[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4994-H5007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY
ACT OF 2001
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 216
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the
[[Page H4995]]
House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to
enhance energy conservation, research and development and to
provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for
the American people, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90
minutes, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
each of the following Committees: Science, Ways and Means,
and Resources. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. The amendment printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. No further amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate
transmitting H.R. 4 with Senate amendments thereto, it shall
be in order to consider in the House a motion offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his
designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and
request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 216 is a structured rule providing for
the consideration of H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act
of 2001. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, with 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
members of each of the following committees: the Committee on Science,
the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Resources.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill. It also provides that the amendment printed in part A of the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as
adopted and makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of
the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by
a member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report, provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions, and provides authorization for a motion in the House to
go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 4.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we have an opportunity to advance the
important work of securing America's energy future. Earlier this year
when the administration's comprehensive energy plan was unveiled,
President George W. Bush said, and I quote, ``America must have an
energy policy that plans for the future, but meets the needs of today,
and one that develops our natural resources and protects our
environment at the same time,'' end quote.
Thanks to extraordinary hard work by the members of four different
committees, we have before the House today legislation that
accomplishes both of these critically important goals. At a time when
America's dependence on foreign resources of oil is at an all-time high
and when domestic sources of energy are increasingly off limits, it is
important, more important than ever, for this House to face the
challenge of reversing these trends in ways that respect the public's
understandable desire to protect our country's abundant natural
resources. This bill does that.
In addition to increasing our supplies of energy, we must continue to
make even greater strides in the area of energy conservation, and H.R.
4 does that also. Greater support for energy-saving technology, as well
as tax incentives and other measures aimed at encouraging energy
conservation, are among the centerpiece provisions of this bill.
I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4 includes support for the
development of proliferation-resistant fuel for the next generation of
nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is a clean energy source that can
provide substantial new electrical generation capacity without
adversely affecting our air quality. And like hydropower and many other
renewables, nuclear energy adds no additional greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere.
Specifically, H.R. 4 authorizes R&D to develop a new type of fuel
that may be recycled in order to reduce waste and radioactive life of
spent nuclear fuel, while ensuring that this new fuel will be
proliferation resistant. I believe it is imperative that the
administration move ahead aggressively on this new initiative and that
it seek to identify as soon as possible an appropriate facility such
as, for example, Fast Flux Test Facility at the DOE's Hanford site,
that could be used to test and evaluate potential new recyclable fuels.
By including a promising new program to address one of the most
substantial objections to additional nuclear power, the authors of this
legislation should be commended for taking an important step toward the
goal of securing America's energy future.
Mr. Speaker, this is a large and complex piece of legislation
reported by four different committees. In seeking to craft a fair rule
for its consideration, the Committee on Rules considered a very large
number of amendments proposed by Members of the House. My Committee on
Rules colleagues and I are pleased to report that we were able to make
in order 28 amendments to various sections of the bill. We are
particularly pleased to have been able to accommodate almost all of the
requests made of the committee by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
In fact, on July 20, the minority leader and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
wrote to the Speaker requesting that when H.R. 4 was brought to the
floor, that the Committee on Rules make in order seven specific
amendments as well as a Democrat substitute to the bill. I am pleased
to report that today, the rule before us makes in order fully five of
those seven amendments requested by the minority leader and makes in
order no Democrat substitute, simply because none was ever submitted to
the Committee on Rules.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule which will
provide Members ample opportunity to consider a wide range of proposed
changes to the bill. At the same time, it is a rule that ensures that
the House can complete action on this important legislation in a timely
manner in order to give the American people the balanced energy policy
they need and they deserve.
So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both
House Resolution 216 and the underlying bill.
[[Page H4996]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There are 51 billion reasons to be against this rule. That is how
much the Treasury has announced it is borrowing to finance the tax
rebate passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The
President and this Congress are now party to borrowing from Peter to
pay Paul because we just cannot afford to pay for those $300 and $600
checks that are now in the mail out of the money we have in the bank.
In fact, there are an additional 33 billion reasons to defeat this
rule. That is because this rule makes in order $33 billion in energy
tax cuts that are not paid for. The Republican majority has, by
recommending this rule, begun a head-long rush into a raid on the
Medicare Trust Fund. The Republican leadership simply refuses to pay
for their policies up front and in cash. Instead, the Republican
majority wants to put everything on the national credit card. Mr.
Speaker, this is a world turned upside down, because it seems the
Republican Party has now become addicted to deficit spending, and it is
Democrats who are now the party of fiscal responsibility.
Case in point. Two of the leading conservative Democrats in the
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), joined with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) to ask the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment to
this bill which would pay for those $33 billion in tax cuts. Liberals
and conservatives alike understand that if we are to have meaningful
energy tax policy, we have to pay for it. We believe the benefits will
far outweigh the costs.
So, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
proposed that the recently passed tax cuts which we are already having
trouble paying for, be adjusted to allow for those energy tax
incentives to fit into a fiscally responsible framework. They also
reformatted the tax incentives to divide them equally between
production incentives and conservation initiatives that will benefit
consumers rather than tilting the entire tax package towards production
and special interest provisions.
But early this morning, again, under the cover of darkness at about
12:30 a.m., the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule that denied
the House the right to decide if we should act responsibly when it
comes to energy tax policy. At about 1 o'clock this morning, the
Committee on Rules reported a rule that specifically denied the Markey-
Sandlin-Stenholm amendment the right to be considered on the floor.
Thus, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules and the
Republican leadership in the House have chosen to raid the Medicare
Trust Fund instead of acting in a fiscally responsible and prudent
manner that would allow these tax breaks to be paid for.
Mr. Speaker, the administration of George W. Bush, ably assisted by
the Republican majority in this House, is making the exact same
mistakes as those made by the first Bush administration. The current
Bush administration, just like the last one, is hopelessly addicted to
deficit spending.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of conscientious conservatives on the
Republican side of the aisle who do not like deficit spending any more
than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and a host of other Democratic Members. Let us hope
that today the real fiscal conservatives on the Republican side of this
Chamber will stand up to their credit card-wielding leadership and vote
to reject this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1045
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, let me rise in support of the rule and acknowledge that
the Committee on Rules had an awesome task, with as many as 140
requests for amendments on this very comprehensive energy package; and
I will acknowledge that the Committee on Rules has literally made in
order the most important debates that occurred in the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and which obviously still concern many Members in
terms of how this bill will eventually be resolved.
For example, the bill makes in order the contentious debate over CAFE
standards. The base bill which we produced contains a remarkable
compromise moving forward CAFE standards on SUVs and minivans, but
others want to go a lot further. But that amendment will be in order,
and we will debate it on the floor.
We will have a very good debate over the question of oxygenates and
whether or not oxygenate standards ought to be waived for California.
That was a great debate in the committee. It was settled against that
amendment, but we will have that debate again on the floor.
There was another contentious debate over price caps, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will have an opportunity to
renew that debate on the floor.
We will have a debate on ANWR, which was voted on in the Committee on
Resources by a very large vote in support of that proposition, but we
will again debate that proposition on the floor.
The Committee on Rules has made most of the really contentious issues
in order for debate here today. In addition, many of the amendments
that were suggested have been incorporated in the manager's amendment,
which I will offer, if this rule is adopted, as the first item of
business.
We have also, in the rule, set the stage for debate on what is the
first comprehensive energy package produced by four of our major
committees since the Jimmy Carter years, an energy package that deals
with all the elements of our energy equation and literally responds to
the extraordinary and building crisis in energy in our country that was
exhibited last winter when natural gas fuel bills in the Midwest went
up 73 percent. They went up 27 percent in the Northeast when gasoline
prices shot up 40 cents, 50 cents, in some places 70 cents a gallon
this summer, the beginning, if you will, elements of a crisis building
in this country's imbalance between supply and demand.
This comprehensive package, with its permanent solutions and short-
term solutions, is going to be a major step forward in our time for
making sure America's energy future is safe and stabilized for the good
of our citizens. Affordable, reliable, dependable energy for the future
is what it is all about.
One of the contentious issues in this bill has to do with the nuclear
energy issue. There are outstanding issues we have not yet dealt with,
such as electric restructuring, which will come in a separate package.
But in the nuclear area, there is something on the nuclear waste
trust fund. In the bill, we attempted to take that trust fund off-
budget. It will not be off-budget. We will not accomplish that in this
rule and in this bill because of a self-executed amendment that has
been adopted to the rule by my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for yielding to me.
Section 301 of the bill attempts to take that nuclear waste fund off-
budget. I want to express my strong support for the rule and the
provision which strikes section 301 of H.R. 4.
As the chairman has stated, the Nation has been demanding a national
energy policy, and has been for some time. This bill now provides the
leadership for that energy policy. We know the previous administration
did not have the political will to take on this issue, leaving the
current administration with no choice but to act.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as this Congress,
deserve great praise for doing what is necessary to meet today's and
tomorrow's energy needs. This administration has engaged the American
public
[[Page H4997]]
in this important issue, and I am proud today that the House will
finally debate America's energy needs.
Section 301 presents a misguided effort to take the nuclear waste
fund off-budget, and I must warn the Members that such action would be
irrational and fiscally irresponsible. Taking the nuclear waste fund
off-budget will undoubtedly diminish Congress's strong oversight
responsibilities over Federal spending.
Further, by taking the nuclear waste fund off-budget, we place the
overall budget of this Nation at risk.
If section 301 were allowed to stay, it would allow the Department of
Energy to construct and facilitate a permanent high-level nuclear waste
dump at Yucca Mountain without the strict oversight that Congress has
demanded and that good oversight deserves.
This debate concerning the safe, permanent storage of high-level
nuclear waste is as controversial an issue as any other facing this
Nation. Removing the nuclear waste fund from the strictest, most ardent
congressional oversight would only escalate the controversy surrounding
this issue.
Therefore, I strongly support this rule that will take this poison
pill out of H.R. 4. By striking 301 from this otherwise good piece of
legislation, we will maintain congressional oversight and fiscal
responsibility for the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this Nation.
I want to thank again the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin)
for his leadership on this issue, and I want to thank the Committee on
Rules for allowing this self-executing portion to take place.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, (Mr.
Barton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Louisiana for yielding to me.
I am going to support the rule, but I am very opposed to the self-
executing portion of the rule that takes the nuclear waste fund and
puts it back on-budget.
We passed the nuclear waste fund to take it off-budget, both in the
last Congress and again in this Congress in the subcommittee and in the
full committee. That fund has $10 billion in it at the current time,
and it is adding about $800 million per year. Because of a budget
amendment enacted several years ago, only $400 million is available for
the fund to be dispersed.
We need access to every penny of the $10 billion if we are going to
build and operate a nuclear waste repository in the near future. I am
disappointed the rule eliminates the provision that would take the
waste fund off-budget. I hope later in this Congress we can put it back
on budget.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend. I want to assure the gentleman that I
agree that we need to address this issue very quickly in the Committee
on Energy and Commerce in the fall, and I will be assisting him in
every way possible to get this off-budget, because we need an energy
future dependent upon nuclear energy in the future. I will work with
him to accomplish that goal.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We are going to address this issue again in the
very near future.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In my opinion, it
represents a gag order on this body's ability to consider H.R. 4 by
severely limiting the ability of Members to offer amendments.
For instance, I submitted an amendment, along with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), to strike the OCS leasing royalty relief
provisions from this bill: up to $7 billion in giveaways at the
American taxpayers' expense to oil companies, who do not need any
relief whatsoever.
I guess one reason the majority leadership waited until August 1 to
bring this bill up was so they could not be accused of giving Christmas
to the oil companies in July.
But anyway, this rule does not make that amendment in order. It says
that the interests of the American taxpayer in this legislation are not
germane and are out of order.
I submitted an amendment to strike the Federal coal leasing giveaway
provisions of this bill, provisions not considered by any committee,
provisions that would give rise to rank speculation in Federal coal
leasing, provisions that would harm consumers and cost coal miners
their jobs. This rule does not make that amendment in order. It says
that the interests of consumers and coal miners in this bill are
nongermane and out of order.
I submitted an amendment to substitute the Committee on Resources
provision in H.R. 4 with a more balanced approach. This amendment
incorporated concepts of energy development, empowerment and endowment.
Yes, we do have an alternative on our side of the aisle. It would have
produced real BTUs for the countries while protecting our environment,
reclaiming abandoned mines, and providing Native Americans with the
tools they need to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
This rule does not make that amendment in order. It says that the
interests of Native Americans are nongermane and out of order, and the
interests of coal field communities are nongermane and out of order,
according to this rule.
The concept of a balanced energy policy is nongermane and out of
order, also, according to this rule. I joined our colleagues, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement) in submitting an amendment to strike from this
bill a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with energy
security. It would simply give the railroads a tax break. Rail labor is
strongly opposed to this provision. This rule does not make that
amendment in order.
I ask for unanimous opposition to the rule. Fortunately, we do have
another body that will consider this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this is really a good rule. This allows for the debate
over several issues that are crucial to a successful, long-term and
comprehensive energy policy. It gives everyone a fair shot at their
amendment and an up-or-down vote on most of these issues.
The Committee on Rules has done a great job to ensure that these
important issues are explored in a comprehensive and fair manner. I am
very pleased that the committee has taken to heart the suggestion made
by the House Democratic leader that was made to the Speaker and the
head of the Democratic Caucus. The Democratic leadership asked in a
letter for a structured rule that gives the minority an opportunity to
have separate votes on several items important to them.
One of these issues is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Resources, that being oil and gas leasing on the Alaska National
Wildlife Refuge. An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) on this
high-profile and very emotional issue has been ruled in order by the
committee. I am comfortable with that. It will be a close vote, but I
hope the Members will vote responsibly and defeat that amendment.
The rule allows us the opportunity to honestly debate the issue of
developing a long-term domestic energy source in an environmentally
fair and safe way. The Committee on Rules has crafted a rule that
allows us to consider this critical legislation initiative while
avoiding nitpicking and amendments designed merely to delay the
President's and the Republican leadership's response to the national
energy problem.
For the most part, the SAFE Act has been vetted through the committee
process. The Committee on Resources spent countless hours and numerous
hearings addressing the various provisions in our section of the bill.
The issue of wisely tapping the vast resources of our Federal lands
has been discussed for many years. These are not new issues. We have
debated long enough. It is time for action. Let us have a civil and a
spirited debate. I urge the adoption of the rule.
[[Page H4998]]
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule this
morning because the Committee on Rules did not see fit to allow the
Democratic minority to pay for this bill.
What do we mean by that? We mean that the cost of this bill is $33
billion over the next 10-year period. Under normal circumstances, if we
did not have the dramatic tax cut that the people did not call for but
the Republicans did, this would not have been a problem.
But I can tell the Members that when we had a similar situation in
trying to get the money to pay for the charitable contribution bill,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), was kind enough to provide the committee with a letter of
comfort saying that in the budget there was $500 billion that was there
as a contingency fund, some politicians call it, a slush fund, but the
proper name is a contingency fund.
That meant that, in cases of emergency, one could go to the
contingency fund to get the money, and the first to get there is the
first that gets the money. It is almost like having a bank account,
where you make a $500 billion deposit, but then you start writing
checks on that account. I am telling the Members what we are talking
about is a budgetary train wreck that the Republicans are driving us
to, and each and every week we will be getting closer to that disaster.
{time} 1100
I wish we could see some of the good old days, when Republicans got
in the well and said how much they hated Social Security, said how much
they hated Medicare, said how much they hated the Federal Government
getting involved in education. But they do not do it that way anymore.
They are more sophisticated. They say there is no real money at all in
the Social Security Trust Fund and that we may have to move into the
Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, the way they kill legislation is
no longer by voting against it, it is by saying we do not have the
money for it, unless of course they have the political courage to
increase taxes to pay for it, and we know that is not going to happen
in the next 4 years.
So what I am suggesting is this: if my colleagues will not let us
actually pay for it, let us see how many checks they intend to write on
this $500 billion deposit that they have made in the Federal account,
the $300 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and the $134 billion
promised to the Secretary of Defense. In other words, to get after
Social Security and Medicare they do not even mind holding it hostage
on national defense. The $200 billion to $300 billion defense
modernization is no longer a priority. The list goes on and on and I
have not even started.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, we Republicans certainly welcome the
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and his colleagues to
the cause of fiscal discipline. We did not see such rhetoric when we
were spending the Social Security surplus when they were in control of
the Congress. But now that we want to cut taxes for the American
people, now that we want to have a sound energy policy, they are
concerned.
We welcome their concern and, in fact, we share their goal. But the
fact is that at this point the Congress has not spent or cut taxes to
the extent that we encroach upon the surpluses provided by the Social
Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Trust Fund. We do not know what the
picture will look like at the end of the year.
The responsible thing for this House to do today is to pass this
energy bill, which provides this country a sound energy policy for the
future, and then as we get toward the end of the year, we see what the
fiscal picture looks like, we can put it all together. But do not hold
up this bill in the cause of fiscal discipline. Today, let us pass this
bill and this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The Republican majority calls this bill the SAFE Act, the Securing
America's Future Energy, SAFE, Act. What it does, though, it allows
drilling in the Arctic wilderness; it does not really do anything on
fuel economy standards in automobiles, which is where we put two-thirds
of all oil, into gasoline tanks, and the tax credits are for the
biggest oil companies.
Right now this bill should be called UNSAFE, Unkind to nature,
Sacrificing the Arctic, Freebies for Energy. UNSAFE.
Now, how was this bill put together? Well, it was put together in
four committees, largely along party-line votes. The bill contains many
provisions that were added to the bill after the committees finished
with it, with no notice or consultation with the minority, with the
Democrats, and it strips or guts other provisions of the bill that
Members on this side of the aisle had succeeded in adding during the
committee markups that would have been fairer to the environment and to
consumers and to taxpayers. All that Members on this side of the aisle
are looking for is a fair opportunity to put through to the American
people a set of alternatives that all Members of Congress would have
the opportunity to have voted upon. This rule does not make that
possible.
I will provide a highlight of this bill. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), the leaders of
the Blue Dogs, put together an amendment, with me and other Members on
our side, that took the $34 billion that the Republicans are going to
hand over to the largest energy companies in America, taking that money
for that out of the Medicare Trust Fund from our senior citizens and
create an alternative, and we would spend the same $34 billion but we
would put more of it into renewables, more of it into conservation,
more of it into energy efficiency, and fund significant tax breaks for
the smaller oil and gas companies across this country. And we would pay
for it by increasing by a very small amount, or not increasing,
actually, just not allowing to finally go through this huge tax break
for the upper 1 percentile in America. And we would not even take back
the whole thing, just enough to pay for this tax break for the oil and
gas industry that is built into this bill.
They will not even allow us to make that amendment. This is a
centrist amendment, a balanced amendment; but it is a gag rule that
does not allow us even to debate it. Now, that is wrong.
And the reason they will not allow that amendment to be put in place
is they know it would win, because the American people do not want to
raid the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund to give
tax breaks for the wealthiest energy companies in our country. Vote
``no'' on this rule. It is unbalanced, it is unfair, it is bad for the
environment, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for taxpayers, and it
is bad for our country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I really had not planned on speaking on the
rule, but when we have finally reached the point of every Democratic
Member coming in the well and simply misrepresenting what this bill is
in such a gross way, I do think we need to put a little balance into
it.
The single biggest portion of the tax area is in reliability. The
second largest is conservation. There are a number of renewable
requirements for solar and for biomass. There are a number of
provisions for individuals to get tax credits on their major
appliances, on their homes, major tax credits for fuel cell cars, up to
$40,000.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is probably not wanting to listen to
this because he said $34 billion went to major oil companies. The fact
of the matter is that is not true. Half of it does not go, a quarter of
it does not go, 10 percent of it does not go. But it does not make
nearly as good a pitch as saying this tax credit goes to big oil and it
comes out of Medicare. That is not true, but the truth is not a good
story.
[[Page H4999]]
The truth is that on a bipartisan basis we are going to conserve, we
are going to make our energy source more reliable, and we are going to
produce a little bit more. That is a really good mix.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule.
Today the House takes up legislation that will affect our country's
energy policy for years to come. A critical component of the plan is
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a program which has
provided essential heating and cooling assistance to our most
vulnerable populations for a quarter of a century; yet this bill
attempts to dismantle the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. It
requires the program to do a study to determine whether or not its
recipients are conserving energy and engaging in energy-efficiency
investments.
They make a false claim here. It also ignores the fact that nearly 80
percent of the LIHEAP recipients who receive heating assistance earn
less than the poverty level. I might tell my colleagues that this is
from an administration that does not give a hoot about conservation.
I offered an amendment to strike this language. It was not allowed.
As a matter of fact, the Democratic alternative was not allowed.
This bill provides billions of dollars in tax credits and royalties
to the oil and gas industry, and yet what it would do would be to begin
to dismantle the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. It is wrong.
Oppose this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the
Committee on Science.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which will
allow a fair and open debate on many of the key elements of the bill.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and his
staff for working so closely with all of us who contributed to this
bill to ensure that the rule would allow for a manageable, yet
thorough, debate. I might add that is a tribute to the leadership of
the Speaker.
I want to draw attention at this point to two key amendments that
have been made in order, the Boehlert-Markey amendment on CAFE
standards and the Markey-Johnson amendment on the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. I think everyone agrees that these will be
the two most critical votes today; and this rule, sensibly, allows 40
minutes of debate on each of them, on top of over 2 hours of general
debate and an additional 40 minutes of debate on related Arctic
amendments. So these issues will be adequately heard.
That is essential, because these two amendments, raising CAFE
standards and continuing the ban on drilling in ANWR, these two
amendments must pass if H.R. 4 is to be a truly balanced bill. As of
now, H.R. 4 is skewed far too heavily toward production, much more so
than was in the President's original plan.
The bill includes new subsidies and regulatory relief for the oil,
gas, and coal industries without requiring any commensurate improvement
on environmental performance. No one doubts that we need to increase
our energy supply, but these subsidies go beyond what is necessary to
do.
Still, I could support these provisions of H.R. 4 if they were part
of an overall plan that was balanced, that ensured that we were doing
all that we could to conserve energy and protect the environment. That
is the approach we took in the Committee on Science when we unanimously
passed the provisions that now make up division B of the bill, a
section of the bill that gives great emphasis to conservation and
renewable energy while continuing support for research on oil and gas
and coal and nuclear energy. For the rest of the bill to reflect that
kind of balance, we must raise CAFE standards and prevent drilling in
ANWR.
We will get into the details of these later in the day, but let me
just point out that transportation accounts for two-thirds of our
Nation's oil consumption; yet despite our technological expertise,
despite the fact that American industry is far more energy efficient
than it was 20 years ago, despite studies showing that we can
significantly improve fuel economy, the fuel economy of our Nation's
passenger vehicles has dropped over the past generation.
We simply should not, as human beings, be trampling on some of the
last pristine places on earth, making irreversible changes to our
planet's landscape, when we refuse to take the simplest, most feasible,
most responsible steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels, steps that
could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment
without cramping our life-style one little bit.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of disappointment
that I come to the floor today opposing the rule and opposing a
fiscally irresponsible bill. I did not want to be here.
I have been very supportive of the work my good friend, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton), has done in the areas of energy. But I have
been here for 22 years, and I remember when this body used to act like
a legislative body. I remember the last time we debated a national
energy policy it took weeks, not one day. I remember when we used to
allow those who had a difference of opinion an opportunity to come to
the floor on their issues and to vote on those issues and let the will
of the House, not the will of the leadership, make the determination.
We continue day after day after day to have rules coming out of the
Committee on Rules that do not allow those who have a different opinion
to bring their ideas to the floor of the House. We had a Democratic
alternative. It was put together by the Blue Dogs, and it was then run
through our caucus, in which we got not unanimous opinion but we got
enough agreement that we wanted to bring it to the floor and perfect
the work of the majority; but more significantly, we wanted to pay for
it.
To my colleagues in this House on both sides of the aisle who vote
for this rule and for this bill, they will be voting to take additional
money out of Social Security, which we have said time and time again we
are not going to do. Now, my colleague is shaking his head back there
now saying that is not true; wait until September when the new
estimates are in; wait until we get the letter from the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) saying we are going to have to cut spending, we are
going to have to defense more than we are already cutting defense.
{time} 1115
There is not enough money left in the budget to take care of the
needed defense.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. McCRERY. The gentleman does not mean to imply that we are
spending Social Security money?
Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly do.
Mr. McCRERY. The gentleman knows that we are not. The gentleman, I
think, means that we are spending some of the surplus attributable to
the Social Security payroll tax, and we are not even doing that.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time because the gentleman has misspoken
what I intend to say.
Look me straight in the eye: I believe we are doing that.
Mr. Speaker, what we should have done in this body, we should have
started with the reform of the Social Security system first before we
had a $1.350 trillion tax cut which is expanded to $2 trillion. The
gentleman sits on the Committee on Ways and Means. He knows that we are
going to have to face some tough choices.
We are not doing that when we continue to tell the people we are
going to eat dessert before we eat spinach. There is much in the bill
that I support, but the leadership of this House is misleading the
American people when they say we can pass this energy bill
[[Page H5000]]
today and have additional tax cuts that do not come out of the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds; and it will take until next month
and next year until I am proven right.
The gentleman will soon find that I am right.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend from Texas. Does the
gentleman realize that repeatedly yesterday and up to midnight last
night, we said if there were modifications in what the Blue Dogs had
put together and made it a substitute, we would have made it in order;
and that was never given? Does the gentleman realize that request was
made?
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, all we were asking was that it be pay-for.
Did the gentleman allow pay-fors in this bill?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We made the offer that had the other side
put it in a different form, we would have made it in order. The
gentleman would have had the content. Is the gentleman aware of that?
Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I was not
personally aware of that. Nobody ever called me.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That request was made up to midnight last
night.
Mr. FROST. Will the gentleman from Washington yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) has his own time. I just wanted to ask the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) a question.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington is asking the
gentleman from Texas about actions by the Democrats on the Rules
Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
has the time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), a member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. It
does not have everything I want in it. We took the nuclear trust fund
off budget in the Energy and Commerce bill, and this bill has a portion
that disallows that. I did not get everything that I want.
Mr. Speaker, I am told that over 100 amendments were offered to the
Committee on Rules, and either in the manager's amendment or amendments
that are going to be debated on the floor, that 28 of those amendments
have been incorporated in some fashion.
The Republican leadership is not ducking any of the tough issues. We
are going to have an amendment to strike ANWR, the drilling provision
up in Alaska. We are going to have an amendment to increase the CAFE
standards, which is very controversial. We are going to have several
California-specific amendments on price caps and oxygenated fuel.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very fair rule. We are going to let
the House work its will. I hope when it comes to final passage that a
majority will vote for this bill.
Three of the four committees reported their portions of the bill on a
bipartisan basis. In the Committee on Science and Technology, it was a
voice vote by unanimous consent. In the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, it was a 50-5 vote. In the Committee on Resources, it was
about a 3-to-2 vote in favor of supporting the bill. Only in the
Committee on Ways and Means was it a partisan vote. That came out on a
partisan vote, unfortunately.
This is not the only energy package that is going to be on the floor,
it is just the first energy package. I plan to put together an
electricity restructuring bill, a nuclear waste bill, a pipeline safety
bill, a Price-Anderson nuclear insurance indemnification bill, and
bring those to the floor this fall or early next spring. I am sure that
the other committees with jurisdiction are going to do similar things.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair bill. Energy is the lifeblood of our
country. We need to do something on the demand-and-supply side. There
will be a number of amendments that may move it one way or the other. I
hope that we have a fair debate, and I hope that we vote for the rule
and final passage.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington made a misstatement. I do
not think that it was intentional on his part.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the Committee on Rules made it very
clear to the Republicans on the Committee on Rules that we had a large
package of amendments. It was not a substitute because everybody agreed
from the beginning that there would be separate votes on ANWR and
separate votes on CAFE. So we never were going to offer a substitute.
We were going to offer a major package of amendments put forward by the
Blue Dogs with pay-fors in it.
The Republicans never intended to give the Blue Dogs their package of
amendments. They knew there would not be a total substitute because
there had to be a separate vote on CAFE and ANWR.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am releasing today an important report. It
is titled Hitting the Jackpot: How the House Energy Bill (H.R. 4)
Rewards Millions in Contributions with Billions in Returns.
Mr. Speaker, what this report indicates is that the cumulative value
of campaign contributions from coal, oil, gas, nuclear and electric
utility industries in the 2000 election cycle was $69.5 million. The
cumulative value of the tax breaks and subsidies for these industries
in this energy bill comes to $36.4 billion. If campaign contributions
are viewed as a form of investment in the legislative process, the rate
of return on this investment is an astounding 52,200 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the majority sets the agenda,
and they set an agenda that gave away $2 trillion in tax cuts earlier
this year. They are now going to give away $36 billion in tax breaks
and subsidies to the energy special interests.
We have a rule before us that will not provide for an opportunity to
move to strike these provisions. The American people ought to
understand that this is not a balanced bill. This is a special interest
bill. It appears to include rewards for the campaign contributions from
the energy industry. Boy, are they getting a good return on their
money.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following report.
Hitting the Jackpot: How the House Energy Bill (H.R. 4) Rewards
Millions in Contributions with Billions in Returns
(Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Minority Staff, Special
Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform)
executive summary
This report which was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry
A. Waxman, compares contributions from the energy industry to
provisions in H.R. 4, the energy bill sponsored by the
Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The report finds that energy interests that gave millions of
dollars in campaign contributions during the last election
cycle will receive billions of dollars in tax breaks and
subsidies under the legislation.
The cumulative value of the campaign contributions of the
coal, oil and gas, nuclear, and electric utility industries
in the 2000 election cycle was $69.5 million; the cumulative
value of the tax breaks and subsidies for these industries in
H.R. 4 is $36.4 billion. If the campaign contributions are
viewed as a form of ``investment'' in the legislative
process, the ``rate of return'' on this investment is an
astounding 52,200%. Table 1 shows how much key energy
industry sectors contributed to federal campaigns and how
much they stand to benefit from H.R. 4.
To put this in perspective, the total $36.4 billion cost of
the tax breaks and subsidies in H.R. 4 is equivalent to the
federal taxes paid by 9,764,169 typical households in 1998.
TABLE 1.--ENERGY INTERESTS' RETURNS ON INVESTMENT IN H.R. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total industry Return on
Industry contributions, benefits in H.R. investment
1999-2000 4 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal............................................................. $3,800,000 $5,844,000,000 153,700
Oil and gas...................................................... 33,300,000 21,980,000,000 65,900
[[Page H5001]]
Electric utilities............................................... 18,600,000 5,862,000,000 31,400
Nuclear.......................................................... 13,800,000 2,666,000,000 19,200
----------------------------------------------
Totals..................................................... 69,500,000 36,352,000,000 52,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The coal industry's contributions and returns
The coal mining industry gave $3.8 million in the 2000
election cycle, of which 88% went to Republicans.
Authorizations in H.R. 4 would give the coal industry $1.1
billion in direct subsidies over the next three years, plus
an additional $1.4 billion over the following seven years.
These subsidies include grants for research and development
and commercial applications of technologies for coal-fired
electricity generation. In addition, the bill provides tax
credits for coal-fired power generation worth an estimated
$3.3 billion over ten years. These tax credits subsidize both
investment in coal-fired generation technologies and
production of electricity from coal-fired generation. In
total, this amounts to $5.8 billion in federal funding for
coal-fired power generation over the next ten years.
The bill also has many special breaks for the coal
industry. For example, it would require the government, not
industry, to pay the costs for industry applications to mine
coal on federal lands. It would also loosen planning
requirements to address environmental damage from coal mining
operations.
II. The oil and gas industry's contributions and returns
The oil and gas industry gave $33.3 million in the 2000
election cycle, of which 78% went to Republicans.
The largest tax breaks in H.R. 4 apply to oil and gas
production. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation,
these tax breaks are worth $12.8 billion over the next ten
years. There are at least eleven separate provisions allowing
oil and gas producers to reduce their tax payments. For
example, the bill would allow oil and gas producers to
accelerate depreciation, carry losses back for five years,
avoid otherwise applicable alternative minimum tax
requirements, and expense various costs.
H.R. 4 further subsidize the industry by suspending
royalties for oil and gas lease sales, which is estimated to
cost taxpayers around $7.4 billion. H.R. 4 also requires the
Interior Department to reduce royalty rates for ``marginal''
oil and gas wells, which are defined so generously as to
cover most onshore wells. According to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), this provision would cost $491 million
in lost royalties, based on conservative assumptions. The
bill provides an additional $900 million for research and
development and demonstration grants for technologies for
ultra-deepwater mining. And the bill would require the
federal government to reimburse the industry for spending on
required environmental analysis. The CBO estimates that this
could cost $350 million in forgone royalties over a ten-year
period.
In total, these tax breaks and other subsidies for the oil
and gas industry amount to $22.0 billion over the next ten
years.
In addition to these direct monetary subsidies, the bill
would weaken or eliminate environmental protections for
federal lands to facilitate oil and gas development. H.R. 4
would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for
drilling, a key oil company objective. The bill also waives
environmental protections that would otherwise apply to
drilling in ANWR. H.R. 4 seriously weakens environmental
protections for leasing and drilling on other federal
lands as well. For example, the Forest Service will no
longer be allowed to stipulate environmental protections
in leases for drilling on National Forest lands if the
state has not made such stipulations. And federal land
management agencies would be largely unable to reject
lease offers for drilling on public lands.
H.R. 4 gives the oil and gas industry numerous other
benefits as well. The bill would allow the Interior
Department to accept royalties in kind (in barrels of oil or
units of gas) from leasing federal lands. In the past, the
federal government has lost money in converting in-kind oil
and gas royalties to revenues. The bill also requires the
Department to reimburse the industry for any transportation
and processing costs associated with the in-kind royalty
payments. The bill authorizes up to 7.5% of total federal
income from oil and gas leases from fiscal years 2002-2009 to
be used to fund ultra-deepwater research and demonstration
projects, potentially diverting substantial funds from other
spending priorities. In addition, the bill requires EPA to
conduct several rulemakings to consider relaxing regulations
that affect the refining industry. It also sets up an
interagency task force to expedite permitting of natural gas
pipelines.
Highly specific provisions appear to benefit particular
companies. For example, one provision would allow the
Secretary of Interior to suspend the term of existing subsalt
leases, which would benefit Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics,
Anadarko contributed $448,529 during the 2000 election cycle,
of which 98% was to Republicans. Anadarko also reportedly has
connections to Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife.
The tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry
are not justified by economic hardships in the industry. The
oil and gas industry has been particularly profitable in
recent years. Three major oil and gas companies alone made
$309.1 billion in revenues in 2000, which translated to $25.3
billion in profits. A recent front page story in the Wall
Street Journal describes a ``big problem'' faced by the oil
and gas industry--the companies are ``sitting on nearly $40
billion in cash'' that they are struggling to invest.
III. Electric utilities' contributions and returns
Electric utilities gave $18.6 million in the 2000 election
cycle, of which 67% went to Republicans.
Electric utilities would receive several specific tax
breaks under H.R. 4, as well as benefiting from many of the
subsidies and tax breaks identified in this report for the
coal, oil and gas, and nuclear industries. For example,
changes to tax laws governing bond issuance would help
utilities finance electricity production and cost the
Treasury $2.5 billion over ten years. Other provisions
relating to sales of electricity transmission lines would
cost $2.9 billion over the next five years. These provisions
would change the tax treatment of utilities' sales of
transmission properties under electricity restructuring
policies. Special rules for electric cooperatives would cost
$179 million over ten years. And a particular tax exemption
for governmental utilities purchasing natural gas would cost
$827 million over ten years. In total, this amounts to $5.9
billion for electric utilities over ten years.
IV. The nuclear industry's contributions and returns
The nuclear industry gave more than $13.8 million to
federal candidates and committees in the 2000 election cycle,
of which more than two-thirds went to Republicans.
H.R. 4 gives tax breaks for nuclear power worth $1.9
billion over the next ten years. It also provides numerous
subsidies for nuclear energy, totaling over $633 million over
the next three years, and over $100 million more in later
years. These provisions would subsidize research and
demonstration projects in areas such as uranium mining
(through in situ leaching), uranium conversion operations,
fuel recycling, plant optimization, and nuclear technologies.
In total, H.R. 4 provides almost $1 billion for nuclear power
in the next three years alone, and $2.7 billion over the next
ten years.
The bill also moves the nuclear waste fund off-budget,
which the nuclear industry strongly supports.
V. Auto manufacturers' contributions and returns
The automotive manufacturing industry gave $2.2 million in
the 2000 election cycle, of which 69% went to Republicans
The most significant aspects of H.R. 4 regarding motor
vehicles is what the bill does not do. In the face of
national concern over gas prices and our dependence on oil
imports, H.R. 4 does not require any meaningful improvement
in motor vehicle fuel efficiency, which is regulated under
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The bill
contains a requirement to reduce the amount of gasoline that
SUVs and trucks would otherwise use over a six-year period by
five billion gallons. Although this figure sounds impressive,
it represents only 0.2% of projected petroleum consumption.
Moreover, the provision appears to weaken existing
requirements for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to mandate more stringent reductions. When
coupled with the bill's extension of a loophole for vehicles
that could be run on ethanol (but almost never are), H.R. 4
will reduce overall motor vehicle fuel economy.
The bill provides numerous other breaks for the auto
manufacturers. For example, several provisions to increase
use of alternative fuels over dual-fuel vehicles, rather than
just dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. This helps auto
manufacturers exploit the CAFE loopholes for vehicles that
can use alternative fuels, but do not do so. These provisions
include an exemption allowing dual fuel vehicles to use HOV
lands and federal fleet acquisition requirements.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the bill from a
different perspective. British-owned BP Amoco has 14,000 outlets in
America; Motiva Enterprises, owned by a Dutch company has 14,000
outlets in America; Citgo, owned by a Venezuelan company has 14,000
outlets in America. FINA, a French company, has 2,500 outlets in
America. Beam me up. All that is left in America is Budweiser
flatulence at a Dodger's game.
Mr. Speaker, this sellout of America is ridiculous, and I believe
America will continue to depend on foreign petroleum until we maximize
our own resources. Having said that, I want to commend the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the Republican Party because in the
1970s, there were long lines. The Democrats were in control, and we are
now debating it in 2001. Evidently they did nothing, nothing but reward
monarchs and dictators.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for
putting my Buy American amendment in
[[Page H5002]]
the manager's bill, and I urge Congress to pass my oil shale, oil
trapped in shale rock amendment.
There is enough oil trapped in shale rock in America to fuel America
for 300 years without another drop of fuel from anybody. Yes, it will
cost a little more per barrel now, at first; but it will create jobs,
tax revenues, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, make America free,
get us out from under dictators and monarchs that have been rewarded by
a do-nothing Congress in the 1970s.
I support this bill. No bill is perfect. This is the way to start,
and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
and the committee, for bringing us this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see a New Yorker in the
Speaker's chair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Day in and day out we
have been debating appropriations bills, and we debate them for days on
end. Here we have a bill dealing with energy policy, and amendments are
denied, and we are doing this in less than one day.
Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments to the Committee on Rules,
all of which were denied. Our governor in New York, Governor Pataki,
has put into effect a ``green energy'' mandate for New York State which
would say that 10 percent of the agency's energy consumption comes from
renewable energy by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.
That would be State agencies' energy consumption. I propose to do
that for the Federal Government. We should be taking the lead in
Federal policy, and the Committee on Rules denied my amendment which
would mirror Governor Pataki's New York ``green energy'' mandate.
I also had an amendment to have cool roofing, because in urban areas,
heat is trapped on the top floor when roofs are dark; and that was
denied. I am a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and that
amendment passed the committee and was part and parcel of the bill. And
I want to say that I voted for the committee bill, and if that had been
here, I would probably vote for the rule; but the rule denied it.
Finally, a demonstration project providing for a Federal match for
replacing transmission lines with superconductive transmission lines
saving energy losses.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this rule is fair. I think it denies
too many amendments, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, I
reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
This is a missed opportunity today.
The American people wanted us to work in a bipartisan fashion and
develop a long-term, comprehensive and balanced energy policy. This
underlying bill does not get us there. The underlying rule that we are
debating now does not get us there.
While the rule does make important amendments in order, a discussion
whether we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, whether
we should increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks,
it also denies an amendment that I offered with the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on
Resources, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that would
strike the oil royalty give-back program contained in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of my colleagues had a chance to
see the Wall Street Journal article last Tuesday that talked about the
hoards of cash that the oil industry is sitting on, over $40 billion of
excess cash reserves. They are swimming in it, and we are about to pass
legislation that will give a multi-billion dollar royalty kickback for
them to drill on the OCS. This is money that would be used to fund the
Land and Water Conservation program for conservation programs and
national park enhancement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a balanced bill. It is not a balanced rule,
and I urge ``no'' on both.
{time} 1130
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sandlin).
(Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the word of the day today is
disappointment. Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle,
what are you afraid of? Once again in the middle of the night, the
Republican leadership has produced a rule that blocks numerous
Democratic amendments, it blocks discussion, it blocks debate, it
blocks a balanced energy plan; and contrary to the representations made
on the floor this morning, no Blue Dog perfecting amendment was offered
to be in order. No Blue Dog amendment was to be voted on. No Blue Dog
amendment is part of our decision this morning. It blocks an
alternative for our perfecting amendment, and that is just not fair.
In 1992, the last time Congress considered comprehensive energy
legislation, we talked about it for days and for weeks. Congress was
given the parameters of this debate only this morning. Now within a few
hours we are expected to vote on a national energy policy affecting
this country for decades to come. That shows a lack of leadership. It
is very disappointing.
The Democratic perfecting amendment includes a balanced, forward-
looking energy policy for the country. It includes tax incentives for
increased production of domestic, natural gas and oil production by our
small, independent producers. It provides access to capital for
refining capacity and natural gas distribution. It facilitates
construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
But our plan is balanced. It does more:
It requires the Federal Government to buy more energy-efficient
central air conditioners;
It strengthens the household appliance standby power efficiency
standards;
It directs the DOE to reinstate central air conditioning and heat
pump efficiency standards issued by the last administration;
It fully funds research and development of clean coal technology, not
a game of bait and switch;
It funds renewable energy at twice the rates of the Republican plan.
Are these good provisions? We think they are. But we will never know
because we are not going to debate them because we did not get the
opportunity to present amendments. We were shut out from the process,
shut out from the debate as the American people have been. I guess the
public will never know. Vice President Cheney recently correctly said
we cannot conserve our way out of this current problem. But neither can
we produce our way out. We have to do both.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for a bill
that risks raiding our Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and
fails to provide critical relief to electricity ratepayers in
Washington, Oregon, and my State of California.
The amendment my Commerce Committee colleagues, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and I had planned to offer
would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop delaying
the refunds owed electricity consumers in the western States. These
consumers have been grossly overcharged. Not even FERC disputes this
fact. It has found on several occasions that ratepayers were charged
unjust and unreasonable rates. Yet FERC has adopted an investigate-and-
delay approach that has blocked even the first penny in refunds. Our
amendment would have forced FERC to act finally in 30 days based on two
alternative options for calculating refunds.
[[Page H5003]]
Mr. Speaker, electricity consumers deserve refunds promptly. This
House deserves the opportunity to debate this issue and FERC's
unwillingness and inability to act expeditiously. This rule blocks that
debate.
I urge rejection of the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. First, this
energy bill in my view is about yesterday, not about tomorrow. With its
focus on fossil fuels, oil, gasoline and coal, the bill is mired in the
Stone Age. When it comes to tax credits for conservation or anything to
do with conservation, they are not paid for, so it simply will not
happen.
Secondly, the Committee on Rules disallowed a very important
amendment that we offered which the gentlewoman from California just
described. The FERC has been on a sit-down strike with regard to
California's energy crisis. Yet they are responsible for the energy
consumer in the country. They acknowledge that the rates that
Westerners have paid are unjust and unreasonable; and yet they still
side with the gougers, not the consumers. They have left Californians
waiting, waiting on interim orders to become final, waiting for FERC to
make us whole again, waiting for the FERC to act.
Every day the cash register rings in California out of our general
fund up to $50 million a day to pay for electricity. As the fifth
largest economy in the world, this administration and this House I
think is going to regret this bill, because it does not speak to
California and it does not speak to the future of our Nation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate, I will urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is
defeated, I will offer an amendment that makes in order the Markey-
Sandlin-Stenholm amendment.
This amendment is balanced. It pays for the tax cuts in the
underlying bill by paring back the recently enacted tax cut in the top
bracket for the richest Americans. Half of the tax credits in the
Markey-Sandlin-Stenholm amendment would go to renewables and energy
efficiency, but only 17 percent of the Republicans' bill goes to such
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt).
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against this
unfair rule which stifles debate and in our view undermines our energy
future and undermines our economic future and the future of Medicare
and Social Security.
All we asked for was an amendment to deal with the glaring flaws in
this bill, for an effort to make the bill better and stronger, more
fiscally responsible. All we wanted was an hour. One hour, 60 minutes,
is all we asked the Committee on Rules for to put out an alternative
vision on energy policy to the American people. That hour request was
refused.
This in my view suppresses a free and fair dialogue in this House of
what one of our most important policies should be. We have been shut
out and shut down, I guess because somebody was worried we might win
the amendment.
What was the amendment? We think it is an amendment for a balanced
energy policy. We believe in more production. We believe in more oil
and natural gas for the American people. We believe, however, that
there should be balance. We need renewables, we need solar, we need
wind energy, we need incentives for people to buy more energy-efficient
cars.
I come from a part of the country where we make a lot of cars. If we
are going to talk about increasing efficiency standards, we have got to
help the auto companies be able to have demand for the automobiles that
increase efficiency. Those kinds of provisions are not in this bill. We
wanted to add them to the bill. We get no right to do that. The
minority asked for one thing to be put in the bill, this series of
amendments that we think brings balance to the bill, and we are shut
out.
There is another thing we wanted to do in the bill, and that is pay
for it. We have been saying for 6 months that the fiscal road we are on
is going to cause us to go into the Medicare and ultimately the Social
Security Trust Funds. We come out here every 6 months and pass another
lockbox. It is an illusion. It is a deception. It is all designed for
consumption of the public when in fact and in truth if this bill passes
today, we will be in the Medicare Trust Fund big time. And we are doing
it without even a debate about an alternative.
This is an outrage that we should have a rule like this that cuts off
debate on the most important energy debate and the most important
fiscal debate that this country will ever have. It is a bad rule. It is
unfair. It is wrong that this country cannot have the proper debate
that we ought to be having on this floor today. It is a shame that this
rule is on the floor.
I urge Members to vote against the rule. Let us get a fair rule that
is good for the future of this country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, for 25 years this country has prohibited the commercial
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. We have prohibited reprocessing
because it creates plutonium, and plutonium is the raw material of
nuclear bombs. We do not want to proliferate that raw material. This
underlying bill reverses that 25-year prohibition and permits what they
are calling an advanced fuel recycling technology. That is
reprocessing. The Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that would have
permitted a straight vote up or down on whether or not to reverse a 25-
year prohibition.
This is a bad rule because of that and because of all the other
reasons we have heard this morning, and we should vote ``no'' on the
rule. We do not want to add to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in
this country and around the world. This is an issue that goes beyond
our own national energy policy and affects our international policy. We
are reversing with hardly any notice this 25-year policy. It is wrong.
The rule is wrong and should be defeated.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule
and my remarks are on Indiana Daylight Savings Time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule and to deplore the
failure to consider an amendment that would make great energy sense for
Indiana and for the cities and towns and states that breathe the air
emitted by Indiana's smokestacks.
Indiana is mixed up when it comes to time. I offered an amendment to
bring the energy-saving benefits of Daylight Saving Time to all of
Indiana, repealing the ``Indiana amendment'' to the Uniform Time Act to
help my constituents and other Hoosiers be in better touch with the
world, build our economy, save money and improve the nation's air.
Energy savings and uniformity of timekeeping through Daylight Saving
Time were the aims of the 1966 law. But, since a change in the early
1970s, much of Indiana has been out of synch with the rest of the world
in terms of time and as been denied those benefits.
The USDOT put 10 counties on Central Standard Time and the other 82
on Eastern Standard Time. The 10 counties in the Central Time Zone
observe DST--and they wouldn't have it any other way--but the other 82
are not permitted to, though some set their own time.
Confusion and waste are the results. Our businesses with relations
elsewhere are out of touch and out of synch with the larger world,
constrained in communication and growth.
A 1975 DOT study, still cited today, concluded that reduced
electricity demand in areas affected by Daylight Saving Time could save
consumers $7.5 million, yield reductions in carbon dioxide, nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, and help to clear the air in
Indiana and to the east and northeast.
And this was a plan that is sensitive to state government: it gives
the Indiana General Assembly the last word to: (1) vote to preserve the
status quo; (2) vote to repeal the exemption from DST; or, (3) do
nothing and exempt the entire state--including the counties in the
[[Page H5004]]
Central Time Zone--from Daylight Saving Time.
An energy bill that does not avail itself of conservation
opportunities like Daylight Saving Time for Indiana, a plan with other
benefits, as well, is flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not done. Indiana's business, our industry, our
employers and our workers deserve this leap forward, want to save
energy, and need to be in better touch with the nation and the world.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. This energy bill can
be summed up in three words: drill, drill, drill. We have heard a lot
of other reasons to be opposed to this rule.
I offered an amendment to help do something about this in the
Committee on Rules. It deals specifically with North Carolina and the
American people to help protect the fragile natural resources,
specifically oil and gas drilling off the North Carolina coast. I would
urge my colleagues from North Carolina to vote against this rule
because it specifically deals with North Carolina but the rest of the
country.
For several weeks we have heard a lot of talk about this. Today we
have one of the most important issues we will deal with in this country
for a long time. As we have already heard, we are not having time to
deal with the specific issues that affect us as a whole and bring it to
this body.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment would put an end to the question of whether
or not the drilling would take place on one of the most fragile,
pristine beaches in this country. But the Republican leadership has
refused to give us a chance just to debate the issue in the House, have
us decide it and have us vote on it.
{time} 1145
My State is opposed to it. Tourism, fishing and transportation are
important. I urge Members to vote against this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if rhetoric turned turbines, we would
have enough electricity for the next 100 years just listening to the
Democrats today. But the truth is, we have got to move on. We do not
have an energy policy. Let me give you a quote from Clinton's Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson: ``It is obvious that the Federal Government
was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.'' February
16 of last year.
I applaud the Bush Administration for taking the brave steps to say
we have got to look ahead. We have a neglected energy infrastructure.
Think about this: the last refinery for gasoline was built in
Garyville, Louisiana, in 1976. We are dependent on foreign oil. Today
57 percent of our oil comes from other countries. Now, compare that to
1973 during the infamous OPEC oil embargo, when only 35 percent of our
oil came from foreign countries. Today, it is 57 percent.
Our national security is vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations.
Let us look at the demand. Since 1980, the supply has only increased by
18 percent, but the demand has increased by 24 percent. Think about the
number of cars that are on the road today. In 1940 we had 5 million
cars on the road. Today we have 130 million cars driving. There is a
huge increase in demand.
Think about the environmental question. Everybody wants clean air,
everybody. I do not know anybody who does not. We are united on that.
But the reality is radical environmental politics have become the rule
of the land. Today there are 8,000 environmental organizations. It is a
$3.5 billion industry. Greenpeace in Washington, D.C. alone pays
$46,000 a month just in rent. It is a big business. They want to have
everybody in America convinced the sky is falling if a bill passes.
But, fortunately, mainstream America sees that there are a lot of
solutions out there. We can and we will improve our energy
infrastructure. We will continue to promote conservation. This bill
alone funds $940 million in conservation. Think about the new hybrid
car that Honda is developing, 68 miles a gallon, and think about the
fuel cell technology which the Republicans are pushing so strongly.
This is a battery that, in essence, does not give out. Think of all the
alternative sources of energy we support in this Congress, and on the
Committee on Appropriations, $440 million will be spent on research and
development for hydroelectric power, solar power, wind power,
geothermal, and biomass. These are great, positive developments.
And let us be serious about nuclear power, the nuclear energy
question. In France, 76 percent of the homes are powered by nuclear
energy, in Belgium, 56 percent. In America, already 20 percent is. Yet
you listen to some of the rhetoric from my friends, the Democrats, and
you would think, oh no, we are getting into some kind of brave new
world of nuclear energy. It is not that scary out there. We have the
technology to keep up with it.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think it is a good one. It is
responsible. I am glad the Committee on Rules is moving forward.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and urge my
colleagues to vote against this unfair rule.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the rule on
H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. I appreciate
the opportunity to share my concerns with one section of H.R. 4 as it
stands in its current form.
Section 306 authorizes the appropriation of $10 million payment, or
subsidies, for three years to domestic uranium producers ``to identify,
test, and develop improved in situ leaching mining technologies,
including low-cost environmental restoration technologies.''
This legislation is not needed for research and development purposes.
In fact, this in-situ leaching process causes radioactive uranium and
other toxic chemicals to leach into groundwater, threatening the public
health of communities surrounding the mines.
The impact of this legislation could be severe on the Southwest's
environment and on the public health of the Native American communities
I represent.
Specifically, section 306 of the SAFE Act of 2001 could directly prop
up with millions of taxpayer dollars a uranium mining company that
proposes in-situ leach uranium mining in the Crownpoint and Church Rock
areas of New Mexico.
In the case of the proposed uranium mines in Crownpoint and Church
Rock, the mining process would pollute the high-quality aquifer that is
the sole source of scarce drinking water for over 10,000 Navajos.
This proposed subsidy for the uranium industry also would lead to
unsound fiscal policy. In fact, in addition to a host of environmental
and Native American groups--both nationally and in New Mexico--this
amendment is supported by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, which
views this as an unfair corporate give-away.
Most importantly to me, however, are the residents in my District in
New Mexico. The local Navajo communities have suffered tremendously
over this government's past practices and policies regarding uranium
mining. My constituents, as well as those in Arizona, Colorado and Utah
continue to be negatively affected by the long-term impacts of past
uranium development.
We as a nation cannot find the financial resources necessary to fully
fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, to compensate
the victims of past uranium development, but we may put our stamp of
approval on this $30 million subsidy for the uranium industry.
I oppose this effort.
It is sadly ironic that just last week we as a Congress paid a long
overdue tribute to the contribution that the Navajo Nation made to our
country, in the ceremony to grant Congressional Gold Medals to the
Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. I was honored to be a part of that
effort and shared the stage with President Bush.
However, this week, we are about to ignore them and their pleas for
environmental justice again. Section 306 is a slap in the face to the
Native Americans in my district that continue to seek justice for the
past errors of our energy production policy.
For the record, I'd like to read the organizations that support this
effort to amend H.R. 4 and eliminate this uranium industry subsidy.
Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium Mining, Southwest Research and
Information Center, Physicians Resisting In-Situ Mining,
[[Page H5005]]
New Mexico Environmental Law Center, U.S. and New Mexico Public
Interest Research Groups, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Mineral Policy Center, Nuclear Information Resource Service,
Public Citizen, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from California
is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, this rule does nothing to bring down the
obscenely high prices that we have been paying for electricity in
California and the rest of the West Coast for the last year. It does
nothing. We are being gouged, and the Republicans refuse to do
anything.
If we were paying the price for bread that we are paying for
electricity, we would be paying $19.99 for this loaf of bread. In fact,
the price went up to $190 at some points during the last year. And what
does this bill do for us in California and the rest of the coast?
Nothing but crumbs. We get crumbs out of this bill.
I will tell Members, many of my constituents have gone out of
business during the last year in San Diego and the rest of the West
Coast. Sixty-five percent of my constituents face bankruptcy in the
next year if the prices do not go down. With this bill, my small
business people are toast.
Defeat this rule, defeat this bill. Let us have a real energy policy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who has chaired, I
think, a very eminently fair rule on this important bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my friend from
Washington, who has worked long and hard to deal with our Nation's
energy needs, and specifically raised very important issues that affect
the area of the country he represents.
Let me say that there is no group of people who know better how
important this is than the people I am privileged to represent in
California.
We, for the first time in a quarter century, Mr. Speaker, are moving
towards a comprehensive energy package, and the leadership, the
President and the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, have been
very, very important with regard this issue.
We have worked very closely with our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to fashion a rule that is fair. Contrary to the rhetoric we
have heard from virtually everyone on the other side of the aisle, this
is a very fair and balanced rule.
We need to move ahead and try to attain energy self-sufficiency. We
need to do what we can to encourage conservation. We need to take the
kinds of steps that are necessary to increase the energy supply.
I believe that we are going to, in the next 12 hours, have the
opportunity to do that. Yes, we are going to have 12 hours of debate.
Some people who are trying to claim we shut things down are way off
base. We are going to have a full debate.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to, at this point, enter in the Record a
letter the Speaker received from the minority leader and the ranking
Democrat on the Committee on Rules, the Democratic Caucus Chairman, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
House of Representatives,
Office of the Democratic Leader,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: During the past two weeks, the Rules
Committee has dealt with major legislation inconsistently and
in a manner which seriously undermines open and fair debate,
and in doing so, has done serious harm to the practice of
affording the minority opportunity to put forward amendments
it has sought, both substitute and perfecting. For example,
the Rules Committee made in order 14 separate amendments
instead of allowing them to be offered as a substitute to the
committee-reported campaign finance reform bill while making
in order only a substitute instead of allowing individual
amendments on the faith-based/charitable choice bill. We want
to take this early opportunity to set out exactly what the
minority is seeking on any rule relating to energy
legislation, which may be sent to the floor before we adjourn
for the August District Work Period.
It is our understanding that the Rules Committee may
package the various energy bills that have now been reported
to the House by four separate committees into one omnibus
package to be considered by House. If that is indeed your
intention, the Minority hereby requests that the House be
given the opportunity to have legitimate up or down
individual votes on the various parts of the package as well
as the opportunity to offer any substitute that may be
drafted. Allowing these votes, rather than just giving the
Minority one substitute and a motion to recommit, is
particularly important in light of the fact that some of the
key provisions in these bills have bipartisan support or
bipartisan opposition and thus, should be allowed to be
considered and voted on separately. Given the importance of
these issues and the magnitude of their impact on the entire
Nation, we believe this is the only right way to approach the
construction of any rule dealing with the energy issue.
The most important matters that clearly deserve a separate
up or down vote include the following:
(1) CAFE standards: The provisions relating to automobile
and light truck efficiency standards are controversial and
there are Members who wish to have the opportunity to offer a
strengthening amendment.
(2) West Coast electricity: As you know, West Coast Members
have sought many opportunities to have a vote on this issue
and just such an amendment was offered in the Energy and
Commerce Committee markup. While that amendment was defeated,
this issue is of such great importance to a great many
Members and the Inslee bill (H.R. 1468) is certainly
deserving of an opportunity to be debated and vote on during
the consideration of a major energy package.
(3) Tax-related matters relating to conservation and
production: While the Ways and Means Committee has reported a
bill which provides for many of the tax incentives Democrats
have endorsed to promote conservation, increase efficiency,
and promote increased domestic oil and gas production, this
bill provides no off-sets for the reduction in revenues that
would occur if the package were to become law. Democrats
believe strongly that Members must be given the opportunity
to offer tax code offsets for these and other provisions and
because of the way the bill may be structured. The offsets
may require waivers in order to be eligible for
consideration.
(4) ANWR: As you know, this is a very controversial issue
and Members on both sides of the aisle want to have an
opportunity to have a straight up or down vote on the
question of ANWR. In addition, there are other issues in the
Resources Committee reported bill that Members would like to
have the opportunity to amend or delete.
(5) Fuel oxygenates: This is a very controversial issue
that has supporters and opponents on both sides of the aisle.
Henry Waxman offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce
Committee markup to waive the requirements for California,
and while the amendment was defeated, it does deserve to be
debated and voted on during the consideration of any omnibus
energy package.
(6) Alternative and renewal energy sources: The Science
Committee has reported a very solid proposal; however, some
Members would like to have the opportunity to offer increases
and expansion of these important elements in an overall
national energy strategy and to pay for that increased
spending with offsets from the tax code. This, of course,
would require waivers in the rule.
(7) Appliance standards: Two very important amendments were
considered in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup
relating to efficiency standards for air conditioners. These
amendments, one of which would have required the federal
government to purchase only the most energy efficient air
conditioning systems and the other which would implement the
air conditioning efficiency standards promulgated by the
Clinton Administration, were defeated on straight party line
votes. We believe these amendments, as well as any other
appliance efficiency amendments should certainly be included
in any list of amendments allowed under the rule.
We are of the opinion that since this is the first piece of
energy legislation the Republican leadership has brought to
the floor in the past six and one-half years, these
amendments, as well as other important proposals which may be
offered by Members, should have the opportunity to be heard.
If ultimately the rule reported by the Rules Committee does
not give Members the opportunity to take a clean up or down
vote on these matters, the rule will fail and the House will
never have the opportunity to reach the merits on this
legislation that is so vital to the future of this country.
We would like to work with you to avoid the fiasco of the
campaign finance rule so that we can actually debate, in a
fair and democratic fashion, legislation that will affect
each and every American citizen now and well into the future.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest
opportunity.
Sincerely yours,
Richard A. Gephardt,
House Democratic Leader.
Martin Frost,
Chairman, House Democratic Caucus.
[[Page H5006]]
The letter basically says that we should make in order almost
everything that we have done. Almost every provision that was requested
as priorities from the Democratic leadership we have made in order.
We are going to be having a full and fair debate on the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. We are going to be having a full and fair
debate on CAFE standards. And I wanted to congratulate the minority
leader, he encouraged in his letter for us to make in order the fuel
oxygenate amendment, which is going to be very important to the people
I represent in California. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for urging us to make this amendment in order.
So, if one looks at the issues that we are going to be addressing, we
have got very, very important ones.
I do want to state one concern that I have, however, and that has to
do with the exemption for partners in the Energy Star Program. I am
concerned about the potential unintended consequences it might have on
our technology industry. I am happy to say I have been talking with my
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and, as we head into conference, I
have every assurance we will be able to effectively address the
concerns that have been raised by our friends in the tech sector of the
economy.
This is a very fair rule. It represents the priorities that have been
set forth by both Democrats and Republicans. So I think the rule, as
well as the legislation itself, at the end of the day should enjoy
broad bipartisan support.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having expired, the
question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting if
ordered on the question of adoption of the resolution and then on the
question of the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 208, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--208
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Hastings (FL)
Hutchinson
Spence
Stark
{time} 1216
Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of Texas and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ISSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 307]
AYES--220
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
[[Page H5007]]
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Dingell
Ford
Hastings (FL)
Hutchinson
Smith (MI)
Spence
Stark
{time} 1225
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 307, I unfortunately missed
the vote somehow or another. I wanted to declare that if indeed I would
have voted, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 307.
____________________