
asking: Why did we not see this coming? Why were we not prepared to 
meet it?
  I am here today to work with you and the Members of this Chamber to 
find the answers to these questions and also to make sure that we will 
never again be held hostage by the princes and potentates of the Middle 
East. These are the same friends for whom a decade ago we risked our 
sons' and daughters' lives to protect against Iraqi aggression.
  The bottom line is that we lack a coherent national energy policy to 
insulate us from volatility in the markets. To my knowledge, the only 
visible policy this administration has demonstrated is to have 
Secretary of Energy Richardson globe-trot to palaces in the Middle East 
to plead and petition those princes to ease our burden.
  As this drama unfolds and more bankruptcies pile up, more independent 
trucks will be idled, parked or sold, another farmer will go out of 
business, another family will have their budget busted.
  On the 27th, OPEC will meet to determine our near-term economic 
future. We should not have to wait on OPEC to determine our economic 
future. OPEC may extend the existing production cuts; and according to 
the international energy agency, global supplies could be as much as 3 
million barrels per day below demand. Now we have to have a coherent 
energy policy so that we are working towards a long-term solution.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone recognizes that we are 
in the midst of a serious crisis. The leadership of the House decides 
for this serious crisis that each side will have one-half hour for the 
discussion; that any amendments that would directly affect the supply, 
availability of product, alternative energy, any attempt to provide 
additional support for the strategic petroleum reserve, will be out of 
order.
  Think about this: it may be understandable that the leadership of 
this House, for the 6 years they have been in control, they have 
stopped every effort at increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles, 
that they have resisted filling the strategic petroleum reserve, and 
now sit on that legislation which expires this month and refuses to 
reauthorize it.
  All that may have been understandable for the last 6 years, that 
ideologically they felt government had no role in energy policy, that 
we did not need to invest in more efficient automobiles and 
weatherizing homes and having a substantial strategic reserve, in 
working on alternative energy policy, on conservation programs. But now 
we have been awakened again. We now find ourselves in a created crisis. 
OPEC has used its coordinating production policy to drive up the price 
of heating oil, first; and as the heating oil season demands are 
reduced, we are now seeing the impact on gasoline prices.
  What is the response from the Republican leadership? We are going to 
have a half-hour on each side to discuss sending the President a 
request for a report.
  It seems to me that we owe our constituents more; that the gentleman 
from New York may be restricted by jurisdiction, but clearly the 
Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could have brought 
to the floor legislation that starts today that would authorize this 
strategic petroleum reserve.
  The Speaker of the House and the Committee on Rules could have 
brought to the floor legislation to help us create new energy through 
conservation. Every study indicates you can produce more energy dollar 
for dollar through conservation, insulation and weatherization than 
even drilling for new oil in proven fields.
  In the 1970s, as we began to press the automobile industry to 
increase the fuel efficiency of cars, time and time again we were told 
you could not do so. Time and time again we were told by the automobile 
industry, you cannot get cars that Americans will drive to get 20 or 22 
miles to the gallon.
  Again, I tell you, I was thinking about when my children graduated 
from college. I was in a Chevrolet dealer, and I looked at a brand new 
Corvette. Twenty-seven miles to the gallon, fun to drive, fast, a 
substantial car. Family cars getting 22, 25, 26 and 30 miles to the 
gallon.
  We do not have to tell people who need large vehicles or large trucks 
they cannot have them. We merely must demand that the fleet averages 
are increased. But, no, the Republican leadership in the House has, 
year after year, prevented the Clinton administration from moving 
forward to increase automobile standards.
  If we had as illogical a system for electric energy as we have for 
heating oil in the Northeast, there would be criminal charges against 
the administrators. It is as if we would allow the electric companies 
to shut down half the generating capacity, and then be shocked when we 
were short of power in August.
  We have had the lowest reserves, we have had the whole system changed 
to just-on-time delivery; and yet today, when the Congress has been 
doing virtually nothing, we do not take the time to pass a Northeast 
reserve for heating oil.
  Again, we are given 30 generous minutes to discuss the very limited 
jurisdiction the gentleman from New York has for his bill, which was 
even further shrunk by the Committee on Rules; and, no, we cannot deal 
with the strategic reserve, we cannot deal with the heating oil reserve 
for the Northeast, we cannot deal with conservation measures.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Northeast heating oil reserve 
is on the books. It is on the books. The Clinton administration has 
asked that it be repealed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, in closing, what is clear here is we 
have had an extended period of time of the most powerful economy in the 
history of this country. We have had a situation where it may be 
reasonable to assume that both the administration and Congress went to 
sleep. At least the Republicans refused to move any conservation 
legislation forward.
  Today, and for the last several months, we have had the wake-up call. 
We have had a wake-up call that there is a crisis; 60,000 barrels from 
Alaska go to Japan. We have a situation today where that oil ought to 
be coming home here to the United States. We ought to be working on 
conservation. We ought not wait even for this administration.
  We ought to be doing more than having a 30-minute discussion about a 
bill that asks the President to send us a report about a crisis we well 
understand. We need to move legislation from the House to protect the 
people we were sent here to represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to press the Speaker and the leadership 
of this House to move positive legislation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, section 157(a)(1) of the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act is entitled Regional Petroleum Reserve. It 
gives the strategic petroleum reserve plan. It shall provide for the 
establishment and maintenance of a Regional Petroleum Reserve in, or 
readily accessible to, each Federal Energy Administration Region, as 
defined in title 10, Code of Federal Regulations in effect on November 
1, 1975.
  It is in effect today. The Clinton administration has sent a letter 
to my subcommittee asking this be repealed.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the debate on this measure has revealed 
that

[[Page H1227]]

there a strong sentiment in the House regarding the recent sharp rise 
in world oil prices and the impact these increases have had on our 
Nation's economy.
  There is also a clear understanding among our Members that these 
increases have not been produced by any natural economic force in an 
open and free marketplace, but by the concerted effort of a cartel, a 
cartel fixing higher prices for its product by restricting supply.
  I am fully aware, Mr. Chairman, that a number of our Members would 
have preferred that this bill address a number of broader energy policy 
issues, such as the establishment of the heating oil reserve, the 
release of the oil in the strategic petroleum reserve, and a wide range 
of tax credits and incentives for increased domestic production. Some 
too prefer an even tougher approach to those petroleum exporters that 
have engaged in price-fixing to the detriment of our Nation's economy.
  While I am sympathetic to those views, I am convinced that upon the 
whole, this measure is balanced, forward looking, and prescribes a 
policy that the administration may pursue to address and alleviate this 
problem.
  This is a first and perhaps the most concrete step that the Congress 
will take in addressing the problem caused by the recent excessive 
increase in the price of oil. By adopting this measure, the House will 
be sending a strong signal to the OPEC countries and to other petroleum 
exporters that also are artificially restricting their oil production 
that continued price-fixing efforts to prop up the price of oil will be 
an important consideration in our overall foreign policy 
considerations.
  Although our Nation has one of the most unselfish approaches to its 
foreign policy of all the world's nations, when countries that benefit 
from our good will conspire to harm our interests, economic or 
otherwise of the America people, we will respond accordingly. While our 
energy requirements may make us dependent, we are not powerless.
  Accordingly, to address our oil crisis, I urge my colleagues to vote 
in support of H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Oil 
Price Reduction Act of 2000. Like most Americans, I am deeply troubled 
by the sharp increase in the price of petroleum products, as well as 
their impact. Fuel oil is especially crucial in the Northeast, and in 
my home state of New Jersey, where about one-third of the residents 
heat their homes with oil. Middle class families and seniors on fixed 
incomes cannot afford the nearly doubling of their heating oil 
expenses.
  It requires the President to send Congress a report explaining our 
security, economic, and trade relationships with Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) members and other key oil 
exporting countries. And it requires the President to outline the 
diplomatic efforts that we are taking to convince all oil exporting 
nations that price fixing is wrong, and that volatile oil prices will 
have a negative effect on the world economy. Additionally, it requires 
the Administration to take the steps necessary to dismantle oil price 
fixing arrangements.
  I believe that just the threat of action, such as exemplified by the 
Oil Price Reduction Act, has already encouraged OPEC and other oil 
exporting nations to change their production quotas. Mexico, Norway, 
and Venezuela are already on record supporting an increase in crude oil 
production, and next week OPEC nations will meet to discuss raising 
their quotas. We need to continue this diplomatic momentum and pass 
this bill today.
  Unfortunately, for too long, the Clinton Administration, 
particularly, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, has seemed satisfied 
with a wait and see attitude. I reject this approach. If we just wait 
around for prices to drop on their own, people will go bankrupt and the 
economy could catch a nasty bout of inflation. I am worried that the 
Clinton Administration is playing with fire here through its inaction.
  The administration should have been addressing the energy crisis with 
oil exporting nations on a daily basis and it should have long ago been 
applying pressure where and when it was needed. The Oil Price Reduction 
Act will force the Administration to stay focused on the need for 
stable and reasonable oil prices and get tough with oil price fixing 
countries. If the United States told oil exporting nations that we 
would be forming an international cartel to raise the price of grains 
and bread by 200 or 300 percent, they would be the first to yell 
`foul,' and they would be justified in doing so. But I fail to see why 
the Clinton Administration's diplomacy is so bereft of outrage.
  The OPEC cartel's production cuts have unquestionably been the 
catalyst for rising oil prices, driving the price per barrel from $11 
in December of 1998 to over $30 a barrel today. While we have recently 
been somewhat effective in our energy related discussions with OPEC, 
the Oil Price Reduction Act will ensure that we take the critical steps 
necessary to identify the threats to our energy security, develop 
options and a coherent plan, and effectively pursue policies that will 
stabilize world prices and head off price fixing arrangements that 
threaten the U.S. and world economies.
  Middle class American families, senior citizens of fixed incomes, and 
truck drivers cannot afford inaction. The Oil Price Reduction Act will 
help lower prices and provide a mechanism to guard against future price 
fixing schemes.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oil Price 
Reduction Act of 2000.
  The increase in gas prices over the last 12 months has been the 
largest in history.
  Last week I received a call from an independent trucker in my 
district asking Congress to do something about the sharp increase in 
the price of fuel. He is currently paying $200 more a week for fuel 
than he was paying less than a year ago. This is money that comes 
directly from his pocket. It is money that should be going toward 
taking care of his family--not to a cartel of oil billionaires.
  This gentleman called my office pleading for help. Help that has not 
been delivered by the current administration, whose own Secretary of 
Energy admitted that they were not prepared when the problem arose. The 
Energy Secretary has stated ``We were caught napping. We got 
complacent.''
  The Oil Price Reduction Act calls upon the President to implement a 
foreign policy related to oil producing nations who are involved in 
price-fixing. A policy that would help stem the type of energy crisis 
we are seeing right now. A policy that for almost 8 years, the Clinton-
Gore administration has done nothing to develop.
  I ask for your support of this bill to send a message to the 
international community that the United States government takes the 
price-fixing of foreign oil very seriously. This is an important step 
in providing relief for constituents in my district and throughout the 
country.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I cannot understand 
why we are debating a bill that does absolutely nothing to address the 
problem at hand. H.R. 3822 is not even a band-aid solution to the 
problem--it is mere lip service.
  When is this House going to have a real debate on national energy 
policy--or better yet, our lack of one?
  I have no doubt that every Member in this House is concerned about 
the economic ramifications of the recent oil price spike. When the 
price of gas at the pump goes up drastically in just a week, everyone 
feels it in his pocket. This unexpected economic hardship on the 
consuming public and the economy is of great concern to us all.
  But where was the concern in late 1997, 1998, and 1999, when the 
domestic oil and gas industry was being decimated by eighteen (18) 
months of historically low prices? During that time, the federal 
government stood by and watched as thousands upon thousands of 
independents--many of whom were Texans with family-owned businesses 
that had been in operation for generations-called it quits. The 
government did nothing to help those producers.
  Now, I know it is hard for Members from non-producing states to care 
much about the price of gas when it is rock-bottom cheap. The economy 
buzzes along and the consuming public benefits at the pump. But Members 
from producing states feel the crunch at both ends of this country's 
wild energy price fluctuations. During that eighteen (18) month period, 
more than 150,000 oil wells--25 percent of total U.S. oil wells--were 
shut down, and U.S. industry lost more than 65,000 jobs. Where was the 
help then?
  As policymakers, we need to acknowledge that the boom-and-bust cycle 
in oil prices--which dropped prices to below $10 per barrel just last 
year, then boosted them to more than $30 in recent days--negatively 
impacts the economy, the consuming public and the domestic petroleum 
industry. This country cannot stand by and ignore the implications of 
an unstable oil market. The benefits we derived from low oil prices 
last year are quickly stripped away by the high prices of today. No one 
benefits from this instability.
  Furthermore, in addition to the economic disruptions caused by oil 
price instability, these fluctuations also endanger our national 
security. When oil prices began dropping to historic lows in November 
of 1997, independent oil and gas producers lost billions of dollars as 
foreign governments fought for market share in the U.S., with the 
express intention of eliminating our domestic production.
  As domestic oil production continues to decline, U.S. dependence on 
foreign oil has actually grown, from 36 percent in 1973, to

[[Page H1228]]

about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever, 
both militarily and economically, to disruptions in foreign oil 
supplies.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we recognize that oil is a strategic 
commodity. It is absolutely vital that the government have policies in 
place that protect the U.S. oil and gas resource base. Oil is the 
nation's economic lifeblood, and we need to get ourselves off foreign 
life support.
  This is not an easy task. Now that the price of crude is high, we 
might make the mistake of assuming that domestic oil and gas producers 
do not need our assistance. One only has to look to history to know 
that this assumption is a dangerous one. Prices will continue to wildly 
fluctuate unless we act now to stabilize the market. The best way we 
can do that is to take back some of the control we have lost to other 
oil producing nations.
  After the sustained drop in the price of crude in recent years, it 
will take time and stability for the domestic industry to fully 
recover. Tax reforms could be a major step toward directing capital to 
finding and recovering oil and gas in the United States and bringing 
these resources to market for the benefit of all Americans.
  With this goal in mind, I had hoped to bring a package of tax 
incentives for domestic oil and gas producers to the floor today as an 
amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did 
not allow my amendment to be made in order. My amendment would have 
reformed the tax code to provide incentives for domestic oil and gas 
production and exploration by removing the barriers to capital access 
that are causing the mass exodus of independent producers from the 
domestic industry. The lack of foresight and hindsight on this issue is 
frustrating and troubling to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that we should vote against this 
bill. It at least brings some level of attention to the underlying 
problem. But this is clearly an exercise in futility, and I am greatly 
disappointed that the Republican leadership has chosen to deny us a 
meaningful debate on the policies that would get to the heart of this 
country's energy problems. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to 
join me in a serious effort to craft a national energy policy, one that 
affords us price stability as well as economic and national security. 
Our independence and future security depend on it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the Oil Price Reduction Act of 
2000, but I regret that the rule has substantially lessened the 
potential impact of this legislation by preventing the consideration of 
meaningful proposals to relieve our country's energy crisis.
  This bill makes an important statement--the United States will no 
longer tolerate the manipulation of our energy supplies by a price 
fixing cartel, and we are prepared to take concrete measures to protect 
the American people from inadequate supply and astronomical prices. We 
have the opportunity today to begin dismantling OPEC's unfair and 
disingenuous pricing policies by investigating the detrimental effects 
of these policies on the United States economy, and by undertaking 
decisive diplomatic steps to change the current situation. We have a 
responsibility to our constituents to ensure that our economy is no 
longer held hostage to the whims of those countries that export their 
oil to us.
  But while this legislation is a good start to solving our energy 
problems, it could have been a great deal stronger. We should be 
debating legislation that explicitly authorizes the President to 
consider a country's involvement in oil price fixing when making 
decisions about U.S. assistance or arms sales. We should be debating an 
amendment to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the supply 
of oil in the domestic market. And we should be debating an amendment 
to strengthen programs that develop energy efficient technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good start, but it doesn't go far 
enough. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and also to 
continue to work together to enact the meaningful remedies that we 
could not debate today.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation that 
takes a reasonable first step at illuminating the failure of our 
nation's energy policy.
  Gene Sperling, the chief economic advisor in the Clinton 
Administration might have it right when he calls their dealings with 
OPEC ```Quiet Diplomacy.''
  `Quiet'' is what this Administration's reaction has been since 
experts began warning of an impending crisis last November. The silence 
is deafening.
  In the Northeast, we've been calling for help for months. I contacted 
the Administration in January to urge action, and I know many of my 
colleagues here did as well. We received what I would call a ``quiet'' 
response. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
  After a winter of economic hardship for so many in the Northeast, 
Spring breaks with no promise of easing their burden. While the rest of 
the nation reels from daily-increasing gas prices, we in the Northeast 
have been suffering for many months.
  Mr. Chairman, Northeasterners' budgets continue to get socked, the 
only difference being it hits at the gas pump instead of their heating 
oil tanks. Silence from the Clinton Administration.
  I would ask the President, when are you going to start feeling our 
pain?
  ``Quiet'' does not describe the anger of my constituents bearing this 
burden. ``Quiet'' does not describe my response or that of my 
colleagues joining me here today.
  We are here to raise the volume on this debate and talk about 
ensuring a consistent energy policy.
  An energy policy that promotes reasonable fuel prices through the 
growth of domestic oil production.
  A policy that supports alternative energy sources, takes the needs of 
America into account and preserves the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, by ending the silence I hope we can forge a consensus 
and move towards a sound energy policy.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, our nation needs a real energy policy 
rather than allowing ourselves to be surprised with global price 
changes. We need to support incentives to improve energy efficiency 
such as tax credits for new energy and alternative fuel technologies, 
as well as improved efforts to weatherize homes and businesses.
  As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in the Washington Post, we are 
becoming a nation of oil addicts. The past decade has seen an increase 
in gas-guzzling SUV's and a dramatic increase in the number of vehicle 
miles traveled. Average fuel efficiency has remained unchanged for the 
last 10 years. Congress has repeatedly refused to increase CAFE 
standards for SUVs and light trucks, going so far as to prevent the 
U.S. Department of Transportation from even studying the impacts on oil 
consumption and air quality from increased CAFE standards.
  In real terms, there have only been four years out of the last 70 
where the price of a regular gallon of gasoline was as low as it is 
today. Gasoline is getting cheaper and cheaper all the time. There are 
some real problems for home heating oil costs and supply flows, but it 
is important to put gas prices in perspective.
  Nevertheless, we need to make sure that the free market is really 
free. If that requires legislation, let's get on with it. Everyone 
needs to play fair and by the rules. Any suspicion that oil producers 
are artificially ``fixing'' the price of oil should be investigated 
fully. Oil producing nations do receive assistance from us, and we need 
to make sure they understand that unless the free market is allowed to 
work, we may reconsider future assistance. Our diplomatic efforts 
should be firm but not heavy-handed.
  Our nation cannot afford to set our own energy policy with the 
assumption that petroleum supplies are unlimited and that we will 
always have the world's lowest oil prices. Record low oil prices last 
year made us lazier on conservation and the development of new energy 
technologies. A kink in the supply chain today could develop into a 
full blown oil crisis tomorrow. We need to remain vigilant on providing 
people with more transportation choices and higher efficiency standards 
to conserve the oil we have.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on this legislation by 
my good friend from New York (Mr. Gilman)--not to point fingers at 
anyone for finding ourselves in the circumstances we find ourselves in 
today, but simply to make a plea--that we develop and implement a 
workable national energy policy.
  Today's legislation does not do that. In fact it deals mostly with 
symptoms of the problem--not the underlying problem itself.
  OPEC is only a transitory problem. Oil prices rise and oil prices 
fall--and it has been that way since oil took its place as the fuel of 
choice for such basic uses as transportation, hearing and industrial 
processes. The measures contained in this bill to bring the OPEC cartel 
to its knees are nothing more than a reiteration of authorities that 
already exist in law today.
  One of the real problems is availability of competing fuels in the 
areas of the country reliant on heating oil. And there are others. 
Let's look at the northeast. Natural gas provides a clean alternative 
to heating oil, but they can't burn it in those areas if they can't get 
it. The federal government can do more to ensure that natural gas is 
more readily available to industrial New England as well as its 
residential consumers. I believe fuel competition would do wonders for 
fuel prices in the Northeast and help clear the air in the process.
  Let's work on things like getting natural gas into the northeast--
things that we can accomplish--not tilt at windmills like OPEC--which 
we are unlikely to influence in the short term. The OPEC members will 
have a falling-out--just like they always do--and prices will fall. 
Let's pay more attention to what we can do

[[Page H1229]]

domestically to avoid the problems of this winter.
  I'm going to vote for this bill but without any enthusiasm. I believe 
it will accomplish little or nothing and it detracts from dealing with 
the hard issues that really will help bring about stable oil prices. 
The northeast and the oil patch have a common objective--stable prices, 
and we ought to have the opportunity to bring legislation to this floor 
which will do that.
  Let's don't kid ourselves. It's easy to beat up on OPEC. The hard 
part is finding agreement on things that really work--like increasing 
domestic production, expediting pipeline projects, opening up some of 
our public lands to exploration and development. When we take on those 
issues, I will know that we are really serious about finding solutions 
that will help us out the next time prices run-up. Let's finish our fun 
today, then turn our attention to the really hard issues.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly support the rule 
and will support the bill, but I think we should be doing more. The 
bill, as amended by this rule, would direct the President to undertake 
diplomatic efforts to convince countries engaged in oil-price fixing 
that the current high oil price levels will negatively affect global 
economic growth rates.
  I think this is something that the President has been doing all 
along, but I support this congressional action to emphasize the 
importance of this strategy.
  I am hopeful that the passage of this bill will spark a much-needed 
global discussion on current high oil prices. But it's not enough for 
us to hope that this global discussion will result in reduced oil 
prices. Here at home, we need to remember the importance of seeking out 
alternative energy sources to replace our dependence on ever-dwindling 
supplies of fossil fuels.
  That's why I hoped to offer an amendment to the bill that would have 
authorized the President's fiscal 2001 budget request for the 
Department of Energy's solar and renewable energy research programs. It 
was to be very similar to an amendment I offered and the House 
unanimously adopted on the Floor during last year's debate on HR 1655, 
the bill to authorize the Department of Energy's energy research 
programs. However, the rule does not make that amendment in order. I 
would have preferred a rule that would have done so.
  Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet acted on the DOE authorization 
bill, It seems to me that we ought to seize the opportunity for the 
House to once again move to reauthorize these important programs that 
can lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  There would have been no inconsistency between my amendment and the 
purpose of the underlying bill. Just like the underlying bill, my 
amendment would have helped to lessen America's dependence on foreign 
oil and thus to act as leverage against the price increases of foreign 
producers. Given the current public concern about the high price of 
imported oil, I believe it would have been appropriate for the House to 
consider not just one approach to reducing oil prices, but to consider 
all approaches that promise to bring down prices by addressing the core 
problem: our continued dependence on imported oil.
  We need to invest more in renewable energy programs. They benefit our 
economy by stimulating private sector activity and adding jobs. They 
reduce our reliance on imported oil. They have a positive impact on air 
and water quality. Renewable energy and energy efficiency is all about 
an investment in America's future--the future of our energy security, 
our environment, and our international competitiveness.
  We can't go on year after year without giving adequate attention to 
developing renewable energy. For our investment in these technologies 
to pay off, our efforts must be sustained over the long-term. To me, 
the recent rise in energy prices indicates that we haven't been paying 
enough attention to the long-term.
  Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are here today to 
address this urgent issue. I just wish we were being asked to vote on a 
bill that did more than merely encourage the President to engage in 
diplomatic efforts as a way to reduce oil prices. It's time for us to 
think about addressing serious problems with serious solutions.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3822 
regarding OPEC's role in raising oil prices to the detriment of the 
U.S. and other industrialized nations. I want to commend the Chairman 
of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman for his efforts to 
find ways to help our constituents with this problem.
  Everyone knows prices are skyrocketing at the gas pump. Others are 
beginning to realize that crude oil prices are also driving up the 
costs of paving your driveway, painting your house or installing new 
carpet--all of which contain oil products.
  Prices for most everything else will also likely rise as well as 
transportation costs are passed on to consumers.
  It is critical, Mr. Chairman, that we find a short-term solution to 
this problem. But it is equally critical that we find long-term 
solutions so that we are not faced with another price crisis next Fall 
or next year.
  The International Relations Committee reported this bill which was 
designed to reduce or terminate foreign assistance or weapons sales to 
any country that engages in oil price fixing. This is a reasonable 
position to take because it sends a message that if our friends among 
the oil producing nations wish to continue to have good relations with 
the U.S., which is supporting their efforts to defend themselves and 
their resources, then we all must cooperate across the board.
  Last week, I wrote to President Clinton, urging him to take immediate 
action to persuade the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to 
increase production. OPEC is meeting next week to reconsider whether 
they should boost oil production in order to allow oil consuming 
nations, particularly the U.S., to refill its critical oil reserves and 
to stabilize oil prices. We all know that the oil producers were not 
happy when oil sold for $10 per barrel. And maybe we, as a nation, did 
lower our commitment to energy conservation in the wake of cheap prices 
at the pump. But now the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the 
opposite direction and it is critical that the OPEC nations understand 
the position of the United States well in advance.
  As I pointed out to President Clinton, we went to war and shed 
American blood to protect two Persian Gulf OPEC nations--Kuwait and 
Saudi Arabia--from Saddam Hussein and we pitched in with unswerving 
support for Venezuela during its recent natural disaster. It is 
inexcusable, then, that these same countries are conspiring to keep oil 
production low which results in increased gas and other fuel costs. 
Similarly, in the case of Mexico, the health of their economy is highly 
dependent on the strength of ours. They must know that these policies 
will slow the economic vitality of the U.S., which in the long run will 
negatively affect their own economies.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, once crude oil prices are stabilized, 
the President and the Congress must resolve to create a new national 
energy strategy. As Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said on February 
16th: ``It is obvious that the federal government was not prepared. We 
were caught napping.''
  That is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that the U.S. relies on 
foreign imports for 56 percent of its crude oil needs--up from 35 
percent during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At the same time, domestic 
production has fallen dramatically.
  U.S. energy policy is serious business. It affects our entire 
economy. When the administration is admittedly caught napping, the 
American people suffer.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation as a sign of our 
concern to our friends in OPEC. But beyond that, we must, as a nation, 
get serious about our future energy needs.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis in this 
country, and I rise in support of using all of the tools at our 
disposal to end this crisis. I rise in support of the American people, 
the American family, and the American worker. Mr. Speaker, today I rise 
in support of the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.
  We need to pass the Oil Price Reduction Act to officially hold the 
Clinton-Gore Administration accountable for the oil crisis that they 
have created. Any spike in the oil prices dramatically affects every 
family in the country. When the price of transportation rises--all 
prices rise. Nothing, not a loaf of bread, not a home computer, not a 
gallon of milk can get from their points of production to the home 
without using petroleum to fuel the machines to get it there.
  Families in the Midwest and the northeast have been forced to 
readjust their budget to ensure that they could afford heating oil 
during the mass cold spells this winter. Now families are looking to 
take a vacation, and have to take another look at their wallets to make 
sure they can afford it. Even if they can make the trip, many will be 
forced to change the duration or possibly the destination of their 
vacation.
  How did we get this point? According to the Congressional Research 
Service, OPEC decided at a meeting in March 1999--more than a year 
ago--to drastically scale back petroleum production. Today the American 
people are feeling the brunt of the OPEC cartel's decision.
  What does the Clinton-Gore Administration say about this? Well, let 
me tell you, on February 17, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson told some 
consumer groups and industry leaders in Boston, ``We were caught 
napping. We got complacent.'' Later that same day, on the NewsHour with 
Jim Lehrer, he reiterated, ``Everyone was caught napping.
  Secretary Richardson, you knew a year ago that OPEC was cutting 
production. That's not napping, that's hibernating. That's a slumber

[[Page H1230]]

that would give Rip Van Winkle a run for his money. It is the 
responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy to ensure a stable 
supply of affordable energy. Look at the Department's own website where 
it states: ``The Department of Energy is working to assure clean, 
affordable, and dependable supplies of energy for our nation, now and 
in the future.''
  On accepting the position of Secretary of Energy, on August 24, 1998, 
Secretary Richardson stated: ``One of my highest priorities at the 
Department of Energy will be to let the American people know the many 
ways in which we serve them and to determine how we can serve them 
better. I want the American people to know that the Department is their 
public servant and that we are working for them.--August 24, 1998.''
  Napping while OPEC cut production in order to push gas prices over 
$2/gallon is not the sort of thing we had in mind.
  It seems that only in the past month, the Clinton-Gore-Richardson 
team got engaged in this issue. One of the principle responsibilities 
of the U.S Department of Energy is to ensure a stable supply of 
affordable energy. The Administration has failed miserably in this 
respect, and the American people are paying the price, literally. The 
average family will have to pay out between $500 and $1,000 extra this 
year, just to fill their tank with gasoline. This will cut into the 
family budget significantly.
  This bill before us will force the President to determine the oil 
pricing practices of the OPEC countries. We have known that they have 
been involved in price-fixing. It's not legal here in the United 
States--so why would the Administration tolerate price fixing among 
other countries?
  We give these OPEC countries millions of dollars in federal aid and 
defense assistance each year. We protect them and their citizens every 
time they have a Middle East squabble. We are the first to assist them 
in their times of need. And how do they thank us? By consorting among 
themselves to ensure the highest price for their oil exports to the 
United States--and the Clinton Administration sat idlely by until the 
American people saw what was in store and got outraged.
  While giving the President ample time to pursue a diplomatic remedy 
to this crisis, this Act ensures that, should OPEC nation's continue 
price-fixing to the detriment of the U.S. economy, we will scale back 
or even revoke our federal assistance to these nations. This is a fair 
and prudent process. A process which has been well within the authority 
of the Clinton-Gore Administration since OPEC's decision to cut back 
production a year ago.
  This increase in gas prices over the last 12 months, is the largest 
increase in U.S. history, the average cost for a gallon of gas to the 
American family is $1.54, and our national oil inventories are at the 
lowest level in four years.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of crisis, I look to the Members of 
this body to pass the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 and force the 
Clinton-Gore Administration and Secretary Richardson to wake up from 
their hibernation, smell the coffee, and take firm action against those 
who have been permitted to hold the American people hostage to higher 
gas prices.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3822, 
``The Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.''
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, for 
his leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation to the 
floor this afternoon.
  H.R. 3822 represents an effective, forward-thinking approach to 
reforming our Nation's failed energy policy and providing long-term 
relief to our Nation's consumers.
  Every day we see newspaper or television reports on the rising cost 
of fuel. There are stories about truckers having to park their trucks 
because they can't afford to keep them running. Many airlines have 
already imposed surcharges to reflect their higher costs. And there is 
plenty of speculation in the press about how high prices will really go 
before the summer vacation season. Prices of $2 per gallon, which 
seemed far-fetched just weeks ago, now don't seem out of the question.
  Prices are simply too high and have risen too fast. The United States 
has been caught flat footed and its economy is at the mercy of foreign 
oil suppliers. The situation is unacceptable and we must take action.
  Since the current Administration took office, domestic oil production 
has dropped by 17% while consumption has increased by 14%. This, along 
with an oil cartel run by countries that are supposed to be our allies 
who the President is supposed to be able to influence, seem to me to be 
the real causes of high fuel prices.
  This legislation is an important tool that the U.S. can use against 
foreign oil producers who constrict supply to drive up the price of 
their product. It affords us significant diplomatic leverage in 
difficult economic times, and I believe that this sort of supply-side 
solution is the most effective way to prevent the kind of price 
escalation we see today from occurring in the future.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in an unhappy situation 
today with respect to fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel prices. We learned 
from our last experience with high energy prices in the 1970's the 
importance of energy supplies to our citizens and our economy.
  This bill is a weak attempt to address our current and long-term 
energy needs. We need sustained funding for long-term and medium-term 
programs that improve the efficiency of energy use and that diversify 
our energy supplies. We have let low energy prices that we have enjoyed 
in the past few years be the justification for cuts in energy 
efficiency and energy research and development programs. The 
administration has consistently requested larger sums for these 
accounts than have been appropriated.
  For example, the Weatherization Assistance Program, which was cut by 
50 percent in 1995, helps to make housing more energy efficient. The 
program now weatherizes an average of 70,000 dwellings a year at a 
current appropriation of $135 million. If we had level funded the 
Weatherization Assistance Program from 1996 through this year, DOE 
would have weatherized 248,000 more homes than we were able to under 
the existing appropriations.
  Compare this to the funds we need to spend under the Low Income 
Heating Assistance Program which serves over 4 million households at a 
cost of more than $1 billion. By making homes and buildings more 
efficient, we can serve more of our needy constituents with the limited 
LIHEAP funds that we have and ultimately we would be able to reduce the 
funds that we must pay under LIHEAP.
  One of our best defenses against high energy prices is to decrease 
our energy demand through the use of energy efficient products both by 
industry and by consumers. Some of our past investments in these areas 
have helped us to weather this current high energy price storm, but 
obviously we must do more. High energy prices take a toll on household 
budgets directly through home and transportation energy use and 
indirectly as consumer prices for goods rise in response to energy 
prices. Decreasing the proportion of these budgets that are devoted to 
energy purchases saves money for households and for businesses everyday 
and is our best insurance against future price increases.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, residents in my home State of New Jersey 
certainly haven't been immune to exorbitant energy prices. The cost of 
home heating oil for my constituents has doubled to $2 a gallon in just 
a matter of weeks. As a result, a typical household could spend an 
additional $350 or more in home heating costs this winter.
  Consumers, truckers, and other oil dependent industries have been 
suffering for months as a result of these excessive prices. Some 
independent truckers have taken their trucks off the road because they 
simply can't afford to operate them.
  The legislation before us, which I voted for in committee, simply 
does exactly what the administration has been doing. Secretary of 
Energy Bill Richardson has already been engaged in diplomatic efforts 
to leverage our relationship with oil producing nations and to demand 
an increase in oil production. As a matter of fact, he just recently 
completed his whirlwind OPEC diplomatic tour, which I'm hopeful will 
yield results at next Monday's OPEC meeting. Today's debate is simply a 
``cheering-on'' of those efforts.
  But regardless of what happens on Monday, we need to take steps to 
protect the American economy and American consumers in the short- and 
long-terms.
  In addition to passing this bill which will send a message to OPEC 
that the United States will not be held hostage to its monopolistic 
practices, we should implement President Clinton's initiative to create 
a home heating oil reserve for the Northeast to cushion future spikes 
in oil prices. We should also reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, which is set to expire next week--on March 31. Regardless of 
your position on drawing down the reserve in this crisis, I think we 
can all agree that the option should remain available to address 
fluctuations in the market.
  For the last 5 years, the Republican majority has failed to provide 
Americans with energy security. Rather than address the real issues, 
our Republican colleagues have failed to bring a Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve reauthorization bill to the floor; they continue to send 
Alaskan oil to Japan, despite our current domestic price spike; and 
they have failed to fund research and development into alternative 
fuels and energy efficiency. They have not only failed to build up the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve when fuel was cheap, but they proposed 
eliminating the Department of Energy and selling off the reserve, even 
when the nation was not facing an energy crisis, simply in order to 
balance the federal budget. Despite their claim that the administration 
should repeal the gas

[[Page H1231]]

tax, they have failed to even bring the issue to the floor for a 
debate.
  It's obvious that we must do more than has been proposed today to 
ensure that consumers in the Northeast will never again have to forfeit 
heating their homes, in order to feed their families.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by striking subsection 6(c), shall be 
considered by section as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, 
and each section is considered read.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate.

                              {time}  1745

  Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member 
who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered 
read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Price Reduction Act of 
     2000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? If not, the 
Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Oil producing countries, including the nations of the 
     Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), took 
     concerted actions in March and September of 1999 to cut oil 
     production and hold back from the market 4,000,000 barrels a 
     day representing approximately six percent of the global 
     supply.
       (2) OPEC, in its capacity as an oil cartel, has been a 
     critical factor in driving prices from approximately $11 a 
     barrel in December 1998 to a high of $30 a barrel in mid-
     February 2000, levels not seen since the Persian Gulf 
     Conflict.
       (3) On February 10, 2000, a hearing before the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives on 
     ``OPEC and the Northeast Energy Crisis'' clearly demonstrated 
     that OPEC's goal of reducing its oil stocks was the major 
     reason behind price increases in heating oil, gasoline, and 
     diesel oil stocks.
       (4) During this hearing, the Assistant Secretary in the 
     Office of International Affairs of the Department of Energy 
     noted that artificial supply constraints placed on the market 
     are ultimately self-defeating in so far as they increase 
     volatility in the market, lead to boom and bust cycles, and 
     promote global instability, particularly in developing 
     countries whose economies are extremely vulnerable to sharp 
     price increases.
       (5) These price increases have caused inflationary shocks 
     to the United States economy and could threaten the global 
     economic recovery now underway in Europe and Asia where the 
     demand for oil is rising.
       (6) The transportation infrastructure of the United States 
     is under stress and tens of thousands of small- to medium-
     sized trucking firms throughout the Northeast region are on 
     the verge of bankruptcy because of the rise in diesel oil 
     prices to more than $2 per gallon--a 43 percent increase in 
     the Central Atlantic region and a 55 percent increase in the 
     New England region--an increase that has had the effect of 
     requiring these trucking firms to use up to 20 percent of 
     their operating budgets for the purchase of diesel oil.
       (7) Many elderly and retired Americans on fixed incomes 
     throughout the Northeast region of the United States cannot 
     afford to pay the prevailing heating oil costs and all too 
     often are faced with the choice of paying the grocery bills 
     or staying warm.
       (8) Several key oil producing nations relied on the United 
     States military for their protection in 1990 and 1991, 
     including during the Persian Gulf Conflict, and these nations 
     still depend on the United States for their security.
       (9) Many of these nations enjoy a close economic and 
     security relationship with the United States which is a 
     fundamental underpinning of global security and cooperation.
       (10) A continuation of the present policies put in place at 
     the meeting of OPEC Ministers in March and September of 1999 
     threatens the relationship that many of the OPEC nations 
     enjoy with the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2? If not, the 
Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Policy With Respect to Oil Exporting Countries.--It 
     shall be the policy of the United States to consider the 
     extent to which major net oil exporting countries engage in 
     oil price fixing to be an important determinant in the 
     overall political, economic, and security relationship 
     between the United States and these countries.
       (b) Policy With Respect to Oil Importing Countries.--It 
     shall be the policy of the United States to work 
     multilaterally with other countries that are major net oil 
     importers to bring about the complete dismantlement of 
     international oil price fixing arrangements.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3? If not, the 
Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall transmit to the Congress a report 
     that contains the following:
       (1) A description of the overall economic and security 
     relationship between the United States and each country that 
     is a major net oil exporter, including each country that is a 
     member of OPEC.
       (2) A description of the effect that coordination among the 
     countries described in paragraph (1) with respect to oil 
     production and pricing has had on the United States economy 
     and global energy supplies.
       (3) Detailed information on any and all assistance programs 
     under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export 
     Control Act, including licenses for the export of defense 
     articles and defense services under section 38 of such Act, 
     provided to the countries described in paragraph (1).
       (4) A determination made by the President in accordance 
     with section 5 for each country described in paragraph (1).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4? If not, the 
Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. DETERMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF MAJOR OIL EXPORTING 
                   COUNTRIES ENGAGED IN PRICE FIXING.

       The report submitted pursuant to section 4 shall include 
     the determination of the President with respect to each 
     country described in section 4(1) as to whether or not, as of 
     the date on which the President makes the determination, that 
     country is engaged in oil price fixing to the detriment of 
     the United States economy.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5? If not, the 
Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6, as modified, is as follows:

     SEC. 6. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO END PRICE FIXING.

       (a) Diplomatic Efforts.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the President transmits to the Congress the 
     report pursuant to section 4, the President shall--
       (1) undertake a concerted diplomatic campaign to convince 
     any country determined by the President pursuant to section 5 
     to be engaged in oil price fixing to the detriment of the 
     United States economy that the current oil price levels are 
     unsustainable and will negatively effect global economic 
     growth rates in oil consuming and developing countries; and
       (2) take the necessary steps to begin negotiations to 
     achieve multilateral action to reduce, suspend, or terminate 
     bilateral assistance and arms exports to major net oil 
     exporters engaged in oil price fixing as part of a concerted 
     diplomatic campaign with other major net oil importers to 
     bring about the complete dismantlement of international oil 
     price fixing arrangements described in such report.
       (b) Report on Diplomatic Efforts.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report describing any 
     diplomatic efforts undertaken in accordance with subsection 
     (a) and the results achieved by those efforts.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Insert the following after section 6 and redesignate the 
     succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 7. SUSPENSION OF EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE CRUDE 
                   OIL.

       (A) Suspension.--Effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act--
       (1) subsection (s) of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act 
     (30 U.S.C. 185(s)) shall cease to be effective; and
       (2) subsection (d) of section 7 of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1999 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406(d)) shall be 
     effective, notwithstanding section 20 of that Act.
       (b) Administration.--The President may exercise the 
     authorities he has under the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act to carry out subsection (a).
       (c) Lifting of Suspension.--If the President determines 
     that the United States is not experiencing a shortage of 
     foreign crude oil and an inflationary impact due to the 
     demand for foreign crude oil, subsections (a) and (b) shall 
     cease to apply 30 calendar days after the President submits 
     that determination to the Congress.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.

[[Page H1232]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, under rule 16 clause 7 of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the amendment deals with a 
different subject matter than the text of the bill. The fundamental 
purpose of the amendment is unrelated to the bill which is offered. 
H.R. 3822 addresses issues relative to the U.S. policy regarding 
foreign assistance to other countries which engage in oil price-fixing 
of oil produced in other countries and imported to the United States.
  The subject of the amendment is very different from that bill. It 
would take away the authority of the President to determine whether to 
ban the exported oil produced on public lands within the United States 
to other countries. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and I ask 
my point of order be sustained
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon wish to speak on the 
point of order?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill purports to deal with the oil shortage. My 
amendment deals directly with the oil shortage, particularly as it 
relates to the West Coast of the United States. By keeping the Alaskan 
oil home, we would deal with the oil shortage. So it is certainly, in 
terms of the intent of the legislation in the bill, in order.
  The bill purports in its title and in the assertions in the debate to 
be targeted at reducing the price of oil. My amendment, by restricting 
the export of the oil from Alaska, would reduce the price of oil.
  The bill says that it will go after countries which fix the price of 
oil. My amendment goes after companies which fix the price of oil.
  The bill finds that oil producing countries took concerted actions in 
March and September to cut oil production and hold back from the market 
4 million barrels a day. My amendment addresses a cut-back in oil 
available to the West Coast of the United States in the amount of 
60,000 barrels a day by bringing this oil home.
  So I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is germane to the 
bill. We heard earlier from the Committee on Rules that their intent 
was to allow amendments to the bill, and I would offer that that is a 
false promise if all of the amendments that people are going to attempt 
to be offering are found out of order.
  So I would ask the Chair to rule in favor of offering a substantive 
amendment to a symbolic piece of legislation so that it might actually 
do something about the problem which is being discussed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I explain the reason I brought 
the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is redundant, number 
one. It relates to the export of Alaskan oil. The President now has the 
authority to do so. The cases in law, 104-58--Section 201, states that 
if the Secretary of Commerce finds that exporting oil has caused 
sustained material oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices 
significantly above world market levels, and further finds these supply 
shortages or price increases have caused or are likely to cause 
sustained material adverse employment effects in the United States, the 
Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, 
shall recommend, and the President may take, appropriate action 
concerning exports of this oil, which may include modifying or revoking 
the authority to revoke and export.
  Mr. Chairman, we also had a GAO report that says there is no impact 
on the West Coast, and I again remind the gentleman from Oregon that 
there is no capacity for refining the oil from Alaska. Frankly, I would 
like to sell it all to the lower 48 if they had refinery capabilities.
  So I ask the Chair to sustain the point of order.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I might just further respond.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Alaska, 
his initial point I think was very well taken in this matter, that the 
authority which I am attempting to extend through this amendment does 
exist, but this would encourage the President to use that authority.
  That is exactly what the bill is doing. The bill does nothing new; it 
encourages the President to go out and negotiate. The bill encourages 
the bill to go out and gather information. Certainly, those things are 
within his authority. In fact, he is already doing them.
  So I would argue that my amendment is probably less redundant, and 
certainly more meaningful, than other provisions of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Alaska raises a point of order that the amendment 
printed in the record and numbered 8 offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon is not germane.
  The bill, H.R. 3822, addresses a variety of diplomatic efforts to 
curb alleged price-fixing in the global oil market. Specifically, the 
bill states a policy regarding such price-fixing requires the President 
to identify oil exporting countries that engage in price-fixing and 
requires the President to undertake certain oil-related negotiations. 
H.R. 3822 is referred to and reported by the Committee on International 
Relations and its provisions are confined to the legislative 
jurisdiction of that committee.
  The amendment seeks to suspend exportation of Alaskan North Slope 
crude oil. It would achieve this result, in part, by waiving 
application of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. The amendment 
falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition ``on a subject different from that under consideration 
shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' One of the central tenets 
of the germaneness rule is that an amendment should be within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. This principle is 
recorded on page 671 of the House Rules and Manual.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon falls outside the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The amendment 
is not germane, and the point of order is sustained.
  Are there other amendments under section 6?


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Dingell:
       Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Title I.--Title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6211-6251) is amended--
       (1) in section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246)--
       (A) by inserting ``through 2003'' after ``2000''; and
       (B) by striking ``, to remain available only through March 
     31, 2000''; and
       (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251), by striking ``March 
     31, 2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``September 
     30, 2003''.
       (b) Title II.--Title II of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6261-6285) is amended--
       (1) in section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 6276(h)), by inserting 
     ``through 2003'' after ``1997''; and
       (2) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285), by striking ``March 
     31, 2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``September 
     30, 2003''.
       Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this bill here does not do much with 
regard to energy conservation. One thing that has to be done is to 
reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, specifically with 
regard to the President's authority to draw down the strategic 
petroleum reserve to deal with any prolonged energy crisis, or any 
sharp spikes in the energy supply to the United States. It has been 
used before for this purpose, and it has worked admirably in terms of 
diminishing some of the more extraordinary movements in the oil and 
petroleum industry.

[[Page H1233]]

  The text of the amendment is exactly and precisely identical to S. 
1051, which was authored by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, which passed 
the Senate by unanimous consent last year. I have always opposed 
precipitous use of the Reserve, which Congress directed should only be 
drawn down in a severe energy supply interruption, as determined by the 
President, and in accordance with specific statutory criteria. 
Certainly there is agreement now as to whether or not the hardships 
that Americans are currently experiencing, such as high heating oil 
prices and high gasoline costs, warrant the use of the Reserve. It is 
my view that they do not at this time.
  However, there is no disagreement I think amongst people who are 
familiar with the situation and with the law and with the history that 
the Congress must ensure the President continues to have the necessary 
authority to deploy the Reserve if it becomes necessary to protect 
either our economy, our national interests or, indeed, the defense of 
the United States.
  The Reserve contains some 570 million barrels of oil which has served 
useful purposes, as I have mentioned, in connection with the 1991 
Persian Gulf War.
  This is not, fortunately, a complex drafting matter. The amendment 
consists of a few small, but necessary, changes to the relevant dates 
in EPCA. I would submit that the President's petroleum reserve 
authority is far more useful than some of the other things in this 
provision.
  The White House has warned about the possibility of a veto to this 
legislation, and the President has issued a statement which says as 
follows in the last paragraph: ``The administration calls for Congress 
immediately to reauthorize his Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the 
International Energy Program at the Department of Energy. This is 
necessary to ensure that the President retains the ability to use all 
available tools to respond to the needs of the U.S. economy. Further, 
to reduce the likelihood of future heating oil shortages which will 
harm consumers, the administration calls on the Congress to authorize 
the creation of a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast with an 
appropriate trigger that could supply additional heating oil to the 
market in the event of a supply shortage.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge 
them to recognize that there is no controversy with regard to this 
particular amendment, and indeed, it is something that makes the best 
of good sense from the standpoint of our national security, from the 
standpoint of pricing and supply of petroleum products to American 
consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his point of order.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to tell my good 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member 
of the Committee on Commerce, I know that he knows this, but I want to 
repeat it; I have no greater respect for any Member of the House than I 
do for my distinguished friend from Michigan. However, I rise to insist 
on this point of order to maintain the prerogatives of the Committee on 
Commerce for which the former chairman served with distinction for so 
many years.
  The pending amendment that he has just put forward violates clause 7 
of rule 16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives which requires 
that an amendment be germane to the matter that it is amending. It is 
not germane to the bill because it has a different subject than the 
underlying bill and the amendment concerns matters entirely within the 
rule 10 jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
  First, the purpose of H.R. 3822 is to direct the President to reduce, 
spend or terminate foreign assistance in arms export authority for 
countries determined to be engaged in oil price-fixing. The Dingell 
amendment, however, reauthorizes the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
for the fiscal year 2003. These provisions address an entirely separate 
question from the one in the underlying bill which renders the 
amendment nongermane under the rules.
  The pending amendment also is entirely within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Commerce under rule 10 of the Rules of the House. The 
underlying bill, on the other hand, is exclusively within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The 
jurisdiction test has long been regarded as a primary indicator of 
germaneness.
  For these reasons, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill 
under consideration, and I must insist on my point of order.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that there is no 
opportunity to yield. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I can save a lot of time if I am permitted 
to have the gentleman yield.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan be allowed to speak for 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) proceed and then the Chair will go back to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply observe that if the 
unanimous consent is granted, I would simply concede the point of order 
and would save substantial time to the House and some aggravation to 
the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) may proceed.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, based on that understanding, I 
would terminate any comments simply to say that sometime next week 
there are two pending bills at the Committee on Rules, one of which 
came out of the House, the Committee on Commerce on H.R. 2884, 
which deals with the reauthorization of EPCA. We should be able to move 
one of those bills next week.

  I insist upon my point of order if the gentleman does not withdraw 
his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan desires to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have been doing my best.
  Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is 
recognized.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for his kindness to me. I want to express great affection and 
respect for the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I want to observe that I have 
been much impressed with the gentleman's statement on the point of 
order. Regretfully, he is correct, but we still need this language to 
be enacted into law, and the reason is, without it, the President's 
ability to address national security questions with regard to oil is 
very much impaired and the country is put significantly at risk.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) withdrawing his amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) raises a point of order that the amendment printed in the 
Record and numbered 9 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) is not germane. As stated previously, the bill, H.R. 3822, is 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.
  The amendment seeks to reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act. The amendment falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Commerce. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) falls outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  The amendment is not germane in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI, 
and the point of order is sustained.
  Are there any other amendments to section 6?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hoping to take up enough time that maybe the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)

[[Page H1234]]

and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) might have to use the 
restroom when I offer my amendment.
  I want to offer to this Congress a suggestion, and I am not going to 
challenge the ruling of the Chair when I do offer my amendment, because 
I have too much respect for the Chairman on transportation. He would 
probably kill all of my projects that I desperately need in my 
district, so I am not going to do that.
  I want to make a couple of points before I offer my amendment, and I 
want the gentleman from Texas to consider this. And I would like the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) to pay attention, because I think the 
chairman should be listening. I can remember about 10 years ago, I had 
an amendment in a bill before the Committee on Science that would 
appropriate X amount of dollars to retrieve oil trapped in shale rock.
  We have oil reserves trapped in shale rock that can keep America 
operating without use of 1 pint of foreign oil and not using 1 ounce of 
our reserves and not using 1 ounce of our normal oil fields.
  I want the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
to listen as well. You know what I was told? We can buy oil, Traficant, 
at $18 a barrel. Your cost is $28 a barrel to retrieve it. Therefore, 
we are not going to do it.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we can put Americans to work. We have coal 
coming out of our ears, and we are still dependent upon foreign oil. 
Before I offer my amendment, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), I want the gentleman to listen to it carefully; the Traficant 
amendment deals with what I think is another conspiracy. In the 1970s 
those tankers were out at sea, it was not OPEC countries that kept 
those tankers out at sea; it was American oil companies depriving us of 
the product, made the demand go up.
  They artificially raised above those prices that OPEC would have 
generated, a tremendous cost factor, and had our people like stupids 
standing in line waiting to get fuel.
  The Traficant amendment would impose the following: the Energy 
Information Administration within the Department of Energy, if they 
find reasonable that the American domestic industry is conspiring or 
has unreasonably raised prices, they can be fined up to $100 million.
  I want to know, I say to the gentleman, when your next bill comes up, 
if the Traficant amendment would be germane to that bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for an 
answer.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to commit to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that I am planning to do a series 
of hearings on our energy policy in this country in the next month.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, would the Traficant amendment be 
germane to the bill that the gentleman talked with the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) about?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would not be germane to that bill which is a 
straight reauthorization of this Energy Policy Conservation Act, no. So 
a straight answer to that particular bill, it would not be germane.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The gentleman would not allow an amendment to be made 
in order to it?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would not be germane to that bill, but it 
might well be germane to some other bills that we are going to bring to 
the floor.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, here is what I am trying to tell 
the Congress. We have 300 years of oil trapped in shale rock. If we put 
Americans to work, we would not be dependent on monarchs and dictators. 
And we are still playing around now 20 years later, but they are not 
only the villain, OPEC. Nobody's investigating these domestic oil 
companies who ripped us off before. I do not feel comfortable with what 
they are doing now.
  And I think, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), what 
bothers me is this may be the only real instrument we have. How can I 
vote against a report and how can I go against the judgment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson)?
  I am going to vote for it. And with that, I yield back the time that 
I had when I had stricken the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to section 6?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman tell us which amendment he would 
like to offer?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The amendment that was preprinted in the Record, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has three amendments printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The one that is germane, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule on the germaneness after the 
gentleman from Ohio tells us which amendment he would like to offer.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I do not have all the numbers. I have to see the 
amendments, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Why do we not start with the Traficant number 
21.


               Amendment No. 21 Offered By Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 21.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 8, after line 2, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE PRICE INCREASE FOR 
                   CRUDE OIL, RESIDUAL FUEL OIL, OR REFINED 
                   PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue 
     regulations that--
       (1) apply to all crude oil, residual fuel oil, or refined 
     petroleum products that are sold in the United States;
       (2) prohibit any unreasonable price increase for such 
     products by an energy-producing company (as defined in 
     section 205(h)(6) of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135(h)(6))); and
       (3) impose a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000 
     for each unreasonable price increase.
       (b) Unreasonable Price Increase Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``unreasonable price increase'' means 
     any price increase that exceeds any concurrent increase in 
     the production or operation costs of the energy-producing 
     company that are directly related to the products being sold.
       (c) Determination of Unreasonable Price Increase.--The 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall 
     determine at least annually whether any energy-producing 
     company has implemented an unreasonable price increase in 
     violation of regulations issued under subsection (a).
       Page 8, line 3, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
Traficant amendment No. 21.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio withdraws 
his amendment No. 21.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered By Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 22.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE PRICE INCREASE FOR 
                   CRUDE OIL, RESIDUAL FUEL OIL, OR REFINED 
                   PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue 
     regulations that--
       (1) apply to all crude oil, residual fuel oil, or refined 
     petroleum products that are sold in the United States:
       (2) prohibit any unreasonable price increase for such 
     products by an energy-producing company (as defined in 
     section 205(h)(6) of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135(h)(6))); and
       (3) impose a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000 
     for each unreasonable price increase.
       (b) Unreasonable Price Increase Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``unreasonable price increase'' means 
     any price increase that exceeds any concurrent increase in 
     the production or operation costs of the energy-producing 
     company that are directly related to the products being sold.
       (c) Determination of Unreasonable Price Increase.--The 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall 
     determine at least annually whether any energy-producing 
     company has implemented an unreasonable price increase in 
     violation of regulations issued under subsection (a).

[[Page H1235]]

       Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
Traficant amendment No. 22.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
  Is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) withdrawing his amendment?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) would have to use the restroom. Since he is not, I 
concede the point of order on amendment No. 22.
  The Chairman. Does the gentleman from Ohio withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio withdraws 
his amendment No. 22.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 23 Offered By Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 23.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE PRICE INCREASE FOR 
                   CRUDE OIL, RESIDUAL FUEL OIL, OR REFINED 
                   PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

       (1) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue 
     regulations that--
       (1) apply to all crude oil, residual fuel oil, or refined 
     petroleum products that are sold in the United States;
       (2) prohibit any unreasonable price increase for such 
     products by an energy-producing company (as defined in 
     section 205(h)(6) of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135(h)(6))); and
       (3) impose a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000 
     for each unreasonable price increase.
       (b) Unreasonable Price Increase Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``unreasonable price increase'' means 
     any price increase that exceeds any concurrent increase in 
     the production or operation costs of the energy-producing 
     company that are directly related to the products being sold.
       (c) Determination of Unreasonable Price Increase.--The 
     Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall 
     determine at least annually whether any energy-producing 
     company has implemented an unreasonable price increase in 
     violation of regulations issued under subsection (a).
       Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with reluctance, I also reserve a 
point of order on Traficant amendment No. 23.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
not only does a great job, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
said, he certainly has a strong physical constitution and strong 
bladder, and it is evident that he is going to be there standing.
  I have worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for years. I 
believe he is an original helper of Jim Traficant when we tried to take 
that oil from shale rock. I am going to be introducing a bill to go 
after that oil in shale rock. I am going to ask the gentleman from 
Texas to help.
  Second of all, I am going to ask the gentleman from Texas to help me 
in the goal that I pursue, that if there is an unreasonable gouging and 
conspiracy with these domestic oil companies, we can impose a fine of 
$100 million. A million dollars, $5 million is nothing to these 
companies. With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who has been a friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my third amendment, No. 23.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio withdraws 
his amendment No. 23.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to section 6?


       Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Gary Miller of California

  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Gary Miller of California:
       Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 7. OIL PRODUCTION REPORT.

       The Secretary of Energy, in conjunction with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall, 
     not later than September 30, 2000, transmit to the Congress a 
     report on all possible means of protecting the national 
     security of the United States by increasing domestic oil 
     production without harming the environment.
       Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned over the 
recent rise in prices being paid for gasoline at the pump. Right now, 
my constituents are facing extremely high gas prices. I have received 
letters and e-mails from many of the people I represent informing me 
they have recently paid as high as $1.90 a gallon for the lowest grade 
of gasoline at the pump. Predictions from the Department of Energy have 
indicated that unleaded gasoline could get as high as $2.25 a gallon by 
June, at the same time my constituents will be taking their families on 
summer vacation.
  As we all know, the reason for the recent price spike is the result 
of OPEC deciding to decrease production to raise the price of oil. OPEC 
made this decision last March. We have been well aware of the 
possibility that a price increase would occur from that. But, because 
the Clinton administration lacks a definitive national energy policy; 
and according to the Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, the 
administration was caught napping, Americans were not shielded from 
this crisis.
  I am the first to admit there is no overnight solution to the 
problem. But I will be the first to say this problem would not have 
been as costly if President Clinton would have also shown leadership. 
Instead, the President jeopardized the economy and national security of 
this country. Now Congress is forced to act on this problem.
  My amendment to H.R. 3822 would require the Secretary of Energy to 
prepare a report for Congress on how we can strengthen the United 
States national security by increasing domestic oil production. The 
United States is the number one consumer of oil. Even if we increase 
domestic production, the United States will still rely on foreign oil. 
But we must diversify our sources of supply so we do not find ourselves 
in a compromising position should OPEC decide to decrease production 
again down the road.
  Moreover, by requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress 
on how to increase domestic oil production, a blueprint can be provided 
for future administrations to avert this problem. In addition, future 
Congresses would not be in the position that we are currently in where 
Congress is forced to react to a crisis that arguably could have been 
foreseen and averted.
  Because the environment is very important and should not be neglected 
in the decision-making process, my amendment would also require the 
Secretary of Energy to work with the administrator of the EPA to 
determine how domestic oil production can be increased without harming 
the environment.
  Since President Clinton has taken office, America's dependency on 
foreign oil has almost doubled to 55 percent. Furthermore, President 
Clinton has reduced access to Federal lands in the western United 
States by nearly 60 percent. This is where nearly 67 percent of our 
onshore oil reserves are located. If Federal lands had been opened to 
exploration, we may never have been in this position we find ourselves 
in today.
  President Clinton has also been responsible for increasing 
regulations on U.S. oil refineries without consideration of the 
economic impact these regulations may have on their ability to produce 
oil. In many cases, independent refineries are forced to close up shop 
because of the burdensome regulation imposed on them. For every 
refinery that goes out of business, this is a decline in the domestic 
oil produced.
  Although I will withdraw this amendment, I will continue to push the 
administration to come up with a strategic national energy policy that 
can thwart another situation like this

[[Page H1236]]

again and strengthen U.S. national security. I plan to offer this 
amendment again at a more appropriate time. I hope that my colleagues 
will support this amendment when I reintroduce it at a later time.
  Mr. CALVERT. I rise today in strong support for the amendment offered 
by my good friend and colleague on the Energy and Environment 
Subcommittee of the Science Committee, Mr. Gary Miller.
  The price of gasoline in my home state of California is already over 
$2 per gallon. Instead of investing in this great nation's plentiful 
domestic energy resources, this Administration has been ``asleep at the 
fuel pump.'' We are now more dependent on imported oil than at the 
height of the Oil Embargo Crisis of 1973.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, we have 
just completed two authorization hearings on this Administration's 
Budget Request for the Department of Energy. This Administration's 
requests for Petroleum, Natural Gas Technologies, Other Fossil Energy 
R&D and Nuclear Energy are, in general, below last year's funding 
levels. R&D and production of these major and fundamental domestic 
energy resources should not be short-changed.
  The Secretary of Energy finally went on his diplomatic mission to beg 
for increased production from OPEC and some of the more notorious OPEC 
members have only thumbed their noses at his request. Last week on the 
House floor, I talked about the Administration's ``F'' for failure on 
oil diplomacy and domestic oil production. We still don't know whether 
OPEC will agree to step up production to reduce prices--we are at 
OPEC's mercy once again.
  On the domestic production side, the Administration has discouraged--
in every way--the opportunity to take advantage of this country's 
domestic oil resources and I would like to add coal and nuclear energy 
to the list. It is time for us to seriously develop our great country's 
domestic oil reserves--we know we have the oil--it's time to produce 
it--of course, in an environmentally sound way--so that the American 
people will no longer be dependent on OPEC's whims.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California 
withdraws his amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Are there any other amendments to section 6?


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered By Mr. Bachus

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bachus:
       Page 8, after line 2 insert the following:

     SEC. 7. DENIAL OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM INTERNATIONAL 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       Title XV of the International Financial Institutions Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 262o-262o-2) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1504. DENIAL OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MAJOR OIL 
                   EXPORTING COUNTRIES ENGAGED IN PRICE FIXING.

       ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
     States Executive Director at each international financial 
     institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(2)) to use the 
     voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the 
     institution to urge the institution to adopt as a matter of 
     policy and practice not to provide financial assistance of 
     any kind to a country determined by the President pursuant to 
     section 5 of the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 to be 
     engaged in oil price fixing to the detriment of the United 
     States economy.''.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I am a 
cosponsor of the main legislation, and I fully endorse the legislation 
and the purpose of the legislation.
  Now, one thing that this legislation does is it looks at the OPEC 
nations and we look at the assistance that we are giving to the OPEC 
nations.

                              {time}  1815

  In this regard we have heard testimony that the United States gives 
$415 million worth of assistance to the OPEC nations. We have heard 
testimony that we have 10,000 troops in these OPEC nations. What my 
amendment says is not only do we consider these assistance programs and 
this foreign aid, but we also look at something else that we cannot 
overlook, and that is the fact that through the World Bank, through the 
IMF, through the Asian Development Bank, through the African 
Development Bank, through the multilateral development banks we are 
also, as a contributor to these banks, pumping billions of dollars into 
these countries.
  It may come as some surprise to Members of this body, but through the 
multilateral development banks we have given $4.4 billion worth of 
loans to Algeria alone, $30 billion to Indonesia, and $3.7 billion to 
Venezuela. What my amendment says, when we look at OPEC and the price 
gouging that they are doing, the fact that they are yanking our chain, 
we need to not only look at direct aid, but we need to look at aid that 
the multilateral development banks are giving to these countries.
  And let me say this. We are dealing literally with billions of 
dollars worth of aid. And if we are going to have a comprehensive 
approach to using all leverage under our control, then we must also 
consider this multilateral aid. If we do not, we have an incomplete 
remedy here.
  Punishing or withholding assistance from the OPEC nations is a short-
term solution. The long-term solution to our problem is increasing our 
domestic oil production. These are some figures that I think will 
astound the American people. In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo, 
we were importing only 35 percent of our oil needs. In 1991, at the 
time of the Gulf War, we were importing 46 percent. Only 9 years later, 
we are now dependent on foreign sources for 56 percent of our needs.
  When we depend on these sources for 56 percent of our oil needs, we 
are going to be dependent. We are going to be at their mercy. So the 
long-term solution is to urge the President to open our domestic oil 
fields to exploration, make us less dependent on foreign oil, and get 
us out of this dependency on foreign oil. But until such time, we 
simply must take all action we can.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I 
will introduce it at a more appropriate time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I simply wanted to seek recognition so that I could thank and to 
commend the gentleman from Alabama for his amendment. I just wish we 
had jurisdiction of the financial institutions or I would have been 
pleased to support the gentleman's request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 6?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
  The text of section 7 is as follows:

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act.
       (1) Oil price fixing.--The term ``oil price fixing'' means 
     participation in any agreement, arrangement, or understanding 
     with other countries that are oil exporters to increase the 
     price of oil or natural gas by means of, inter alia, limiting 
     oil or gas production or establishing minimum prices for oil 
     or gas.
       (2) OPEC.--The term ``OPEC'' means the Organization of 
     Petroleum Exporting Countries.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Thurman

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 20.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mrs. Thurman:
       Add at the end thereof the following new title:

          TITLE II--ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY TAX INCENTIVES

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Efficient Technology 
     Tax Act''.

[[Page H1237]]

     SEC. 202. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN ENERGY-EFFICIENT PROPERTY USED 
                   IN BUSINESS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after section 48 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 48A. ENERGY CREDIT.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the energy 
     credit for any taxable year is the sum of--
       ``(1) the amount equal to the energy percentage of the 
     basis of each energy property placed in service during such 
     taxable year, and
       ``(2) the credit amount for each qualified hybrid vehicle 
     placed in service during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Energy Percentage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The energy percentage shall be 
     determined in accordance with the following table:
       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ``Column A--Description                   Column B--Energy Percentage                               Column C--Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 For the period:
                In the case of:                        The energy percentage is:       -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Beginning on:                      Ending on:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar energy property (other than elected       10 percent                               1/1/2000                         no end date
 solar hot water property and photovoltaic
 property) and geothermal energy property.....
Elected solar hot water property..............  15 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2004
Photovoltaic property.........................  15 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2006
20 percent energy-efficient building property.  20 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2003
10 percent energy-efficient building property.  10 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2001
Combined heat and power system property.......  8 percent                                1/1/2000                        12/31/2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(2) Periods for which percentage not specified.--In the 
     case of any energy property, the energy percentage shall be 
     zero for any period for which an energy percentage is not 
     specified for such property under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Coordination with rehabilitation.--The energy 
     percentage shall not apply to that portion of the basis of 
     any property which is attributable to qualified 
     rehabilitation expenditures.
       ``(4) Transitional rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     section 48(m) (as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(c) Maximum Credit for Certain Property.--In the case of 
     property described in the following table, the amount of the 
     current year business credit under subsection (a) for the 
     taxable year for each item of such property with respect to a 
     building shall not exceed the amount specified for such 
     property in such table:
       

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Description of property:                           Maximum allowable credit amount is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elected solar hot water property.......................      $1,000.
Photovoltaic property with respect to which the energy       $2,000.
 percentage is greater than 10 percent.
20 percent energy-efficient building property:           .......................................................
  fuel cell described in subsection (e)(3)(A)..........      $500 per each kw/hr of capacity.
  natural gas heat pump described in subsection              $1,000.
   (e)(3)(D).
20 percent energy-efficient building property (other         $500.
 than a fuel cell and a natural gas heat pump)
10 percent energy-efficient building property..........      $250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(d) Energy Property Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subpart, the term 
     `energy property' means any property--
       ``(A) which is--
       ``(i) solar energy property,
       ``(ii) geothermal energy property,
       ``(iii) 20 percent energy-efficient building property,
       ``(iv) 10 percent energy-efficient building property, or
       ``(v) combined heat and power system property,
       ``(B)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of 
     which is completed by the taxpayer, or
       ``(ii) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original 
     use of such property commences with the taxpayer,
       ``(C) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization 
     in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
       ``(D) which meets the performance and quality standards (if 
     any), and the certification requirements (if any), which--
       ``(i) have been prescribed by the Secretary by regulations 
     (after consultation with the Secretary of Energy or the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as 
     appropriate), and
       ``(ii) are in effect at the time of the acquisition of the 
     property.
       ``(2) Exception.--Such term shall not include any property 
     which is public utility property (as defined in section 
     46(f)(5) as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990). The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply to combined heat and power 
     system property.
       ``(e) Definitions Relating to Types of Energy Property.--
     For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Solar energy property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `solar energy property' means 
     equipment which uses solar energy--
       ``(i) to generate electricity,
       ``(ii) to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a 
     structure, or
       ``(iii) to provide solar process heat.
       ``(B) Elected solar water heating property.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `elected solar water heating 
     property' means property which is solar energy property by 
     reason of subparagraph (A)(ii) and for which an election 
     under this subparagraph is in effect.
       ``(ii) Election.--For purposes of clause (i) and the energy 
     percentage specified in the table in subsection (b)(1), a 
     taxpayer may elect to treat property described in clause (i) 
     as elected solar water heating property.
       ``(C) Photovoltaic property.--The term `photovoltaic 
     property' means solar energy property which uses a solar 
     photovoltaic process to generate electricity.
       ``(D) Swimming pools, etc., used as storage medium.--The 
     term `solar energy property' shall not include a swimming 
     pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a 
     function other than the function of such storage.
       ``(E) Solar panels.--No solar panel or other property 
     installed as a roof (or portion thereof) shall fail to be 
     treated as solar energy property solely because it 
     constitutes a structural component of the structure on which 
     it is installed.
       ``(2) Geothermal energy property.--The term `geothermal 
     energy property' means equipment used to produce, distribute, 
     or use energy derived from a geothermal deposit (within the 
     meaning of section 613(e)(2)), but only, in the case of 
     electricity generated by geothermal power, up to (but not 
     including) the electrical transmission stage.
       ``(3) 20 percent energy-efficient building property.--The 
     term `20 percent energy-efficient building property' means--
       ``(A) a fuel cell that--
       ``(i) generates electricity and heat using an 
     electrochemical process,
       ``(ii) has an electricity-only generation efficiency 
     greater than 35 percent, and
       ``(iii) has a minimum generating capacity of 5 kilowatts,
       ``(B) an electric heat pump hot water heater that yields an 
     energy factor of 1.7 or greater,
       ``(C) an electric heat pump that has a heating system 
     performance factor (HSPF) of 9 or greater and a cooling 
     seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 15 or greater,
       ``(D) a natural gas heat pump that has a coefficient of 
     performance of not less than 1.25 for heating and not less 
     than 0.70 for cooling,
       ``(E) a central air conditioner that has a cooling seasonal 
     energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 15 or greater, and
       ``(F) an advanced natural gas water heater that has an 
     energy factor of at least 0.80.
       ``(4) 10 percent energy-efficient building property.--The 
     term `10 percent energy-efficient building property' means--
       ``(A) an electric heat pump that has a heating system 
     performance factor (HSPF) of 7.5 or greater and a cooling 
     seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 13.5 or greater,
       ``(B) a central air conditioner that has a cooling seasonal 
     energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 13.5 or greater, and
       ``(C) an advanced natural gas water heater that has an 
     energy factor of at least 0.65.
       ``(5) Combined heat and power system property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `combined heat and power system 
     property' means property comprising a system--

[[Page H1238]]

       ``(i) which uses the same energy source for the 
     simultaneous or sequential generation of electrical power, 
     mechanical shaft power, or both, in combination with the 
     generation of steam or other forms of useful thermal energy 
     (including heating and cooling applications),
       ``(ii) which has an electrical capacity of more than 50 
     kilowatts or a mechanical energy capacity of more than 67 
     horsepower or an equivalent combination of electrical and 
     mechanical energy capacities,
       ``(iii) which produces--

       ``(I) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in the 
     form of thermal energy, and
       ``(II) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in 
     the form of electrical or mechanical power (or a combination 
     thereof), and

       ``(iv) the energy efficiency percentage of which exceeds 60 
     percent (70 percent in the case of a system with an 
     electrical capacity in excess of 50 megawatts or a mechanical 
     energy capacity in excess of 67,000 horsepower, or an 
     equivalent combination of electrical and mechanical energy 
     capacities).
       ``(B) Special rules.--
       ``(i) Energy efficiency percentage.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(iv), the energy efficiency percentage of a 
     system is the fraction--

       ``(I) the numerator of which is the total useful 
     electrical, thermal, and mechanical power produced by the 
     system at normal operating rates, and
       ``(II) the denominator of which is the lower heating value 
     of the primary fuel source for the system.

       ``(ii) Determinations made on btu basis.--The energy 
     efficiency percentage and the percentages under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) shall be determined on a Btu basis.
       ``(iii) Input and output property not included.--The term 
     `combined heat and power system property' does not include 
     property used to transport the energy source to the facility 
     or to distribute energy produced by the facility.
       ``(iv) Accounting rule for public utility property.--In the 
     case that combined heat and power system property is public 
     utility property (as defined in section 46(f)(5) as in effect 
     on the day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990), the taxpayer may only claim the 
     credit under subsection (a)(1) if, with respect to such 
     property, the taxpayer uses a normalization method of 
     accounting.
       ``(v) Depreciation.--No credit shall be allowed for any 
     combined heat and power system property unless the taxpayer 
     elects to treat such property for purposes of section 168 as 
     having a class life of not less than 22 years.
       ``(f) Qualified Hybrid Vehicles.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2)--
       ``(1) Credit amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit amount for each qualified 
     hybrid vehicle with a rechargeable energy storage system that 
     provides the applicable percentage of the maximum available 
     power shall be the amount specified in the following table:
       

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ``Applicable percentage
------------------------------------------------------ Credit amount is:
    Greater than or equal to--         Less than--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent.........................      10 percent           $  500
10 percent........................      20 percent           $1,000
20 percent........................      30 percent           $1,500
30 percent........................                           $2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(B) Increase in credit amount for regenerative braking 
     system.--In the case of a qualified hybrid vehicle that 
     actively employs a regenerative braking system which supplies 
     to the rechargeable energy storage system the applicable 
     percentage of the energy available from braking in a typical 
     60 miles per hour to 0 miles per hour braking event, the 
     credit amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     increased by the amount specified in the following table:
       

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ``Applicable percentage
------------------------------------------------------   Credit amount
    Greater than or equal to--         Less than--        increase is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 percent........................      40 percent           $  250
40 percent........................      60 percent           $  500
60 percent........................                           $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(2) Qualified hybrid vehicle.--The term `qualified hybrid 
     vehicle means an automobile that meets all applicable 
     regulatory requirements and that can draw propulsion energy 
     from both of the following on-board sources of stored energy:
       ``(A) A consumable fuel.
       ``(B) A rechargeable energy storage system.
       ``(3) Maximum available power.--The term `maximum available 
     power' means the maximum value of the sum of the heat engine 
     and electric drive system power or other non-heat energy 
     conversion devices available for a driver's command for 
     maximum acceleration at vehicle speeds under 75 miles per 
     hour.
       ``(4) Automobile.--The term `automobile' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 4064(b)(1) (without regard to 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) thereof). A vehicle shall not fail 
     to be treated as an automobile solely by reason of weight if 
     such vehicle is rated at 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight 
     rating or less.
       ``(5) Double benefit; property used outside united states, 
     etc., not qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a)(2) with respect to--
       ``(A) any property for which a credit is allowed under 
     section 25B or 30,
       ``(B) any property referred to in section 50(b), and
       ``(C) the portion of the cost of any property taken into 
     account under section 179 or 179A.
       ``(6) Regulations.--
       ``(A) Treasury.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this subsection.
       ``(B) Environmental protection agency.--
       ``(A) Treasury.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
     necessary or appropriate to specify the testing and 
     calculation procedures that would be used to determine 
     whether a vehicle meets the qualifications for a credit under 
     this subsection.
       ``(7) Termination.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply with 
     respect to any vehicle placed in service during a calendar 
     year ending before January 1, 2003, or after December 31, 
     2006.
       ``(g) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Special rule for property financed by subsidized 
     energy financing or industrial development bonds.--
       ``(A) Reduction of basis.--For purposes of applying the 
     energy percentage to any property, if such property is 
     financed in whole or in part by--
       ``(i) subsidized energy financing, or
       ``(ii) the proceeds of a private activity bond (within the 
     meaning of section 141) the interest on which is exempt from 
     tax under section 103,

     the amount taken into account as the basis of such property 
     shall not exceed the amount which (but for this subparagraph) 
     would be so taken into account multiplied by the fraction 
     determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Determination of fraction.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the fraction determined under this 
     subparagraph is 1 reduced by a fraction--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is that portion of the basis 
     of the property which is allocable to such financing or 
     proceeds, and
       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the basis of the 
     property.
       ``(C) Subsidized energy financing.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `subsidized energy financing' 
     means financing provided under a Federal, State, or local 
     program a principal purpose of which is to provide subsidized 
     financing for projects designed to conserve or produce 
     energy.
       ``(2) Business use.--The rule similar to the rule of 
     section 25(B)(d)(5)(B) shall apply for purposes of 
     determining the business use of a vehicle.
       ``(3) Certain progress expenditure rules made applicable.--
     Rules similar to the rules of subsections (c)(4) and (d) of 
     section 46 (as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall 
     apply for purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Double benefit.--Property which would, but for this 
     paragraph, be eligible for credit under more than one 
     provision of this section shall be eligible only under one 
     such provision, the provision specified by the taxpayer.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 48 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 48. REFORESTATION CREDIT.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the 
     reforestation credit for any taxable year is 10 percent of 
     the portion of the amortizable basis of any qualified timber 
     property

[[Page H1239]]

     which was acquired during such taxable year and which is 
     taken into account under section 194 (after the application 
     of section 194(b)(1)).
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart, the terms 
     `amortizable basis' and `qualified timber property' have the 
     respective meanings given to such terms by section 194.''.
       (2) Subsection (d) of section 39 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) No carryback of energy credit before effective 
     date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any 
     taxable year which is attributable to the energy credit 
     determined under section 48A may be carried back to a taxable 
     year ending before the date of the enactment of section 
     48A.''.
       (3) Paragraph (3) of section 50(c) of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
     ``In the case of the energy credit, the preceding sentence 
     shall apply only to so much of such credit as relates to 
     solar energy property and geothermal property (as such terms 
     are defined in section 48A(e)).''.
       (4) Subclause (III) of section 29(b)(3)(A)(i) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``section 48(a)(4)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``section 48A(g)(1)(C)''.
       (5) Subparagraph (E) of section 50(a)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 48(a)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``section 48A(g)(3)''.
       (6) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) in clause (vi)(I)--
       (i) by striking ``section 48(a)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 48A(e)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``clause (i)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)'', and
       (B) in the last sentence by striking ``section 48(a)(3)'' 
     and inserting ``section 48A(d)(2)''.
       (7) Subparagraph (E) of section 168(e)(3) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, and'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iv) any combined heat and power system property (as 
     defined in section 48A(e)(5)) for which a credit is allowed 
     under section 48A and which, but for this clause, would have 
     a recovery period of less than 15 years.''.
       (8) The table contained in subparagraph (B) of section 
     168(g)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

    ``(E)(iv).....................................................22''.

       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 48 and 
     inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 48. Reforestation credit.
``Sec. 48A. Energy credit.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to periods after December 31, 1999, under rules 
     similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).

     SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC 
                   VEHICLES.

       (a) Extension of Credit for Qualified Electric Vehicles.--
     Subsection (f) of section 30 of such Code (relating to 
     termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2004'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2006''.
       (b) Repeal of Phaseout.--Subsection (b) of section 30 of 
     such Code (relating to limitations) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       (c) No Double Benefit.--
       (1) Subsection (d) of section 30 of such Code (relating to 
     special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with 
     respect to any vehicle if the taxpayer claims a credit for 
     such vehicle under section 25B(a)(1)(B) or 48A(f).''.
       (2) Paragraph (3) of section 30(d) of such Code (relating 
     to property used outside United States, etc., not qualified) 
     is amended by striking ``section 50(b)'' and inserting 
     ``section 25B, 48A, or 50(b)''.
       (3) Paragraph (5) of section 179A(e) of such Code (relating 
     to property used outside United States, etc., not qualified) 
     is amended by striking ``section 50(b)'' and inserting 
     ``section 25B, 48A, or 50(b)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 204. MODIFICATIONS TO CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED 
                   FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.

       (a) Extension.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 
     facility) is amended by striking ``July 1, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``July 1, 2004''.
       (b) Qualified Facilities Include All Biomass Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) of such 
     Code (relating to definition of qualified energy resources) 
     is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
     (A), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B), 
     and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) biomass (other than closed-loop biomass).''.
       (2) Biomass defined.--Paragraph (2) of section 45(c) of 
     such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Biomass.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
       ``(i) closed-loop biomass, and
       ``(ii) any solid, nonhazardous, cellulosic waste material, 
     which is segregated from other waste materials, and which is 
     derived from--

       ``(I) any of the following forest-related resources: mill 
     residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, and brush, but not 
     including old-growth timber,
       ``(II) waste pallets, crates, and dunnage, and landscape or 
     right-of-way tree trimmings, but not including unsegregated 
     municipal solid waste (garbage) and post-consumer wastepaper, 
     or
       ``(III) agriculture sources, including orchard tree crops, 
     vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop by-products 
     or residues.

       ``(B) Closed-loop biomass.--The term `closed-loop biomass' 
     means any organic material from a plant which is planted 
     exclusively for purposes of being used at a qualified 
     facility to produce electricity.''.
       (c) Electricity Produced From Biomass Co-fired in Coal 
     Plants.--
       (1) Credit amount.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(a) of such 
     Code (relating to general rule) is amended by inserting 
     ``(1.0 cents in the case of electricity produced from biomass 
     co-fired in a facility which produces electricity from coal) 
     after ``1.5 cents''.
       (2) Qualified facility.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of 
     such Code (relating to definitions) is amended by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting the following: ``, and 
     any facility using biomass other than closed loop biomass to 
     produce electricity which is owned by the taxpayer and which 
     is originally placed in service after June 30, 1999.''.
       (3) Adjustment for inflation.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 45(b) of such 
     Code (relating to credit and phaseout adjustment based on 
     inflation) is amended by striking ``1.5 cent amount'' and 
     inserting ``1.5 and 1.0 cent amounts''.
       (B) Base year for inflation adjustment factor.--
     Subparagraph (B) of section 45(d)(2) of such Code (relating 
     to inflation adjustment factor) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``In the case of the 1.0 
     cents amount in subsection (a), the first sentence of this 
     subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `1999' for 
     `1992'.''.
       (d) Credit Not To Apply to Electricity Sold to Utilities 
     Under Certain Contracts.--Subsection (b) of section 45 of 
     such Code (relating to limitations and adjustments) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Credit not to apply to electricity sold to utilities 
     under certain contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit determined under subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to electricity--
       ``(i) produced at a qualified facility placed in service by 
     the taxpayer after June 30, 1999, and
       ``(ii) sold to a utility pursuant to a contract originally 
     entered into before January 1, 1987 (whether or not amended 
     or restated after that date).
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if--
       ``(i) the prices for energy and capacity from such facility 
     are established pursuant to an amendment to the contract 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii),
       ``(ii) such amendment provides that the prices set forth in 
     the contract which exceed avoided cost prices determined at 
     the time of delivery shall apply only to annual quantities of 
     electricity (prorated for partial years) which do not exceed 
     the greater of--

       ``(I) the average annual quantity of electricity sold to 
     the utility under the contract during calendar years 1994, 
     1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, or
       ``(II) the estimate of the annual electricity production 
     set forth in the contract, or, if there is no such estimate, 
     the greatest annual quantity of electricity sold to the 
     utility under the contract in any of the calendar years 1996, 
     1997, or 1998, and

       ``(iii) such amendment provides that energy and capacity in 
     excess of the limitation in clause (ii) may be--

       ``(I) sold to the utility only at prices that do not exceed 
     avoided cost prices determined at the time of delivery, or
       ``(II) sold to a third party subject to a mutually agreed 
     upon advance notice to the utility.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, avoided cost prices shall 
     be determined as provided for in section 292.304(d)(1) of 
     title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
     regulation.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     ending after June 30, 1999.
       (2) Adjustment for inflation.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (c)(3) shall apply to taxable years ending after 
     December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 205. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25B. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--

[[Page H1240]]

       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the applicable percentage of residential energy 
     property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such year,
       ``(B) the credit amount (determined under section 48A(f)) 
     for each vehicle purchased during the taxable year which is a 
     qualified hybrid vehicle (as defined in section 48A(f)(2)), 
     and
       ``(C) the credit amount specified in the following table 
     for a new, highly energy-efficient principal residence:

``New, Highly Energy-Efficient Principal Residence:      Credit Amount:
  30 percent property...........................................$1,000.
  40 percent property...........................................$1,500.
  50 percent property...........................................$2,000.

       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--
       ``(A) In general.--The applicable percentage shall be 
     determined in accordance with the following table:
       

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ``Column A--Description                Column B-- Applicable Percentage                             Column C--Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 For the period:
                In the case of:                      The applicable percentage is:     -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Beginning on:                      Ending on:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 percent energy-efficient building property.  20 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2003
10 percent energy-efficient building property.  10 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2001
Solar water heating property..................  15 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2006
Photovoltaic property.........................  15 percent                               1/1/2000                        12/31/2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(B) Periods for which percentage not specified.--In the 
     case of any residential energy property, the applicable 
     percentage shall be zero for any period for which an 
     applicable percentage is not specified for such property 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Maximum Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of property described in the 
     following table, the amount of the credit allowed under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) for the taxable year for each item of 
     such property with respect to a dwelling unit shall not 
     exceed the amount specified for such property in such table:

       

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ``Description of property item:                        Maximum allowable credit amount is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 percent energy-efficient building property (other         $500.
 than a fuel cell or natural gas heat pump).
20 percent energy-efficient building property:           .......................................................
  fuel cell described in section 48A (e)(3)(A).........      $  500 per each kw/hr of capacity.
  natural gas heat pump described in section 48A             $1,000.
   (e)(3)(D).
10 percent energy-efficient building property..........      $ 250.
Solar water heating property...........................      $1,000.
Photovoltaic property..................................      $2,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(2) Coordination of limitations.--If a credit is allowed 
     to the taxpayer for any taxable year by reason of an 
     acquisition of a new, highly energy-efficient principal 
     residence, no other credit shall be allowed under subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) with respect to such residence during the 1-taxable 
     year period beginning with such taxable year.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Residential Energy Property Expenditures.--The term 
     `residential energy property expenditures' means expenditures 
     made by the taxpayer for qualified energy property installed 
     on or in connection with a dwelling unit which--
       ``(A) is located in the United States, and
       ``(B) is used by the taxpayer as a residence.

     Such term includes expenditures for labor costs properly 
     allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original 
     installation of the property.
       ``(2) Qualified energy property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified energy property' 
     means--
       ``(i) energy-efficient building property,
       ``(ii) solar water heating property, and
       ``(iii) photovoltaic property.
       ``(B) Swimming pool, etc., used as storage medium; solar 
     panels.--For purposes of this paragraph, the provisions of 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E) section 48A(e)(1) shall apply.
       ``(3) Energy-efficient building property.--The term 
     `energy-efficient building property' has the meaning given to 
     such term by paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 48A(e).
       ``(4) Solar water heating property.--The term `solar water 
     heating property' means property which, when installed in 
     connection with a structure, uses solar energy for the 
     purpose of providing hot water for use within such structure.
       ``(5) Photovoltaic property.--The term `photovoltaic 
     property' has the meaning given to such term by section 
     48A(e)(1)(C).
       ``(6) New, highly energy-efficient principal residence.--
       ``(A) In general.--Property is a new, highly energy-
     efficient principal residence if--
       ``(i) such property is located in the United States,
       ``(ii) the original use of such property commences with the 
     taxpayer and is, at the time of such use, the principal 
     residence of the taxpayer, and
       ``(iii) such property is certified before such use 
     commences as being 50 percent property, 40 percent property, 
     or 30 percent property.
       ``(B) 50, 40, or 30 percent property.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     property is 50 percent property, 40 percent property, or 30 
     percent property if the projected energy usage of such 
     property is reduced by 50 percent, 40 percent, or 30 percent, 
     respectively, compared to the energy usage of a reference 
     house that complies with minimum standard practice, such as 
     the 1998 International Energy Conservation Code of the 
     International Code Council, as determined according to the 
     requirements specified in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Procedures.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (i), energy usage 
     shall be demonstrated either by a component-based approach or 
     a performance-based approach.
       ``(II) Component approach.--Compliance by the component 
     approach is achieved when all of the components of the house 
     comply with the requirements of prescriptive packages 
     established by the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     such that they are equivalent to the results of using the 
     performance-based approach of subclause (III) to achieve the 
     required reduction in energy usage.

       ``(III) Performance-based approach.--Performance-based 
     compliance shall be demonstrated in terms of the required 
     percentage reductions in projected energy use. Computer 
     software used in support of performance-based compliance must 
     meet all of the procedures and methods for calculating energy 
     savings reductions that are promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Energy. Such regulations on the specifications for software 
     shall be based in the 1998 California Residential Alternative 
     Calculation Method Approval Manual, except that the 
     calculation procedures shall be developed such that the same 
     energy efficiency measures qualify a home for tax credits 
     regardless of whether the home uses a gas or oil furnace or 
     boiler, or an electric heat pump.
       ``(IV) Approval of software submissions.--The Secretary of 
     Energy shall approve software submissions that comply with 
     the calculation requirements of subclause (III).

       ``(C) Determinations of compliance.--A determination of 
     compliance made for the purposes of this paragraph shall be 
     filed with the Secretary of Energy within 1 year of the date 
     of such determination and shall include the TIN of the 
     certifier, the address of the building in compliance, and the 
     identity of the person for whom such determination was 
     performed. Determinations of compliance filed with the 
     Secretary of Energy shall be available for inspection by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(D) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Energy in consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Treasury shall establish 
     requirements for certification and compliance procedures 
     after examining the requirements for energy consultants and 
     home energy ratings providers specified by the Mortgage 
     Industry National Accreditation Procedures for Home Energy 
     Rating Systems.
       ``(ii) Individuals qualified to determine compliance.--
     Individuals qualified to determine compliance shall be only 
     those individuals who are recognized by an organization 
     certified by the Secretary of Energy for such purposes.
       ``(D) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence' 
     has the same meaning

[[Page H1241]]

     as when used in section 121, except that the period for which 
     a building is treated as the principal residence of the 
     taxpayer shall also include the 60-day period ending on the 
     1st day on which it would (but for this subparagraph) first 
     be treated as his principal residence.
       ``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Dollar amounts in case of joint occupancy.--In the 
     case of any dwelling unit which if jointly occupied and used 
     during any calendar year as a residence by 2 or more 
     individuals the following shall apply:
       ``(A) The amount of the credit allowable under subsection 
     (a) by reason of expenditures made during such calendar year 
     by any of such individuals with respect to such dwelling unit 
     shall be determined by treating all of such individuals as 1 
     taxpayer whose taxable year is such calendar year.
       ``(B) There shall be allowable with respect to such 
     expenditures to each of such individuals, a credit under 
     subsection (a) for the taxable year in which such calendar 
     year ends in an amount which bears the same ratio to the 
     amount determined under subparagraph (A) as the amount of 
     such expenditures made by such individual during such 
     calendar year bears to the aggregate of such expenditures 
     made by all of such individuals during such calendar year.
       ``(2) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing 
     corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
     stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative 
     housing corporation (as defined in such section), such 
     individual shall be treated as having made his tenant-
     stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section 
     216(b)(3)) of any expenditures of such corporation.
       ``(3) Condominiums.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a 
     member of a condominium management association with respect 
     to a condominium which he owns, such individual shall be 
     treated as having made his proportionate share of any 
     expenditures of such association.
       ``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `condominium management association' 
     means an organization which meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E) 
     thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially 
     all of the units of which are used as residences.
       ``(4) Joint ownership of energy items.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any expenditure otherwise qualifying as 
     a residential energy property expenditure shall not be 
     treated as failing to so qualify merely because such 
     expenditure was made with respect to 2 or more dwelling 
     units.
       ``(B) Limits applied separately.--In the case of any 
     expenditure described in subparagraph (A), the amount of the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) shall (subject to 
     paragraph (1)) be computed separately with respect to the 
     amount of the expenditure made for each dwelling unit.
       ``(5) Allocation in certain cases.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     if less than 80 percent of the use of an item is for 
     nonbusiness purposes, only that portion of the expenditures 
     for such item which is properly allocable to use for 
     nonbusiness purposes shall be taken into account. For 
     purposes of this paragraph, use for a swimming pool shall be 
     treated as use which is not for nonbusiness purposes.
       ``(B) Special rule for vehicles.--For purposes of this 
     section and section 48A, a vehicle shall be treated as used 
     entirely for business or nonbusiness purposes if the majority 
     of the use of such vehicle is for business or nonbusiness 
     purposes, as the case may be.
       ``(6) Double benefit; property used outside United States, 
     etc., not qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to--
       ``(A) any property for which a credit is allowed under 
     section 30 or 48A,
       ``(B) any property referred to in section 50(b), and
       ``(C) the portion of the cost of any property taken into 
     account under section 179 or 179A.
       ``(7) When expenditure made; amount of expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an expenditure with respect to an item shall be treated as 
     made when the original installation of the item is completed.
       ``(B) Expenditures part of building construction.--In the 
     case of an expenditure in connection with the construction of 
     a structure, such expenditure shall be treated as made when 
     the original use of the constructed structure by the taxpayer 
     begins.
       ``(C) Amount.--The amount of any expenditure shall be the 
     cost thereof.
       ``(8) Property financed by subsidized energy financing.--
       ``(A) Reduction of expenditures.--For purposes of 
     determining the amount of residential energy property 
     expenditures made by any individual with respect to any 
     dwelling unit, there shall not be taken in to account 
     expenditures which are made from subsidized energy financing 
     (as defined in section 48A(g)(1)).
       ``(B) Dollar limits reduced.--The dollar amounts in the 
     table contained in subsection (b)(1) with respect to each 
     property purchased for such dwelling unit for any taxable 
     year of such taxpayer shall be reduced proportionately by an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) the amount of the expenditures made by the taxpayer 
     during such taxable year with respect to such dwelling unit 
     and not taken into account by reason of subparagraph (A), and
       ``(ii) the amount of any Federal, State, or local grant 
     received by the taxpayer during such taxable year which is 
     used to make residential energy property expenditures with 
     respect to the dwelling unit and is not included in the gross 
     income of such taxpayer.
       ``(e) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if 
     a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure 
     with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of 
     such property which would (but for this subsection) result 
     from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the 
     credit so allowed.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``; 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(e), in the 
     case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been 
     allowed under section 25B.''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 25A the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Nonbusiness energy property.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures after December 31, 1999.
       Page 2, after line 5, insert ``TITLE I--OIL PRICE 
     REDUCTION''.
       Page 2, line 6, strike ``2'' and insert ``101''.
       Page 5, line 4, strike ``3'' and insert ``102''.
       Page 5, line 16, strike ``4'' and insert ``103''.
       Page 6, line 10, strike ``section 5'' and insert ``section 
     104''.
       Page 6, line 12, strike ``5'' and insert ``104''.
       Page 6, line 15, strike ``section 4'' and insert ``section 
     103''.
       Page 6, line 17, strike ``section 4(1)'' and insert 
     ``section 103(1)''.
       Page 6, line 21, strike ``6'' and insert ``105''.
       Page 6, line 24, strike ``section 4'' and insert ``section 
     103''.
       Page 7, line 3, strike ``section 5'' and insert ``section 
     104''.
       Page 8, line 2, strike ``section 4'' and insert ``section 
     103''.
       Page 8, line 7, strike ``section 5'' and insert ``section 
     104''.
       Page 8, line 9, strike ``7'' and insert ``106''.
       Page 8, line 10, strike ``Act'' and insert ``title''.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. The 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) is recognized for 5 minutes on 
her amendment.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I kind of knew this was going to happen, 
but I still think this is a very important part of the debate that is 
going on today. It seems that we are talking about a lot of issues that 
are not coming before this House that, quite frankly, probably could 
give us an energy policy that we would all be proud to be going home 
with.
  We all know that we are talking about issues that are affecting our 
constituency every day. It is just obnoxious and absurd that we are 
seeing folks having to pay $2, and many of these folks just cannot do 
it. Many of them live in rural areas, they cannot get to work, and they 
cannot afford that $2. It is costing them everything they have. Our 
seniors are trying to get around and they cannot afford it either.
  However, I think even within that, since we are going to talk about 
energy today, that we would be remiss if we did not bring into this 
debate energy efficiency and renewable energy assistance. For several 
years now, we have had a bipartisan caucus, an Energy Renewable Caucus 
here in this Congress, that has continued to look at ways to increase 
our funding for research. But on top of that, we also have a piece of 
legislation, H.R. 2380, which is the Energy Efficient Technology Tax 
Act.
  I have to tell my colleagues that I think as we go through this and 
we look at the fact of being able to develop low carbon energy sources, 
that if we as the Congress could actually give incentives for this, it 
would be a marvelous thing for us to do.
  Imagine in this world today if we could say to people, both private-
owned and business-owned buildings, that we would actually give them 
tax credits for having energy efficient equipment in their new and 
existing buildings. Would it not be wonderful if we could give tax 
credits for new energy efficient homes, up to as much as $2,000 if they 
do this? Imagine if we could tell people that we would give them a tax 
credit for solar systems.
  And just to add into this particular part of the debate, do my 
colleagues

[[Page H1242]]

know that the United States used to be the number one issuant of solar 
energy and we have dropped to number seven in this world economy? That 
is absolutely absurd.
  Then we could do for industry. We could encourage the CHP systems, 
make effective use of thermal energy that is otherwise wasted in 
producing electricity. We could encourage accelerated investment in 
this kind of equipment. In transportation, we could give tax credits 
for highly fuel efficient vehicles; extend the current tax credit for 
electric vehicles; expand the credit to include hybrid vehicles, and go 
on with the idea of what we could do with renewable energy.
  Last year, this Congress passed in the tax bill a credit for wind 
production. We now need to do the same with biomass.
  The fact of the matter is that any energy policy that we put together 
we need to include these very important steps in making sure that we 
make energy efficient technology more attractive.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, and I 
concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 7?


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Baldacci

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Baldacci:
       At the end of the bill insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 8. CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING 
                   HOMES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25B. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HOMES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 20 
     percent of the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer for 
     qualified energy efficiency improvements installed during 
     such taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by this section 
     with respect to a dwelling shall not exceed $2,000.
       ``(2) Prior credit amounts for taxpayer on same dwelling 
     taken into account.--If a credit was allowed to the taxpayer 
     under subsection (a) with respect to a dwelling in 1 or more 
     prior taxable years, the amount of the credit otherwise 
     allowable for the taxable year with respect to that dwelling 
     shall not exceed the amount of $2,000 reduced by the sum of 
     the credits allowed under subsection (a) to the taxpayer with 
     respect to the dwelling for all prior taxable years.
       ``(c) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit 
     allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed 
     by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of 
     the credits allowable under subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A (other than this section), such excess shall be 
     carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
       ``(d) Qualified Energy Efficiency Improvements.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `qualified energy 
     efficiency improvements' means any energy efficient building 
     envelope component, and any energy efficient heating, 
     cooling, or water heating appliance, the installation of 
     which, by itself or in combination with other such components 
     or appliances, is certified to improve the annual energy 
     performance of the existing home by at least 30 percent, if--
       ``(1) such component or appliance is installed in or on a 
     dwelling--
       ``(A) located in the United States, and
       ``(B) owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer's 
     principal residence (within the meaning of section 121),
       ``(2) the original use of such component or appliance 
     commences with the taxpayer, and
       ``(3) such component or appliance reasonably can be 
     expected to remain in use for at least 5 years.

     Such certification shall be made by the contractor who 
     installed such improvements, a local building regulatory 
     authority, or a qualified energy consultant (such as a 
     utility or an accredited home energy rating system provider).
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing 
     corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
     stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative 
     housing corporation (as defined in such section), such 
     individual shall be treated as having paid his tenant-
     stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section 
     216(b)(3)) of the cost of qualified energy efficiency 
     improvements made by such corporation.
       ``(2) Condominiums.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a 
     member of a condominium management association with respect 
     to a condominium which he owns, such individual shall be 
     treated as having paid his proportionate share of the cost of 
     qualified energy efficiency improvements made by such 
     association.
       ``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `condominium management association' 
     means an organization which meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E) 
     thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially 
     all of the units of which are used as residences.
       ``(f) Basis Adjustment.--For purposes of this subtitle, if 
     a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure 
     with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of 
     such property which would (but for this subsection) result 
     from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the 
     credit so allowed.
       ``(g) Application of Section.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
     to qualified energy efficiency improvements installed during 
     the period beginning on January 1, 2000, and ending on 
     December 31, 2004.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (c) of section 23 of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and section 1400C'' and inserting ``and sections 
     25B and 1400C''.
       (2) Subparagraph (C) of section 25(e)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``and 1400C'' and inserting ``, 25B, and 
     1400C''.
       (3) Subsection (d) of section 1400C of such Code is amended 
     by inserting ``and section 25B'' after ``other than this 
     section''.
       (4) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``; 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(f), in the 
     case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been 
     allowed under section 25B.''.
       (5) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 25A the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Energy efficiency improvements to existing homes.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 9. CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS BY SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business related credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 45C the following new section:

     ``SEC. 45D. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS BY SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, in the case 
     of an eligible small business, the energy efficiency 
     improvement credit determined under this section for the 
     taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the basis of 
     each qualified energy efficiency improvements placed in 
     service during such taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by this section 
     for the taxable year shall not exceed $2,000.
       ``(2) Coordination with rehabilitation and energy 
     credits.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) the basis of any property referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall be reduced by that portion of the basis of any 
     property which is attributable to qualified rehabilitation 
     expenditures (as defined in section 47(c)(2)) or to the 
     energy percentage of energy property (as determined under 
     section 48(a)), and
       ``(B) expenditures taken into account under either section 
     47 or 48(a) shall not be taken into account under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible small business.--The term `eligible small 
     business' means any person engaged in a trade or business if 
     the average annual gross receipts of such person (or any 
     predecessor) for the 3-taxable-year period ending with such 
     prior taxable year does not exceed $10,000,000. Rules similar 
     to the rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) 
     shall apply for purposes of the preceding sentence.
       ``(2) Qualified energy efficiency improvements.--The term 
     `qualified energy efficiency improvements' means any energy 
     efficient property the installation of which, by itself or in 
     combination with other such property, is certified to improve 
     the annual energy performance of the structure to which it 
     relates by at least 30 percent, if--
       ``(A) such property is installed in or on a structure 
     located in the United States,
       ``(B)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of 
     such property is completed by the taxpayer, or
       ``(ii) such property which is acquired by the taxpayer if 
     the original use of such property commences with the 
     taxpayer,
       ``(C) depreciation (or amortization in lieu of 
     depreciation) is allowable with respect to such property, and
       ``(D) such property reasonably can be expected to remain in 
     use for at least 5 years.


[[Page H1243]]


     Such certification shall be made by the contractor who 
     installed such property, a local building regulatory 
     authority, or a qualified energy consultant (such as a 
     utility or an accredited energy rating system provider).
       ``(3) Energy efficient property.--The term `energy 
     efficient property' means--
       ``(A) any energy efficient building envelope component, and
       ``(b) any energy efficient heating, cooling, or water 
     heating appliance.
       ``(d) Application of Section.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
     to property placed in service during the period beginning on 
     January 1, 2000, and ending on December 31, 2004.''.
       (b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
     Subsection (b) of section 38 of such Code (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) in the case of an eligible small business (as 
     defined in section 45D(c)), the energy efficiency improvement 
     credit determined under section 45D.''.
       (c) Credit Allowed Against Regular and Minimum Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 38 of such Code 
     (relating to limitation based on amount of tax) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rules for small business energy efficiency 
     improvement credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of the energy efficiency 
     improvement credit--
       ``(i) this section and section 39 shall be applied 
     separately with respect to the credit, and
       ``(ii) in applying paragraph (1) to the credit--

       ``(I) subparagraph (A) thereof shall not apply, and
       ``(II) the limitation under paragraph (1) (as modified by 
     subclause (I)) shall be reduced by the credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) for the taxable year (other than the energy 
     efficiency improvement credit).

       ``(B) energy efficiency improvement credit.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, the term `energy efficiency improvement 
     credit' means the credit allowable under subsection (a) by 
     reason of section 45D.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subclause (II) of section 
     38(c)(2)(A)(ii) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or the 
     energy efficiency improvement credit'' after ``employment 
     credit''.
       (d) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(9) No carryback of energy efficiency improvement credit 
     before effective date.--No portion of the unused business 
     credit for any taxable year which is attributable to the 
     credit determined under section 45D may be carried back to 
     any taxable year ending before the date of the enactment of 
     section 45D.''.
       (e) Deduction for Certain Unused Business Credits.--
     Subsection (c) of section 196 of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting ``, and'', 
     and by adding after paragraph (8) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) the energy efficiency improvement credit determined 
     under section 45D.''.
       (f) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 45C 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 45D. Energy efficiency improvements by small businesses.''.

       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be able 
to address the House in regard to this very important matter.
  This is a matter that we in the Northeast were hit with first when 
there was a heating oil shortage and the price got spiked and we had to 
divert the gasoline production to home heating oil so that we would 
have enough fuel oil to make sure that people were able to heat their 
homes.
  About 75 percent of our Nation's home heating oil is consumed in the 
Northeast. That is why it was important for Secretary Richardson to 
have an energy summit in Boston and in Maine, to be able to listen to 
people directly, the truckers, the loggers, the small business people 
that were impacted negatively by what was taking place both with the 
high cost of home heating oil and the high cost of diesel fuel oil.
  A lot of our agricultural products were not able to get to market. 
They could not afford to get them to market because of the distance in 
traveling and the prices people would have to bear. The President, in 
his radio announcement last Saturday, came forward with a proposal for 
a Northeast heating oil reserve, which is going to act as a buffer. It 
is going to be like a beachhead against this happening again so that we 
will not end up diverting those stocks and dwindling what limited 
resources we have.
  The President also proposed to have tax credits for some of the small 
stripper wells, well producers in the Southeast that had their wells 
capped when prices were too low trying to increase production. It would 
have been a very effective course of quiet diplomacy, as quiet as can 
be done within the circumstances of an election year, to try to 
increase the production level that is taking place in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate we were not able to address this 
issue. The amendment that I offered was going to be able to deal with 
energy conservation, energy weatherization, issues which the leadership 
has cut back and gutted over the years and not given the priority that 
it should be given.
  We know firsthand that by being able to make sure that the older 
homes in the Northeast have the insulation and weatherization and the 
fuel efficiency of those oil burners that we are going to be able to 
save oil. It is a shame that we have gone from 35 percent consumption 
of foreign oil to over 50 percent consumption of foreign oil. We need 
to make sure that we are producing less foreign dependency and more 
independence, which is why my amendment dealt with conservation, 
weatherization, and tax credits to make sure that small businesses and 
individual homeowners were able to take the measures themselves to 
reduce their demands for fuel and increasing our independence.
  Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity to make sure that we were not 
going to be dependent on any foreign nation; that we were going to take 
steps to make sure that we told our people that we were in control of 
our destiny and we were able to develop a comprehensive energy policy 
which would be able to take care of the short term, with the heating 
oil reserve, with increased production, and then by having tax relief 
for small businesses, loggers, farmers, fishermen, people who have been 
impacted by these higher prices. Those are the people that we are here 
to speak to.
  I am sure that the chairman and other Members of the Congress are 
concerned about these issues. It is really unfortunate that we were 
unable to bring these issues up at this time. I know that the chairman 
is very concerned about it. Being in the Northeast, he has been there 
and understands the pressures that people go through. It is really 
unfortunate that we were not able to do that.
  The President has to have the authority in the reauthorization. We 
have got to work together, because the people depend upon us to do this 
and it is time that we work together and show the American public that 
we can do what is in the best interest of the country first. Politics 
should be second.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. I want to commend the gentleman for his worthy proposal, 
Mr. Chairman. I have not had a chance to examine it, but it sounds like 
it is worthy and I hope I can work together with the gentleman at a 
later date. Regrettably, we do not have jurisdiction over this matter.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1979, when oil prices hit $41 a barrel, then 
President Jimmy Carter called it the moral equivalent of war. At that 
time, we were only 32 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we are 
almost 60 percent dependent and we are rapidly losing that war.
  Our domestic oil industry has been decimated by periodic and well-
orchestrated dumping of cheap oil in an effort

[[Page H1244]]

by OPEC and others to drive producers at home out of business and 
replace our oil with their own.

                              {time}  1830

  In essence, they have been winning the moral equivalent of war while 
we stood by seduced by cheap fuel and did nothing. America is at risk, 
and both sides of the aisle are to blame.
  We are no closer today to a sound national energy policy than we were 
20 years ago. If we are to ever control our energy destiny again, we 
must have the courage to adopt a national energy policy that fosters 
U.S. domestic production, yes, encourages conservation measures, and 
promotes the development of domestic energy.
  Today we are focused on the high price of gasoline. Why were we not 
concerned when our domestic production was set in a rapid decline by 
manipulation of these same entities when they dumped oil on our market 
in 1998, resulting in the loss of over 600,000 barrels of oil per day 
and nearly 75,000 jobs were lost in the domestic oil patches?
  Yes, oil prices are fixed by the OPEC cartel. They run prices down in 
order to maintain and strengthen their market share by producing more 
oil. Having achieved their market objectives, then they run oil prices 
up by withholding production from the market. Neither practice is 
beneficial to the American consumer. In fact, such OPEC policies are a 
disaster to the consumer and the producer. With each price/production 
manipulation cycle, they increase their stranglehold on America itself.
  I had hoped to offer two amendments today. However, the Committee on 
Rules has required all amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional 
Record. I will not be able to offer those amendments at this time.
  I wanted to move to set up a bipartisan commission to develop a lucid 
and definite national energy policy. Currently, our energy policy is a 
mess. This amendment would require the President to establish a 
bipartisan commission, similar to the Medicare Commission, to develop a 
national energy policy based on consideration of the issues I just 
mentioned.
  My second amendment would have required the administration to begin 
an anti-dumping investigation into whether the oil exporting companies 
conspired to decrease oil prices by increasing production which forces 
domestic producers out of business and to close wells. This allows 
exporting countries to turn around and decrease production, leaving the 
United States with less domestic producers and then they can demand 
higher prices. The investigation would commence after the price of oil 
fell below a certain threshold for 30 consecutive days.
  At this time, I would like to ask the chairman to allow me to engage 
him in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for a provision that requires the 
President to provide a description ``of the effect that coordination 
among the countries described. . . with respect to oil production and 
pricing has had on the United States economy.''
  I ask the chairman if he agrees that the report provided should 
include, and would be meant to include, a description of how predatory 
pricing in the oil markets has also disadvantaged American producers.
  Because so many American producers have relatively high costs of 
production compared to the Saudis, they are especially vulnerable to 
low prices and the sharp swings in oil prices.
  So I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) if I am correct 
that the report should include reference to this side of the equation, 
also.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATKINS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the long-term intention of the OPEC nations 
is to raise prices. But in the short-term, they certainly have been 
manipulating oil prices for predatory purposes.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) is certainly correct to 
point out the need for a careful review of our Nation's energy policy, 
and he is correct to call attention to the particular problem of low 
and volatile prices for our domestic oil producers.
  The gentleman called for the establishment of a bipartisan commission 
to develop a national energy policy similar to the Medicare Commission. 
Clearly, the interests of domestic producers need to be safeguarded 
just as much as the interests of all consumers need attention.
  I would be inclined to support such a commission, although it would 
not be primarily within the jurisdiction of our House Committee on 
International Relations. And it is a jurisdictional issue that has 
prevented us from addressing the issue at this time.
  The definition of ``oil price-fixing'' does not explicitly refer to 
the predatory low pricing of oil, but I think that a fair reading of 
the general intent of the bill would lead one to conclude that any 
predatory practices were improper and ought to be condemned, just as 
they are condemned in our antitrust laws. In other words, if OPEC or 
any other oil exporters manipulate prices to drive domestic producers 
out of business, that needs to be of critical concern as a matter of 
our national energy policy.
  I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) that I would 
endeavor to clarify these matters relating to the report and the 
definition of ``oil price-fixing'' in conference. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) for sharing his important views 
on this measure.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this long debate this afternoon; and 
I have listened to Members complain that our Republican party does not 
have an energy policy, that our country does not have an energy policy.
  We do have an energy policy in America. It is an energy policy 
defined over many years but certainly endorsed by the Clinton-Gore 
administration. It is an energy policy that depends upon foreign 
imports. It is a policy that says we will not necessarily produce 
enough energy for our own people. We do not need to. We can just depend 
upon foreign imports. That is our policy.
  We resist the production of our own resources where they are 
available with all sorts of moratoria against drilling. We refuse to 
look realistically at the potential of ANWR, will not open it up to 
drilling and production, even with all the proper environmental 
controls in place. We have a policy in this country, and the Clinton-
Gore administration endorses it; and that is to depend upon foreign 
imports.
  Our Vice President has even written in his book that the gasoline 
engine was a scourge of mankind and that his policy would be for higher 
and higher taxes on gasoline to discourage us from even using it. So we 
have a policy in place. It is import what we need, and we ought to stop 
using it to begin with. That is our policy. It is pretty sad.
  Now, I rose on the floor of this House to support our troops in the 
Persian Gulf to go and defend those oil fields in Saudi Arabia. I would 
like to remind my colleagues about what I said that day. Because the 
highest percentage per capita of the troops who went to the Persian 
Gulf came from Louisiana. We had a higher per capita of soldiers, men 
and women, in that battle in the Persian Gulf defending those oil 
fields than any other State in America. Do my colleagues know how sad 
that was?
  And the reason that was true was we had such an unemployment in the 
oil fields of Louisiana that more of our men and women had signed up 
for the Reserves for extra income and signed up with the National Guard 
for extra income only to find themselves out of work in the Louisiana 
oil fields while they could be in battle defending somebody else's oil 
fields.
  I made a speech that night and said, I hope I am never called upon 
again to send another Louisiana man or woman into battle to defend 
somebody else's oil field when we do not have a national energy policy 
promoting production at home. But we still do not. We have an 
administration that still believes it is okay to import all we need and 
we are at the whim of whoever wants to charge us whatever they want for 
it. That is the policy we have in America.

  I had an explosion at a Shell plant not too long ago in my district. 
A cat cracker exploded and caused a couple of tragedies, a terrible 
experience. When that cat cracker exploded and that Shell plant was 
demolished, that whole community came together, and

[[Page H1245]]

we recognized how critical it was to rebuild that plant. I wonder if 
that plant could have been rebuilt anywhere in America. But we rebuilt 
it in Louisiana.
  We have oil and chemical plants up and down the river in my district 
producing energy, producing products out of petroleum products for 
Americans, producing fuel oil, yes, and gasoline and diesel for this 
country. We accept the risk in Louisiana.
  I wonder how many new refineries we could build in this country in 
the other States of our great Nation. I wonder how many people would 
permit the building of another refinery. We have done them in 
Louisiana, and we rebuild them when something happens like what 
happened at the Shell plant. But we have got a national energy policy 
that relies upon imported refined products now because we do not have a 
policy to encourage the refining and production of refined products in 
America.
  Not only is our policy to import crude, our policy is to import the 
refined products, too. If my colleagues think we have a problem today 
with prices, just wait and see if ever there is another oil embargo 
like there was in 1976, just wait and see when the countries that 
control refined products decide to stop selling to us and the gasoline 
lines form again and the homes do not have heating oil and we go 
through a winter where the people suffer through it the way they did in 
1973 and 1974. Remember those days.
  We do not have an energy policy in America because we are too timid 
to produce our own resources, and we are too timid to refine our own 
resources, and we are dependent on other people to do it for us; and 
then we complain because we do not like the price.
  Let us get a good energy policy in America. Let us not depend upon 
OPEC and foreign countries. Let us start thinking realistically about 
producing in America, for America, and refining in America the products 
we need in America instead of depending upon other people. Then maybe 
we would not need resolutions like this and we would not be crying over 
the high prices of gasoline.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) just said. But, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power, I want to make several points before we go to final passage.
  We have several bipartisan groups in this Congress willing to deal 
with energy policy. One is called the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Commerce, which I serve on. One is called the Committee on Ways and 
Means, which many other Members serve on. One is called the Committee 
on Resources. One is called the Committee on International Relations. 
There may be other committees.
  What we need to do is begin to address some of these fundamental 
problems on a long-term basis, not bring a piece of legislation to the 
floor that, while well-intended, does nothing but exacerbate the 
problem and nothing to solve the problem. Let me elaborate on that.
  We currently consume in the United States about 17 million barrels of 
crude oil and refined products. We currently produce about 8\1/2\ 
million. So we are importing around 9 million barrels per day. That is 
a number that none of us are happy with.
  What have we done to maximize domestic oil and gas production in the 
last 7 years? Absolutely nothing. In fact, we have gone just the other 
way. We have taken more of the OSC leasing program and put it in 
moratorium. We have taken the on-shore programs on Federal lands and 
put them in moratorium. We have enforced stricter and stricter 
environmental standards on our refineries so that refinery capacity in 
the United States is declining. We have done absolutely nothing at all 
except make it more and more difficult to maximize domestic energy 
production.
  So is the solution to pass a bill that alienates not only our OPEC 
partners but also the non-OPEC countries, like Mexico, Russia, Norway, 
and Great Britain?
  Let me give my colleagues some production numbers. The United States 
has 21 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves. The world has 1 
trillion and 33 billion. So we are less than 2 percent.
  We are producing, obviously, quite a bit at 8\1/2\ million barrels 
per day, but that is nowhere near what we need. The amount of foreign 
aid, military aid, economic aid, and food aid that we gave the 11 OPEC 
nations in the last fiscal year was less than $200 million, $198 
million. That is less than one day's imports if we were to look at it 
on an equivalent based on $30 per barrel oil.
  Do my colleagues think that OPEC countries are going to think that 
giving up $200 million is any great loss to them? That is not a sword. 
That is not a paddle. That is not even a rubber band. This is a 
spitball. That is what that is.
  Would it not be better to work with OPEC, to work with the non-OPEC 
producers, to work with our domestic oil and gas and interpretive 
energy producers in this country to develop a comprehensive energy 
policy? Would it not be better to do that than to bring this bill to 
the floor and send the signal to OPEC that we can just rattle our 
indignation?
  No one has suffered any worse than my constituents from rising energy 
prices.

                              {time}  1845

  We have seen gasoline prices at the pump go up 60 to 70 cents per 
gallon in Texas where I live. We have seen some of our low-income 
residents have to seek assistance to pay their heating bills this 
winter. We are not saying we need high, high energy prices like have 
happened. But on the other hand we are not saying that we should react 
in a knee jerk fashion when the solution is no solution at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would oppose this legislation, 
work with the committees that have jurisdiction, that could do some tax 
incentives like the Committee on Ways and Means, that could do some 
energy policy initiatives like the Committee on Commerce, that could do 
some of the leasing provisions like the Committee on Resources and 
bring forward bipartisan legislation in the very near future to address 
these problems in a fundamental fashion. I would hope that we would do 
that and oppose this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3822) to 
reduce, suspend, or terminate any assistance under the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to each country 
determined by the President to be engaged in oil price fixing to the 
detriment of the United States economy, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 445, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Gejdenson

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gejdenson of Connecticut moves to recommit the bill 
     (H.R. 3822) to the Committee on International Relations with 
     instructions to consider effective measures that reduce the 
     high oil prices on the international market created by the 
     Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and 
     report

[[Page H1246]]

     the bill back to the House with amendments containing such 
     effective measures.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382, 
nays 38, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--382

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--38

     Archer
     Baker
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Cannon
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Dingell
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Kolbe
     Largent
     McCrery
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Oberstar
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Rahall
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Watkins

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Frank (MA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ackerman
     Bereuter
     Crane
     Franks (NJ)
     Greenwood
     Hill (IN)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lowey
     McDermott
     Pallone
     Royce
     Rush
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1913

  Messrs. COOKSEY, PICKERING, COBURN, ARCHER and LARGENT changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. RANGEL, BOUCHER, ABERCROMBIE and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

       ``A bill to combat international oil price fixing.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________