[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5127-H5176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H5127]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

                              {time}  1645
              SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT OF 2001

                              (Continued)

  We need to be smart on how we proceed with this transition. We need 
to encourage our domestic auto companies to improve fuel efficiency, 
and we do need to do that in a way that does not displace American 
workers.
  How do we do that? There are many ways to do that. One way to do that 
is to encourage the market to move in that direction. That means 
providing tax credits to those who will purchase these new fuel-
efficient technological automobiles. The technology is there to build 
cleaner cars, increase good-paying job opportunities here at home, and 
to protect our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the chip that keeps the CD player in the car from 
skipping contains more computer memory than the entire Apollo 
spacecraft. Using these technological advancements, we can build 
cleaner and safer cars with the U.S. union workers making them, and we 
can protect our environment at the same time. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I guess this boils down to whose arguments are the most persuasive. 
Do we believe the automobile industry, which told us in the seventies 
that mandating seatbelts, which have saved thousands of lives since, 
would deal a devastating blow to auto makers and force massive layoffs, 
neither of which happened?
  Or do we believe the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a 
report just yesterday that said that reasonable CAFE standards, and 
ours are in the low end of their range, would bring major benefits 
without compromising safety?
  The Academy said, ``Fuel economy increases are possible without 
degradation of safety. In fact, they should provide enhanced levels of 
occupant protection.''
  I would say, let us lessen our dependence on foreign oil without 
dislocation in the industry. Let us deal with sound science. Let us 
address the consumer's interest, paying less to fill up that gas 
guzzler, visiting their local gas stations less frequently, and let us 
deal with the safety of the American public.
  We have an opportunity to do the responsible thing. Vote for this 
sensible middle-ground amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will close in opposition to the amendment. I happen 
to believe, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), that we 
should believe the National Academy of Sciences. They say that if the 
Boehlert amendment passes, Americans will die in increasing numbers on 
the highways because the automobile industry will have no choice with 
this extreme, radical change in CAFE numbers but to lighten up the 
vehicles and downweight them. The National Academy of Sciences just 
said that.
  They said to the gentleman, if they take the gentleman's plan and 
spread it out over 10 or 15 years, that might not happen. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wants to enact his plan in a short 4 
years, a 46 percent increase in CAFE standards in 4 years, leading, as 
the National Academy of Sciences says, to increased death on our 
nation's highways.
  We ought to stand against this amendment. The debate is not about 
raising CAFE standards. The bill raises CAFE. It saves 5 billion 
gallons of gasoline in the 6-year period. That is equivalent to parking 
a whole year's production of SUVs and minivans for 2 years, parking 
them, not running them on the highways. It is equivalent to saving $100 
billion pounds of CO2 emissions. That is what the bill does 
without this extreme amendment.
  This is the history of CAFE: regular, orderly, responsible increases. 
There was one increase that was too big and NHTSA had to roll it back. 
There were orderly, responsible increases. It is time for another 
orderly, responsible increase.
  That is what the underlying bill does. It sets as a floor the saving 
of 5 billion gallons of gasoline, and it tells NHTSA, If you think you 
can do more, do more. It is a minimum, not a maximum. This amendment 
will end up killing Americans. We ought to defeat it.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlemen from New York and Massachusetts.
  Both sides of the debate cite the recent report on the effectiveness 
of CAFE Standards by the National Academy of Sciences. Supporters of 
the amendment argue that the technology currently exists to raise the 
combined fleet passenger vehicle and light truck standard from 20.7 
miles per gallon to 26 by 2004. But the Boehlert-Markey amendment 
doesn't stop there, it puts on an additional requirement that the 
combined fleet standard must be raised to 27.5 by the following year. 
The problem is that U.S. auto manufacturers, especially in the light 
truck lines, have established their production lines for the next five 
model years.
  Changing CAFE standards will cause severe disruptions in the plant 
configuration for production line models over the next five years. This 
will force automakers to shut down certain lines, close plants, lay off 
workers and harm auto manufacturing communities.
  The effect of this amendment is that General Motors and Ford will 
have to close over 20 plants in order to comply with the new standard. 
This action would result in the loss of 100,000 auto worker jobs. 
Daimler-Chrysler says it would have to close two of its truck plants 
and would no longer be able to produce the Durango, the Dakota or Ram 
pickup truck lines. That would cost 35,000 Daimler-Chrysler workers 
their jobs. These are job losses that would result by model year 2004. 
More job losses would follow when the CAFE standard would be increased 
to 27.5 mpg by model year 2005.

[[Page H5128]]

  The jobs of these auto workers and the economic health of auto-making 
communities is too important for us to ignore. Yes, we want more fuel 
efficient automobiles, minivans, pickups and SUVs. But as the National 
Academy of Sciences reported, automakers need sufficient lead time--10 
to 15 years--to phase in fuel saving improvements.
  H.R. 4 specifically instructs the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to develop a new standard for light trucks based on 
maximum feasible technology levels and other criteria in addition to 
reducing gas consumption by 5 billion gallons by year 2010. The fuel 
efficiency standard in H.R. 4 is a floor, not a ceiling.
  The economy is too anemic and basic industry in America--especially 
the auto industry--is too fragile to sustain a production change 
requirement of this magnitude. This economy cannot afford to lose more 
than 100,000 auto industry jobs. President Bush is fond of saying, 
``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well, I'm from Michigan--Detroit City, the 
motor capital of the world--and I say, ``Don't mess with Michigan; 
don't mess with auto-making centers such as Detroit, and don't mess 
with auto workers and their families.'' Vote against the Boehlert-
Markey Amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district with thousands of 
automobile workers who are proud to build safe cars for consumers. 
These workers produce quality parts and vehicles that drivers have 
confidence in.
  They're concerned when someone in Washington presumes to know more 
about auto engineering than the people on the production line. And they 
get really worried, when a decision made here threatens their jobs.
  By raising CAFE standards, Congress would literally be dictating to 
automakers how to build their cars and minivans, and telling consumers 
what they can and can't buy. Frankly, I don't think that many people 
want a car or SUV designed by a government committee . . . or want 
Congress to be their car salesman.
  CAFE is bureaucratic, and diverts resources from real fuel economy 
breakthroughs. It compromises safety, because ultimately it has the 
effect of forcing heavier, sturdier vehicles off the road. And for all 
of the ballyhoo, the statistics show that CAFE has not saved as much 
gasoline as its proponents predicted.
  Manufacturers are already working on a new generation of fuel 
efficient vehicles that consumers will want to buy. Honda is producing 
a hybrid car at its Marysville plant in Ohio. The workers there--and 
they include some of my constituents--are building that car because it 
responds to a consumer need, not because the government is telling them 
to do it.
  If we really want to bring relief to the driving public . . . we need 
far-sighted policies encouraging oil exploration, additional refinery 
capacity, and common sense environmental regulation. CAFE is a 1970s 
solution to our energy challenges that is as threadbare as your old 
bell bottom jeans.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with conditional support for 
the Boehlert-Markey Amendment. The provisions in H.R. 4 on CAFE 
standards are not strong enough to adequately address the need to 
improve vehicle fuel efficiency. But, this amendment does not provide a 
sensible way to help U.S. manufacturers deal with the energy problems 
in this nation with out jeopardizing U.S. jobs. We can do better for 
U.S. manufacturers and energy savings in this country. As this 
amendment makes its way through the legislative process, my support is 
conditioned on the following concerns being addressed.
  To begin with, the structure of the CAFE standards creates a 
competitive imbalance among the automobile manufacturers. I am 
uncomfortable with this regulatory impact and will work to see it 
minimized. By using a fleet average calculation, manufacturers who have 
product lines of smaller vehicles are better able to meet the CAFE 
standards than those for whom larger cars and trucks make up larger 
portions of their inventory. Thus it is much easier for some 
manufacturers to meet any increase in CAFE standards than it is for 
others. While the legislation and amendments before this chamber do not 
address this issue, I am hopeful that there will be an effort in the 
Senate or in conference to better level the playing field for 
manufacturers, so that we will have improvements to this when the bill 
comes back before the House.
  Also, I believe that the time frame outlined in this amendment for 
implementation of the CAFE standards is too short. We should be taking 
a long term view on energy policy issues. By placing such tight time 
lines, you cause the manufacturers to resort to shortcuts in design and 
production to meet these requirements. These shortcuts will create 
negative long term impacts. These include, among others, negative 
consequences on the industries that supply the materials for the 
vehicles, such as steel manufacturers, and the safety of these vehicles 
for the consumer. The first chance for the auto manufacturers to make 
changes in their vehicle designs comes with the 2004 model, leaving 
only 1 year to meet new standards. While I think it is possible for 
them to achieve these goals, I am concerned that there may be 
unnecessary negative consequences. Again, energy is a long term 
challenge.
  In spite of these reservations, I believe it is time for action to be 
taken to improve vehicle fuel economy standards given the energy 
situation in this country. In addition to the increase in CAFE, I think 
incentives in this bill for consumers to purchase alternative fuel and 
hybrid vehicles will go a long way to better fuel economy and lower oil 
consumption.
  Broadly, I believe H.R. 4 is unfairly skewed toward increased 
production and is not focused enough on conservation and renewables. 
Supporting the Boehlert-Markey amendment, with the adjustments that are 
necessary, will help steer this bill back on the right track toward 
better conservation.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe it is extremely important 
for Congress to increase fuel efficiency standards to improve air 
quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen dependence on 
foreign oil.
  I am very anxious to include in this energy bill, HR 4, measures to 
improve gas mileage in a manner that does not harm the automobile 
industry of this country. However, the only amendment permitted that 
addressed fuel efficiency was submitted by the gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Boehlert. Unfortunately his amendment set impossible time lines, 
and would have hurt American auto manufacturers. My vote in favor of 
the amendment was simply a statement of principle. My vote should be 
interpreted solely as a desire to move in a direction of increased gas 
efficiency. My vote should definitely not be interpreted as an intent 
to cripple the automobile industry in its attempt to compete with 
foreign automakers.
  I pledge to continue to work towards increasing fuel efficiency, 
cleaner air and energy conservation. I will also continue to work 
towards these goals within a reasonable time frame that will help, not 
hurt, America's automobile industry.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Boehlert-Markey amendment to increase CAFE standards for SUVs 
and light trucks.
  America controls 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, while 
OPEC controls 76 percent! We need to make our economy less dependent on 
oil by becoming more energy efficient. According to the 2001 National 
Academy of Sciences report, ``Improved fuel economy has reduced 
dependence on imported oil, improved the nation's term of trade and 
reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, 
relative to what they otherwise would have been.''
  If fuel economy had not improved, gasoline consumption (and crude oil 
imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels per day higher than it is, 
or about 14 percent of today's consumption.'' The National Academy 
report states that ``Had past fuel economy improvements not occurred, 
it is likely that the U.S. economy would have imported more oil and 
paid higher prices than it did over the past 25 years.'' ``Fuel use by 
passenger cars and light trucks is roughly one-third lower today than 
it would have been had fuel economy not improved since 1975 . . .''
  Congress must continue to increase CAFE standards because the auto 
manufacturers will not do so on their own. The technology does exist to 
further improve the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and SUVs. If we do, 
we can save consumers' money at the gas pumps, reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil, and improve air quality.
  I urge support for the Boehlert-Markey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
concluded.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in Part B of 
House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Wilson

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Wilson:
         Page 81, after line 12 (after section 308 of title III of 
     division A) insert the following

[[Page H5129]]

     new section and make the necessary conforming changes in the 
     table of contents:

     SEC. 309. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL SALES OF URANIUM BY THE 
                   UNITED STATES UNTIL 2009.

         Section 3112 of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2297h-10) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
         ``(g) Prohibition on Sales.--With the exception of sales 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2) (42 U.S.C.2297h-10(b)(2)), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 
     Government shall not sell or transfer any uranium (including 
     natural uranium concentrates, natural uranium hexafluoride, 
     enriched uranium, depleted uranium, or uranium in any other 
     form) through March 23, 2009 (except sales or transfers for 
     use by the Tennessee Valley Authority in relation to the 
     Department of Energy's HEU or Tritium programs, or the 
     Department or Energy research reactor sales program, or any 
     depleted uranium hexafluoride to be transferred to a 
     designated Department of Energy contractor in conjunction 
     with the planned construction of the Depleted Uranium 
     Hexafluoride conversion plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and 
     Paducah, Kentucky, to any natural uranium transferred to the 
     U.S. Enrichment Corporation from the Department of Energy to 
     replace contaminated uranium received from the Department of 
     Energy when the U.S. Enrichment Corporation was privatized in 
     July, 1998, or for emergency purposes in the event of a 
     disruption in supply to end users in the United States). The 
     aggregate of sales or transfers of uranium by the United 
     States Government after March 23, 2009, shall not exceed 
     3,000,000 pounds U3O8 per calendar 
     year.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the last 5 years, the domestic uranium industry in this country 
has collapsed because the Federal Government is dumping uranium onto 
the market.
  Our amendment prohibits the sale of government uranium inventories 
through March of 2009 and honors existing contracts and obligations 
that are already in place. After that, the transfers are limited to 
3,000 pounds of uranium a year. It would allow the transfers needed to 
cover current obligations and allow government uranium inventories to 
be used in the event of disruption of supply to U.S. nuclear 
facilities.
  We need a nuclear power industry long term to maintain the diversity 
of our electricity supply. If we do not maintain a domestic supply of 
uranium, then we will become increasingly dependent on foreign sources 
of uranium, and in 10 to 15 years, find ourselves in the exact 
situation with uranium and nuclear power as we find ourselves in in the 
oil business.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a balanced and very fair amendment. 
It has no budgetary impact. I believe that the Department of Energy has 
now indicated its support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would prohibit the Department of 
Energy from selling into the open market approximately 85 percent of 
the Department's inventory of approximately 21,000 metric tons of 
uranium until after the year 2009. However, this amendment would not 
prevent DOE from selling approximately 3,700 tons of uranium, or 15 
percent of its total inventory, that the DOE is required to sell by 
statute pursuant to the U.S.E.C. Privatization Act.
  Many domestic uranium mining companies have stopped production or are 
on the verge of bankruptcy. We do not want the Government to cause 
further deterioration in the uranium markets by selling its vast 
quantities of uranium inventories. The amendment seeks to prevent the 
further deterioration and downward price pressure on the price of 
uranium by restricting DOE from selling 85 percent of its inventory.
  It is my understanding the Department has already implemented a 
memorandum of understanding dating back to 1998 that restricts the sale 
of the same quantity of uranium it holds in inventory. Thus the 
proposed amendment seeks to codify sales restrictions that the 
Department of Energy has already determined were necessary.
  The amendment would not prevent DOE from selling or transferring 
uranium that it has already agreed to sell or transfer under existing 
contracts or agreements. There should be no disruption in those 
programs or activities as a result of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment; and I urge my colleagues to do 
so, too.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  I understand, I say to the gentlewoman, that the language as drafted 
is intended to support the recovery of the U.S. uranium industry. The 
ability to process materials other than conventional mined ores, which 
are primarily materials from the U.S. Government, has allowed 
conventional uranium mills to provide a valuable recycling service. 
This has resulted in a significant savings for the Government over 
direct disposal costs, as well as the recapture of valuable energy 
resources.
  It has also resulted in an overall improvement in the environment, 
because the tailings from the conventional milling process are less 
radioactive, due to the extraction of the uranium, than they would have 
been if disposed of directly.
  I believe this problem could be resolved with a simple language 
change. Would the gentlewoman from New Mexico be amenable to working on 
that between now and conference?
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than amenable to that. I 
would be happy to work with the gentleman from Utah in conference to 
make sure that uranium recyclers, a very valuable service provided with 
the U.S. Government, are not impacted at all by this amendment. It is 
not the intent of this amendment to limit that in any way.
  I would be happy to work with the gentleman on it and fix it as this 
bill moves forward in the process. I very much appreciate his bringing 
it forward.
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, currently over 20 percent of America's 
electricity is supplied by nuclear power, which requires roughly 
burning 50 million pounds of uranium as nuclear fuel each year.
  As our Nation's energy needs grow, so must all of our sources of 
energy in the future, including nuclear. Uranium, much like our current 
dependence on foreign oil, is increasingly produced outside the United 
States. Uranium domestically produced is currently 3 million pounds or 
just 6 percent of the Nation's nuclear fuel. Remember, 20 percent of 
our electricity is supplied by nuclear. The vast majority of that 
uranium that is produced is owned by foreign countries.
  At least the oil and gas end of the public lands, for the most part, 
is owned by domestic corporations. Over the last 5 years, the domestic 
uranium production industry has faced the loss of the uranium market 
due to government inventory sales, resulting in the decline of sales 
and income, market capitalization, and massive asset devaluation.
  In my home State of Wyoming, uranium suppliers over the past several 
years have been forced to reduce a healthy workforce from several 
thousand to just 250 people, all this in a State that has just under 
480,000 total population. This has made a huge impact on my State.
  In December of 2000, the General Accounting Office reported that the 
sales of natural uranium transferred from DOE to the United States 
Enrichment Corporation created an oversupply and

[[Page H5130]]

a subsequent drop in uranium prices. To balance this previous uranium 
dumping on the market, the Wilson-Cubin amendment would prohibit the 
transfer or sale of government uranium inventories through March 23, 
2009. Subsequent to that, transfers or sales of up to 3 million pounds 
of uranium would be permitted per year.
  Only through this legislative action can we prevent the dire future 
that the industry is currently facing. If we decide to maintain the 
status quo, our domestic uranium industry could be dead in 3 years. I 
ask Members to vote for the Wilson-Cubin amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 
her leadership on this issue, as well. As the Chair of the 
subcommittee, she has been a leader on making sure that we have a 
domestic mining industry that is adequate and meets our needs. She has 
provided wonderful leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  I support the amendment offered by my two colleagues, the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin). The limitation imposed by this amendment on the sale and 
transfer of U.S.-owned uranium products contained in the amendment will 
strengthen our domestic uranium enrichment industry.
  I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) for agreeing to two exceptions from the freeze. One will ensure 
no disruption in the planned construction of depleted uranium 
hexafluoride conversion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, 
Ohio. The other will allow for the replacement of contaminated uranium 
that was transferred to the United States Enrichment Corporation at the 
time of privatization.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many more things we have to do for the 
uranium fuel cycle. I am working with my colleagues from other States 
to make sure that we can keep nuclear power as a long-term option. This 
is only the first piece of that puzzle, and I ask my colleagues to give 
it their full support.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Green of Texas:
       In division A, title VIII, insert at the end the following 
     new section and make the necessary conforming change in the 
     table of contents:

     SEC. 804. REPEAL OF HINSHAW EXEMPTION.

       Effective on the date 60 days after the enactment of this 
     Act, for purposes of section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 
     U.S.C. 717(c)), the term ``State'' shall not include the 
     State of California.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
will control the 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to continue the process that I think this bill 
begins, and that is rescuing the State of California by removing an 
important hindrance in delivering more natural gas into their State.
  In the wake of the California energy debacle, I heard from some of my 
colleagues and from the esteemed Governor of California that the entire 
energy shortage in California was the result of Texas energy pirates. 
My hometown of Houston was sometimes accused of conspiring to drive up 
natural gas prices by restricting that supply to the West Coast. 
Imagine my surprise when I learned that there is a Federal law and 
policy within the State of California that worked hand-in-hand to limit 
California natural gas pipeline capacity intrastate.
  It now seems that the real villains may come closer to Sacramento 
than we originally thought, and maybe even they wear cowboy hats. The 
Federal law I refer to is the so-called Hinshaw exemption, contained in 
Section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act. What the Hinshaw exemption says is 
what is important to California consumers. It was passed in 1954, and 
it exempts natural gas transmission pipelines from the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, if it receives 
natural gas at the State boundary or within the State that a natural 
gas is consumed.
  What this amendment would do would be to provide FERC oversight over 
the California pipelines and increase their intrastate pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an example here for my colleagues. The 
interstate gas pipelines actually can flow at 7.4 million cubic feet 
per day, whereas the pipelines intrastate only can go about 6.67 
million cubic feet per day. That is the problem we have in California. 
There is more gas going to the State than can go out into the State.
  Now, California can build all the plants they want that will burn 
natural gas, but if they do not increase the capacity of their pipeline 
system, it will not help one bit. That is why this is important, and it 
will provide Federal oversight of those natural gas pipelines in 
California and give FERC the responsibility they have mentioned before.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and 
I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will remove what is an exemption under 
existing law on intrastate pipelines in California. This amendment 
would deny California, and only California, the ability to regulate 
pipelines that are wholly within the State's borders. It singles out 
California for unequal treatment.
  The amendment would overturn decades of established practice without 
serving any beneficial purpose whatsoever. The Hinshaw exemption dates 
back to 1954 when Congress amended the Natural Gas Act to give States 
sole jurisdiction over pipelines entirely within their borders. As the 
legislative history explained, the Hinshaw exemption was designed to 
prevent unnecessary duplication of Federal and State jurisdiction. 
These concerns are as important today as they were 47 years ago.
  Supporters of the amendment seem to believe that California has done 
an inadequate job regulating intrastate pipelines. They believe 
California's high natural gas prices are the result of insufficient 
pipeline capacity within the State. This is simply not true. The cause 
of California's high natural gas prices was market manipulation by a 
subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas, which owned the rights to and about 
a third of the capacity on the El Paso pipeline into Southern 
California.
  The El Paso subsidiary drove gas prices through the roof by 
withholding capacity. El Paso lost its stranglehold on the California 
market on June 1 when its right to control pipeline capacity expired. 
Overnight, natural gas prices in California dropped. Gas prices at the 
Southern California border were around $10 per million Btu on May 31. 
By June 8, a week later, they had dropped to around $3.50.
  If the problem with natural gas prices in California was inadequate 
capacity within California, this dramatic drop in price would not have 
occurred. There was no increase in pipeline capacity in California 
during this period.
  There is no need for this amendment. The only pipeline in California 
that

[[Page H5131]]

sometimes has a shortage of capacity is the Southern California Gas 
pipeline, but the capacity issue on this pipeline is being addressed by 
California. SoCal Gas is building four additional pipeline expansions. 
These will be complete by this winter, the peak demand season; and they 
will make sure Southern California Gas continues to have enough natural 
gas to serve its customers.
  I also oppose this amendment because it places California at the 
mercy of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has shown 
little interest in the welfare of California consumers. Giving FERC 
jurisdiction will not expand capacity any faster than is already being 
expanded. It will only complicate the expansion and slow it down.
  Let me tell my colleagues, from a California perspective, that this 
is a very dangerous amendment. It would put us at the mercy of FERC, 
where El Paso Natural Gas and others, who have a record of manipulation 
of natural gas price, will have a friendlier audience than the State of 
California, and it would have Washington, D.C. telling the State of 
California it cannot handle its own affairs. In Washington, the 
decisions have to be made, not in California, for intrastate, 
intrastate California pipeline capacity. I strongly oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, before yielding to my colleague from the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, to respond that the gentleman is correct, this amendment 
does single out California. California has asked for Federal assistance 
now for months and months. What we are saying is that even with the 
pipelines they are planning, their demand outstrips the capacity of the 
pipelines that they are planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 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. Chairman, as we do this energy debate on the 
floor today, we are going to have a number of California-specific 
amendments. We are going to have a California-specific amendment on 
price caps. We are going to have a California-specific amendment on the 
oxygenate refuel requirement on the Clean Air Act. It is only fair that 
we have one California-specific amendment that would actually do some 
good.
  The Hinshaw pipeline exemption was put into law in 1954 because there 
were a number of States that wanted to gather natural gas, they wanted 
to distribute natural gas, and they did not want to be subject to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or, at the time, the Federal 
Power Commission, regulation in terms of the low-pressure sales of 
their natural gas pipeline. So they put in the Hinshaw exemption.
  One State, one State of all the 50 States that have tried to create 
Hinshaw pipelines used this exemption to thwart the Natural Gas Act of 
1934, and that State is the State of California. They made a policy 
decision that an interstate, that is a pipeline that is going between 
States, when it hit the California border, they changed the size of the 
diameter of the pipe so they could call it an intrastate pipeline not 
an interstate pipeline.
  Now, the little display of my colleague from Houston over there is 
really not to scale. That shows about a 10-inch pipeline and a 6-inch 
pipeline. In truth, they are going from a 48-inch pipeline to a 36-inch 
pipeline, or from a 42-inch pipeline to a 30. It is actually a bigger 
discrepancy than my friend shows. It is only fair if we want to 
actually help lower natural gas prices to the Golden State of 
California, and we want to lower electricity prices, that we actually 
require that an interstate pipeline in California is the same as an 
interstate pipeline anywhere else in the country.
  So we have a discrepancy now of somewhere between a half billion 
cubic feet a day and a billion cubic feet a day of natural gas that can 
be delivered to the California border but actually accepted and 
transmitted across the California border. If we adopt the Green 
amendment, and I hope that we will, we will eliminate this kind of 
artificial disparity that State regulators and State legislators in 
California have created over the last 45 years.
  So I would hope we would adopt the Green amendment and allow us, 
allow people that want to help California by providing more natural gas 
actually do that. With that, I offer my strong support for the 
amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in opposition to the Green of Texas amendment.
  This is a punitive stealth amendment that is not helpful to resolving 
the energy crisis in California. In fact, the manager's amendment 
already includes provisions to address the concern over the adequacy of 
interstate gas pipelines in California.
  I would like all the Members to understand that this amendment does 
not remove an exemption, it, in fact, imposes a regulation. If we want 
to remove this so-called exemption from California, why not, out of 
fairness, remove it also from Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Ohio, 
and every other State in the Union?
  One good rule of thumb in legislating is to abide by the physician's 
maxim of at least doing no harm. Not only does this amendment do no 
good, it, in fact, increases harm and damage to the State of 
California. So please vote ``no'' on this Green amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining between 
the two sides?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. The gentleman from California has right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to enter into a brief dialogue with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I will not take too much of the gentleman's 
time. I apologize that I did not have a chance to hear the opening 
statement, but I have read a little bit about the gentleman's 
expression of concern. But, for me, would the gentleman explain again, 
if it is again, what exactly the problem the gentleman has with 
California or with our Governor or what this is about?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will respond 
to both gentleman from California.
  The reason this is not a problem in other States is that no other 
State has come to the FERC or the Federal Government to ask for 
assistance like California has. But in looking at the problem in 
California, it seemed the disparity in the pipelines, and these are not 
to scale, the gentleman was right, I was a business major, not an 
engineer, but it will show the disparity between what pipelines coming 
to the California border and what leaves the California border to serve 
intrastate. There is a great disparity.
  Providing more pipelines would go a long way to solving the problem 
in California. That is all this amendment would do. People would then 
come to FERC instead of going to California PUC.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman from Texas would yield just 
one more moment, my district is large enough to put four Eastern States 
in the desert site alone. Where the pipelines are located, they are 
likely to go through my district. And, frankly, I would like to have 
some input, that is direct input, regarding what we might do. It 
certainly does provide me a better opportunity if it is in the State of 
California. Dealing with Federal bureaucracies, to say the least, is 
almost ridiculous.
  Does the gentleman have a very specific problem? Is it our Governor 
getting in the gentleman's way? What is it causing the gentleman to 
want to do this?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. It is not the governor, it is the problem with 
California's distribution system. That is

[[Page H5132]]

why there needs to be more pipelines, newer pipelines. In fact, we have 
a letter dated July 17 from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
the California Public Utilities Commission saying your problem is 
intrastate pipelines.
  So what I am saying is California for months has come and said FERC 
needs to do this and this and this. Well, they have not asked for FERCs 
assistance, but this amendment would allow FERC to also allow for 
pipeline explanation in California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. So the gentleman is suggesting that if 
California needs additional pipelines, or let us say lines that carry 
electricity or otherwise, if we want to decide where they want to go, 
we have to keep coming to a Federal agency rather than to our own 
public utility agency.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Again reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, 
California is an exception, because we have lots of intrastate 
pipelines running through the State of Texas, running through lots of 
States in the Union, but California has taken the Hinshaw exemption 
from 1954 and carried it much further that any other State.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. No other State has done what California does in 
taking interstate pipeline and downsizing the diameter so they could 
call it an intrastate Hinshaw pipeline. There is only one State that 
has done that, and it is the great State of California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if it is accurate that no 
other State has downsized an interstate pipeline in order for it to be 
a California pipeline, if that is an accurate statement, certainly the 
gentleman knows that California is by far the largest State in the 
Union, with the exception of one, in terms of territory.
  There are areas like mine, vast areas of the desert where we do need 
to have some reasonable planning process. We ought to be able to deal 
with our State agencies. So I am wondering one more time what problem 
the gentleman has with the State of California or indeed with our 
Governor.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I will answer the gentleman's 
question.
  The comments were made by my colleagues from Texas that we are 
downsizing the ability of the pipeline in California to carry natural 
gas. That is not true. They said we do not have full capacity to handle 
intrastate all of the gas that is coming to the border.
  I have a chart right here that shows how California did not use its 
full capacity throughout the year 2000. That demonstrates that we have 
additional capacity. We are trying to build up for more natural gas in 
California.
  What this amendment does is put us in the lap of FERC. When it comes 
to natural gas regulation, FERC's record is pretty bad. When natural 
gas prices in California skyrocketed earlier this year, FERC regulators 
were nowhere to be seen.
  These prices were caused by market manipulation by a subsidiary of El 
Paso Natural Gas which hoarded unused pipeline capacity. California 
regulators filed a complaint about El Paso with FERC back in April 
2000. It is now August 2001, and FERC still has not resolved the El 
Paso problem.
  Anyone who thinks that FERC regulators can do an adequate job 
regulating California's pipelines just has not been paying attention 
over the past year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's 
point regarding El Paso Natural Gas. I want to assure all the gentlemen 
from California that we would like to have all of the Texas gas we can 
possibly get; but from time to time it is difficult to get it in the 
way and volume we want.
  Pipeline and delivery systems ought to be California's 
responsibility, at least in part, as well as problem.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a list from the last 10 years of complaints and 
protests of pipeline expansions in California, and each time the 
California Public Utility Commission did not allow for that pipeline 
expansion. That is the 10-year history in California. That is not 
talking about Gray Davis. It is talking about a history in California 
of not providing for the growth in California, the increase in demand 
and they have not provided the pipeline capacity for that increase in 
demand.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment says if they cannot receive justice in 
California for pipeline capacity expansion, they need to be able to 
come to FERC. This was not my idea. For 6 months I have listened to 
California complain about Texas and complain about FERC. This would 
give FERC the authority not only to set price caps, which the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) has an amendment on, but also to be able 
to decide, to make sure that California has the capacity so their 
consumers will pay a reasonable price for natural gas and not an 
inflated price based upon the lack of capacity.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
reviewing that history of difficulties in California. I have complained 
about that difficulty in the past, but transferring it to FERC in terms 
of decision-making may only complicate the problem, not improve our 
position.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the El 
Paso investigation. That is a serious investigation. One of the 
components of that investigation is the fact that there is an 
artificial constraint at the California-Nevada border, and it is caused 
because of this very problem that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) 
is trying to remedy.
  There was natural gas that was able to be delivered into California 
that was not able to be delivered into California, so the transmission 
charge, which in the rest of the country is around 25 cents for MCF, 
got as high as $60 for MCF. It is partly because of this artificial 
constraint, which we are trying to remedy. We are trying to lower 
natural gas prices for all Californians.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment. The 
claim has been made that California's control over its own intrastate 
pipeline has meant less capacity for the natural gas being brought to 
California through the interstate pipeline from Texas.
  Well, California has had capacity that has not been used. Southern 
California Gas alone has four approved capacity expansions under 
construction. The problem is not California having the ability to move 
that natural gas through the pipeline. The problem in the El Paso 
Natural Gas case has been the claim that El Paso Natural Gas, using the 
interstate pipeline, manipulated the capacity on that pipeline so they 
could drive up the prices for natural gas in California.
  If we pass this amendment, they will be able to take away our ability 
to control the pipeline in our own State, and then be able to use one 
interstate pipeline to do what they did already to us with that 
interstate pipeline manipulation.
  When El Paso Natural Gas lost its stranglehold over the natural gas 
prices without any change in the capacity within California, natural 
gas prices dropped. That shows that it was manipulation by El Paso 
Natural Gas that kept those prices up. This has nothing to do with 
California's control over its own pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment. There is no 
need for it. It could do a great deal of harm. If it leaves us in the 
clutches of FERC, we may never ever get a hearing from them, and could 
lead us to a worse problem than we already have. I strongly urge 
Members to oppose the Green amendment.

[[Page H5133]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 3 by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); and Amendment No. 5 by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 269, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--160

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--269

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchinson
     Norwood
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1744

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 275, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--154

     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Everett
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam

[[Page H5134]]


     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--275

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchinson
     Norwood
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1755

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 6 printed in Part B of House Report 107-178.


                   Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cox

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Cox:
       In Division A, at the end of title VI, insert the following 
     new section and make the necessary conforming changes in the 
     table of contents:

     SEC. 605. CALIFORNIA REFORMULATED GAS RULES.

       Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7545(c)(4)(B)) is amended by adding the following at the end 
     thereof: ``Whenever any such State that has received a waiver 
     under section 209(b)(1) has promulgated reformulated gasoline 
     rules for any covered area of such State (as defined in 
     subsection (k)), such rules shall apply in such area in lieu 
     of the requirements of subsection (k) if such State rules 
     will achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions than 
     would result from the application of the requirements of 
     subsection (k) in the case of the aggregate mass of emissions 
     of toxic air pollutants and in the case of the aggregate mass 
     of emissions of ozone-forming compounds.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to 
the Cox amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) will control the 15 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) be allocated 5 minutes of the time 
that I control in opposition and that the gentleman be allowed to yield 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green) will have 5 minutes and will have the ability to allocate 
time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that of my 15 minutes, 
7\1/2\ minutes be allocated to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), and that he be able to allocate the time as he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
will control 7\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
will control 7\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) will 
control 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today is being offered 
on behalf of all 52 members of the California delegation who have 
sponsored legislation authored by my colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  This amendment is coauthored by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) and myself as members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
We had a chance in committee to consider this amendment, and, as we 
bring it to the floor, it will apply as a first step only to the State 
of California, but it is a very important issue for the entire country.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Chairman, since 1990, the Federal Government has specified the 
recipe for clean gasoline. In 1990, it was thought that adding 
oxygenates to gasoline was the best way to clean up the air, to reduce 
something. But a lot has happened since 1990. We in California and 
people across the country are finding ways to reduce something and 
toxic air emissions far more significantly than is required by Federal 
law. We can beat and exceed Federal standards.
  In addition to cleaner air, California wants new gasoline that will 
produce cleaner water, because some of the additives to gasoline can 
pollute the groundwater. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is still 
stuck back 11 years ago in 1990.
  We are specifying not only the level of cleanliness that we wish to 
achieve, but also the recipe for getting there, and this amendment will 
eliminate a mandate, it will eliminate a mandate that says we have to 
use, in effect, ethanol or a chemical called MTBE. There is nothing, if 
this amendment becomes law, that will prevent us from continuing to use 
those ingredients or anything else in our gasoline, provided that we 
meet or exceed Federal clean air standards.
  But California cannot move forward with our cleaner gasoline program 
under existing law. Without a change in this, by technology standards, 
ancient rule, California's air and water quality will suffer, and 
motorists will

[[Page H5135]]

 suffer too, because we will be paying at least 5 cents more per gallon 
due to the local shortage of oxygenate substitutes for MTBE, which is 
being phased out in California.
  We may hear during debate that if we do not have this mandate from 
the Federal Government on our States, that somehow, environmental 
quality will suffer, but the language of the amendment makes it clear 
that the contrary is the case. The language in the amendment states 
clearly that California will get a waiver from this 1990 rule, the 2 
percent oxygenate rule only if the gasoline we use in our State will 
achieve quote, ``equivalent or greater emissions reductions than are 
required by Federal law.''
  It seems unlikely in the extreme, Mr. Chairman, that were this 
anything but an environmentally friendly amendment, we would have the 
endorsements of the American Lung Association, the Sierra Club, the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Environmental Trust, 
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and dozens of other 
environmental organizations.
  We also have the support of governors in the States who are trying to 
do a better job, and I would like to conclude my brief remarks by 
reminding at least the Republicans among us of this provision in the 
2000 Republican platform: ``As the laboratories of innovation, States 
should be given flexibility, authority and finality by the Federal 
Government when it comes to environmental concerns.'' That has been 
President Bush's policy, that should be our policy.
  Let us give the governors the tools that they need to clean up our 
air and water, and let us repeal this Federal mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, allowing California to be exempt from the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act by allowing them to opt out of the 
reformulated gasoline program will not only have detrimental impacts on 
the State of California, but the rest of the country as well.
  After extensive analysis, the EPA concluded there is significant 
uncertainty over the change in emissions that would result in granting 
a waiver to California from the Federal oxygen content requirement. 
Specifically, the EPA determined that there is no evidence that a 
waiver will help California reduce harmful levels of pollutants.
  Adding 2 percent oxygen reduces the amount of carbon that is released 
into the air by 10 percent when gasoline is burned. Eliminating the 
oxygenate requirement would increase carbon monoxide emissions by up to 
593 tons per day in California alone, according to the California Air 
Resources Board.
  In addition, in order to make gasoline burn cleaner without using 
oxygenates, refiners would have to add other additives, such as 
toluene, which increases exhaust emissions of benzene, and benzene is a 
known human carcinogen.
  Furthermore, with respect to supply, if California is allowed to 
waive the oxygenate requirement of the RFG program, the State will need 
to come up with an additional 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline a year to 
fill the lost volume. We all see how hard it is to come up with 500,000 
barrels a day more from OPEC; imagine trying to get 4 million gallons a 
day just for California alone. The States around California like 
Arizona, Oregon, Nevada and Washington would see their gasoline drained 
and flown into California because of the higher gasoline prices in 
California.
  Simply put, this amendment is bad for the environment because it 
would increase harmful emissions. It is bad for consumers because it 
would restrict supply and cause higher prices around the country, and 
it is bad for our national security because it would force us to rely 
more heavily on OPEC.
  This amendment is a lose-lose for everyone.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, what we would have liked to do is to offer an 
elimination from the law, the Federal law, that tells States they have 
to follow a specified formula for their gasoline to be reformulated in 
the most polluted areas. The existing law says they have to have an 
oxygenate requirement met.
  When the law was adopted in 1990, we thought that was the only way to 
get the environmental standards. But what we have learned is that to 
meet that requirement, the gasoline has to be either used with MTBE, 
which turns out to be a hazard for drinking water; or they have to use 
an oxygenate, a grain substitute, and that can be very expensive, it is 
not necessary, and we have also found out that it could keep the air 
dirtier.
  So what we would like to have done is just wipe out the oxygenate 
requirement and let the States decide the matter for themselves. Who 
needs Washington to decide these issues for us? If we are going to 
achieve the environmental standards, let the States make their own 
decision how they want their gasoline to be reformulated.
  But we were not allowed to offer an amendment that broadly. This 
applies only to California. For those who would like to have the same 
treatment for their States, vote with us, because the next thing we 
will have is an elimination from this requirement in the Northeast, 
where they do not want to have to use MTBE, and other places where they 
do not want Washington telling them how to make their reformulated 
gasoline.
  If we do not pass this amendment, we are going to have dirtier air; 
it is not necessary to put in the oxygenate. It is going to make the 
gasoline more expensive. It could lead to an interruption in supply 
because we are going to have to import ethanol to replace MTBE, and it 
balkanizes our fuel supply.
  So I urge support for the Cox amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to the Cox amendment to lift the fuel oxygen 
standard for the State of California, and I believe it is bad energy 
policy plus environmental policy. It moves our country precisely in the 
opposite direction from the energy legislation we are considering 
today.
  The amendment would lift the fuel oxygen standard, but only in the 
State of California. From the last amendment, we found out that 
California did not want to be treated differently on their pipelines, 
but they want to be treated differently on the oxygenate standard. The 
proponents of the bill argue that California deserves special treatment 
because of the underlying quality of California fuel; however, this 
approach is misguided.
  I will just talk about the supply problem. This amendment would 
seriously disrupt the price and supply situation. As oxygenates leave 
the market, we can expect prices to increase. In fact, we have a memo 
that Senator Wyden recently brought to our attention from a refiner on 
the West Coast when he learned that the amendment would increase 
prices. The memo says, ``West Coast surplus refining capacity results 
in very poor refinery margins and very poor financial results. 
Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies or 
increase the demand for gasoline. One example of the event would be the 
elimination of the mandates for oxygenate in addition to gasoline,'' 
and I am quoting from that memo. ``Given the choice, oxygenate usage 
would go down and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly.''
  Mr. Chairman, that memo is from a refiner who would increase prices 
as they reduce the oxygenate requirement. That is why I am concerned. 
The California gas prices are already the highest in the Nation, and by 
reducing the amount of oxygenates in there, we would see an increase in 
their price.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, from this point forward, let no one say 
that the wonderfully diverse California congressional delegation, 52 
members strong, cannot come together and unite

[[Page H5136]]

around a very important issue. Cleaning up our environment and doing 
everything that we possibly can to decrease energy costs is what this 
amendment that my friends from the Committee on Energy and Commerce led 
by the gentlemen from California and others from the California 
delegation are pursuing.
  This is not simply a California issue. We have States all across the 
country that are very interested in this. Washington, New Hampshire, 
Maine, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, 
Connecticut and South Dakota, among others, are very interested in 
seeing us do this.
  I happen to represent the Los Angeles Basin area that is impacted by 
groundwater contamination, and all of us in California are concerned 
about air quality. By proceeding with this amendment, we have a chance 
to dramatically improve the groundwater, drinking water in California, 
and our air quality. It is the right thing to do. We should have strong 
bipartisan support, beginning with California, spreading all across the 
country.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) have an additional 2\1/2\ minutes of 
my 10 minutes that he can control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) will 
control 5\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I would just like to make a few points here as to why I think this is 
a really bad idea. Everyone believes that we have to protect the 
environment. A lot of folks have real concerns about the ozone layer 
being depleted. If this amendment goes through, we will have additional 
depletion of the ozone layer.
  We will put about 593 tons of carbon monoxide into the air every day 
in California. We will raise the cost of a gallon of gasoline in 
California 2 to 3 cents with the reformulated gas they are talking 
about. I think it is actually a matter of fairness. I say to my 
colleagues, I do not believe that one State should be exempted from the 
law of the land.
  A lot of folks here do not have any big problems with national 
mandates in telling everyone what they can and cannot do at home until 
it gets to the point where they do not like it themselves. I mean, a 
lot of the folks here are talking kind of like we will mandate this, 
but we will not mandate that.
  Mr. Chairman, it is simply wrong. We have to stop our dependency on 
foreign oil and this would be a real step backwards if we did this.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and 
I rise with all of my California colleagues today in support of this 
amendment.
  Now, what would bring the entire delegation together? We want to rid 
ourselves of MTBE. It causes cancer in animals; it can cause cancer in 
people. It has contaminated 10,000 groundwater sites in California, and 
knowing this, California is attempting to eliminate MTBE from its fuel 
supply by 2003. Sounds simple, makes sense, both for the environment 
and for human beings.
  So what is going on? Why do all Members of Congress not want to 
recognize that?

                              {time}  1815

  Well, others want ethanol. Ethanol is going to be the monopoly of 
choice for California. Why? Because we tried to get a waiver from the 
administration. They said, it is either poison or pollution.
  So today the delegation is saying to all States in the Congress, all 
Representatives in this House, is it not fair to exercise a choice 
while still maintaining the highest standards of the Federal Clean Air 
Act? That is what this debate is about.
  So for those who are interested in competition, they should be voting 
with us, because if they vote against it, they are in support of a 
monopoly.
  I congratulate my colleagues from Texas and those from the Midwest. 
Of course they want a monopoly, either for MTBE or for ethanol. What we 
are talking about is exercising good judgment, not placing this kind of 
a burden on Californians or other States, and asking them to give us a 
choice. Vote for this amendment. It is a good, solid one.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The essence of this amendment is that the State of California is 
trying to secede from the Clean Air Act. I do not know if that is the 
intent, but that is what will happen if we allow that. I think that is 
grossly unfair.
  Mr. Chairman, in my hometown city of Houston we are having to deal 
with the fact that we are a nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act. 
We are not down here on the floor asking for some special exemption 
because we cannot come into compliance, or we have to make difficult 
choices between point source and nonpoint source emissions. We are 
trying to deal with it, and we are going to deal with it.
  But what the Californians want to do is to have a separate deal from 
the other 49 States by being exempted when in fact they have the 
opportunity, the Governor has the opportunity, to waive the ban that 
the State has imposed while the EPA, which started under the Clinton 
administration, has started the process of reviewing the effects of 
MTBE on ground water.
  What they have found is MTBE does clean the air, and they are 
reviewing this. But we should not give a special deal to one State.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we vote against this 
motion to allow the State of California to be the only State exempted 
from the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chairman,I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  I find it is ironic that the California delegation, which fought so 
hard for the Clean Air Act provisions, should now ask this body to 
exempt their state from those requirements. For example, during the 
debate of the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Waxman, said ``One of the most important provisions of 
the clean air bill is the provision requiring reformulation of 
conventional gasoline.''
  The Environmental Protection Agency already denied California's 
appeal for a waiver. The EPA has determined that the addition of oxygen 
to gasoline improves air quality by improving fuel combustion and 
displacing more toxic gasoline components.
  Ethanol, a clean-burning, renewable, oxygen-rich fuel can help 
California meet the Clean Air Act requirements and help American 
farmers at the same time. Ethanol is a fuel that reduces carbon 
emissions, reduces smog, reduces particulate, and expands the domestic 
fuel supply by more than 300 million gallons.
  A much better approach would be to adopt fuel performance standards, 
not specific fuel formulations, to meet emissions reduction targets. 
But these performance standards should apply in the entire country. 
This is the debate Congress should be having, not one on a special 
carve-out for just one state.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
eliminating the oxygenates requirement in reformulated gasoline. If 
this amendment is adopted, it will be bad for the environment, bad for 
consumers, and bad for our energy policy.
  Stand for clean air, clean water, and help our farmers. The 
supporters of the amendment are concerned about the fuel additive MTBE 
and its pollution of drinking water, and they have a right to be 
concerned. But we should not throw out the oxygenate requirement just 
because of the MTBE problems, especially when there is plenty of clean-
burning low-cost ethanol to meet the

[[Page H5137]]

 requirement. There are plenty of corn growers prepared to help.
  Some people are saying that using ethanol will lead to shortages and 
higher prices. I would like to put their minds at ease and assure them, 
there is plenty of ethanol to go around, and ample shipping and storing 
capacity to accommodate the additional 600 million gallons of ethanol 
California will need. In fact, by 2003, more than 2 billion gallons of 
new ethanol production capacity will be online.
  Mr. Chairman, the oxygen requirement is important to protect our 
environment. The use of ethanol to meet the requirement is good energy 
policy. It would help save America's family farms.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Issa

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the 
preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Motion To Strike the Enacting Clause

       Mr. Issa moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be stricken out.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his motion.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in total opposition to the 
absence of fair play that we see here on the floor today.
  In America, in the America I grew up in, we set goals, we set 
standards when necessary; but we do not tell people how to achieve 
those goals. When we tell people in America how to achieve goals, we 
cut down on innovation; we cut down on the ability for Americans to 
look at a problem and a hurdle and accomplish it.
  There was no predetermination in America that we would go to the Moon 
in a three-man capsule. When, in the heart of World War II, we set our 
determination to develop a nuclear weapon, we did not do it easily; and 
we did not do it with a blueprint that said, you will do it only this 
way. As a matter of fact, we reached two solutions and used both.
  America has a long tradition of setting a goal and asking the 
business community and hard-working entrepreneurs to innovate to find 
solutions. Here today, in this debate, all California is asking for, 
and ultimately every American, is the ability to free up private 
enterprise to find solutions, solutions that hopefully do a better job 
to meet the higher standards that California has set for clean air; to 
retain the important clean-water standards we are not able to retain 
today because we are forced to use MTBE, that has been found to be a 
carcinogen and has been found to pollute the water of California.
  Mr. Chairman, all California, and the rest of America, want and need 
today is the ability to say that there may be another solution, and 
``Let's go look for it.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members, out of fairness and out of a sense 
of the way America has always done business, to correct this past 
mistake that set specific solutions instead of proper goals. I would 
hope that this body would recognize that it is un-American to set these 
kinds of specific standards. Instead, let us set goals.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think 
it is worth emphasizing the point that California will have to meet the 
clean air standards that are set for the country. In fact, we even have 
more stringent standards.
  Some previous speakers have talked as if we want to get out from 
under the clean air requirements to protect the environment. We are 
going to meet the clean air standard; but we do not want to be told by 
Washington that we have to either use MTBE, which gets into our 
drinking water, and we do not want to use that; or we have to go into 
the Midwest and buy ethanol, when we can reformulate our own gasoline 
in California that will burn clean enough to meet the clean air 
standards.
  We want to be able to make decisions for ourselves; and after we get 
that, we want other States to have that, as well. We would have 
preferred to have an amendment that would have covered everybody at 
once, but start with California.
  Do not tell California how to handle our own gasoline, to have 
balkanized fuels. We want one fuel in California that will clean up the 
air in the State, and not have to use ethanol to benefit Archer Daniels 
Midland in the Midwest, or MTBE to benefit some of the manufacturers in 
Texas. We want to handle our own affairs for ourselves.
  Mr. ISSA. The gentleman has made a very good point, that this is all 
about the greenest State in America, the greenest State in America 
asking for this ability. I hope the Members will consider it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
pending Issa motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
5 minutes in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope at the appropriate time the 
gentleman from California will withdraw this motion that the committee 
do now rise.
  I want to put into the Record a letter that has just arrived to the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), dated today, August 1, from the administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman.
  I want to read from that letter that says: ``The Bush administration 
strongly opposes this amendment. The Federal RFG program has been an 
extremely successful and a cost-effective program that has provided 
substantial air quality benefits to millions of people throughout the 
country. The program also has encouraged the use of renewable fuels and 
has the potential to enhance energy security. Although we recognize 
that California and other States have raised concerns about certain 
aspects of the RFG program, we believe these concerns must be addressed 
carefully and comprehensively in order to preserve the benefits of the 
program and avoid further proliferation of boutique fuels.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include this letter from Administrator Whitman in the 
Record.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                     Washington, DC, Aug. 1, 2001.
     Hon. W. J. Tauzin
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that an amendment to H.R. 4 
     may be offered that would allow the State of California to 
     adopt a reformulated gasoline (RFG) program separate from the 
     Clean Air Act's RFG program. The Bush Administration strongly 
     opposes this amendment. The Federal RFG program has been an 
     extremely successful and cost-effective program that has 
     provided substantial air quality benefits to millions of 
     people throughout the country. The program also has 
     encouraged the use of renewable fuels and has the potential 
     to enhance energy security. Although we recognize that 
     California and other states have raised concerns about 
     certain aspects of the RFG program, we believe that these 
     concerns must be addressed carefully and comprehensively in 
     order to preserve the benefits of the program and avoid 
     further proliferation of boutique fuels.
       I want to assure you that, pursuant to the Administration's 
     National Energy Policy report and consistent with the 
     provisions of H.R. 4, EPA, along with the Department of 
     Energy and other agencies, is examining these issues and 
     exploring ways to increase the flexibility of the fuels 
     distribution infrastructure while advancing our goals for 
     clean air. This comprehensive review of Federal and State 
     fuel programs will allow the Administration and the Congress 
     to better understand, and thus, more effectively address, any 
     concerns with the federal RFG program.
       The proposed amendment is apparently intended to waive, for 
     the State of California only, the so-called oxygenate 
     requirement in the RFG program. The Clean Air Act already 
     includes a provision that allows the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive this 
     requirement upon a showing that the requirement would 
     interfere with a state's ability to meet national ambient air 
     quality standards. As you know, California requested such a 
     waiver, and I denied the request because of uncertainty over 
     the change in emissions that would result from such a waiver.
       Some advocates of the amendment support their position by 
     citing a draft EPA document concerning California's waiver 
     request. That document contained a number of uncertainties 
     and was never finalized. After further evaluation by EPA 
     staff, I determined that the data did not support 
     California's waiver request. That draft document is no longer 
     relevant and is not an accurate reflection of EPA's position.

[[Page H5138]]

       I appreciate your attention to these issues as you consider 
     amendments to H.R. 4.
           Sincerely yours,
                                           Christine Todd Whitman.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I just want to clarify something that has been circulated on the 
floor of the House. Supporters of the Cox-Waxman amendment mentioned in 
a Dear Colleague that Minnesota and other States have already banned 
the use of MTBE.
  While we always appreciate support for our environmental achievements 
in Minnesota, I want to make this very clear and set the record 
straight. Minnesota does restrict the use of MTBE, but we ensure air 
quality by maintaining a 10 percent blend of clean-burning ethanol 
gasoline.
  Congress and California should follow Minnesota's lead. Let us 
continue to maintain air quality, decrease dependence on foreign oil. 
Please, vote ``no'' on the Cox-Waxman amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his motion.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the motion 
withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I want to 
use this time reserving the right to object on this unanimous consent 
request to address the remarks by the gentleman from Minnesota, who 
said his State decided to use a blend of ethanol, 10 percent, in their 
gasoline.
  I applaud that. The State of Minnesota can make its decision for 
itself. If they are happy with that decision, fine. But we should not 
deny the State of California the same ability to make our own choice 
for fuels. I think we ought to let every State make the decision.
  I have heard over the years Republicans say, and I have learned from 
them, that ``We do not have all the wisdom here in Washington. We do 
not have to make the decisions for every State here in Washington. 
There are some decisions the States can make for themselves,'' as long 
as they are meeting the environmental standards, which we set out in 
the Federal law.
  So I applaud Minnesota if that is what they want to do. It is their 
choice. Let California and other States make our choice. Do not force 
us either to use MTBE, which we will not use because it damages our 
drinking water, or have to import ethanol at a great expense with a 
possible interruption of supply when it will even make the air dirtier, 
the way we see it in California, than what we would get if we had one 
reformulated gasoline.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we are 
going to continue to debate it, I have people who want to debate it. 
This is a device used to get an extra 5 minutes, I understand that. But 
if we are going to continue to do that, I will reclaim my time and use 
it in opposition to the amendment.
  I recognized the gentleman for a unanimous consent request to 
withdraw his motion.
  Mr. ISSA. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, I have made 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we 
have lots of speakers who did not speak and we did not have enough 
time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I just wondered whether we were speaking on 
the time of the gentleman from Texas, or whether we were speaking on a 
reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has expired. We now have the pending request of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Issa) to withdraw by unanimous consent his motion 
to strike the enacting clause and a reservation of objection thereto.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. COX. I object, Mr. Chairman, and rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
objects to the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa)?
  Mr. COX. Yes.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The motion of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa) is withdrawn.
  The Committee will proceed now in regular order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will be recognized and has 
4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. 
As we all know, MTBE contaminates ground water, making it smell and 
taste like turpentine. This is costing communities across the country 
millions of dollars to clean up or identify new drinking water sources.
  But this is no secret. In fact, just this week this House adopted my 
amendment to increase Federal efforts for MTBE cleanup, and this very 
bill contains my legislation to allow $200 million to be spent on MTBE 
cleanup.

                              {time}  1830

  So, clearly, there is a problem with MTBE.
  California, followed by an increasing number of States, has banned 
MTBE as a gasoline additive. But without a waiver from clan air 
standards requiring oxygenates in gas, California will have to import 
huge amounts of ethanol. That, of course, is good news for Midwestern 
farmers, but it is bad news for California consumers. In fact, it will 
likely raise the price of gasoline by 10 to 20 cents a gallon for 
absolutely no reason.
  California refineries have demonstrated they can make clean burning 
gas without ethanol or MTBE. I would not support waiving the oxygenates 
requirement if they could not. We are not, as has been clearly stated, 
asking for a waiver from EPA standards. We are asking for a waiver on 
the method of how to achieve those standards. This is a matter of local 
control, of States' rights; and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cox-Waxman 
amendment. This debate should not be about an oxygenate waiver. This 
debate should be about fixing the underground storage tanks not only in 
California but all over the country.
  Instead of addressing the leaking underground storage tank problem, 
which has allowed MTBEs to enter the water supply, California has 
chosen to ban it. Now that the State of California is faced with the 
prospect of increased costs to comply with the Clean Air Act, it is 
proposing to toss out the oxygenate requirements to solve their fiscal 
concerns. Well, H.R. 4 already authorizes $200 million for the leaking 
underground storage trust fund for assessment, for corrective action, 
inspection, and monitoring activities to address California's concerns.
  I commend the efforts of our Nation's refineries to develop clean 
burning fuel, but today California cannot meet the same level of air 
quality with these blends that it would otherwise with oxygenated 
fuels. If we adopt this amendment today, we will open the floodgates 
for other States to opt out of the oxygenate requirements, and decades 
and decades of progress that we have made to improve America's air 
quality will be undone.
  The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has already voted down a 
very similar amendment. Do not backslide the progress that we have made 
on improving America's air quality. Please vote ``no'' on the Cox-
Waxman amendment.

[[Page H5139]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the only Member of Congress who has won a 
national championship.
  Mr. OSBORNE. I hope I win a national championship for ethanol real 
quick like here.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cox-Waxman amendment. 
According to the California Air Resources Board, a California agency, 
replacing MTBE, about which we have heard a great deal today, with 
ethanol, will reduce carbon emissions by 530,000 tons a year, which is 
a 35 percent reduction. According to the California Energy Commission, 
a California agency, ethanol will reduce the price of gasoline two to 
three cents per gallon in California.
  And this is something I want to make sure everybody hears. The 
institute for Local Self-Reliance states that using California 
agricultural products, rice stocks, corn, fruit waste, California can 
produce between 500 and 900 million gallons of ethanol per year, worth 
$1 billion to their agriculture industry. They do not have to import 
ethanol. It is not a Midwest deal. It should not be an issue. The money 
stays in the United States.
  Ethanol produces over $4 billion of income for the farm economy in 
the United States. I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose), chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, 
Resources and Agriculture of the House Policy Committee.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cox amendment to 
repeal the ethanol and MTBE mandate. The reason I do is very clear. 
Number one, I do not want to drink polluted water; I do not want to 
drink water that has poison in it.
  Now, the studies we have done in our subcommittee indicate very 
clearly that as we phase out MTBE in California, between now and the 
time we phase it out, there is no way ethanol production can come up to 
the level we need to meet our gap. No way. Plenty of corn, plenty of 
farmers growing it, but no way to process it to ethanol to get it to 
California to address our needs.
  One of the interesting aspects that I have discovered across this 
country is that we have 38 different types of fuel used to propel our 
vehicles, 38 different formulas. Some use ethanol, some use burn rates 
that are higher or lower, some use reformulated gasoline. There is no 
guarantee here that we are going to buy more corn to make ethanol to 
ship to California.
  All we are asking for, plain and simple, is the opportunity to use 
science and technology to address our air quality concerns in the 
chemical composition of our fuel and how it affects our air quality. 
That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for special treatment. 
We are still going to comply with the air quality requirements in the 
Clean Air Act.
  The fact of the matter is the clean air requirements that exist in 
California exceed the clean air requirements in the other 49 States. We 
have a higher standard. We are asking for the freedom to do that using 
current science and technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to close with one particular point. Last week, 
we were out here voting on some things, maybe it was the week before, 
where down in Florida they did not want to drill off the coast of 
Florida, or over in Michigan where they did not want to drill in Lake 
Michigan. I looked up at that board, and I saw all the Florida Members 
up there voting against that and thought, maybe I ought to respect 
that. And I looked at the Michigan Members, and I suggested to myself 
that before I voted I ought to respect the Michigan Members too. 
California wants that same level of respect. Vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.


               Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Thomas

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the enacting clause.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman move that the committee 
do now rise and report the bill to the House with a recommendation that 
the enacting clause be stricken?
  Mr. THOMAS. I believe there is time left in the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the gentleman is attempting to offer a 
pro forma amendment, the time is controlled on this amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS. The time is controlled?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, sir.
  Mr. THOMAS. I cannot gain time by moving to strike the enacting 
clause?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman cannot gain time by offering 
a pro forma amendment.
  The gentleman moves that the committee do now rise and report the 
bill to the House with a recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken.
  Mr. THOMAS. Pending that, I would move the enacting clause be 
stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes 
on the preferential motion.
  Mr. THOMAS. I do apologize to some of my colleagues.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. What is the motion 
before us?
  Mr. THOMAS. The motion is that we do now rise, but pending that, we 
strike the enacting clause, which allows me to debate the issue.
  I apologize to the chairman as well.
  In this debate there are individuals who have gotten a little carried 
away with the concept of oxygenated fuel, because the rise of an 
oxygenated fuel is twofold. One, there is clearly a subsidy to 
America's farmers. And if we discuss using ethanol because it assists 
corn growers and it is a subsidy to farmers, then I think that is a 
legitimate debate. But if we are going to discuss using ethanol because 
of its superior qualities in a fuel for cars, then I think we need to 
take a look at the technology that has developed over the last 20 years 
and the way in which automobiles now function versus the way 
automobiles functioned at the time ethanol became a ``fuel additive,'' 
putting oxygen in the gasoline itself.
  In an open-looped automobile there is a carburetor or fuel injection, 
and it is basically a self-regulating structure of air coming in, 
mixing with the fuel, going into the chamber, firing, and going out the 
exhaust. If we can enhance the burning quality of that mixture by 
putting oxygen in the fuel, we can actually get a cleaner burning fuel, 
and we can even improve the mileage. The problem is technology has 
carried us far beyond that today. We have closed-loop automobiles. 
There are very few open-loop automobiles around.
  What in the world is a closed-loop automobile? Most of my colleagues 
have an oxygen sensor in their exhaust system. The oxygen sensor 
examines the mix after the combustion; and it says, there is too little 
oxygen, there is too much oxygen. The message from the oxygen sensor 
goes to a computer and the computer regulates the amount of air or the 
amount of fuel coming in to the chamber. It does not go outside. It is 
a closed loop. And if the message is there is too much oxygen in the 
fuel, the computer does what? It puts more fuel into the mix. Why? 
Because there is too much oxygen. Air.
  Except the oxygen is in the fuel. And so we consume more fuel than we 
would have otherwise in a closed-loop automobile, and we do not 
necessarily get cleaner burning because the oxygen sensor is trying to 
regulate the fuel air mixture. When I say air, think of oxygen. But we 
have put oxygen in the fuel, and what happens is we wind up consuming 
more fuel than we otherwise would. We do not get as many miles per 
gallon. And if we are burning more fuel per mile, we are increasing the 
emissions.
  Now, at some point, maybe we can have an objective discussion of fuel 
mileage and the way in which we are treating our fuels. We have more 
than three dozen fuels all over the country in an attempt to 
micromanage the quality of the air. Most of them do more damage than 
would otherwise be the case with the automobiles that we currently use. 
So at some point I am looking forward to a debate about whether or not 
we ought to subsidize America's corn growers by putting ethanol in 
gasoline. But it is not an argument that it is cleaner burning or that 
it saves fuel and mileage. In today's cars, it is just not true.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

[[Page H5140]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. I must say how impressed I am by the gentleman's 
knowledge of the technical aspects of the fuel system, and I think the 
gentleman is absolutely right.
  If we were told that ethanol would help us achieve the clean air 
standards and is just as good as reformulated gasoline without it, that 
is one thing. But the gentleman pointed out correctly that if we use 
ethanol, we will have dirtier air.
  There is an exemption to this, however, in the wintertime in high 
altitudes areas. But we have another provision in the law that requires 
ethanol to be used under those circumstances.
  But for California and New York and New Jersey and other States 
around the country that say they do not want to use MTBE, we should not 
be required to bring in ethanol at higher prices and then dirtier air 
as a result.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I was not one of those 
that had a government imposition of MTBE on the refineries either, 
because it increased the cost of producing fuel. It does not produce 
the end result. And now we find out it was even worse than we thought. 
We have increased the cost of gasoline to America's consumers by 
billions of dollars either with ethanol or with this particular 
additive, and it has not gotten us where we need to go.
  What we need do is take a step back, take the politics out of it, and 
use a bit more science in the way in which we are trying to get more 
reasonable mileage out of a gallon of fuel.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  I am concerned about the comments of my colleague from California 
that reformulated gas has not worked in cleaning up our air. I think 
there is no doubt at all, whether we are in Houston or Los Angeles, 
that our air quality has gotten better by the oxygen standard. This is 
the first time I have heard today, and no one seems to argue, that the 
Federal RFG program has been anything but a success.
  In fact, the deputy director of the EPA testified to this point and 
said that the emissions reductions which can be attributed to the RFG 
program are equivalent to taking 16 million cars off the road, and 75 
million people are breathing cleaner air because of RFG.

                              {time}  1845

  ``Since the RFG program began 6.5 years ago, we estimate that it has 
resulted in annual reductions of VOC and NOx combined of at least 
105,000 tons, and at least 24,000 tons of toxic air pollutants.''
  My colleague from California talked about it has not worked, but it 
has worked. I know that it is working in Houston and L.A. The 
proponents of the amendment claim that they can make gasoline as clean 
without using oxygenates, but this is contrary to what we know about 
fuel. The presence of oxygenates in fuel dilutes the most toxic 
components in gasoline, and thus reduces air emissions.
  Do my colleagues know what RFG replaces? Benzene. It replaces 
benzene. Without oxygenates, there is no dilution of these toxics, and 
it is as simple as that.
  None of the proponents of this amendment can assure us that it will 
maintain the actual levels of protection against air toxins currently 
present in the Federal RFG. The EPA is frank about the consequences, 
noting that some people exposed to air toxins may increase their 
chances of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects 
depending on which air toxins an individual is exposed to, and these 
health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as 
neurological, reproductive, reduced fertility, developmental and 
respiratory problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that my colleague from southern 
California would say that there has not been any increase in RFG 
benefits in the last 6.5 years because again that was passed in 1990 in 
the Clean Air Act. I was not here, but we have responded to the Federal 
law both with ethanol and with MTBE.
  If we have problems with MTBE or ethanol, we need to correct it 
because we have had a great deal of success from reformulated gasoline. 
That is why I am shocked to hear my colleague who wanted the committee 
to rise to say there have not been any benefits from it. We have a 
great deal of testimony, I am sure in many committees, showing the 
benefits of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Returning to regular order, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cox) has 30 seconds; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 2\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has 3 
minutes; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is 
critical to the safety of California citizens. We have talked about 
many things, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are talking 
about safety. We have worked for many years to improve the air quality 
of our State, and despite our increased population, we have succeeded. 
Californians are committed to continuing to protect our air.
  However, we do not need to do it by adding ethanol to our gasoline, 
and we do not need the current formulation using MTBE. We do not need 
any additive at all. Chevron and other oil companies which produce 
petroleum in California have assured us that they have the technology 
to create a fuel which will allow California cars to meet EPA air 
quality standards without any additives.
  We have heard the argument here today, why should the Federal 
Government force us to purchase an unneeded product that is not readily 
available in California? It would cost California citizens, already 
beleaguered by high prices, $450 million for the extra cost of this 
additive.
  Mr. Chairman, we came here to legislate on behalf of the Federal 
Government. As such, we should legislate results such as the EPA air 
quality standards, but not dictate the methods to reach those 
standards. Vote for this states' rights amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to close, but there is nothing that makes my 
car or truck drive that I want to drink, whether it is MTBE, whether it 
is benzene, or whether it is anything else.
  The problem that we have had for many years is that there have been 
problems in California and other places of leaky storage tanks. If MTBE 
is the problem, it is because we can taste and smell it, what else is 
in our water supply that we cannot taste or smell that is also leaking 
out of those storage tanks? That is the concern.
  We have had success for 6\1/2\ years on reformulated gasoline, 
whether it is MTBE or ethanol. That is why I am surprised that 
California thinks that they can produce enough without that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) now 
has 4\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has 30 
seconds; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 1 minute, and 
the order of closing now that the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) has expired is the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the amendment to grant California waiver from the Clean Air Act. 
This is not about California being singled out, as we are hearing from 
several people, because all 50 States are required to live by the Clean 
Air Act and have been for some time.
  This is not about MTBE, which is harmful to our drinking water, 
because there is a better alternative. Yes, ethanol does help gas burn 
cleaner. Members only have to go back to their high school class to 
know that increased oxygen in gas will help make it burn cleaner. This 
is not about ethanol making gas more expensive because with today's 
price of oil and other commodities, ethanol is cheaper than gasoline.

[[Page H5141]]

  This is about ensuring clean air for our children and grandchildren 
and not increasing the ozone problem that we have. It is about 
expanding renewable domestic sources of energy. And it is about 
increasing demand, yes, for important commodities that help us create 
jobs and economy in our rural areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, my State of South Dakota is a clean air 
State. In fact, one sentence that we never really hear started, we 
never start a sentence by saying ``on a clear day'' because we do not 
have that problem in South Dakota.
  Mr. Chairman, the Cox-Waxman amendment would reverse a decade of 
progress towards cleaning up our air. There are other parts of the 
country that do not have the luxury that we have in South Dakota, 
lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy and supporting 
American agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a balanced energy policy in this country. This 
is about energy security. That should mean more renewables, not less. 
That should mean less demand for petroleum and not more. Reversing the 
administration decision means going back to additives that are 
petroleum based and create a host of well-documented problems.
  EPA made this decision based on science. It was the right decision. 
This amendment is the wrong decision and as to whether or not American 
farmers can meet the demand. The farmers of South Dakota stand ready to 
meet and help California with the problem. Give us a chance.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
special treatment for exemption of the oxygenate requirement. This 
chart that I have up here shows reformulated gas and the high super-
duper blend of regular gas without the oxygenate. It barely meets the 
requirements, but it does not take out as many pollutants as with an 
oxygenate.
  The price for this super blend without the oxygenate is more 
expensive than with the blend in it. The nonoxygenated fuel, by 
California's own study, would eliminate emissions of up to 593 tons per 
day of carbon monoxide. That is a major contributor to ground ozone or 
smog. By the California study, there is a 6 percent reduction of VOCs 
with an oxygenate. Keeping this oxygenate requirement for gasoline 
would translate into a reduction of CO2 emissions by over 
\1/2\ million tons in California alone.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated this at length. This is the bottom 
line: It is unfair to California to force us to import billions of 
gallons of ethanol that we do not want, that will raise our gasoline 
prices, that will balkanize our fuel supply, and will make our air 
dirtier.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), 
with yielded time from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), now 
has 1 minute.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. As the author of the 
amendment, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
defending the committee position, has the right to close.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues from across the country for 
working with us in support of this sensible amendment to give governors 
and to give States the flexibility they need to meet not just the 
Federal standards for clean air, but even higher standards.
  We have had governors of several States making phone calls in support 
of this amendment: We have had Governor Pataki from New York; we have 
had Governor Rowland from Connecticut.
  Many States presently are already working to phase out MTBE or 
ethanol in gasoline, not only California, but the State of Washington, 
New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Minnesota, 
Pennsylvania, Connecticut and South Dakota. In all of these States, I 
think the flexibility to handle the problem and the ways that the 
States find work the best will give us cleaner air and cleaner water.
  I know that Governor Ventura will want to wrestle with this problem 
in the future.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, never have so many fine fellows from California been so 
wrong. It is good to have the California delegation unified for a 
change on the floor, but it would be better if they were unified on 
something that was actually a step in the right direction.
  To my left I have a chart that is developed by the EPA that shows the 
baseline under the Clean Air Act passed in 1990 for the minimum air 
quality standard. There is about an 18 percent improvement based on the 
quality of 1990. The blue bar shows those States, those cities, that 
have decided to meet the standard by adding MTBE to their gasoline. You 
can see that on average they have almost doubled their air quality.
  The red bar shows the areas which have chosen to meet the air quality 
standard by adding ethanol. On average, they have improved it about 10 
percent more than the minimum.
  It is true we can meet the minimum air quality standard without using 
either MTBE, the blue bars, or ethanol, the red bars, but just barely. 
Just barely.
  Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the Cox-Waxman amendment, the air is going 
to get dirtier in California. I do not think that is the intent, but 
that is the effect of it.
  The Clean Air Act has actually worked. More oxygen in gasoline means 
that it burns cleaner. Do we really want to revoke that? I think not.

                              {time}  1900

  I hope we vote against the amendment.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Cox/Waxman amendment to the Energy bill on the floor today.
  The fact is Mr. Chairman, eliminating the oxygenate requirement for 
California will increase pollution. Reformulated gasoline with 
oxygenates reduces the emission of toxins, well above the level 
required by the Clean Air Act. If nonoxygenated fuel was allowed to be 
used in California, studies indicate that carbon monoxide emissions 
would increase by up to 593 tons per day.
  One of the biggest concerns to not only Illinois, but the whole 
Nation, has been volatile gasoline prices. Eliminating the oxygenate 
requirement will increase consumer prices at the gas pump. Removing the 
oxygenate requirement exacerbates an already tight fuel supply by 
removing volume in gasoline, which increases the chance that gasoline 
price spikes may occur again. In fact, a report issued by the 
California Energy Commission estimated that using ethanol will cost two 
to three cents less per gallon than nonoxygenated fuels. The report 
detailed that the replacement of nonoxygenate fuel with MTBE would be 
the most expensive option for the state of California to choose.
  Some are worried about whether the demand for ethanol can be met. Mr. 
Chairman, I can assure you and others that our farmers are working to 
produce the corn needed to supply California with the ethanol it needs. 
Approximately 600 million gallons of ethanol per year are needed to 
meet the needs of California. Currently, the ethanol industry has the 
capacity to produce two billion gallons per year. Supply will be able 
to meet demand.
  Lastly Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the impact of the 
ethanol industry on my home state of Illinois. Illinois is the nation's 
leading producer of ethanol, and the second largest producer of corn in 
the Nation. Corn grown in Illinois is used to produce 40 percent of the 
ethanol consumed in the U.S. Illinois ethanol production alone has 
increased the national price for corn by 25 cents per bushel. Ethanol 
production will stimulate the Illinois economy by creating jobs, and 
ensure the success of our farmers by providing a stable source for 
which their crops can be used.
  Mr. Chairman, the answer is simple. To ensure a cleaner environment, 
cheaper gasoline prices, and the success of the agriculture economy, 
vote against the Cox/Waxman amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment points to a 
problem that is not unique to California,

[[Page H5142]]

but affects the entire country. The fact is that with improved engine, 
emissions, and refining technologies, the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act can be met without the need to dictate specific fuel formulas. Yet 
today we have a patchwork of regulations governing what specific fuel 
formulation can be sold in what area of the country. These rules have 
raised costs and contributed to supply disruptions.
  We should adopt fuel performance standards, not specific fuel 
formulations, to meet emissions reduction targets. But these 
performance standards should apply in the entire country, not just 
California.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 7 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Waxman

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Waxman:
       Page 96, after line 17, insert the following new title and 
     make the necessary conforming changes in the table of 
     contents:

            TITLE IX--PRICE GOUGING AND BLACKOUT PREVENTION

     SEC. 901. WHOLESALE ELECTRIC ENERGY RATES OF REGULATED 
                   ENTITIES IN THE WESTERN ENERGY MARKET.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (2) Cost-of-service based rate.--The term ``cost-of-service 
     based rate'' means a rate, charge, or classification for the 
     sale of electric energy that is equal to--
       (A) all the reasonable variable costs for producing the 
     electric energy;
       (B) all the reasonable fixed costs for producing the 
     electric energy;
       (C) a reasonable risk premium or return on invested 
     capital; and
       (D) all other reasonable costs associated with the 
     production, acquisition, conservation, and transmission of 
     electric power.
       (3) Public utility.--The term ``public utility'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 201 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 824).
       (4) Western energy market.--The term ``western energy 
     market'' means the area within the United States that is 
     covered by the Western Systems Coordinating Council.
       (b) Imposition of Wholesale Electric Energy Rates.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Commission shall impose just and reasonable cost-of-
     service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric 
     energy at wholesale in the western energy market. The 
     Commission shall not impose such rates under authority of 
     this subsection on any facility generating electric energy 
     that did not generate electric energy at any time prior to 
     January 1, 2001.
       (c) Authority of State Regulatory Authorities.--This 
     section does not diminish or have any other effect on the 
     authority of a State regulatory authority (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796)) to 
     regulate rates and charges for the sale of electric energy to 
     consumers, including the authority to determine the manner in 
     which wholesale rates shall be passed through to consumers 
     (including the setting of tiered pricing, real-time pricing, 
     and baseline rates).
       (d) Repeal.--Effective on the date 18 months after the 
     enactment of this Act, this section is repealed, and any 
     cost-of-service based rate imposed under this section that is 
     then in effect shall no longer be effective.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This year, there has been only one true energy crisis in the United 
States. That is the skyrocketing energy prices and blackouts in 
California and the West. Incredibly, however, this bill does nothing to 
address this issue. That is why I am offering this amendment. The goal 
of the amendment is to prevent a return to the blackouts and 
skyrocketing electricity prices that have plagued the West.
  Some people seem to think that FERC's complicated regulatory 
experiment has solved the energy crisis out West. After all, prices are 
lower, and there have not been major blackouts recently. I do not mean 
to sound like Cassandra, but the simple truth is that these conditions 
may not last.
  There are two main reasons that prices are lower: one, California has 
been experiencing unseasonably mild weather; and, secondly, 
California's successful conservation efforts have decreased energy 
consumption by more than 10 percent. The conservation efforts will 
continue, but the weather could turn much hotter at any time. If that 
happens, demand will soar. And if demand goes back up, the current FERC 
order will not protect California and the West. Just look what happened 
on July 2 and July 3 when demand reached 40,000 megawatts, the highest 
level this summer. When that happened, there were blackouts in Nevada, 
and there were almost blackouts in California. The FERC order did not 
help prevent the blackouts; it did just the opposite. It caused 
generators to withhold power.
  Not only does the FERC order make blackouts more likely, it does not 
effectively curb prices. I want to call to Members' attention an 
article from the Los Angeles Times which ran just last week. This 
article explains that despite the FERC order, power generators are 
continuing to charge excessive prices.
  Let me give you one example. As the Los Angeles Times reported, 
Reliant continues to submit bids for electricity for as much as $540 
per megawatt hour, more than five times its estimated cost.
  The simple truth is that FERC's order is seriously flawed. First, it 
guarantees enormous windfall profits for generators by allowing the 
least efficient, most expensive generator to set the price for all 
generators. Secondly, the order encourages generators to withhold power 
in order to ensure that their least efficient generating units set the 
market price. This is exactly backwards, and it is a recipe for 
blackouts.
  My amendment is very simple. It says that FERC must impose cost-of-
service-based rates for a short time until new power supplies can come 
online. Under this amendment, generators will be paid for their costs 
of production, and they will make a reasonable profit; but they will be 
barred from gouging the West.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Once again, we find ourselves debating an amendment to impose price 
caps on wholesale electric generation sales in California and the West. 
When our Committee on Energy and Commerce first had this debate in May, 
it might have been relevant. There was still some uncertainty then 
about whether the FERC would oversee the crazy electricity market that 
California had created for itself.
  But shortly thereafter, at our urging and particularly the urging of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), the FERC did take action. It 
created a price mitigation plan throughout California and the West that 
does not discourage new generation. We now know the FERC order is 
working and the Waxman amendment is certainly not needed, if it ever 
was. But even in the middle of the rolling blackouts, the price caps 
proposed in this amendment would do nothing to solve the energy 
problems in California. In fact, it would make them a great deal worse.
  I will give you three quick reasons: first, cost-of-service-based 
rates, price caps, discourage investment in new power plants. No power 
developer in his right mind would try to build a plant in California if 
this amendment passes. They are saying, well, there are lots of plants 
being planned in California. They are being planned on the basis of 
this not happening.
  Secondly, the amendment before us would exempt new power plants from 
cost-of-service-based rates and would not apply to more than half of 
the generators in the marketplace. I want to say that again. These 
price caps would apply to less than half of the generators in the 
marketplace. You have price caps on some generators and no price caps 
at all on the other generators. That is the same situation we had

[[Page H5143]]

in the 1970s when we regulated old gas and we did not regulate new gas 
and there were huge shortages in the old gas markets, in the interstate 
markets, and surpluses and high prices in the intrastate markets.
  Third and finally, the half of the market that this amendment would 
exempt happens to be responsible for the highest prices in California. 
If there was gouging in California, it came from industries in 
California that would be exempt from this amendment.
  This amendment ought to be defeated.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and to 
suggest that in this debate that we do not get confused in our 
vocabulary. What this amendment proposes is not a price cap. It is a 
temporary return to cost-of-service-based pricing. Cost-of-service 
pricing examines the cost for every power producer and assures them an 
individual rate that will provide for a reasonable profit. That is not 
a price cap. Rather, it is a practical remedy based on 85 years of 
policy, precedent, and practice under the law.
  The States do not have jurisdiction over wholesale prices; the 
Federal Government does. But we cannot pretend that FERC can make 
minor, although complicated, adjustments in the hope that the market 
will work itself out. There is no functioning market in California 
right now, and we must provide the time necessary for one to develop.
  This amendment will provide California with a chance to start over 
and design their market properly. It will stabilize an inherently 
unstable situation. I would urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment as I did in both the subcommittee and the full committee for 
several reasons.
  First of all, it is without question that the California market was 
dysfunctional. But we are beginning to see the market respond to FERC's 
direction, that we have some price mitigation in place.
  What this amendment does, however, is it has an interesting exemption 
in it. On line 18 of page 2, it talks about how any power plant that 
comes online after January 1 of this year would be exempt from this 
very price cap. Why is that there? It is there because the authors have 
to admit that this kind of price cap will discourage new production 
from coming online. Otherwise, why would they have the exemption? And 
what is there to preclude one of these, quote-unquote, gougers from 
shutting down their old production facility and running the new one 
that does not have the price cap? What stops out-of-state producers 
from selling power into other markets where they do not have this kind 
of a cap as proposed in this amendment? We could really disrupt the 
power market that is finally beginning to settle down.
  How is it settling down? Let me point out that it has changed 
dramatically and perhaps even caught the California government unaware 
in this process. They were buying power at $138 a megawatt hour that 
now because of a change in the market they are dumping for $1 a 
megawatt hour. The LADWP, the Los Angeles Department of Water and 
Power, charged the State of California a price for power that averaged 
35 to $40 per watt hour more than that charged by the companies that 
some call gougers. On a single day in June of 2000, the LADWP raked in 
$5 million on power sold for $1,000 per megawatt hour. The reason I say 
that, LADWP is not covered by this amendment. Forty-seven percent of 
the power sold into California is not covered by this amendment. It 
would have a disruptive and destructive role in the market if this were 
passed today.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has taken such a very strong 
leadership role on this.
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in obvious support of this amendment. To the 
rest of the country, I want to say this evening that California really 
feels what is being placed on her shoulders in terms of the burdens. We 
had a piece of legislation that has caused us more than a migraine 
headache. But here in the Congress, the only place that can address 
price, that is why we raise our voices.
  This is not a price cap. You can say it until the cows come home that 
it is, but it is not. For those that have served 10 years, 20 years, 30 
years, 40 years, 50 years in the Congress, where were you objecting to 
what is an 85-year-old tradition in terms of cost-of-service base for 
the rates in our country? You were nowhere. You are not there to help 
us with refunds, you are not there to help with price relief, and you 
are not there in terms of environmental issues.
  That is why we get up tonight and we say all over again that 
Californians should have cost-of-service-based rates. We do not trust 
the FERC because they have been on a sit-down strike. For those that 
raise their voices and say, This is going to muck up the market, I have 
fought for markets, for free and open markets, for markets that work. 
This market, as the FERC has acknowledged, is dysfunctional. It is not 
working. We do not want to penalize new generators in California; we 
want them to come online, but we also plead and raise our voices for 
what is reasonable and what the FERC will not do and that is cost-of-
service-based rates.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), newly joining the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from 
California's price cap amendment. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying 
that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over 
and over again searching for different results. The history of man both 
past and present is rife with failed attempts about price caps. This 
amendment asks Members to continue that same cycle.
  In the 1950s, before I was born, and in the 1960s, we controlled the 
price of natural gas and oil. By the 1970s, we had shortages and 
curtailments of gas and we had gas lines all over America. Over a 
million people were laid off and money poured out of the United States 
to countries such as Algeria for high-priced LNG.
  Members may not know that the California wholesale market also has 
had price caps. What happened? The power and the capital investment 
went elsewhere. So on June 19 of this year FERC applied price caps to 
the entire West. What happened? Blackouts in Las Vegas. California also 
had retail price caps in place at the start of its failed restructuring 
experiment in April of 1998. In the spring of 2001, the biggest growth 
industry for the California Public Utilities Commission was the 
processing of blackout exemption applications.

                              {time}  1915

  When will we learn? Oppose the price caps.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
The administration promoted California's electricity problem as a 
reason to enact their energy plan, the Drill America Plan; but the 
proposal did nothing about this Nation's most serious crisis. This bill 
makes the same mistake. Fortunately, due mostly to unusually cool 
weather, more power plants coming on line, Californians' impressive 
conservation efforts, and FERC's belated efforts, the situation has 
stabilized recently. The administration had nothing to do with the 
first two developments, ridiculed the third and opposed the fourth.
  But, unfortunately, the problems in California are not over; and the 
return of hot weather will show how inadequate FERC's actions are. 
Because FERC has pegged the cost of electricity to the least-efficient 
generator, this means one of six or eight most expensive generators 
will set wholesale prices across the West every time it is fired up. 
This will cost consumers in California and across the country billions 
more for electricity than is necessary.
  This amendment would simply ensure what FERC was supposed to do in

[[Page H5144]]

the first place. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all the Members, I want to 
extend birthday wishes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), on his birthday. 
Congratulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I do respect my colleagues from 
California. We have had a lot of differences in agreement this year.
  The statement was made, the only place you can address prices is 
here. That is the difference in ideology. The market sets the prices. 
Basically the higher the supply, the lower the cost; the lower the 
supply, the higher the cost.
  When you have high prices and you do not want to pay those prices, 
guess what? You consume less. When you consume less, there is a higher 
supply. Guess what? Prices go down. It is basic economics 101, which we 
wish our colleagues would really end up learning.
  One of the reasons why California has been successful is because high 
prices have forced people to consume less. Conservation is a result of 
these high prices. The market does work.
  How do you get to the quickest, more functioning market? You let the 
market work. If you intervene in the market, as the Governor of 
California has done, guess what? The market does not stabilize, it does 
not get fixed. Market manipulation by government is designed to fail.
  This amendment is designed to prolong the agony of California. It is 
ill-conceived. I do applaud my colleagues for their attempt, and have 
encouragement for them, but for the betterment of the country, we have 
to understand, in the market, basic supply and demand rules, and this 
is an ill-conceived amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to spend hours here 
listening to the exponents of States' rights come here with patronizing 
lectures taken out of economics 101 textbooks to tell California what 
we need. The fact is that electricity is a unique product. You cannot 
store it, there is no substitute for it, you cannot ship it, there are 
major barriers to entry. That is why most of the country for the last 
75 years has regulated its price.
  This chart illustrates that we must regulate the price of electricity 
or there will be a decline in supply. When we deregulated, you see 
those yellow lines indicating the plants that were closed for 
maintenance. Roughly 10,000 extra hours, megawatt hours, closed for 
maintenance. What that really illustrates is that a few out-of-State 
companies were able to close their plants for maintenance, which means 
close their plants to maintain an outrageous price for every kilowatt.
  If you want more supply, you have to limit the gouging. Pass the 
Waxman amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my friend from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague, the Chair of our Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me time.
  Again we hear the rhetoric of stop the gouging and the request for 
the cost of service-based rates. You know, I think maybe if it is good 
enough for natural gas or power, maybe it ought to be good enough for 
the computers I buy from Silicon Valley. I hope we do not have cost-of-
service-based rates on attorneys. Anyway, that is my concern. If we use 
cost-of-service-based on anything, that is price caps; and that works 
in a regulated environment.
  But what California did, they wanted to take advantage of 
deregulation and have a State deregulation, that was flawed to begin 
with. That is why in the State they refused to fix it until it 
literally drained the power from all their neighboring States during 
the first part of this year.
  Retail price caps have been in effect in California, and it has 
created artificially stimulated demand. It has increased the demand for 
natural gas. Not surprising, the removal of these retail price caps 
caused the consumers in California to have a 12 percent decrease 
because now that it has increased the cost, their demand is going down.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to help consumers in the West, we 
cannot afford to implement strategies that have failed in the past. 
This is why price caps are wrong. Either you have a regulated 
environment or you have a deregulated environment. You cannot have a 
mixture, which California wanted. You cannot have partial free 
enterprise. So that is why this amendment is wrong, and hopefully the 
House will reject it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which, in my view, 
is necessary to assure that wholesale electricity rates in the Western 
States are just and reasonable.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a mandate in the Federal 
Power Act to ensure that wholesale electricity rates are reasonable. 
Notwithstanding this clear direction in Federal law, the agency has 
responded ineffectively as wholesale prices in California exceeded 
$1,600 per megawatt hour on some occasions during the past 9 months, 
and that charge of $1,600 per megawatt hour compares with an average 
price of about $25 per megawatt hour a mere 2 years ago.
  More recently, the FERC has imposed a restraint on wholesale prices 
pegged to the cost of the least efficient generator that is in service 
at any given time. But the cost of the least efficient generator can be 
quite high, and when those costs are translated into a wholesale price, 
an enormous windfall is provided to the more efficient generators, and 
prices for all parties concerned, in my opinion, are not reasonable.
  For that reason, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California is necessary, I strongly support it; and I urge its adoption 
by the House.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), a valued member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman I think tonight I have seen more California 
whines than since the last time I visited Napa Valley.
  We have heard today about the price gouging of the big energy 
companies from out of State. And we have an amendment, which I oppose 
vigorously tonight; and it is to introduce price caps. I will tell you 
it is wrong for a number of reasons. But one of the things I wanted to 
do is just go through a couple of charts, everybody has charts, I 
brought my own.
  First of all, let me just show you a couple of the growth charts in 
California. Employment grew 12 percent, this is in the nineties, 
population has grown 18 percent, the State economy has grown 45 
percent, the electronics and instruments industry has grown over 60 
percent in the nineties, the communications industry has grown nearly 
80 percent in the nineties, and yet what has California done? Natural 
gas usage capacity has grown less than 10 percent, electricity use 
capacity has grown less than 10 percent, peak demand, on and on and on.
  Finally you get down to the last number, power generation capacity. 
This is added power generation capacity in the State of California. In 
the last 10 years, at a time when they have seen unprecedented growth 
in their economy and population, added generation capacity, California, 
less than 2 percent in 10 years. So that is why we have a problem in 
California. It does not have anything to do with energy companies from 
out of State gouging.
  But let me come back to that gouging question. Here is where 
California gets their power. They get 33 percent of their power 
generated from their big IOUs, PG&E, SoCal. They import 21 percent of 
their electricity. They get 23 percent of their electricity from public 
power, most of that public power located within the State of 
California, which is not addressed in this

[[Page H5145]]

amendment. They get a little bit from Williams, a little bit from 
Reliant, Duke, and these big energy companies that are gouging.
  Let me just tell you, if this is gouging, let me bring up the next 
chart. We had before our committee a gentleman named David Freeman, who 
happens to be the electricity guru for the Governor of the State of 
California today, who happened to be the head of Los Angeles Department 
of Water and Power, before our Committee.
  We asked Mr. Freeman, did LADWP gouge? He said no. Yet look at this. 
LADWP averaged $292 per megawatt hour, and this is my most cogent point 
right here, I am right at the crux, the pinnacle of my argument, here 
we have got LADWP, one of the public power entities, that was charging 
$292 per megawatt hour. Now, he said that was not gouging, $292 per 
megawatt hour.
  Here you have the average megawatt charge for the big energy 
companies of $246. Now, if $292 was not gouging by LADWP, then why is 
$246 gouging?
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would just say I oppose this amendment. It does 
not address the real issues in California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), who authored this amendment by way of 
legislation.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the majority's bill gives over $20 billion 
in taxpayer money to the special interest oil and gas industry. Could 
you not find it in your heart to just do one small thing for the 
consumer? Could you not throw a bone to the people and the small 
businesses on the West Coast, in Washington and Oregon and California, 
that have seen their prices go up 50 to 60 percent? Is that not in your 
compassionate heart to do that? That is all we are asking.
  Look at the history of how we got here. For 7 months we have been 
pleading with the White House, we have been pleading with our 
colleagues, to pay attention to this crisis in the West Coast. And we 
are well beyond the issue of whether we should take action or not. I 
have a letter from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) dated June 
12, 2001, asking the FERC to take some action. The point is, they have 
not taken any action that works.
  This is not an issue of whether the Federal Government should act, 
this is a question of whether the Federal Government has acted 
effectively. It has not. We need help in the West Coast, not just 
California.
  Pass this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to inform the chairman that FERC did take 
action.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from California. There is no benefit from imposing 
costs of service rates on California or the Western grid. Today the 
State of California can buy power on the spot market for $45 a megawatt 
under the FERC price mitigation measures, but chooses not to do so, 
because those people that are charging more will not sell it to 
California. They will keep the hydropower behind their dams, or they 
will choose to sell it for a higher price somewhere else.
  Unfortunately, the Governor of California put us all in a position of 
having to endure higher energy costs to prevent more and more rolling 
blackouts. It truly is not an energy crisis in California as much as it 
is a crisis in leadership on the energy issue. Price caps will not 
solve that problem.
  We have to wait until we get more supply in order to bring down the 
cost of energy. If we impose price caps on that, we suffer more rolling 
blackouts. It truly is the law of supply and demand. Had the Governor 
acted on this issue much sooner, a year ago, we would not even be in 
this position.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and commend him for his leadership on this and so many other issues.

                              {time}  1930

  I rise in support of the Waxman amendment to establish cost-of-
service rates for electricity sold at wholesale in the Western region.
  As has been mentioned here, Mr. Chairman, in June, the FERC, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, imposed a soft cap based on the 
least efficient generators selling into the California markets. The 
FERC was established to ensure that consumers were charged fair and 
reasonable costs for their electricity. It has not neglected that 
mandate; it came through with this June 19 action, but not only was it 
too little too late, but it was the wrong way to go. As I said, it put 
a soft cap based on the least efficient generators selling into 
California's markets.
  For that reason, energy suppliers still have incentives to withhold 
power in order to drive up electricity prices, still gouging consumers. 
In fact, a new study shows that electricity suppliers are still trying 
to sell electricity at prices up to five times higher than the Federal 
caps.
  Last week, the Vice President passed his electricity bill on to the 
Navy. Instead of doing that, this body should be passing a bill to help 
America's consumers. I urge support of the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who is a principal sponsor of the 
price mitigation plan that FERC adopted.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment, as proposed, is anti-environment, it is 
anti-consumer, it is anti-California's major contribution to this 
economy, and that is, it is anti-technology. Think about what we are 
doing. What we are saying is, if you are a real expensive producer and 
you are a real high-polluting producer, we are going to put price caps 
in effect so that you will be protected from competition coming in with 
new technology that uses natural gas and that delivers power to people 
at a low price.
  Look at this chart, I say to my colleagues. This is a chart showing 
what happened when FERC's mitigation plan went into effect. The Waxman 
proposal is unnecessary. The Waxman proposal is anti-environment 
because it makes those plants that are more polluting come on line 
more. It is anti-consumer, because it makes the most expensive plants 
be the ones that operate, and it is anti-California's primary product 
technology, because it refuses to recognize how far we have come.
  Vote no on the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing about competition, laws of 
supply and demand. There is a manipulated market in California 
controlled by a cartel of energy wholesalers.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is happening in San Diego. We are 
paying 10 times, sometimes 100 times what we did a year ago. If we were 
paying the same costs for electricity as we are paying for bread, we 
would be paying $19.99 for a loaf of bread; in fact, up to $199 
sometimes in the last year.
  What do they give us in this bill for California? They give us 
crumbs. All we get are some crumbs for California.
  Scores of small business people in my district have gone out of 
business, and according to a report by the Chamber of Commerce, 65 
percent of small businesses in our county face bankruptcy this year, 
Mr. Chairman. If this bill passes without this amendment, my small 
businesses are toast.
  They are toast, Mr. Chairman. Help California. Pass this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the Chair would ask who has the right to 
close on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has the right to close.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) if he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, for more than 12 months now, 
I have worked daily for my constituents in San Diego, the first in the 
Nation to be shocked by suddenly doubled and tripled electricity rates. 
From that time on, I have joined with my colleagues here in the 
Congress and in the State legislature and with the San

[[Page H5146]]

Diego regional governments to get the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to meet its mandate to require just and reasonable rates. We 
have repeatedly been rebuffed, rejected and disappointed by their 
responses.
  Although our efforts have moved from utter rejection to half-hearted 
measures to cap wholesale cost, they have failed to require that the 
industry charge rates that are just or reasonable.
  So it is way past Congress to act. All the Western States are 
affected. We must take charge and require that FERC assure that the 
charges for electricity are based on a standard that is simplicity 
itself. Does it not make sense to set prices based on the cost to 
produce the electricity, including fair acknowledgment of investments 
costs, plus a fair profit? That was the basis of charges for decades.
  The amendment before us does not set a cap on rates for new 
generating sources, so it does not discourage investment in new plants. 
And it sunsets at 18 months. It is what we need for the interim while 
we continue to add to the power plants that have gone into service this 
summer.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to give clear and explicit 
language on what makes rates just and reasonable.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I was taken aback by the comments of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ose) that this is anti-environment. Well, it is not anti-
environment to put in cost-of-service charges, which is the way 
electricity had always been handled in California and most of the 
country where regulation is in place. He said it encourages 
inefficiency. The FERC order gives a bonus to the most inefficient, 
costly supplier of electricity, and everybody else rises to that price. 
They get a windfall.
  I think that what we need is to have cost-of-service rates, the cost 
of the service plus a profit, and not to give windfalls and not to give 
any encouragement to any supplier that if only they held back some 
supplies by shutting down temporarily on some phony argument that they 
could get a higher price. Because that is what we have seen in 
California as a result of a very bad law that was adopted unanimously 
by the legislature, signed by a Republican governor, passed by a 
Democratic legislature.
  It gave a green light to a manipulation of the market by energy 
suppliers. Not that they did anything illegal; they took advantage of 
the situation.
  I feel the FERC order gives a green light to further manipulation and 
gouging which could lead to blackouts if the weather changes in 
California and we find ourselves with a greater use of electricity and 
we bump up to more demand than supply.
  So I would urge support for this amendment. It is an insurance policy 
that we do not find ourselves in California and the whole West Coast 
with blackouts and further gouging, which is what we have seen as a 
result of a bad law once passed by the legislature in California.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, to close on this debate against 
this bad amendment.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if price caps worked, we would not 
need this debate. California has had price caps. They have had price 
caps at $750 a megawatt hour since a year ago this last month. They 
lowered that to $500 a megawatt hour a year ago this month. They 
lowered it to $250 a megawatt hour in September of last year. They did 
not work.
  Let us go to the next chart. This chart is very confusing, which is 
why I put it up here, because I am the only one who can understand it. 
But what it shows is, comparing the 2 years, 1999 and 2000, when price 
caps were in effect, power went out in the State of California. People 
did not keep their power in California; they exported it when those 
price caps were in effect.
  Now, then, if my colleagues think that is a confusing chart, I have 
one that is even more confusing. Only an MIT engineer, which is 
actually the people that developed this chart, can understand it, but 
what it shows is when we have a price cap, prices are higher than when 
we do not. We may have a little variation back and forth, but I 
guarantee if you call MIT, who developed this chart, they will tell 
you, if you have price caps, the price caps are going to be higher, not 
lower, on the average.
  Prices in California right now are below year-ago averages, because 
they are finally building some power plants, they are finally getting 
their act together with retail prices.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need the Waxman price cap amendment. We beat 
it in subcommittee, we beat it in full committee, we are going to beat 
it on the floor. I hate to keep beating the price cap to death, but if 
we have to, I would ask that you join with me to defeat the Waxman 
amendment one more time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment numbered 8 printed in part B 
of House report 107-178.


          Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 168, line 20, insert ``Of the funds authorized under 
     this subsection, at least $5,000,000 for each fiscal year 
     shall be for training and education targeted to minority and 
     social disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.'' after ``National 
     Science Foundation.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment. I do not 
believe there is anyone rising in opposition, but I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for 5 minutes in support of her amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and the ranking member of the Committee on Rules for 
recognizing the importance of an effort of the Congressional Black 
Caucus that believes that there should be a consensus energy policy 
that reflects the diversity of America.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
for his support for this amendment. I want to acknowledge the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), our chairperson; 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Hilliard) as members of the Congressional Black Caucus Energy Task 
Force.
  Let me briefly explain the thrust of this amendment. It is to be 
inclusive. It is to acknowledge the value of biomass, but at the same 
time, it focuses on socially disadvantaged and minority ranchers and 
farmers. That means it reaches throughout the Nation. Specifically what 
it does is, it provides the opportunity to translate those products 
from those particular entities into energy.
  There are many types of biomass, such as wood plants, residue from 
agriculture or forestry, and the organic component of municipal 
industrial waste that can now be used as an energy source. Today, many 
bioenergy resources are replenished through the cultivation of energy 
crops such as fast-growing trees and grasses called bioenergy feed 
stocks.
  We are well aware of the value of our agricultural industry, but are 
we aware of what can happen positively to minority and socially 
disadvantaged

[[Page H5147]]

ranchers and farmers if they find another element to their resources? 
Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted 
directly into liquid fuels for our transportation needs.
  I do believe this is a constructive and instructive manner of 
utilizing dollars for these components.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say that we support the gentlewoman's amendment, that 
diversity in the energy future of our country and those who participate 
in it, participate particularly as farmers and ranchers, in this 
important new initiative for bioenergy, for training and educating 
those who will be responsible, hopefully, for introducing new products 
in diversity supplies of energy should also include diverse elements of 
our society participating.
  We agree with the gentlewoman, and we support her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which provides $5 million 
per year for integrated bioenergy research and development projects, 
for training and educating targeted to minority and socially 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, is a good amendment. Bioenergy 
research and development programs will provide important assistance for 
cutting-edge technologies and projects, and I proudly identify with the 
amendment, and I urge its adoption.

                              {time}  1945

  I thank my friend, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to salute my 
colleagues in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  I see my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). I 
particularly want to salute them for their amendment, and congratulate 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for their amendment. I 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Boehlert) for his support on this amendment, and I 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn), chair of the CBC Energy Task Force.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
compliment her for her leadership on this issue. She has done a 
wonderful job.
  I also would like to thank my committee chairman, the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for his support for this 
amendment. They told me in law school, when you are ahead, sit down; so 
I will not belabor my remarks.
  I do want to salute one of my towns. The city of Takoma Park uses 
biodiesel in its fleet. This is one of the bioenergy, biomass products 
that we hope to see expanded as a result of this legislation. I am very 
pleased to be associated with it.
  I also want to, of course, thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Science for his support.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to salute and recognize the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), 
two other distinguished members of our committee who are equally 
responsible in helping make this amendment happen. I want to thank them 
for their cooperation on this bill throughout the markup process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson), the chairman of the CBC.
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want to thank 
both Chairs for their support.
  I rise in favor of the bill's provisions to provide research and 
development funding for biofuels. As Chair of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, I strongly support the CBC amendment to earmark $5 million in 
each fiscal year FY 2002-2006 to minority and socially disadvantaged 
farmers for bioenergy research.
  Biofuels are a promising area not only in terms of supplying a 
cleaner burning source of energy but also could help to solve some of 
the environmental problems with confined animal feeding operations.
  Because of its great size and the strong presence of agriculture, my 
home state of Texas is number 1 in the country for animal waste 
production.
  Much of the waste contaminates our lakes and rivers, and threatens 
the drinking water supplies for various localities.
  An article in the August 6th issue of Time magazine reports that 
large quantities of cow manure have found their way into Lake Waco, the 
drinking water source for Waco, where I was born and raised.
  The same article also cited a Natural Resources Defense Council 
report detailing how cow manure in central Texas is fouling the Paluxy 
and Trinity aquifers and questioning the safety of well water supplies 
within those aquifers.
  The Trinity River runs through my district. Therefore, I am 
especially concerned about the effects of this pollution on the quality 
of life in my district.
  I am hopeful that the development of bioenergy will alleviate water 
pollution from farming operations. I trust that this funding will help 
provide the nation with greater energy security. I urge my colleagues 
to support energy security. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment to ensure equal opportunity for disadvantaged farmers in the 
development of bioenergy programs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and 
thank her for her leadership on these issues on the Committee on 
Appropriations and for her concern for the interests of farmers and 
ranchers throughout the Nation.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from Texas for her initiative. If there is a new initiative that is 
needed, it is this one.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), for the chance to have cooperated with the gentleman on this 
amendment. It is for a good cause.
  We do not want to love a good amendment to death, so I just want to 
thank the Members.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude on the importance of the renewable 
energy sources. Biomass can be converted directly into liquid fuels for 
our transportation needs. The two most common biofuels are ethanol and 
biodiesel, and I know this, hopefully, will encourage the Members from 
the Midwest and the farming States, that we have acknowledged the 
value, coming from Texas and Louisiana, of the importance of these 
kinds of fuel types.
  In particular, let me say to the gentleman that the Congressional 
Black Caucus organized on behalf of these energy amendments to 
emphasize what the chairperson has said, the value of diversity, and 
the role of stakeholders in this particular legislative initiative, it 
is massive.
  I will note, as well, that I want to thank the chairman and the 
Committee on Rules for the LIHEAP amendment that went in to determine 
the issues of conservation and efficiency. It was added to the 
manager's amendment. I was not able to be on the floor, but I do want 
to thank the gentleman for that amendment, because what that does for 
the purposes of understanding the structural problems for those who 
receive LIHEAP fund, those are supplemental funds for utility bills, 
and we need to find out, do they know about conservation? Do they know 
about efficiency? Are they able to be efficient, because their houses 
are not structurally sound? We will have that research being done.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying this. This bill is going to have 
a long journey. I hope that we will have an opportunity for the 
Congressional Black Caucus to emphasize issues that reach into urban 
America and rural America.
  I want us to be able to work further on the concepts of job training 
that will come out of the opportunities of this legislation, making 
sure we have people on the ground that can work in this industry. I 
believe it is important to include Historically Black Colleges

[[Page H5148]]

and Hispanic-serving Institutions, universities, on research issues.
  I do believe it is important for the Federal Government to enhance 
and support technology that will help us.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has expired.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important as 
well to determine whether or not the Federal Government has impacted 
positively or impacted negatively on the promotion of technological 
efforts to improve the resources that we need to get on behalf of our 
energy programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope, and there are several chairpersons on the 
floor, that we could continue to work with the respective chairpersons 
on the efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  I conclude by saying this authorization of $5 million is a big step. 
I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that I think it is relevant that the 
gentlewoman, representing an oil and gas State, is bringing forward an 
amendment that will promote a new, diverse energy source for America 
other than oil and gas.
  I hope folks watch that, that all of us have a common interest in 
diversity in this country, and in fuel supplies and in those who will 
produce those fuel supplies for America.
  I am glad the gentlewoman mentioned the work for the Spanish 
colleges. My mother, Mrs. Enola Martinez, appreciates that money.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment offered on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus by 
myself, Congressman Wynn, Congressman Rush, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, Congressman Towns, and Congressman Hilliard.
  The Administration's energy proposal was prepared not under the open 
purview of the public or the Congressional Committees that share 
jurisdiction in this important area. Those who contributed to the final 
document that the Administration presented to the Nation and the 
Congress have not been revealed.
  Now that this measure is before the Congress for consideration, we 
must instill in the American people that the energy plan that will be 
signed into law is indeed in their best interest for the short-term and 
the long-term energy needs of our Nation.
  I strongly believe that the best approach to our nation's energy 
needs is one of bipartisan cooperation with a goal of ensuring long-
term commitments to a national energy plan that reducing dependence on 
foreign sources of energy and enhances our Nation's productivity. For 
this reason, I thank the House Rules Committee for making this 
amendment in order.
  As a Congress we must explore the potential that renewable energy 
technologies have to contribute to fulfilling an increasing part of the 
nation's energy demand and how that can occur, while increasing the 
economies, that can be reached through more efficient and 
environmentally sound extraction, transportation, and processing 
technologies.
  The amendment we offer before the House today will create an annually 
funded program for training and education for disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers to participate in bioenergy marketing of their products and 
by-products associated with their operations.
  Bioenergy is often times produced by a form of biomass, which is 
organic matter that can be used to provide heat, make fuels, and 
generate electricity. Wood, the largest source of bioenergy, has been 
used to provide heat for thousands of years. But there are many other 
types of biomass--such as wood, plants, residue from agriculture or 
forestry, and the organic component of municipal and industrial 
wastes--that can now be used as an energy source. Today, many bioenergy 
resources are replenished through the cultivation of energy crops, such 
as fast-growing trees and grasses, called bioenergy feedstocks.
  Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted 
directly into liquid fuels for our transportation needs. The two most 
common biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol, an alcohol, is made 
by fermenting any biomass high in carbohydrates, like corn, through a 
process similar to brewing beer. It is mostly used as a fuel additive 
to cut down a vehicle's carbon monoxide and other smog-causing 
emissions. Biodiesel, an ester, is made using vegetable oils, animal 
fats, algae, or even recycled cooking greases. It can be used as a 
diesel additive to reduce vehicle emissions or in its pure form to fuel 
a vehicle. Heat can be used to chemically convert biomass into a fuel 
oil, which can be burned like petroleum to generate electricity. 
Biomass can also be burned directly to produce steam for electricity 
production or manufacturing processes. In a power plant, turbine 
usually captures the steam, and a generator then converts it into 
electricity. In the lumber and paper industries, wood scraps are 
sometimes directly fed into boilers to produce steam for their 
manufacturing processes or to heat their buildings. Some coal-fired 
power plants use biomass as a supplementary energy source in high-
efficiency boilers to significantly reduce emissions.
  Even gas can be produced from biomass for generating electricity. 
Gasification systems use high temperatures to convert biomass into a 
gas (a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane). The gas 
fuels a turbine, which is very much like a jet engine, only it turns an 
electric generator instead of propelling a jet. The decay of biomass in 
landfills also produces a gas--methane--that can be burned in a boiler 
to produce steam for electricity generation or for industrial 
processes. New technology could lead to using biobased chemicals and 
materials to make products such as anti-freeze, plastics, and personal 
care items that are now made from petroleum. In some cases these 
products may be completely biodegradable. While technology to bring 
biobased chemicals and materials to market is still under development, 
the potential benefit of these products is great.
  I ask that my Colleagues join the Congressional Black Caucus in 
support of this amendment to H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy 
Act of 2001.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 9 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Capito

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Capito:
       On page 190, after line 25, insert:
       (c) Gasification.--The Secretary shall fund at least one 
     gasification project with the funds authorized under this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman will be 
recognized for the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
will require that the Department of Energy fund at least one coal 
gasification project with the funds authorized under the bill's 
research and development title.
  In my home State of West Virginia, coal continues to be an integral 
part of the lives and livelihoods of thousands of West Virginians, but 
most people do not realize that coal is also vital to the well-being of 
families across the country.
  The events of last year have shown us that when we flip the switch, 
we cannot always be certain that the lights will come on. Fortunately, 
we do have an abundant source of energy available right now to address 
our current and future energy needs in coal.
  Our Nation's recoverable coal has the energy equivalent of about one 
trillion barrels of crude oil, comparable in energy content to the 
entire world's known oil reserves.
  U.S. coal reserves are expected to last at least 275 years. In order 
to fully utilize this vast energy resource, however, we must find ways 
to use it in a more environmentally friendly way.
  One method which has already shown great potential is coal 
gasification. Rather than burning coal in a boiler,

[[Page H5149]]

gasification converts coal into a combustible gas, cleans the gas, and 
then burns the gas in a turbine, much like natural gas.
  More than 99 percent of the sulfur, nitrogen, and particulate 
pollutants are removed in this process. It is a low-emission 
technology. Continued research and development in clean coal 
technologies like coal gasification are vital to keeping coal, our most 
abundant energy resource, an integral part of supplying energy to 
America.
  Our goal should be to give industry the incentives to develop the 
commercial viability of coal gasification, bringing energy to consumers 
while protecting the environment and coal's future in America's energy 
plan.
  I congratulate the chairman and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) and all the Members of the committees who have worked so hard 
to bring this comprehensive energy package to the floor.
  This bill represents a bipartisan effort, and it is my hope that it 
will move swiftly through the House and Senate and be signed by the 
President as soon as possible. The American people have waited long 
enough for an energy plan.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote yes on 
final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I 
commend her hard work on behalf of the clean coal technologies, both 
with this very important amendment and with her cosponsorship of the 
NEET clean coal bill.
  Over half of the Nation's electricity is generated from coal. We 
cannot escape that fact. About 52 percent of every drop of electricity 
that comes into our homes comes into homes from a coal-fired plant 
somewhere in America. We must be working constantly to make sure that 
we are burning the cleanest possible coal in those plants and in future 
plants that may be built.
  The Capito amendment will achieve this goal by ensuring that coal 
gasification, our most promising clean coal technology, is represented 
in the DOE's technology program; and at the same time I want to commend 
the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), for the cooperative effort of our two committees in 
fashioning language within this bill for the clean coal program.
  It does in fact emphasize gasification as one of the most principal 
emphases in the clean coal technology research programs.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to thank the gentleman for those kind remarks, 
Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our colleague and good friend, the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for her leadership on 
clean coal technologies issues.
  The chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is exactly 
right, coal is here. Coal is responsible for more than 50 percent of 
the electricity generated in America. What we need to do is focus on 
having cleaner coal, and that is exactly what this amendment does.
  The gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has been helpful to 
the Committee on Science, not only with respect to this amendment, but 
also on clean coal provisions in division E of the bill, which requires 
that at least 80 percent of the funds are used for clean coal-based 
gasification technologies.
  Clearly our efforts should focus on clean coal technologies such as 
the integrated gasification combined cycle. I appreciate the 
gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment, which has been worked out between the two 
committees in partnership for a positive result.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters regarding H.R. 2436.

                                       Committee on Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2001.
     Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 17, 2001, the Committee on 
     Resources ordered favorably reported H.R. 2436, the Energy 
     Security Act. The bill was referred primarily to the 
     Committee on Resources, with an additional referral to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       H.R. 2436 is a critical part of the President's energy 
     policy initiative. The Leadership plans on scheduling an 
     energy legislative package for consideration by the full 
     House of Representatives as early as next week. Therefore, I 
     ask you to not to seek a sequential referral of the bill.
       Of course, by allowing this to occur, the Committee on 
     Science does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 2436 or any 
     other similar matter. If a conference on H.R. 2436 or a 
     similar energy legislative package becomes necessary, I would 
     support the Committee on Science's request to be named to the 
     conference. Finally, this action should not be seen as 
     precedent for any Committee on Resources bills which affect 
     the Committee on Science's jurisdiction. I would be pleased 
     to place this letter and your response in the report on the 
     bill to document this agreement.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look 
     forward to working with you again on the Floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James V. Hansen,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                         Committee on Science,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2001.
     Hon. James V. Hansen,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 20, 
     2001 concerning H.R. 2436, the Energy Security Act. As you 
     have acknowledged in your letter, some of the provisions in 
     your reported bill fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science. Among those provisions is section 233.
       Section 233 establishes Cooperative Oil and Gas Research 
     and Information Centers within the Department of the 
     Interior. These centers among other things, ``shall conduct 
     oil and natural gas exploration and production research . . 
     .'' This provision falls within the jurisdiction granted to 
     the House Science Committee under Rule X, clause l(n) 1 of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives which states in 
     part that the Committee on Science ``shall have jurisdiction 
     [on] all [matters relating to] energy research, development, 
     and demonstration . . .''
       It is my understanding that in order to expedite floor 
     consideration of H.R. 2436 or the legislative package on 
     energy of which it will become a part, you will delete 
     section 233 or similar section in the energy package with the 
     understanding the Committee on Science will not seek a 
     referral on H.R. 2436.
       We appreciate your offer to support our request for 
     conferees on the remaining provisions of H.R. 2436 or a 
     similar energy package which may fall under the jurisdiction 
     of the Committee on Science. We also note your 
     acknowledgement that by not seeking a referral on H.R. 2436, 
     that the Committee on Science does not waive its jurisdiction 
     over that legislation or any similar matter.
       Finally, I request that our exchange of correspondence be 
     placed in the Congressional Record during the floor debate on 
     the energy package as reported from the Committee on Rules.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                             Sherwood L. Boehlert,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.
  I am going to make one other comment. Mr. Chairman, I hope Americans 
focus on this as they watch this debate. That is, while OPEC has an 
enormous influence upon prices and supplies of gasoline and diesel fuel 
and home heating oil and jet fuel in our economy, OPEC can meet 
tomorrow and devastate this economy, as they once did, because we are 
so dependent upon those sources.
  Our whole card, our defense, is in our coal program. We have enough 
coal in this country to last 400, 500 years, maybe 800 years, if we 
develop it properly. Moving toward cleaner coal does not just make good 
sense for energy security, it makes sense in this Nation's commitment 
to the effort in global climate change.
  As one of the designated co-chairs to the conference that will occur 
later in the fall on global climate, I am extremely interested in 
knowing that we are committed to a course not that is going to put 
anybody out of business or disrupt the American economy, but that we 
will find solutions to situations where we can reduce CO2 
emissions through cleaner coal technologies and gasification projects, 
like the gentlewoman is sponsoring in this amendment.
  So I commend the gentlewoman for that. This has all kinds of pluses. 
This is win-win-win for the American economy, for American security, 
for our environment, and for our international position on global 
warming and global climate.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H5150]]

  I also want to thank the gentleman for his remarks and also for his 
strong support of finding ways to enhance the use of coal as a fuel for 
electricity generation.
  I also want to commend the gentlewoman from West Virginia for 
bringing this amendment forward. I am pleased to support it strongly, 
and encourage other Members of the House to do the same.
  Coal gasification is a promising technology which can increase 
significantly the efficiency of electricity generators. It also 
produces useful by-products, such as hydrogen, that can be used in 
traditional manufacturing operations.
  In addition to that, because the carbon dioxide stream is brought off 
separately as a part of the gasification process, CO2 
potentially could be sequestered, with all of the attendant 
environmental benefits that that promises.
  So I think the gentlewoman is making a constructive contribution. I 
thank her for bringing this amendment forward. I am pleased to 
encourage its adoption.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank all three gentlemen for their great comments in 
support of coal gasification and clean coal technologies. I am 
enthusiastic about this.
  I agree with the chairman when he says it is a win-win-win. I believe 
it is not only a win for this country, but it is a win for my State of 
West Virginia. I look forward to its passage.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I just met with Spencer Abraham, 
the new Secretary of Energy, and certainly I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  America has abundant reserves of coal, enough for hundreds of years, 
and so we need to figure out how to tap into this resource in the way 
that protects our environment and keeps energy affordable.
  In my home State of Michigan, we are now generating 80 percent of our 
electricity supply from coal. Coal has many benefits, but it also has 
environmental drawbacks. And that is why the Clean Coal Technology 
Program in our efforts to move ahead on this effort is so very 
important. The gentlewoman's amendment would simply ensure that the 
Department of Energy include the research as part of its clean coal 
portfolio.
  I see nothing objectionable from anybody, and I certainly support 
that effort because that technology is so important.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would like to 
correct a statement that he made earlier.
  Where the manager is not truly an opponent of the amendment, the 
proponent of the amendment has the right to close the debate.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 10, printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 printed offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
     Texas:
       Page 191, after line 17, insert the following new section, 
     and make the necessary change to the table of contents:

     SEC. 2423. NATURAL GAS AND OIL DEPOSITS REPORT.

       Two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     at two-year intervals thereafter, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in consultation with other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, shall transmit a report to the Congress assessing 
     the contents of natural gas and oil deposits at existing 
     drilling sites off the coast of Louisiana and Texas.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Pursuant to the Chair's previously announced policy, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) will have the right to close debate on 
this amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for 
5 minutes in support of her amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and 
I rise in support of the Jackson- Lee-Lampson amendment; and I am 
delighted to be joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson), to help explain the following amendment.
  This amendment would direct the Secretary of Energy to study and 
evaluate the availability of natural gas and oil deposits located off 
the coast of Louisiana and Texas at existing drilling sites. The 
assessment would allow an inventory of existing oil and gas supplies 
and an evaluation of techniques or processes that may exist in keeping 
those wells protected.
  Let me first of all say that my colleagues are well aware that we 
have had oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off the shores of 
Texas and Louisiana for a fairly long time. This amendment simply 
attempts to assist our government, our Nation, in reaching the point of 
being independent, energy independent, through the full utilization of 
energy sources within our Nation's geographic influence.
  Again, it focuses on the gulf, off the shores of Texas and Louisiana, 
because right now there are more than 3,800 working offshore platforms 
in the Gulf of Mexico which are subject to rigorous environmental 
standards. These platforms result in 55,000 jobs with over 35,000 of 
them located offshore.
  The platforms working in Federal waters also have an excellent 
environmental record. According to the United States Coast Guard for 
the 1980-1999 period, 7.4 billion barrels of oil were produced in 
Federal offshore waters, with less than 0.001 percent spilled. This is 
a 99.99 percent record for clean operations. This record encourages us 
to discover, through the assessment of the Department of the Interior, 
what is still available in the Gulf: the opportunities for creating 
more jobs, the opportunity for using the kind of technology that 
enhances the environment, and the opportunity for making this Nation 
energy independent.
  Most rigs, under current interior regulation, must have an emergency 
shutdown, and that is going on in the Gulf. Other safety features 
include training requirements for personnel, design standards, and 
redundant safety systems.
  I believe that this will aid us and help us in being energy 
independent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
simply to say that on behalf of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), 
chairman of the Committee on Resources, with whom I serve, we have no 
objections and, in fact, support this amendment. It complements 
features of the bill that was reported out of the Committee on 
Resources that does call for inventorying the Nation's energy supplies. 
This will be targeted to those platforms off of Louisiana and Texas 
that contribute so much to this country.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas again for highlighting 
that. My own State is like hers, a major contributor to what we produce 
in this country for Americans. We produce 27 percent of the oil and 
about 27 percent of the natural gas, much of it from offshore, much of 
it, by the way, inside reserves. We have a national wildlife reserve 
called Mandalay Reserve in my district where wells are producing today. 
A hundred wells have been drilled to produce energy for this country in 
an environmentally safe way.

[[Page H5151]]

  That reserve, I promise my colleague, is every bit as sacred to me as 
the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, but we know we can do this in a good sound 
way. Inventorying those resources makes sense, and we support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who represents a 
sizable part of the energy industry in his Congressional District and 
has been a strong supporter for the creation of jobs and as well a 
leader in his area on behalf of his community.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  I am from Texas, and Texas is the land of oil and the land of energy. 
That energy does not just come from below the ground we walk on, it 
also comes from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. The amendment that my 
fellow Texan and I have introduced would direct the Secretary of Energy 
to take a good look at further developing the natural gas and oil 
deposits at existing drilling sites off the coast of Louisiana and 
Texas.
  It is important that the United States have a balanced energy 
research, development, and demonstration program to enhance fossil 
energy. The reports that come out of this amendment could possibly 
change the energy policy and production of the United States. The 
infrastructure for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf is already in 
place. We might be sitting on production possibilities that could solve 
our immediate energy problems, but without this amendment and the 
reports that it would require we might not ever find out. Texas and the 
Gulf of Mexico have been an energy supplier to the United States for 
generations, and I believe the resources are there to continue in that 
production as we develop the natural gas and oil reserves in the ultra-
deepwater of the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico.
  With the further exploration of deposits in the Gulf, we will develop 
new technology that will affect the efficiency of production on 
offshore wells and the energy availability for the American public. 
Research and development on ultra-deepwater recovery will advance the 
safety and efficiency of production, lowering costs and protecting our 
environment at the same time. Exploration of new energy resources and 
protection of the environment can go hand in hand in the Gulf.
  With this amendment, we have the possibility to lower costs, do so 
safely, and provide thousands of well-paying jobs for our working men 
and women. New supplies are vital to long-term economic stability and 
to current and future employment. Exploration of the Western Gulf of 
Mexico will permit access to one of our largest sources of oil. This 
development would not only reduce our dependence on foreign energy 
sources but also create significant amounts of jobs for our workers.
  I thank the gentlewoman for working with me.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I believe I have the right to close.
  I would like to, as I close, yield to the gentleman for an inquiry, 
if I might. But, first, let me simply say this. We have not learned all 
that we can learn about energy extraction, refining, generation or 
transportation. We are still learning. And this report that will be 
issued by the Secretary of the Interior will provide the complementary 
statistics and knowledge that will balance the planning that our energy 
industry has to engage in. It will help them prepare environmentally in 
terms of knowing what oil and gas deposits are there as they match 
their research along with the research of the Federal Government.
  But this really goes to educating the American public about the 
resources that are present offshore and how they are extracted safely. 
And I believe that as knowledge is gained about the increasing ability 
or the increasing availability of oil and gas, then jobs will be 
created as well.
  I started this debate, Mr. Chairman, an amendment or so ago, saying 
that this should be a consensus plan, and I believe this amendment adds 
to this legislation by the very fact that it provides knowledge and it 
helps us to create an encompassing plan.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) in order to engage in a dialogue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I will ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment. But I first want to add my appreciation to the chairman, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehler); and the ranking member as well.
  I want to say to the gentleman that I had an amendment dealing with a 
commission that would create an opportunity for many people to be 
engaged. I know that we are not debating that amendment, but what I 
want to emphasize is the importance of everyone being a stakeholder in 
whatever energy policy we have. And I would appreciate the gentleman's 
comment on that, as well as a comment on making sure we have trained 
Americans, trained citizens, trained personnel to be able to take up 
the prospective jobs that may be created, whether it is working on the 
environmental end or whether it is working on the production end. And I 
would hope that we would look to inner-city and rural communities and 
underserved populations that traditionally may not have worked in these 
areas and to provide that training.
  The gentleman mentioned earlier that I said Hispanic serving and 
historically black universities. I hope that we can work together on 
this.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I give the gentlewoman my commitment to do that. As the 
gentlewoman knows, we lost nearly 100,000 oil field jobs in my State 
alone, and more than that in her State during the oil crash of the 
1980s. We desperately need well-trained workers and people willing to 
commit themselves to energy production. I will join the gentlewoman in 
that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment 
to H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. This 
amendment would direct the Secretary of Energy to study and evaluate 
the availability of natural gas and oil deposits located off the coasts 
of Louisiana and Texas at existing drilling sites. This assessment 
every 2 years would allow an inventory of existing oil and gas supplies 
and evaluation of techniques or processes that may assist in keeping 
those wells productive.
  I represent residents and businesses that call the 18th Congressional 
District of Texas their home. Energy and energy related companies and 
dozens of other exploration companies are the backbone of the Houston 
economy. For this reason, the 18th Congressional District can claim 
well-established energy producing companies and suppliers as well as, 
those engaged in renewable energy exploration and development.
  I believe that the effects of rising energy prices have had and will 
continue to have a chilling effect on our Nation's economy. Everything 
we as consumers eat, touch or use in our day to day lives have energy 
costs added into the price we pay for the good or service. Today, our 
society is in the midst of major sociological and technical 
revolutions, which will forever change the way we live and work. We are 
transitioning from a predominantly industrial economy to an 
information-centered economy. While or society has an increasingly 
older and longer living population the world has become increasingly 
smaller, integrated and interdependent.
  As with all change, current national and international 
transformations present both dangers and opportunities, which must be 
recognized and seized upon. Thus, the question arises, how do we manage 
these changes to protect the disadvantaged, disenfranchised and 
disavowed while improving their situation and destroying barriers to 
job creation, small business, and new markets?
  One way to address this issue is to ensure that this Nation becomes 
energy independent through the full utilization of energy sources 
within our Nation's geographic influence.
  Today there are more than 3800 working offshore platforms in the Gulf 
of Mexico, which are subject to rigorous environmental standards. These 
platforms result in 55,000 jobs, with over 35,000 of them located 
offshore. The platforms working in federal waters also have

[[Page H5152]]

an excellent environmental record. According to the United States Coast 
Guard, for the 1980-1999 period 7.4 BILLION barrels of oil was produced 
in federal offshore waters with less than 0.001 percent spilled. That 
is a 99.999 percent record for clean operations.
  According to the Minerals Management Service about 100 times more oil 
seeps naturally from the seabed into U.S. marine waters than from 
offshore oil and gas activities.
  The Nation's record for safe and clean offshore natural gas and oil 
operations is excellent. And to maintain and improve upon this 
excellent record, Minerals Management Service continually seeks 
operational improvements that will reduce the risks to offshore 
personnel and to the environment. The Office of Minerals Management 
constantly reevaluates its procedures and regulations to stay abreast 
of technological advances that will ensure safe and clean operations, 
as well as to increase awareness of their importance.
  It is reported that the amount of oil naturally released from cracks 
on the floor of the ocean have caused more oil to be in sea water than 
work done by oil rigs.
  Most rigs under current Interior regulation must have an emergency 
shutdown process in the event of a major accident which immediately 
seals the pipeline. Other safety features include training requirements 
for personnel, design standards and redundant safety systems. Last year 
the Office of Minerals Management conducted 16,000 inspections of 
offshore rigs in federal waters.
  In addition to these precautions each platform always has a team of 
safety and environmental specialists on board to monitor all drilling 
activity.
  These oil and gas rigs have become artificial reefs for crustaceans, 
sea anomie, and small aquatic fish. These conditions have created 
habitat for larger fish, marking rigs a favored location to fish by 
local people.
  Fossil fuels and the quality of life most citizens enjoy in the 
United States are inseparable. The multiple uses of petroleum have made 
it a key component of plastics, paint, heating oil, and of course 
gasoline. All fossil fuels are used to produce electricity; however, 
our national addiction to petroleum was painfully exposed in 1973 when 
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) implemented an 
oil embargo against the United States. This event resulted in the rapid 
conversion of oil-fired electricity production electric plants into 
coal- and natural gas-fired plants.
  Energy and the interconnected nature of our national and global 
economy is highlighted by rising oil, and gasoline prices experienced 
by producers and consumers over the last ten months.
  The United States Postal Service has reported that for every 1 cent 
increase in the price of gasoline, they have an additional $5.5 million 
in transportation costs. Based on their national fleet of 2002 vehicles 
resulting they had a cost of $275 million added to the expense of their 
vehicle fleet for Fiscal Year 2000.
  I held a fact-finding hearing in Houston, Texas on October 2, of last 
year to address the energy crisis and its impact on consumers and 
businesses in my District. I wanted to listen to what producers, 
suppliers, and consumers were experiencing due to the current energy 
crisis in our nation. I wanted to take from that discussion valuable 
insight that might be helpful to me in encouraging the House leadership 
to take up legislation that I hope will address many of their concerns.
  As legislators, we must boldly define, address and find solutions to 
future energy problems. We know that the geological supply of fossil 
fuel in not infinite, but finite. We know that our Nation's best 
reserves of fuel sources are in the forms of coal and natural gas, 
among others.
  I would only caution my colleagues, administration officials, 
academics, industry leaders, environmental groups and consumers not to 
assume that we have learned all that is knowable about energy 
extraction, refining, generation, or transportation but that we are 
still learning. We must bring to this debate a vigor and vitality that 
will enliven our efforts to not have a future of energy have and have 
nots, due to out of control energy demand with few creative minds 
working on the solution to this pressing problem.
  During the 1970s some argued against the use of natural gas in 
electric utility generation, while others argued that it was necessary 
in order to free this nation from dependence on foreign sources of 
fossil fuel. In response the Congress passed the Powerplant and 
Industrial Fuel Act, which prohibited the use of natural gas in new 
powerplants, and the Natural Gas Policy Act, which removed vintages of 
natural gas from regulation.
  As a result, natural gas production rose dramatically and Congress 
repealed the ``off-gas'' provisions of the Fuel Act, which resulted in 
increased use of that fossil fuel.
  I ask that my colleagues join me and Congressman Lampson in support 
of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 11 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Sununu

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Sununu:
       Page 500, beginning at line 16, amend section 6512 to read 
     as follows:

     SEC. 6512. REVENUE ALLOCATION.

       (a) Federal and State Distribution.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 6504 of this Act, 
     the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et. seq.), or any 
     other law, of the amount of adjusted bonus, rental, and 
     royalty revenues from oil and gas leasing and operations 
     authorized under this title--
       (A) 50 percent shall be paid to the State of Alaska; and
       (B) the balance shall be deposited into the Renewable 
     Energy Technology Investment Fund and the Royalties 
     Conservation Fund as provided in this section.
       (2) Adjustments.--Adjustments to bonus, rental, and royalty 
     amounts from oil and gas leasing and operations authorized 
     under this title shall be made as necessary for overpayments 
     and refunds from lease revenues received in current or 
     subsequent periods before distribution of such revenues 
     pursuant to this section.
       (3) Timing of payments to state.--Payments to the State of 
     Alaska under this section shall be made semiannually.
       (b) Renewable Energy Technology Investment Fund.--
       (1) Establishment and availability.--There is hereby 
     established in the Treasury of the United States a separate 
     account which shall be known as the ``Renewable Energy 
     Technology Investment Fund''.
       (2) Deposits.--Fifty percent of adjusted revenues from 
     bonus payments for leases issued under this title shall be 
     deposited into the Renewable Energy Technology Investment 
     Fund.
       (3) Use, generally.--Subject to paragraph (4), funds 
     deposited into the Renewable Energy Technology Investment 
     Fund shall be used by the Secretary of Energy to finance 
     research grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements and 
     expenses of direct research by Federal agencies, including 
     the costs of administering and reporting on such a program of 
     research, to improve and demonstrate technology and develop 
     basic science information for development and use of 
     renewable and alternative fuels including wind energy, solar 
     energy, geothermal energy, and energy from biomass. Such 
     research may include studies on deployment of such technology 
     including research on how to lower the costs of introduction 
     of such technology and of barriers to entry into the market 
     of such technology.
       (4) Use for adjustments and refunds.--If for any 
     circumstances, adjustments or refunds of bonus amounts 
     deposited pursuant to this title become warranted, 50 percent 
     of the amount necessary for the sum of such adjustments and 
     refunds may be paid by the Secretary from the Renewable 
     Energy Technology Investment Fund.
       (5) Consultation and coordination.--Any specific use of the 
     Renewable Energy Technology Investment Fund shall be 
     determined only after the Secretary of Energy consults and 
     coordinates with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies.
       (6) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Committee on 
     Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     use of funds under this subsection and the impact of and 
     efforts to integrate such uses with other energy research 
     efforts.
       (c) Royalties Conservation Fund.--
       (1) Establishment and availability.--There is hereby 
     established in the Treasury of the United States a separate 
     account which shall be known as the ``Royalties Conservation 
     Fund''.
       (2) Deposits.--Fifty percent of revenues from rents and 
     royalty payments for leases issued under this title shall be 
     deposited into the Royalties Conservation Fund.
       (3) Use, generally.--Subject to paragraph (4), funds 
     deposited into the Royalties Conservation Fund--
       (A) may be used by the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to finance grants, contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and expenses for direct activities of 
     the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to 
     restore and otherwise conserve lands and habitat and to 
     eliminate maintenance and improvements backlogs on Federal 
     lands, including the costs of administering and reporting on 
     such a program; and
       (B) may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to finance 
     grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and expenses--
       (i) to preserve historic Federal properties;
       (ii) to assist States and Indian Tribes in preserving their 
     historic properties;

[[Page H5153]]

       (iii) to foster the development of urban parks; and
       (iv) to conduct research to improve the effectiveness and 
     lower the costs of habitat restoration.
       (4) Use for adjustments and refunds.--If for any 
     circumstances, refunds or adjustments of royalty and rental 
     amounts deposited pursuant to this title become warranted, 50 
     percent of the amount necessary for the sum of such 
     adjustments and refunds may be paid from the Royalties 
     Conservation Fund.
       (d) Availability.--Moneys covered into the accounts 
     established by this section--
       (1) shall be available for expenditure only to the extent 
     appropriated therefor;
       (2) may be appropriated without fiscal-year limitation; and
       (3) may be obligated or expended only as provided in this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, since there is no one in opposition, although I am very 
much in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise to offer an amendment as we put the final touches on this 
energy policy bill. It is an amendment that tries to strike a balance, 
a balance between the need for safe, reliable energy sources for the 
American economy and the need and desire to conserve our precious 
resources, our environment, and our natural heritage.
  What my amendment does is take the royalties and the bonus payments 
that have been talked about here in the debate today, an unprecedented 
royalty sharing arrangement where the Federal Government will get half 
of the royalties from any oil production in the northern plains of 
Alaska, and take those royalties to set up two important funds.
  The first fund would be geared toward conservation, a fund that could 
invest in our backlog maintenance of national parks, national forests, 
a fund that could invest in historic preservation, and a fund that 
could invest in the conservation of urban parks as well.
  The remainder, the balance of the royalties, go into a second fund, a 
fund that invests in our energy future, alternative and renewable 
technologies, wind, solar, biomass, again a range of technologies that 
in the debate today have been held out as being the likely promise for 
energy independence in America's future.
  I think this does strike a good balance between some of the extremes 
in this debate. It ensures that whatever financial benefits come from 
exploration and production on the Alaskan plains go back to the 
American people in an important way that conserves our parks, invests 
in maintenance of our national forests, and of course invests in future 
energy technology and independence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend him for his leadership.
  When I looked at this proposal for exploration of oil in Alaska, I 
did not think it was good enough, because I have long advocated for a 
balanced energy plan. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and the 
leadership of the chairman and this committee, because I felt as though 
we could find a better way.

                              {time}  2015

  I think this amendment, combined with the next amendment, gives us 
the balance that all of us are looking for. I have long believed that 
we do not have to choose between having energy and preserving the 
environment that we love. These two amendments allow us to do both and 
to begin with conservation.
  What this amendment does say is, we are going to explore for oil in 
ANWR and Alaska. Let us take the revenues, the royalties; half go to 
Alaska for Alaskans, but the other half, let us set up some trust funds 
to do two things. First, invest in renewable energy so we can reduce 
our reliance on foreign sources of supply and ultimately make ourselves 
more independent. The second is to conserve the land that we love, both 
in Alaska and in the rest of the United States.
  We set up a trust fund that takes the proceeds from these precious 
natural resources that we get because we are the most technologically 
advanced country in the world when it comes to oil exploration and uses 
that wealth and that promise to preserve the greatness of this country 
and its other natural resources.
  It is an innovative approach and when combined with the other 
amendment that the gentleman from New Hampshire and I will offer next, 
shows how we can do both, and we can use that money to preserve our 
parks, to take care of the backlog of maintenance in our national 
forests, and to make sure that we have land and water conservation for 
this generation and for the next generation.
  I commend the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Research, Committee on Science, I am excited about this amendment. 
This fund could provide additional billions of dollars on top of the 
already existing funding for renewable energy research and development.
  The renewable energy technology investment fund will fund additional 
renewable energy research and development into renewable and 
alternative fuels, including wind, solar, geothermal, energy from 
biomass. Using the revenues from ANWR, leasing for these purposes would 
pay permanent dividends to the American people by lowering the cost of 
developing renewable energy resources.
  It is going to restore and protect wildlife habitat on public lands. 
It is an amazing return on investment, and by allowing for the wise and 
prudent development of just 2,000 acres in a remote area of Alaska 
previously set aside for this specific purpose, we can produce benefits 
for generations to come. It is the wise use of our public lands that 
our children and grandchildren will thank us for.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Sununu amendment.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good 
amendment. This makes a good portion of this bill even better. I think 
the ANWR portion of this bill is one of the most important parts. This 
will help us with an area that has been neglected.
  Our public lands have been underfunded. We have not taken care of 
them well. The Forest Service alone has a $9 billion backlog which 
includes maintenance of the heritage sites, recreational facilities, 
trails, watershed improvements, installations for run-off and control 
of erosion and trapped sediments, structures needed to improve habitat 
for wildlife, fish and threatened and endangered species. $271 million 
is needed to maintain the Forest Service trail system that people hike 
on and recreate on.
  Mr. Chairman, we were doing a little back-room math here. This could 
be $250 million a year for renewables and maintenance if we sell a 
million barrels a day. If it is 2 million barrels, we can have $500 
million in each of those funds, putting them at the front of the line 
for the first time for the funding they need.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say in all of the years I have served in 
public office as a defender of property rights, as someone who has 
tried to reform the Endangered Species Act, I have received one 
beautiful environmental award from the Wildlife Federation of America; 
it came for work just like this, dedicating money from the royalty 
funds that are produced from State wetlands and water-bottoms in 
Louisiana, to make sure that those monies were return back to those 
wildlife areas to protect and preserve them.
  In Louisiana and Texas we do exactly this. We take monies from the 
mineral

[[Page H5154]]

development, and put it back into protecting and preserving the wild 
and wet areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, who is responsible 
for most of the product we see now before us in this bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that I have had an 
opportunity to look at the Sununu amendment, and I hope folks in their 
offices are listening to this because this is an interesting amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if Members are at all on the fence 
wondering if they should vote for ANWR or not, this puts Members on the 
side to vote for ANWR. This amendment secures the amount of acreage we 
are talking about. It puts it at the 2,000-acre level. And if Members 
went there, they would see this is a fraction of what we are looking 
at.
  All of the people saying, oh, my goodness, we are going to have the 
tentacles of this thing spread over the ANWR area. Well, the tentacles, 
if there ever was such a thing, have just been snapped off, and it is 
not going to happen.
  If we talk about an amendment that perfects what we have been doing, 
the gentleman has come up with one. It makes eminently good sense that 
we follow this. This should be the one that should make this an easy 
vote for a lot of folks. We can go ahead and look in this area and take 
care of this problem.
  I would like to say one thing, Mr. Chairman. I am so tired of having 
people write me and say this thing is only good for 6 months, what are 
we waiting for. If it was our only source, that would be true. Where do 
we get the oil that takes care of America? We get some from 
Pennsylvania, we get some from Texas, we get some from Utah, we get 
some from Venezuela, we get some from Alaska, Saudi Arabia, and from 
all over the world. I wish that tired old argument would go away.
  Mr. Chairman, this would be the exact amount almost that supplements 
what we get from Iraq at the present time. Anybody who thinks that is 
our best friend, I would worry about it.
  I compliment the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) for his 
excellent amendment, and I support the amendment completely.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 
for her work on this amendment. I think it strikes a balance. We 
recognize the value of allocating royalty payments from outer 
continental shelf drilling, and in creating the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund from those revenues. We have done great things in 
this country to preserve precious land, to invest in maintenance of 
national parks and forests, to create the urban park program; and I 
think this amendment builds on that legacy, taking revenues and funds 
on production of the Alaskan plain and setting aside half of it for 
conservation and investment in parks and forests, and urban parks as 
well; and the other half, putting it into alternative renewable energy 
technology, really the energy technologies that are our future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow colleagues to support the amendment 
and to support a good balance in our energy policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 12 printed in part B of 
House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Sununu

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Sununu:
       In section 6507(a), strike ``and'' after the semicolon at 
     the end of paragraph (1), strike the period at the end of 
     paragraph (2) and insert ``; and'', and add at the end the 
     following:
       (3) ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage 
     covered by production and support facilities, including 
     airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for 
     support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the 
     Coastal Plain.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sununu 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will 
control 10 minutes in opposition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that attempts again to 
clarify the terms and the scope of the debate.
  There has been a great deal of discussion today about exploration and 
energy production on the Alaskan plain. ANWR, the wildlife refuge, is 
an area of approximately 19 million acres. It is three times the size 
of the State of New Hampshire, which I am proud to represent. The 102 
area, the coastal plain, which is not technically part of the wildlife 
refuge, is about 1.5 million acres.
  But the fact is, given today's technology, there have been statements 
made, commitments made, that the amount of land mass that would be 
disturbed through any production activities would be less than 2,000 
acres. I think it is important that we make that clear as part of the 
legislation that is being debated on the floor today.
  As such, my amendment would simply state that for all production 
activities, airports, production platforms, and even staging 
facilities, the maximum amount of land that could be disturbed is 2,000 
acres, approximately 3 square miles, a very small fraction of the 19 
million acres in the entire ANWR area.
  I think that is an indication of a balance, of common sense.
  We do want to protect a sensitive area. We do want to set aside land 
for future generations; but here we have 19 million acres, and I think 
where the energy security and the energy future of the United States is 
concerned, it is realistic to think if we could put together a program 
that utilizes only 2,000 acres, we have done the right thing for future 
generations.
  That is what my amendment does. I am pleased to introduce it with the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) as a cosponsor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sununu amendment. The 
proponents of the drilling in this Arctic Refuge have taken one of 
their most misleading statements, and they have turned it into an 
amendment. We are now debating that amendment. This 2,000 acre 
amendment would simply make official what the industry has already said 
unofficially, that it intends to industrialize the very heart of the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  The Department of Interior has already analyzed those plans. Let me 
show Members what 2,000 acres subdivided into all of its parts would 
mean for the refuge.
  The industry says it will just be a little red dot. They have been 
passing this little red dot around for the last 5 months. It really 
will not do a great deal of damage. But the industry has big plans for 
that 2,000 acres of surface area because here is what can be done with 
2,000 acres of surface area, if instead of a little dot, which is not 
how one drills because these are a lot of other things that need to be 
done to be successful in bringing oil and gas out of any part of this 
refuge.
  Two hundred miles of pipeline can be built into the refuge. Two 
hundred miles of roads can be built into the refuge. Twenty oil fields 
can be fit into the refuge. That does not even count

[[Page H5155]]

the ice roads, the water, the trucks, the pollution and on and on. The 
gravel pits.
  According to the Department of Interior, 2,000 acres of surface area 
would permit a spider web of facilities so extensive that its impact on 
the refuge, the wildlife, the ecosystem would spread over 130,000 acres 
to 303,000 acres, one-fifth of the entire 102 area.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what Members are voting for when they vote for 
this amendment. It is not a little red dot. It is a huge pink snake.
  Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if he means to suggest in any way, 
shape or form that the pink-shaded area in his diagram is 
representative of an area equal to 2,000 acres given the scale of the 
map?

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. MARKEY. I will be glad to respond. Yes, I am using the Department 
of Interior analysis.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Reclaiming my time, I am not arguing that that is a 
Department of Interior map. I am asking you if the pink shaded area is 
2,000 acres. I think, given the scale of that map, the answer is 
clearly no. The pink shaded area probably represents at least half a 
million acres, if not more, given the scale of that map. I suggest it 
is misleading.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire for yielding 
this time, and I thank him for bringing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Massachusetts needs some help. My 
preschoolers are over in my office, we have our crayons, and I think we 
could help him with his math, because it is misleading.
  That is not 2,000 acres covered by that line, and he admitted it in 
his own presentation. That is 130,000 acres. That is exactly what this 
amendment prevents. It is now technologically possible, if we push the 
envelope, to minimize the impact on the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge; and we are going to do it in this legislation, with this 
amendment, to 2,000 acres which is less than one one-hundredth of 1 
percent of the land area that we are talking about. Two thousand acres 
is 3 square miles. It is about one-fifth the size of Dulles 
International Airport in an area the size of the State of South 
Carolina.
  It is time for a balanced approach to our national energy policy that 
allows production while protecting Alaska and the Alaskan environment.
  I commend the gentleman for his amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. ``What big eyes you have, Grandmother,'' 
said Little Red Riding Hood.
  That map represented what 2,000 acres of drilling platforms would 
look like in this ANWR plain plus the areas affected by the drilling 
and the roads needed to connect the drilling platforms. Because 
everyone knows that ANWR, this pristine part, this small coastal plain, 
has no deep wells. It may have several shallow wells. So you are going 
to need a number of platforms. Each one of those platforms is only a 
hundred acres. It only takes a hundred acres for a platform and an 
airstrip. So this amendment allows 15 to 20 platforms. Nobody has ever 
suggested that more than 16 were needed. But by the time you string 
those platforms together with all the roads, which this amendment does 
not count, and the land that will be affected by the people on those 
platforms, the waste disposal, the animal response to the inhabitants, 
that is the kind of footprint 2,000 acres in practice will have on this 
coastal plain.
  This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is 2,000 acres of 100-acre 
per drilling pads. That adds up to have, with its roads, a huge impact 
on this area. That, of course, does not include the destruction wrought 
by mapping and waste disposal. Vote no on the Sununu amendment.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sununu amendment 
to the SAFE Act. America has the resources, technology and expertise to 
develop a commonsense energy policy, one that, without going to 
extremes, preserves all of the environmental quality gains of the past 
2 decades, meets our energy needs and allows for new science and new 
technologies to take us into the future.
  One important component of America's journey towards energy self-
reliance is an environmentally responsible development of the coastal 
plain of ANWR. It is for this reason I rise in support of the Sununu 
amendment. This amendment solidifies the promise that no more than 
2,000 acres in ANWR will be affected by exploration.
  To put 2,000 acres into perspective, ANWR is approximately the size 
of South Carolina. The footprint that would be left by exploration on 
the coastal plain would be less than one-fifth the size of Dulles 
Airport, a footprint one-fifth the size of Dulles Airport in an area 
the size of South Carolina. Being from the Big Sky country of Montana, 
I am absolutely committed to a safe, clean, healthy environment. I will 
not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to championing commonsense 
environmental protections.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Sununu amendment and support this 
environmentally responsible development in ANWR.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
or should I say this ruse masquerading as an amendment. I have to hand 
it to the proponents of drilling in ANWR. This is a very clever, well-
crafted attempt to give people cover to say they oppose Arctic drilling 
when they do not.
  So let me be clear. If you oppose Arctic drilling, the vote that 
counts is voting ``yes'' on Markey-Johnson. That is the vote that 
matters substantively, and that is the vote that counts politically.
  This amendment is a red herring. This amendment purports to protect 
the environment by limiting the impact of drilling to 2,000 acres 
throughout the Arctic refuge. Guess what? The drilling was already 
going to occur on a limited number of acres. This amendment does not 
change a thing.
  The fact is, 2,000 acres is a lot of territory in an area that is now 
undisturbed. What is worse, the impact of drilling will be felt far 
beyond those 2,000 acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 
20 percent of the area will be impacted. We are talking about impacts 
on migratory wildlife, among other vulnerabilities. They do not tend to 
notice artificial, man-made boundaries.
  So vote against this amendment, which protects nothing. It will not 
protect ANWR, and it will not protect politicians looking for a way to 
avoid a tough vote.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
Sununu-Wilson. Even if you are against drilling in ANWR, you ought to 
support this amendment. It is a self-limitation amendment. It is like I 
came on the floor and said, The national speed limit is 70 miles an 
hour. I think we ought to go 60. And somebody says, No, you can't do 
that. You've got to go 70. Or you've got to go 80.
  This is a very sensible amendment. Two thousand acres is about 3 
square miles, which would be about 9 miles. The District of Columbia is 
10 by 10 or 100 square miles. This is 9 percent of the District of 
Columbia. With the technology available, we have already shown in 
Prudhoe Bay we can drill environmentally responsibly. This self-
limitation amendment should be supported, I think, by unanimous 
consent.
  I commend the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for offering it, and I hope 
that we pass this one on a voice vote.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
is

[[Page H5156]]

not going to fix the problem. Oil development will still cause major 
impacts to the Arctic wildlife, water quality, and wilderness values.
  Today, because President Bush and some in the majority feel the 
political atmosphere is again ripe, they are willing to disregard 
public opinion and force open a vestige of pristine wilderness to an 
industry that will desecrate the land. The administration touts an 
environmentally friendly way to drill. I do not believe it is possible. 
In fact, drilling is inherently detrimental to every bit of nature that 
surrounds it. Every year, 400 spills occur from oil-related activity in 
Alaska. From 1996 to 1999, over 1.3 million gallons were released from 
faulty spill prevention systems, sloppy practices, and inadequate 
oversight and enforcement. Alaska has only five safety inspectors.
  I urge my colleagues, do what the American people have delegated us 
to do: oppose drilling in the refuge. It is that simple.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, a couple of points. One is, this is a very 
difficult vote for me and many others who are concerned about our fish 
and wildlife areas. But there was an agreement made in Alaska that set 
part of this area aside for potential oil and gas drilling, a very 
small portion. This amendment is an excellent amendment because it 
limits it even further.
  How do we balance environment and energy needs in our country? This 
is another attempt to try to do that. In fact, if you try to undo deals 
that have already been made, are we going to go to Massachusetts with 
the Boston Islands national park area and say all of a sudden Logan 
Airport has to be kicked out after when they created a park area, they 
agreed with certain things in the restrictions with that park area.
  I also want to strongly support the gentleman from New Hampshire's 
earlier amendment that takes the funds into the national parks and 
other public areas. Some have criticized that amendment as well as 
nothing but a ruse, as a gimmick. But the fact is in the CARA bill, 
which I support, we said when we do offshore drilling we are going to 
take those funds and put them into environmentally-sensitive areas in 
the States where the drilling occurs.
  The gentleman from New Hampshire's two amendments, in fact, are 
perfecting amendments that make this bill better. I cannot imagine why 
anybody who is pro-environmental would vote against either one.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that this amendment does not 
solve the problem that you are attempting to violate one of the most 
pristine areas in America, the largest intact ecosystem in America. 
Sure, you may limit this. It is like if a phone company came to you and 
said, We are going to stick a cell phone in your backyard, you have got 
a 4,000 square foot backyard, we are going to stick a cell phone in the 
middle of it, a cell phone tower, and it is only going to be four 
square feet. What you would say is, no, you are changing the basic 
character of my backyard.
  Building another Prudhoe Bay, and I was there 3 weeks ago, is going 
to dramatically change this wilderness. Why is that important? In part 
because the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that drilling in the 
ANWR could reduce the caribou herd, the largest caribou herd in North 
America by 40 percent. It does it because you want to place an oil 
facility right smack dab in the heart of the caribou calving ground.
  You can limit it all you want, but the bottom line is this: you are 
defacing an American wilderness established during the Eisenhower 
administration. We should not let George Bush put asunder what the 
Dwight David Eisenhower administration created. We should not put a 
mustache on this Mona Lisa.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to underscore the 
remarks of the previous speaker, because I think to a certain degree 
they make the point, the point that I made earlier that we need to move 
away from the extremes of this debate.
  The opponents of this amendment do not support a limitation of only 
2,000 acres disturbed. They would not support a limitation of only 200 
acres disturbed. They would not support a limitation of only 2 acres 
disturbed. And as the previous speaker pointed out, they will not even 
accept a limitation of disturbing 4 square feet. That is the difference 
in this debate, arguing from the extremes or arguing from this 
standpoint of preserving America's energy independence while being 
reasonable about conserving natural resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a pretty good debate here today, I have 
heard most of it, until a few moments ago. The pink snake that we were 
shown is a fraud. It is an absolute fraud. That map, if kept in 
context, would have been millions of acres of ANWR covered. A pipeline 
going from the wells that would be drilled to the existing Alaskan 
pipeline would not be visible on that map from this distance. A 
pipeline in Prudhoe Bay is not something that ruined the Prudhoe Bay 
area. I am here to say, folks, let us have a debate that is fair and 
that makes sense. The pink snake has nothing to do with what is going 
to happen in ANWR.
  ANWR is our best oil reserve that America has anything to do with. 
Every well we drill in ANWR can prevent 70 wells needed in the lower 
48. It can be done environmentally sound, and it should be.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, this is an argument about if it 
is not good, just do a little bit. But if it is not good, that is like 
saying if we were going to drill on Capitol Hill, it is all right, 
because it is just a little bit. Where would you begin? Is a little bit 
of drilling under the Capitol okay? How about a little bit of drilling 
under the Library of Congress, or a little bit of drilling under the 
Supreme Court? Which drilling is okay? Obviously neither. Neither on 
the Hill, our Hill, nor in the Arctic Refuge.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from New 
Hampshire is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, again, the previous speaker I think made 
clear the difference in the debate, arguing from the extreme that no 
exploration, no utilization of this Nation's resources, no drilling 
anywhere could be considered environmentally sound, environmentally 
safe; no limitation of footprint would be enough.
  I think it this is a reasonable amendment, and I will read from it 
directly. It ensures that the maximum of acreage covered by production 
and support facilities, including air strips and areas covered by 
gravel, berms, or piers, does not exceed 2,000 acres.
  I believe that the gentleman from Massachusetts will stand and 
display his map again. That map depicts the 1.5 million acres of the 
coastal plain area. 2,000 acres represents one-tenth of one percent of 
that area.
  Now, it is not necessarily contiguous area, but the map that he 
showed earlier, the map that he will show again, represents a swath 
that is easily 100,000 acres, perhaps 200,000 acres. It is not one-
tenth of one percent of the area on his map. I think that does a 
disservice to the quality of the debate in the House here. I think it 
does a disservice to the importance of striking a balance in any energy 
policy we pursue.
  This is a complex issue. If it had an easy, simple solution, the 
previous administration would have put in place a sound energy policy. 
They did not.
  The chairman has worked hard to bring together four disparate bills 
striking a balance between conservation, renewable energy, as well as 
investment in new sources and supply and efficiency.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and support this 
important limiting amendment.

[[Page H5157]]

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, again, 2,000 acres rolled out, and that is 
what the oil and gas companies are going to do. Rolled out in the form 
of roads, of oil wells, of feeder roads, of gravel pits, turns into 
something that looks like this, according to the Department of 
Interior. This is the actual pipelines and roads that will be built, 
and then the pink area is obviously the affected area, because you have 
deployed it.
  Now, I know the Republicans think arsenic is not that bad for people, 
I understand that, because this is arsenic for the Arctic Wilderness, 
and you are serving it up, even though you rejected any real 
improvement in fuel economy for SUVs, for air conditioners, or for 
anything else that would make it unnecessary for us to go here.
  Prudo Bay, they heard the same promises in 1972, and it turned into 
an environmental nightmare. The same thing will happen here.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. Today, the Nation imports an estimated 56 percent of our 
petroleum energy, and we are more dependent on foreign sources of oil 
than ever before. Relying on foreign sources of oil is a national 
security issue of the greatest importance.
  This bill allows oil development within the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge (ANWR). Opponents of this provision are concerned about the 
impact it will have on a pristine area. Nevertheless, the imperatives 
of the Nation's energy situation dictates that we must seek new sources 
of domestic energy production, including oil.
  This amendment would set aside no more than 2,000 acres of ANWR to 
oil development. This is about the area that would be needed to tap oil 
resources located there, potentially tens of billions of barrels. This 
area represents about one hundredth of one percent of the land area in 
ANWR--about the area of medium-sized farm.
  This seems to me to be a reasonable and responsible compromise. It 
would shut off the vast majority of ANWR from development while at the 
same time allowing oil development to move ahead on a very small 
portion of land.
  Developing 2,000 acres, an area less then two miles square of ANWR 
vast area would improve America's energy security while leaving the 
remainder of the refuge untouched.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 6 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); amendment No. 7 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); amendment No. 11 
offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu); and amendment 
No. 12 offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cox

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 125, 
noes 300, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                               YEAS--125

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boucher
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Collins
     Condit
     Cox
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fossella
     Frank
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Grucci
     Harman
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Johnson (CT)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                               NAYS--300

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5158]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Conyers
     Diaz-Balart
     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     McCrery
     Solis
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2111

  Mr. SKEEN, Mr. LANGEVIN, Ms. KILPATRICK, and Ms. McKINNEY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOLT, AKIN, and TOWNS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Pursuant to clause 6 of 
rule XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed 
further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 274, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--154

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--274

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conyers
     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2120

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Sununu

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on Amendment No. 11 offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 186, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica

[[Page H5159]]


     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     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--186

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Graves
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     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--6

     Conyers
     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2129

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Sununu

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 201, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Crowley
     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2138

  Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page H5160]]

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 316, I placed my card in 
the machine and voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 316. My vote was not 
properly recorded.
  I intended to vote ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 13 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Markey:
       In division F, strike title V (page 477, line 12 through 
     page 501, line 8).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each 
will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) will 
control 20 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have my time evenly divided 
between myself and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the most important environmental vote of this 
Congress, 2001 and 2002. This is the top environmental vote for every 
environmental group in the United States. The proponents say we are 
going to drill and leave a little red dot of 2000 acres on this 
pristine wilderness area in Alaska. Yes, it is a little dot, but that 
is not how they drill.
  This is what the Department of Interior says it will look like after 
all of the drilling is done, after all the roads are laid, after all 
the ice roads are dug, after all the oil wells are out there, after all 
the gravel pits are dug. This is what it will look like.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is the most important environmental vote 
of this entire Congress. Vote yes on Markey-Johnson.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues 
this area 1002 is not ANWR. This area was set aside in 1980 for oil 
exploration by Senator Jackson, Congressman Udall, Senator Stephens, 
and Senator Bennett. It was supposed to be drilled, explored for the 
American people.
  This is a charade from that side of the aisle. This amendment will 
deprive ourselves of, in fact, the oil that we must have for this 
Nation. It is a very small area.
  I support the Sununu amendment. Two thousand acres is what we are 
talking about. I will give an example. After the previous speaker 
talked about a huge disturbance, this picture shows the alpine field 
right next to the so-called 1002 area. This is what it looks like in 
the winter. This looks very intrusive.
  This picture shows what it looks like at the end of the exploration 
development, and this well right now is producing over 100,000 barrels 
of oil a year. This is less than the size of this small area from which 
we speak tonight, from the podiums which we have.
  The misinformation on this issue by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is so 
repugnant to me because it is really not the truth of the facts. This 
oil we have must have for this Nation. It is 1 million barrels of oil a 
day for the 100 years so that Saddam Hussein cannot control the market, 
cannot drive the gasoline prices up.
  I was remarkably interested in hearing the people argue against this 
whole bill. If we fail to adopt this bill in total tonight, I can 
guarantee the public and the people on this House floor that the price 
of fuel will go up in 2 months' time because they have control of us. 
How anybody can take and send money abroad to Saddam Hussein and not 
develop our own oil, I cannot understand that mentality.

                              {time}  2145

  The mentality to say we are sending our dollars overseas so they can 
buy weapons of mass destruction, weapons against citizens of other 
countries, when we have oil in Alaska. Seventy-five percent of the 
people in Alaska want to drill. We are asking to have a national energy 
policy, as well as the President is asking.
  Those people tonight who spoke on this issue against my position have 
never been to Alaska. I do not understand how Members can stand here 
and talk about the pristine area when they do not know what they are 
talking about. This is an area that is very hostile; but also this area 
has people who live there that support this.
  This is not a pristine area. We must have this area to produce oil 
for this Nation.
  Would Members have oil drilling off the coast of Florida or the Great 
Lakes or North Carolina? We want to do it. It is right for this Nation 
and for the people. It is right for my people in the State of Alaska. 
It is the best thing we have going, and how dare Members talk about 
something when they have never been there. Shame on them.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the most important environmental vote we will 
cast because this is about total protection of the ANWR. Mark my words, 
my friends. We cannot explore this area and drill in this area without 
permanent and severe damage to the environment.
  Just the mapping that geologists from every single company would have 
to do would be very destructive. Every 1,100 feet, they map. Each 
caravan takes eight vibrating and seven recording vehicles accompanied 
by personnel carriers, mechanic trucks, mobile shop trucks, fuel 
tankers, an incinerator, plus a crew of 80-120 people, and a camp train 
of 20-25 shipping containers. This is intrusive and the scars are 
permanent.
  Once the mapping is done, pads need to be built that will support 
rigs that weigh millions of pounds. How is that done? With water. In 
Prudhoe Bay, there is lots of water. In this area, there is very little 
unfrozen water during the winter. If that water is drawn out, it will 
have a devastating effect on the fish life in this area, and on all 
kinds of natural life the migratory bird populations depend on.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to go into all of the animal and 
plant impacts, but we cannot develop this area without impact on the 
fragile ecosystem, the only sub-Arctic ecosystem under preservation at 
this time.
  Is this necessary to oil dependence? Absolutely not. OPEC has 76 
percent of the world's oil reserves. We have 2 percent. We are going to 
drill on 95 percent of the North Slope in Alaska. We are drilling in 
other places in the United States and offshore. We will never be oil 
independent. We can do more about reducing our dependence on foreign 
oil by raising the miles-per-gallon standards, by laying that gas 
pipeline from Prudhoe Bay.
  Stop drilling in the ANWR, preserve this important area.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, 22 years ago, with my friend from 
Massachusetts and others here, I helped pass the Alaska lands bill and 
one of its crown jewels, ANWR. I would say to my friend from Alaska, I 
have been to this refuge. I have stood on the banks of the Aichilik 
River and watched the caribou thundering across the horizon. I have 
seen the grayling running in the streams and the rivers. I have 
listened to the wolves howl at night, and I have hiked this wondrous 
tundra knowing that even though I did not see a grizzly bear, they were 
watching me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no ordinary land. This is a cathedral of 
nature. It is an American inheritance, and it is our responsibility to 
protect it.
  The conservationist Aldo Leopold once wrote: ``Our remnants of 
wilderness will yield bigger values to the Nation's character and 
health than they will to its pocketbook . . . to destroy

[[Page H5161]]

them will be to admit that the latter are the only values that interest 
us.''
  It is this contest of values that lies at the heart of this debate 
today. Will our Nation honor its natural heritage, protecting its last 
remnants of wilderness; or will the big oil companies win? Vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have walked around the bayous of 
Louisiana and paddled those lakes and canals and wetlands, and I have 
seen the egret and the crawfish and the deer and the rabbits and the 
squirrels, and I promise the gentleman, I have seen a thousand more 
species in a square mile of those bayou lands in Louisiana than one 
will ever see in the ANWR.
  And guess what, the bayous and the wetlands I was transversing on are 
in the National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. And right next to them, 
right next to that amazing display of nature's bounty are 100 producing 
oil wells in the Louisiana Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question. I hope the gentleman answers 
it in his heart. Is my national wildlife refuge any less sacred or 
precious than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Is my national 
wildlife refuge more susceptible to drilling and risks than the Arctic? 
The answer is no. Mine ought to be as sacred.
  I can understand somewhat when some Members come to the well of this 
House and say, Do not drill in my backyard. Do not explore for energy 
in the offshore off my State. But I am amazed when Members show up on 
the floor and say, Do not do it in somebody's else State when they want 
to do it, areas that were set aside to be productive areas. Do not do 
it in areas that are rich in natural resources that this country is 
starving for, that we send our young men and women to fight over, to 
die for, so we can have energy to power our cars and light our homes.
  I am amazed at the rationale of people who come and say do not do 
what can be done to make us a little less dependent upon a place in 
this world that is unsafe, that sets us up for a situation where we are 
buying oil from Saddam Hussein to turn it into jet fuel to put it in 
our airplanes so we can bomb the radar sites.
  This amendment is awful. We ought to defeat it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have a 
sensitivity to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) who wants the oil 
drilled in ANWR because of the kind of resources that it will bring to 
bear on the Native Alaskans. Sometimes we forget how easy our life is 
here in the lower 48 with all of the conveniences and resources that we 
have to provide the quality of life that we have. There is a strong 
sensitivity to that particular issue.
  I will say to the gentleman from Louisiana, about the diversity 
between the difference of the Arctic refuge on the North Slope of 
Alaska and the bayous of Louisiana, in 1966 I spent a winter in a tent 
250 miles north of the Arctic Circle, and I can tell the gentleman, 
there might not be as much biological diversity there as opposed to 
Louisiana, but what is there is extremely sensitive. What is damaged, 
for all intents and purposes, is damaged forever.
  When we have access to this oil, if and when it is drilled, the 
alternative use of technology to provide our energy will also come on-
line; in less than 20 years, alternative sources of fuel that will 
break us away from the dependence on fossil fuel, and the way we are 
now can be achieved.
  The other reason I am opposed to drilling for oil in ANWR is 
relatively simple. We are using up our oil faster than we should, and 
ANWR ought to be preserved in case of a disaster or an energy crisis.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to call to the attention of the body 
a very intriguing position in the ANWR title. Tucked away on page 487 
is a section that mandates project labor agreements in ANWR oil and gas 
leases. What that means is that union labor would be employed to do the 
construction and other work in the Arctic Refuge.
  If we were to open the refuge, fine. I think that is a great idea. 
Since it is good for Alaska, I say to my colleagues, then let us also 
benefit the men and women working for oil and gas companies who stand 
to profit from royalty-free leases in the Gulf of Mexico as well.
  Now that the Bush administration is squarely behind the ANWR 
provision in this bill, perhaps the President realizes that he made a 
big mistake in February when he issued an executive order rescinding 
Clinton administration initiatives on PLAs.
  And maybe corporate America has reconsidered and concluded that 
project labor agreements are good ideas after all. Perhaps that is why 
the Reliance for Energy and Economic Growth has endorsed this bill, 
along with myriad other manufacturing groups.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad, and I know that the National United Mine 
Workers union will appreciate that the National Mining Association now 
supports project labor.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) has stated that this is the most important environmental 
vote we will cast this year. I can follow by saying that it is the most 
important energy vote we will cast this year. But to be more succinct, 
I would say it is the most important vote we are going to cast this 
year because August lurks out there. August. I tell the people from 
California, the West Coast, those from Florida, we have a problem that 
we have to solve, and I want to be part of that solution. I want to 
help California and the West Coast.
  Even though, through the 12-year battle for clean air, those people, 
those very same people who are objecting to this amendment wanted no 
transmission. They wanted no drilling. They did not want a boat in the 
harbor with energy on it, or a railroad going through with energy on 
it.
  And I compliment them. They represented their State well. They did 
exactly what their States wanted them to do, and they were successful.
  Despite their reluctance for energy self-help, we have to work with 
them and we are going to. We are going to solve it.
  It is a little like the Boy Scout who was trying to help the lady 
across the street when she did not want to go. We are going to help the 
West Coast go across the street, even though they are objecting to it 
tonight. Even though they now cry out for energy, I think it is odd 
that they want to tell us where the energy cannot come from. Yet it is 
in our national interest to close ranks and solve the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about energy. The barometer for the 
United States on the economy and how well we are doing is new home 
starts and new auto sales. But because nations will fight for energy, 
because we will send kids overseas to fight for energy, the barometer 
on energy is $3 a gallon for gasoline and, I am sorry to say, body 
bags. Those are things that we need to remember.

                              {time}  2200

  Some say that the North Slope is beautiful. I would tell you, Hades 
is probably beautiful if it is covered in snow. And I would drill at 
Hollywood and Vine if it took it to keep my kids out of body bags.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-
Johnson amendment. I do want to thank the leadership in the Committee 
on Rules for allowing us to have a fair and open debate on this very 
critical issue this evening.
  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established by President 
Eisenhower. And yes, it was called a refuge because it was a place to 
be protected, where there was security, where there was preservation. 
That is what we are discussing this evening. This pristine

[[Page H5162]]

wilderness has been recognized for its rich biological diversity. It 
has over 200 species of migratory birds, caribou, polar bears, musk-
oxen, et cetera. Without question, oil and gas development in the 
Arctic coastal plain would result in substantial environmental impacts.
  But today I am supporting this amendment for the simple reason that I 
think it is premature for us to open up ANWR for energy exploration. We 
have not even done enough to explore the alternatives. Conservation, 
improved efficiency, and renewable sources of energy must be integral 
aspects of our comprehensive national energy policy. Increased 
exploration and production of fossil fuels will simply not be 
sufficient. We need to make our economy less dependent on oil by 
becoming more energy efficient. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not 
address our energy needs. In fact, optimistic estimates for recoverable 
oil from ANWR would never meet more than 2 percent of our energy 
requirements.
  Shakespeare once said, ``To energy none more bound. To nature none 
more bound.'' Let us preserve it. Any damage will be irretrievable. 
Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me 
this time and for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, there are simply places on earth that are too fragile, 
too vulnerable and too special really to drill for oil. We have a real 
moral obligation to protect these places. The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is really one of those places. Pillaging the Arctic will not 
solve our energy problems. It will, however, endanger precious habitat 
and wilderness and will endanger the way of life for thousands of 
Alaskan natives.
  Yes, we want more jobs but we do not have to sacrifice this 
wilderness area to get them. Developing new technologies will drive our 
economy forward and create new job opportunities. Building a natural 
gas pipeline from existing North Slope oil and gas fields will create 
jobs and increase our electricity supply. We can have both a healthy 
environment and a healthy economy. We do not need to sacrifice one for 
the other.
  I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, while I rise in opposition to the Markey-
Johnson amendment, I appreciate the Committee on Rules making it in 
order that we can have a good debate on this very important issue.
  As a former member of the House Committee on Resources, I had an 
opportunity to visit ANWR. I also had an opportunity to visit the 
current production facilities down at Prudhoe Bay. I stand here today 
to tell Members that with today's technology we can develop ANWR 
without unleashing an environmental apocalypse on the coastal plains of 
Alaska as some here may make you believe. ANWR is not a silver bullet 
to stop our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas, but it is our 
best prospect.
  As hard as we try, this Nation cannot meet its oil needs by drilling 
off the coast of Louisiana and the other gulf States. If my colleagues 
from other States insist on stopping exploration and production in 
Federal and State lands in the lower 48, then we cannot shut out 
opportunities on Federal lands that are supported by the State of 
Alaska and a majority of its residents. I am constantly amazed at my 
colleagues who stand up and attack the oil and gas industry as some 
evil forces at work in America. Where does the gasoline come from that 
fuels your cars that you came to work in today? Where does the natural 
gas come from that heats our home on those cold days? It reminds me of 
a little adage that we have in Louisiana: gasoline is like boudin. You 
do not like to see any of it being made, but we all want it.
  Please do not vote for this amendment. This is bad public policy.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Johnson-Markey amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, in a bill that has the American taxpayers 
assuming the risk for drilling in marginal areas by subsidizing the oil 
companies, the centerpiece of this bill, opening up the Arctic Refuge 
for drilling, represents all that is wrong with this bill. We cannot 
turn this environmental jewel into an industrial complex. For what? 
Even if we had the oil from the Arctic Reserve, we would still be 
importing most of our oil from abroad unless we conserve and use our 
energy efficiently.
  This is not a bill that is worthy of the 21st century. I urge Members 
to support the Markey amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that when 
historians look back upon this era in time they will call it the age of 
petroleum. In 1859 when the first oil well was discovered in 
Pennsylvania, we were a Nation that rode mustangs, a short 100 years 
later we drove Mustangs, and 10 years after that we walked on the Moon, 
because of one thing, cheap, easily exploitable petroleum products.
  The sad fact is, Mr. Chairman, we are running out of this precious 
commodity. World oil production is to peak in 10 to 20 years. Domestic 
oil production peaked in 1970. We are running out of oil. It is coming 
faster than we know. We have in ANWR, it is said, the best pool, the 
best possible source of resources outside the Caspian Sea, the best and 
largest pool to be found in nearly 30 years.
  If the optimists are right and we do not begin to run out of oil in 
20 years, that is only 7,000 days away. The time to act is now because 
it takes nearly 10 years to lease and begin production in ANWR. And if, 
God save us, the pessimists are right and we begin to run out of oil in 
10 years or even 5 years as some would suggest, we will need to begin 
now so that the petroleum products, the jet fuel, the gasoline, the 
pharmaceuticals, the plastics, everything that has made industrial life 
possible can continue for future generations.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Johnson 
amendment. In the Arctic Reserve, we have unparalleled splendor. We 
have 160 bird species, 36 land mammals, 36 types of fish. But they are 
not more important than the working men and women in America, if 
exploring that territory, exploiting that territory would yield oil to 
make us independent as some would have us believe.
  The reality, however, is that developing oil in ANWR will not make us 
energy independent. In the year 2015, we will be needing 24 million 
barrels a day. ANWR yields 300,000. This is clearly a case in which the 
juice is not worth the squeezing.
  Reject the ANWR development.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  (Mr. OSBORNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Markey amendment. A 
week or so ago I was sitting in the Committee on Resources and someone 
made the statement that the United States has only 3 percent of the 
world's petroleum reserves.
  I thought about that and I thought, How do we know? We really do not 
know, because for 20 years, we have not explored. And so we do not know 
whether we have got 1 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent.
  Currently, we import 60 percent of our oil. Most of that oil is from 
OPEC. Currently, OPEC sets the market in the United States. Currently 
that is an irritant. They can cause the price to fluctuate.

[[Page H5163]]

  But let us take this hypothetical. Let us say we have a major war in 
the Middle East sometime in the next 3 or 4 years. Let us say that OPEC 
all of a sudden decides to cut off the spigot at some point or let us 
say OPEC decides to double the price. At that point, what do we do? We 
do not have an irritant at that point; we have got a national crisis. 
And where do we go? What do we do?
  The first thing that we are going to do is we are going to start 
scrambling, and we are going to try to figure out what we do have. 
Right now we do not know. I am not saying we have to drill, I am not 
saying that we have to extract oil, but we need to know what our 
resources are, in the gulf, in the 1002 area, we need to know 
precisely. Because this is something that can very likely happen in the 
near future.
  And so it is not a matter of destroying the area; it is a matter of 
exploring and knowing what is available to us.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment which would protect a very special area originally set aside 
by that radical environmentalist Dwight David Eisenhower. We can have 
lots of spirited debate about the science and the impact of drilling 
and other essential matters related to this issue, but I will leave 
that to others. For me, this is an issue of fundamental principle. What 
right do we as human beings and what sense does it make as a Nation to 
open a pristine area to oil drilling when we are not willing to take 
the simplest, easiest steps to conserve oil?
  Earlier today, this House defeated my amendment to raise CAFE 
standards which would have been the only truly significant conservation 
measure in this bill. Opening ANWR without any consideration of taking 
serious conservation steps is simply irresponsible. We are denying 
future generations a wilderness because we refused to take painless 
steps to control our own generation's appetite for oil. I do not know 
when that kind of thinking became conservative, but I do know that for 
eons that kind of gluttony has been considered wrong.
  The proponents of oil drilling add insult to injury with their 
spurious arguments in favor of drilling. It is only a few thousand 
acres, they say. It is like saying, Don't worry, the tumor is only in 
your lungs.
  The proponents say the drilling in Prudhoe Bay has had no ill 
environmental effects, but in reality some of the largest environmental 
fines in history have been paid because of damage in the Prudhoe Bay 
operations.
  I am told, You say you don't want to drill in my State but anything 
goes in your State. Well, I stood and opposed drilling in the Finger 
Lakes National Forest in my State of New York.
  It is said to me, How can you oppose ANWR? You've never seen it. I 
have never had cancer, either, and I vigorously oppose it. A lot is at 
stake with this amendment, a lot in terms of principle, in terms of 
impact on wildlife, in terms of land conservation.
  I urge my colleagues to think about the future, the impact on 
generations to come, and support the Markey-Johnson amendment.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, earlier this summer, I went to the Arctic 
Refuge; and it is a living treasure. It is a treasure that must be 
defended and protected for future generations. Drilling in the arctic 
is not about a national crisis, it is about petroleum pirates and this 
administration willing to plunder a national treasure for profits.
  I want to believe that this Congress has the courage and wisdom to 
invest in an energy strategy that emphasizes conservation, energy 
efficiency, and renewables.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the Arctic Refuge.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
control the balance of time on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Without objection, so 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I find it is very interesting that on 
September 16, 1996, the President of the United States went to Arizona 
and declared 1.7 million acres of monument in the State of Utah, and 
that people got up on this floor and all over America and said this is 
beautiful, this is a great gorgeous area. And the question the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) asked was, has anyone been there? No, 
they had not.
  Do you know how many millions and millions of acres in the West is 
nothing but sagebrush? Well, two-thirds of that was nothing but 
sagebrush. But no, we are going to tie that up, with the biggest 
deposit of low-sulfur coal there is that we know of in the world.
  I find it is interesting when everyone says how pristine this area 
is. Well, I have only been there twice. I do not think in my definition 
of pristine, it even comes close.
  But I think The Washington Post said it best. Fourteen years ago they 
made this statement. ``That part of ANWR is one of the bleakest, most 
remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where 
drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life in the world.''
  Then they make another statement. ``Even the most ardent people 
concede that, in the winter, with 70 below zero temperature, it is no 
paradise; however, it is no paradise in the summertime either.''
  But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I guess there is some 
beauty there. Those who have been there know better.
  I worry about those we can least depend on are controlling our oil 
supply. Do you realize what we are getting out of this area, our best 
projections, is probably the exact amount we are getting from Saddam 
Hussein, this great lover of America. And we are going to say, okay, 
Mr. Saddam Hussein, you can control the spigot; we do not have to.
  I think this is really kind of a foolish approach for us to take, and 
I would worry about it.
  Let me say this: this amendment is anti-energy; it is anti-jobs. It 
is especially anti-jobs, and that bothers me.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to speak tonight because, 
being in politics for 24 years, I know after 10 o'clock at night it is 
difficult for some in the Chamber to be tolerant but I believe deeply 
in the issue, and, therefore, I want to speak about it.
  I believe we will not have a world to live in if we continue our 
neglectful ways. I believe that with all my heart and soul. But earlier 
today this House continued these neglectful ways by refusing to hold 
SUVs and other light trucks to the same efficiency standards as today's 
cars. If we had taken that simple step, we would have saved more 
gasoline in just over 3 years than is economically recoverable in ANWR, 
and yet people say we need to drill in ANWR.
  I find it unconscionable that we would now consider despoiling one of 
North America's last great wilderness areas, when we are unwilling to 
take even the smallest steps towards slowing the growth in demand for 
energy resources.
  Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge will make Japan very 
happy, because that is where this oil is ultimately going. It is not 
going to the United States, it is going to Japan.
  The bottom line is, we are not resolving our energy needs, because we 
are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more, 
consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. We are on 
a demand course that is simply unsustainable!
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair advises Members that the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 7 minutes remaining, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 1 minute remaining, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I was there 3 weeks ago, and I have come to

[[Page H5164]]

the well to say that those who say that the Arctic Refuge is a barren 
area and that Prudo Bay is a wildlife refuge are dead wrong on both 
counts.
  My grandchildren deserve to hear the same bird song from birds from 
all 50 States of this Union in the arctic just like I did. Your 
grandchildren deserve to know that the caribou are going to be there 
1,000 years from now, just like you do.
  Now, we have a disagreement. The majority wants to give $20 billion 
to the oil companies, and our children's heritage as icing on the cake. 
That is wrong. Preserve the Arctic Refuge.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to correct the 
record. The record should be corrected, because a misstatement occurred 
on the floor.
  The bill was amended in committee to prohibit the export of any of 
this oil and gas that might be produced in section 1002 to Japan or any 
other foreign place. It must be produced and used for America. That is 
what the bill now says. Any reference contrary to that is simply wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our 
committee for yield me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to follow my colleague from Washington, 
because I have also been to ANWR, and maybe we went to 2 different 
places, because when I was there in the first week of August, it was 
snowing; it was a blizzard. Maybe he was further south, where we are 
not talking about drilling, but I have been there, and I know we can 
extract oil from it and we can have an infrastructure that will not 
impact the environmental quality of ANWR.
  Our technology has changed since the North Slope was first developed 
decades ago. We have a much more efficient and robust and less 
intrusive effort in anywhere, whether it is off the coast of Texas, or 
in ANWR. Mr. Chairman, we have to drill somewhere, and, if not in ANWR, 
where do my colleagues suggest to drill?
  I rise in strong opposition to the Johnson-Markey amendment, and I 
hope this body is debating this issue as a national policy, because we 
have to drill somewhere. We cannot keep depending on foreign sources to 
be able to depend on for our country.
  Where are we supposed to drill, only in foreign countries? Well, 
then, we are either going to let people who are our enemies control it, 
or we are going to take advantage of Third World countries by drilling 
in those countries and just using it from them.
  We must support continued effort on foreign dependence on oil, and 
that is what we need to stop. I think this rationale is crazy. Our 
country cannot drill its way to energy self-sufficiency, but we can do 
better than we are doing now.
  For those who say conservation is the key, sure, we can do better on 
conservation, but I hear people want to increase the efficiency of air 
conditioners, and yet in Houston, Texas, I have people who cannot even 
afford the air conditioners they have today.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a bad amendment, and I 
hope this House will defeat it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, spoiling the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge for the sake of a 6-month supply of oil 10 years from now is 
hardly a sensible energy policy and hardly a route to energy 
independence. It produces little energy in the short-term, little 
relief from high prices.
  This energy bill is a wish-list for the coal, oil and gas companies. 
It gives $7.4 billion in royalty payments, free rein in our wilderness 
areas, their equipment set lose on the arctic coastal plain, one of the 
world's last great unspoiled frontiers.
  I ask my colleagues, do not let this happen this evening. Support the 
Markey-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, yes, we need more 
conservation and more efficient use of energy, but we also need an 
ample supply of all kinds of energy to prevent the price spikes that 
threaten our jobs and hurt our American families.
  ANWR is our best reserve. Every well we drill in ANWR, we would have 
to replace it with 70 in the lower 48.
  What are our opponents for? Are they for coal or nuclear and more 
hydro? I do not hear that. They want to generate electricity with gas, 
but they propose drilling to get the gas. They talk about renewables. 
When you back out hydro, we have 1\1/2\ percent. I am for renewables, 
but 1.5 percent will not fill our needs.
  Do the opponents support drilling on the West Coast, the East Coast 
and the Gulf? No. Opening up the Rocky Mountain reserve? Drilling under 
the Great Lakes like Canada does? No. The monuments? No.
  What are they for? They are for pipe dreams, that will give us 
shortages and high prices that endanger home ownership and kill job 
creation and destroy the American dream, because the American dream is 
fueled by energy, and we need it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, we are certainly not for 
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. 
The amount of recoverable oil would last an estimated 6 months. This 
drilling will occur in the very same refuge that President Dwight 
Eisenhower set aside, and is the last place in North America where the 
entire arctic ecosystem is protected.
  I urge a no vote. This is irresponsible and shortsighted. Please, we 
know we are in a crisis, but this is not the way to solve the problem.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality 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. Chairman, they asked a great American bank 
robber why he robbed banks. He said, that is where the money is. Well, 
why do we want to drill in ANWR? Because that is where the oil is.
  We have drilled three million wells in the lower 48. Two million of 
those have been in Texas. I would die and go to heaven if they would 
tell me I had a 10 billion oil field in my backyard. I would go clip 
coupons and live on the beach. But, unfortunately we do not have much 
oil and gas left in Texas.
  The mid-case example in ANWR is 1 million barrels a day for 30 years; 
1 million barrels a day for 30 years. That is 25 million gallons of 
gasoline a day, 176 million gallons a week, 706 million gallons a 
month, or 9 billion gallons a year, for 30 years. That saves 5 to 15 
cents a gallon every day for 30 years for every American consumer of 
gasoline.
  It is the right vote. Vote no on Markey-Johnson. Vote yes for 
American energy security.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of oil under the North 
Slope of Alaska. Right now we can drill in 95 percent of the North 
Slope of Alaska. We are saying protect 5 percent, the coastal plain of 
ANWR.
  There are other opportunities. Seventy-five percent of the North 
Slope is comprised of the National Petroleum Reserve set aside in the 
1940s for exploration and drilling. Drill there. But protect ANWR. 
Protect the coastal plain.
  We are not talking about capping Old Faithful or damming up the Grand 
Canyon. Do not drill in ANWR.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I would like to calm things down for a minute. This Capitol is filled 
with great quotations on the walls, but in this great Chamber, this is 
only one quotation. It is right up here, and I would like to read it.
  It says, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its 
powers, build

[[Page H5165]]

up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether 
we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to 
be remembered.'' That is what Daniel Webster said, and it is up on that 
wall.
  This is an important vote. Are we not glad that our ancestors had the 
courage to say, we are going to allow people to take coal out of West 
Virginia, or iron ore out of pristine Northern Minnesota.
  This is an historic vote. I hope we vote this amendment down and the 
bill up.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), after whose father this refuge should be named.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me time.
  Many have asked me about what my father would say, colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, and I am here tonight to tell you he would support 
the Markey amendment.
  But this is not about my father, it is about my children and their 
children.

                              {time}  2230

  It is about leaving them options in the future.
  Barry Goldwater was asked if he had any regrets about the votes he 
cast in the Senate when he served here so admirably. He said, One vote, 
when I voted to dam the Glen Canyon area. He understood that you could 
not develop and preserve a wilderness area at the same time.
  Let us not have any regrets. Let us remember what Teddy Roosevelt 
said about the Grand Canyon and that it also applies to the wildlife 
refuge, ``Man cannot improve on it. Let us leave it like the Creator 
envisioned it.''
  On the question of whether to open the coastal plain, Congress is 
being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide 
what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds.
  The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the 
whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, 
naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems.''
  What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to 
less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no 
economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, 
USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion 
barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain 
and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels.
  But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion 
barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, 
there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil 
in the coastal plain.
  There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on 
the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not 
need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and 
even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of 
renewable resources.
  For example, fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks 
could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles per gallon by 2010. 
Experts estimate that alone would save 10 times as much oil as would 
likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years.
  In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too 
long--especially since we have better options. So I do not support it.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, I attach excerpts from a recent 
article in Foreign Affairs by two Coloradans--Amory R. Lovins and L. 
Hunter Lovins. Founders and leaders of the Rocky Mountain Institute, 
they are recognized experts on energy issues.
  The article, entitled ``Fool's Gold in Alaska,'' clearly shows that 
drilling for oil on the coastal plain does not make sense in terms of 
economics, national security, or environmental protection.

                [From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001]

                         Fool's Gold in Alaska

               (By Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins)


                       the bottom of the barrel?

       Oil prices have fluctuated randomly for well over a 
     century. Heedless of this fact, oil's promoters are always 
     offering opportunities that could make money--but on the 
     flawed assumption that high prices will prevail. Leading the 
     field of these optimists are Alaskan politicians. Eager to 
     keep funding their state's de facto negative income tax--oil 
     provides 80 percent of the state's unrestricted general 
     revenue--they have used every major rise in oil prices since 
     1973 to advocate drilling beneath federal lands on the 
     coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Just as 
     predictably, environmentalists counter that the refuge is the 
     crown jewel of the American wilderness and home to the 
     threatened indigenous Gwich'in people. As some see it, 
     drilling could raise human rights issues under international 
     law. Canada, which shares threatened wildlife, also opposes 
     drilling.
       Both sides of this debate have largely overlooked the 
     central question: Does drilling for oil in the refuge's 
     coastal plain make sense for economic and security reasons? 
     After all, three imperatives should shape a national energy 
     policy: economic vitality, secure supplies, and environmental 
     quality. To merit serious consideration, a proposal must meet 
     at least one of these goals.
       Drilling proponents claim that prospecting for refuge oil 
     will enhance the first two while not unduly harming the 
     third. In fact, not only does refuge oil fail to meet any of 
     the three goals, it could even compromise the first two. 
     First, the refuge is unlikely to hold economically 
     recoverable oil. And even if it did, exploitation would 
     only briefly reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil by 
     just a few percentage points, starting in about a decade. 
     Nor would the refuge yield significant natural gas. 
     Despite some recent statements by the Bush administration, 
     the North Slope's important natural-gas deposits are 
     almost entirely outside the refuge. The gas-rich areas are 
     already open to industry, and environmentalists would 
     likely support a gas pipeline there, but its high cost--an 
     estimated $10 billion--would make it seem uneconomical.
       Furthermore, those who suppose that any domestic oil is 
     more secure than imported oil should remember that oil 
     reserves almost anywhere else on earth are more accessible 
     and more reliably deliverable than those above the Arctic 
     Circle. Importing oil in tankers from the highly diversified 
     world market is arguably better for energy security than 
     delivering refuge oil to other U.S. states through one 
     vulnerable conduit, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. 
     Although proponents argue that exploiting refuge oil would 
     make better use of TAPS (which is all paid for but only half-
     full), that pipeline is easy to disrupt and difficult to 
     repair. More than half of it is elevated and indefensible; in 
     fact, it has already been bombed twice. If one of its vital 
     pumping stations were attacked in the winter, its nine 
     million barrels of hot oil could congeal into the world's 
     largest Chapstick. Nor has the 24-year-old TAPS aged 
     gracefully: premature and accelerated corrosion, erosion, and 
     stress are raising maintenance costs. Last year, the pipeline 
     suffered two troubling accidents plus another that almost 
     blew up the Valdez oil terminal. If TAPS were to start 
     transporting refuge oil, it would start only around the end 
     of its originally expected lifetime. That one fragile link, 
     soon to be geriatric, would then bring as much oil to U.S. 
     refineries as now flows through the Strait of Hormuz--a 
     chokepoint that is harder to disrupt, is easier to fix, and 
     has alternative routes.
       Available and proven technological alternatives that use 
     energy more productively can meet all three goals of energy 
     policy with far greater effectiveness, speed, profit, and 
     security than can drilling in the refuge. The untapped, 
     inexpensive ``reserves'' of oil-efficiency technology exceed 
     by more than 50 times the average projection of what refuge 
     drilling might yield. The existence of such alternatives 
     makes drilling even more economically risky.
       In sum, even if drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge 
     posed no environmental or human rights concerns, it still 
     could not be justified on economic or security grounds. These 
     reasons remain as compelling as they were 14 years ago, when 
     drilling there was last rejected, and they are likely to 
     strengthen further with technological advances. Comparing all 
     realistic ways to meet the goals of national energy policy 
     suggests a simple conclusion: refuge oil is unnecessary, 
     insecure, a poor business risk, and a distraction from a 
     sound national debate over realistic energy priorities. If 
     that debate is informed by the past quarter-century's 
     experience of what works, a strong energy policy will seek 
     the lowest-cost mix of demand- and supply-side investments 
     that compete fairly at honest prices. It will not pick 
     winners, bail out losers, substitute central planning for 
     market forces, or forecast demand and then plan capacity to 
     meet it. Instead, it will treat demand as a choice, not fate. 
     If consumers can choose optimal levels of efficiency, demand 
     can remain stable (as oil demand did during 1975-91) or even 
     decline--and it will be possible to provide secure, safe, and 
     clean energy services at the lowest cost. In this market-
     driven world, the time for costly refuge oil has passed.
       From 1979 to 1986, GDP grew 20 percent while total energy 
     use fell by 5 percent. Improved efficiency provided more than 
     five times as much new energy service as the vaunted 
     expansion of the coal and nuclear industries; domestic oil 
     output rose only 1.5 percent while domestic natural gas 
     output fell 18 percent. When the resulting glut slashed 
     energy prices in 1985-86, attention strayed and efficiency 
     slowed. But just in the past five years, the United States 
     has quietly entered a second golden age of rapidly improving 
     energy efficiency. Now, with another efficiency boom 
     underway, the whole cycle is poised to repeat itself--
     threatening another energy-policy train wreck with serious 
     economic consequences.

[[Page H5166]]

       From 1996 to 2000, a complex mix of factors--such as 
     competitive pressures, valuable side benefits, climate 
     concerns, and e-commerce's structural shifts--unexpectedly 
     pushed the pace of U.S. energy savings to nearly an all-time 
     high, averaging 3.1 percent per year despite the record-low 
     and falling energy prices of 1997-99. Meanwhile, investment 
     in energy supply, which is slower to mature, lagged behind 
     demand growth in some regions as the economy boomed. Then in 
     2000, Middle East political jitters, OPEC machinations, and 
     other factors made world oil prices spike just as cold 
     weather and turbulence in the utility industry coincidentally 
     boosted natural gas prices. Gasoline prices are rising this 
     year--even though crude-oil prices are softening--due to 
     shortages not of crude oil but of refineries and additives. 
     California's botched utility restructuring, meanwhile, sent 
     West Coast electricity prices sky-high, although not for the 
     oft-cited reasons. (Demand did not soar, and California did 
     not stop building power plants in the 1990s, contrary to many 
     observers' claims.)
       The higher fuel and electricity prices and occasional local 
     shortages that have vexed many Americans this past year have 
     rekindled a broader national interest in efficient use. The 
     current economic slow-down will further dampen demand but 
     should also heighten business interest in cutting costs. 
     Efficiency also lets numerous actors harness the energy 
     market's dynamism and speed--and it tends to bear results 
     quickly. All these factors could set the stage for another 
     price crash as burgeoning energy savings coincide, then 
     collide, with the new administration's push to stimulate 
     energy supplies. Producers who answer that call will risk 
     shouldering the cost of added supply without the revenue to 
     pay for it, for oil prices high enough to make refuge oil 
     profitable would collapse before or as supply boomed.
       Policymakers can avoid such overreaction and instability if 
     they understand the full range of competing options, 
     especially the ability of demand to react faster than supply 
     and the need for balancing investment between them. As 
     outlined above, in the first half of the 1980s, the U.S. 
     economy grew while total energy use fell and oil imports from 
     the Persian Gulf were nearly eliminated. This achievement 
     showed the power of a demand-side national energy policy. 
     Today, new factors--even more powerful technologies and 
     better designs, streamlined delivery methods, and better 
     understanding of how public policy can correct dozens of 
     market failures in buying efficiency--can make the demand-
     side response even more effective. This can give the United 
     States a more affordable and secure portfolio of diverse 
     energy sources, not just a few centralized ones.


                 it's easy (and lucrative) being green

       Oil is becoming more abundant but relatively less 
     important. For each dollar of GDP, the United States used 49 
     percent less oil in 2000 than it did in 1975. Compared with 
     1975, the amount that energy efficiency now saves each year 
     is more than five times the country's annual domestic oil 
     production, twelve times its imports from the Persian Gulf, 
     and twice its total oil imports. And the efficiency resource 
     is far from tapped out; instead, it is constantly expanding. 
     It is already far larger and cheaper than anyone had dared 
     imagine.
       Increased energy productivity now delivers two-fifths of 
     all U.S. energy services and is also the fastest growing 
     ``source.'' (Aboard, renewable energy supply is growing even 
     faster; it is expected to generate 22 percent of the European 
     Union's electricity by 2010.) Efficient energy use often 
     yields annual after-tax returns of 100 to 200 percent on 
     investment. Its frequent fringe benefits are even more 
     valuable: 6 to 16 percent higher labor productivity in 
     energy-efficient buildings, 40 percent higher retail sales in 
     stores with good natural lighting, and improved output and 
     quality in efficient factories. Efficiency also has major 
     policy advantages. It is here and now, not a decade away. It 
     improves the environment and protects the earth's climate. It 
     is fully secure, already delivered to customers, and immune 
     to foreign potentates and volatile markets. It is rapidly and 
     equitably deployable in the market. It supports jobs all 
     across the United States rather than in a few firms in one 
     state. Yet the energy options now winning int he marketplace 
     seem oddly invisible, unimportant, and disfavored in current 
     national strategy.
       Those who have forgotten the power of energy efficiency 
     should remember the painful business lessons learned from the 
     energy policies of the early 1970s and the 1980s. Energy 
     gluts rapidly recur whenever customers pay attention to 
     efficiency--because the nationwide reserve of cheap, 
     qualitatively superior savings from efficient energy use is 
     enormous and largely accessible. That overhand of untapped 
     and unpredictably accessed efficiency presents an opportunity 
     for entrepreneurs and policymakers, but it also poses a risk 
     to costly supply investments. That risk is now swelling 
     ominously.
       In the early 1980s, vigorous efforts to boost both supply 
     and efficiency succeeded. Supply rose modestly while 
     efficiency soared.


                    a barrel saved, a barrel earned

       If oil were found and profitably extracted from the refuge, 
     its expected peak output would equal for a few years about 
     one percent of the world oil market. Senator Frank Murkowski 
     (R-Alaska) has claimed that merely announcing refuge leasing 
     would bring down world oil prices. Yet even a giant Alaskan 
     discovery several times larger than the refuge would not 
     stabilize world oil markets. Oil prices reached their all-
     time high, for example, just as such a huge field, in 
     Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, neared its maximum output. Only energy 
     efficiency can stabilize oil prices--as well as sink them. 
     And only a tiny fraction of the vast untapped efficiency 
     gains is needed to do so.
       What could the refuge actually produce under optimal 
     conditions? Starting about ten years from now, if oil prices 
     did stay around $22 per barrel, if Congress approved the 
     project, and if the refuge yielded the USGS's mean estimate 
     of about 3.2 billion barrels of profitable oil, the 30-year 
     output would average a modest 292,000 barrels of crude oil a 
     day. (This estimate also assumes that such oil would feed 
     U.S. refineries rather than go to Asian markets, as some 
     Alaskan oil did in 1996-2000.) Once refined, that amount 
     would yield 156,000 barrels of gasoline per day--enough to 
     run 2 percent of American cars and light trucks. That much 
     gasoline could be saved if light vehicles became 0.4 mpg more 
     efficient. Compare that feat to the one achieved in 1979--85, 
     when new light vehicles on average gained o.4 mpg every 5 
     months.
       Equipping cars with replacement tires as efficient as the 
     original ones would save consumers several ``refuges'' full 
     of crude oil. Installing superinsulating windows could save 
     even more oil and natural gas while making buildings more 
     comfortable and cheaper to construct. A combination of all 
     the main efficiency options available in 1989 could save 
     today the equivalent of 54 ``refuges''--but at a sixth of the 
     cost. New technologies for saving energy are being found 
     faster than the old ones are being used up--just like new 
     technologies for finding and extracting oil, only faster. As 
     gains in energy efficiency continue to outpace oil depletion, 
     oil will probably become uncompetitive even at low prices 
     before it becomes unavailable even at high prices. This is 
     especially likely because the latest efficiency revolution 
     squarely targets oil's main users and its dominant growth 
     market--cars and light trucks--where gasoline savings magnify 
     crude-oil savings by 85 percent.
       New American cars are hardly models of fuel efficiency. 
     Their average rating of 24 mpg ties for a 20-year low. The 
     auto industry can do much better--and is now making an 
     effort. Briskly selling hybrid-electric cars such as the 
     Toyota Prius (a Corolla-class 5-seater) offer 49 mpg, and the 
     Honda Insight (a CRX-class 2-seater) gets 67 mpg. A fleet 
     that efficient, compared to the 24 mpg average, would save 26 
     or 33 refuges, respectively. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, 
     and Ford are now testing family sedans that offer 72--80 mpg. 
     For Europeans who prefer subcompact city cars, Volkswagen is 
     selling a 4-seater at 78 mpg and has announced a smaller 2003 
     model at 235 mpg. Still more efficient cars powered by clean 
     and silent fuel cells are slated for production by at least 
     eight major automakers starting in 2003-5. An uncompromised 
     fuel-cell vehicle--the HypercarSM--has been 
     designed and costed for production and would achieve 99 mpg; 
     it is as roomy and safe as a midsized sport-utility vehicle 
     but uses 82 percent less fuel and no oil. Such high-
     efficiency vehicles, which probably can be manufactured at 
     competitive cost, could save globally as much oil as OPEC 
     now sells; when parked, the cars' dual function as plug-in 
     power stations could displace the world's coal and nuclear 
     plants many times over.
       As long as the world runs largely on oil, economics 
     dictates a logical priority for displacing it. Efficient use 
     of oil wins hands down on cost, risk, and speed. Costlier 
     options thus incur an opportunity cost. Buying costly refuge 
     oil instead of cheap oil productivity is not simply a bad 
     business decision; it worsens the oil-import problem. Each 
     dollar spent on the costly option of refuge oil could have 
     bought more of the cheap option of efficient use instead. 
     Choosing the expensive option causes more oil to be used and 
     imported than if consumers had bought the efficiency option 
     first. The United States made exactly this mistake when it 
     spent $200 billion on unneeded (but officially encouraged) 
     nuclear and coal plants in the 1970s and 1980s. The United 
     States now imports oil, produces nuclear waste, and risks 
     global climate instability partly because it bought those 
     assets instead of buying far cheaper energy efficiency.
       Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should 
     consider taking only if no other choice is possible. But 
     other choices abound. If three or four percent of all U.S. 
     cars were as efficient as today's popular hybrid models, they 
     would save the equivalent of all the refuge's oil. In all, 
     many tens of time more oil is available--sooner, more surely, 
     and more cheaply--from proven energy efficiency. The cheaper, 
     faster energy alternatives now succeeding in the marketplace 
     are safe, clean, climate-friendly, and overwhelmingly 
     supported by the public. Equally important, they remain 
     profitable at any oil price. They offer economic, security, 
     and environmental benefits rather than costs. If any oil is 
     beneath the refuge, its greatest value just might be in 
     holding up the ground beneath the people and animals that 
     live there.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, as a young reporter, I remember the 
debate over the Alaskan pipeline. I remember it very vividly. I 
remember

[[Page H5167]]

the hysteria and the charges and the warnings of the catastrophe, oh, 
the environmental catastrophe that would happen; and the caribous were 
going to quit breeding and all of those other dire consequences we 
would face. None of them came true.
  But do my colleagues know what happened? We won that vote by 1 vote, 
1 vote in the Senate. Because we had that pipeline, America has 
received 25 percent of its oil, domestic oil production through that 
pipeline. If we had not had that oil, our people would have lived at a 
much lower standard of living, we would not have been helped out during 
the crises that we faced.
  What kind of crises are we going to face in the future? This 2 
percent might help us out. We should make sure we can use it for the 
benefit of our people, keeping them prosperous and at peace.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 1-3/4 minutes remaining; the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 1 minute remaining; the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the 
right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, a few hours ago we 
rejected the amendment to improve the CAFE standards, the mileage 
standards for automobiles. At that moment, this amendment ceased to be 
about America's energy supplies, America's energy independence, and 
America's national security, because at that moment, this House made a 
decision that it was going to continue to waste the oil products of 
this Nation, the finds of this Nation, the treasures of this Nation, to 
waste it on automobiles. Even though we have not made an improvement in 
13 years, we voted to cave in to the automobile industry and not make 
those improvements.
  This is not about our national security or our national energy; this 
is about a value. This is about a value, whether we are going to invade 
one of the most pristine and magnificent areas on the face of the Earth 
so that we can put it in automobiles to waste it.
  The American public rejects that value and so should the Congress.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is about values. And in reading the 
inscription from Daniel Webster, it did say we are responsible to 
promote all of its interests, all of the Nation's interests; and this 
is about the Nation's interest in preserving the environmental unique 
areas that we have inherited to pass them on to our children.
  This is not about oil. Ninety-five percent of the North Slope is 
available for drilling. In Prudhoe Bay, there are well-known large 
reserves of gas. They could have drilled last year or the year before. 
They can drill the next year or the year thereafter.
  Forty percent of our oil is used by transportation vehicles. All we 
have to do is raise the miles-per-gallon usage 3 miles to save much 
more than anyone thinks we will get out of this area of the ANWR.
  So this is not about oil. This is about balance, this is about 
values. This is about a nation that is going to diversify its energy 
sources through exploration and renewable resources and preserve the 
environment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this, I say to my colleagues, is what the Arctic Refuge 
will look like if the Markey-Johnson amendment is not successful. The 
oil and gas industry has a bull's-eye that they have put in the middle 
of this sacred refuge that we should remove this evening.
  This will be the most important environmental vote that we have. Do 
not allow the proponents of drilling in this refuge to convince us for 
a moment that, like Prudhoe Bay, the Arctic Refuge will not look like 
an industrial site, because it will. And this would be after a day in 
which our air conditioners and automobiles and every other device, that 
we could have voted to make more efficient so that we did not have to 
drill here.
  But the majority said no. They say yes to the oil and gas industry 
and no to conservation and renewable energy and to energy efficiency.
  Vote yes on the Markey-Johnson amendment and no to the oil and gas 
industry's design on this sacred wilderness in our country.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey-Johnson 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am against the amendment to ban drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Don Young has said, ``Oil exploration 
on Alaska's North slope is already the safest, cleanest, most 
environmentally responsible production in the world. If we say no to 
exploration in ANWR, we are saying yes to destructive methods that 
occur in other countries.'' I have been in this body for only seven 
months but I have worked with Don Young and know he is a man of his 
word. We should respect his views on important matters within his 
district.
  Failure to increase energy exploration in the United States will 
strengthen the OPEC cartel and taxes our constituents with higher fuel 
bills. We must work together to control our nation's destiny when it 
comes to meeting the future energy needs of our country.
  U.S. demand for world oil is large, and we presently import over 50 
percent of our oil. That is outrageous. One way to avoid this crippling 
dependence is to explore new domestic resources. As the Democrat 
Governor of Alaska has stated, ``Opening [ANWR] for responsible oil and 
gas development is vital to the economic well being of Alaska and the 
nation.'' According to an analysis prepared by the Wharton Econometric 
Forecasting Associates, ANWR development would create 735,000 new jobs, 
including 19,000 in my home state of Virginia.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
close in opposition to the Markey amendment.
  It is important at this stage that we set the record straight again. 
The map the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) showed us is not 
the Arctic Refuge. It is a map of section 1002. It is a map of a part 
of the Arctic Refuge, if you will, that was set aside in 1980 for 
exploration for minerals. It was specifically set aside for that 
purpose, and they said when Congress is ready, it will vote to open it 
up the same way we voted to do the pipeline.
  The second thing that is erroneous about that map is that those pink 
lines represent, I guess, about 5-mile-wide highways, if that is what 
he is trying to represent.
  The most important thing that is wrong about the map is that this 
House just voted, this House just voted to limit the footprint of any 
development to 2,000 acres, and it voted again to make sure that the 
Federal share of production, the dollars, would go back into 
conservation and alternative fuels, about $1.25 billion according to 
CBO estimates.
  So what we have done literally in this bill is to say that the 1980 
set-aside can now be explored and developed for the good of this 
country. And we know that there is a 95 percent chance of 4 billion 
barrels of oil there, and it could be as high as 16 billion barrels of 
oil, the biggest find since Prudhoe Bay, and this country sorely needs 
it.
  There was a time in American history when we decided two things, it 
was in our Revolutionary days. We decided we did not like government a 
whole lot, but we also decided if we had to have it, it would be better 
if we had our own instead of somebody else's. My colleagues may not 
like oil companies or oil, but it is a lot better if we produce it at 
home than depend upon Saddam Hussein.
  Vote no on the Markey amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe that environmental 
opportunity and energy development can go hand in hand. That is why I 
offered the Jackson-Lee-Lampson amendment to H.R. 4, Securing America's 
Future Energy Act of 2001. This

[[Page H5168]]

amendment's adoption creates a win for both the environment and the 
need to address growing energy demand in our Nation. This amendment 
directs the Secretary of Energy to study and evaluate the availability 
of natural gas and oil deposits located off the coasts of Louisiana and 
Texas at existing drilling sites. This assessment every 2 years would 
allow an inventory of existing oil and gas supplies and evaluation of 
techniques or processes that may assist in keeping those wells 
productive.
  I have several reasons for not supporting drilling in ANWR: the 
President has not made his case for drilling, the studies that have 
been conducted have questions regarding their accuracy, and there is no 
time table for how long it would take the process to begin, and finally 
I believe strongly that we must balance our Nation's energy needs with 
our stewardship of the environment.
  This has been effectively done in the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas 
and Louisiana coasts. There are more than 3,800 working offshore 
platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, which provide 55,000 jobs to residents 
of Texas and Louisiana.
  The Nation's record for safe and clean offshore natural gas and oil 
operations off the Texas and Louisiana coasts are excellent. The 
environmental soundness of oil and gas exploration in the gulf has been 
proven over many decades that have passed since offshore drilling 
began.
  I know that energy exploration and sound environmental practices can 
go hand in hand, with the proper application of technology. I also know 
that our Nation's energy needs requires that we start today so that 
tomorrow our children and grandchildren can have a more secure and 
reliable source of energy. That is why I plan to vote for final passage 
of H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand here 
today alongside Representative Markey, Representative Nancy Johnson, 
and the many other cosponsors of this critical legislation to say loud 
and clear--we will not sacrifice America's unique natural treasures to 
satisfy the whims of the oil industry.
  Today, we are sending a bipartisan message to Congress and to our 
President: don't let the Energy bill pass out of Congress if it calls 
for tapping the arctic national wildlife refuge for oil, one of the 
most unblemished national resources in our Nation.
  In my fight to ensure that the industry paid their fair share of the 
royalties that they owe to the Federal Government for taking oil from 
Federal lands, they claimed for years that their system for calculating 
royalties was fair. Now, they have settled lawsuits with the Federal 
Government and States for close to $5 billion.
  This may not be an admission of guilt, but it is the closest thing 
you will ever get from a multi-billion dollar industry that gets more 
wealthy each year.
  After they ripped off American taxpayers for years, I must admit I am 
skeptical that this industry is terribly concerned with the ``national 
interest'' or preserving our Nation's most pristine resources.
  We do not believe the oil industry when they claim that they can 
somehow extract millions of barrels of oil without leaving any trace. 
Does anyone remember the Exxon Valdez?
  In 1995, there were more than 500 oil spills ``reported'' on the 
north slope, spilling over 80,000 gallons of oil, diesel fuel, and 
acid.
  Is this considered ``acceptable'' environmental damage by this 
administration?
  This is the number one priority of the environmental community. The 
main point is, oil rigs don't belong in the Arctic refuge. Oil drilling 
in this pristine area is both foolish and short sighted. Former justice 
William Douglas called the Arctic refuge ``the most wonderous place on 
earth.''
  We need a balanced energy program. We should not allow the oil 
companies to drill everywhere. Protect the Arctic refuge. Vote for the 
Markey-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Mr. Markey and in opposition to the opening on the Alaska National 
Wildlife Reserve to oil and gas exploration.
  I have not come to this position easily. I believe that the United 
States needs to expand production of oil and gas as much as we need to 
increase conservation. I have consistently supported increasing 
production in the outer continental shelf including off the coast of 
Florida and California. I believe that, based upon the U.S. Geological 
Survey, significant reserves exist along the coastal plane of ANWR. 
But, even at the highest possible estimate of recoverable reserves the 
production at ANWR would not materially decrease our dependency on 
imported oil, at peak production no more than seven percent of our 
daily demand. Since we have less than 5 percent of world petroleum 
reserves, ANWR development would not give the United States the 
purchasing power to offset the world markets. It would not, alone, 
solve our energy problems.
  When weighing those facts against the risk which exploration and 
production would bring to the coastal plain, I fail to see were the 
potential benefits outweigh the risks. ANWR, first established by 
President Dwight Eisenhower, and later by an act of Congress during the 
late 1970's, is the last undisturbed coastal plain in Alaska. 
Specifically, section 1002, the area being considered, is the last 
stretch of protected coastal plain in Alaska. If it were opened to 
exploration and production, it would eliminate from ANWR any coastal 
area. And, it would bring risk to the delicate ecosystem which 
currently exists.
  According DOI's Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement 
(FLEIS or 1002 report) in April 1987 stated that, ``the most 
biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is 
the center of wildlife activity.'' Some cite that caribou in the North 
Slope are increasing in population, from 3,000 to over 20,000. They 
fail to note that the predators have been reduced putting the 
populations out of balance. While I believe that development on the 
North Slope is an acceptable environmental risk, I do not see the 
urgency in increasing that risk at this time. I do not believe that 
energy development and environmental protection are uncompatible, but I 
am not dismissive of the real environmental risk.
  I do not believe either that the limitation of acres open to 
development will serve as a successful deterent. As with any attempt to 
locate new reserves, producers will have to drill multiple wells to 
determine the actual location of the largest reserves. If we open a 
portion, we will ultimately open all. I am not convinced that at this 
time, the risk is worth the potential reward.
  Again, I support our Nation's efforts to expand exploration and 
production. Unlike many proponents and opponents of the Markey 
amendment, I am willing to vote to expand production, but not in this 
pristine, protected ecosystem at this time. It's yield will not solve 
our problems, but its cost may be more than we can afford.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I recently visited the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge. It is an area that I have not visited before in previous trips 
to Alaska and I wanted to see this controversial area for myself. I 
spent a several days hiking, camping, exploring the wilderness, flying 
over some of the vast stretches, talking to Alaskans and spending time 
in the Prudhoe Bay area with representatives of the petroleum industry.
  I saw caribou in vast numbers and witnessed the fragility of the 
tundra with small willows that are 20 and 30 years old that are only 
inches high. I thought a lot about what would happen if there were 
problems with drilling in this area. I came away with a profound sense 
that the American public is right. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is 
absolutely the last place we should be exploring for oil, not the 
first.
  A rational national energy policy must place conservation and 
efficiency at the forefront. Merely ending the fuel efficiency loophole 
for SUV and light trucks will save more oil that the Arctic Refuge will 
produce.
  With only 2 to 3 percent of the world's reserves--and an energy habit 
that accounts for 25 percent of the world's consumption--the United 
States simply cannot produce enough energy to meet its demand.
  We would do better to use the 10 years it would take to get the oil 
from the coastal plain to improve the energy efficiency of our 
transportation system, homes and factories, and develop a significant, 
meaningful, long-term national energy policy.
  The Arctic refuge should be left alone.
  Mr. Chairman, as Yogi Berra once said, ``It's deja vu all over 
again.''
  Once before, this House held an important debate on whether to open 
up a portion of Alaska to oil and gas exploration. The arguments were 
about the same as what we've been hearing today. Supporters said it was 
critical for our national energy security. Opponents said it couldn't 
be done safely.
  The vote was close, but Congress authorized drilling in Prudhoe Bay. 
Imagine how much more dependent the United States would have been on 
oil from Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah if that courageous and far-
sighted decision had not been made.
  Now, it's our time.
  I've been to Alaska, and I have seen how oil and gas exploration can 
be done, while preserving the natural beauty of the State. I have 
personally seen the tract in ANWR that we are talking about. It is an 
area with important new reserves where drilling was contemplated long 
ago. I left convinced that exploration and the environment can 
comfortably coexist. I just wish that more people could see first-hand 
the area that we're talking about.
  The higher energy prices we've experienced lately, really come down 
to the old law of supply and demand. Our economy has been growing, but 
we haven't been producing enough energy to keep up. Opening up a sliver 
of ANWR is a sensible way to increase our energy supplies, while at the 
same time making us less dependent on foreign oil.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Johnson 
amendment to prevent

[[Page H5169]]

drilling for oil and gas in the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge.
  Many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently today of the windswept 
coastal plain, the wide variety of wildlife found there, and the people 
there who continue to practice the traditional ways of their ancestors. 
This area was first protected in 1960 by the Eisenhower administration. 
Today the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains the last 5% of 
Alaska's northern shore that is closed to exploration for oil and gas. 
This ecological jewel should be preserved for posterity.
  Our nation should continue to develop our oil and gas resources, to 
the extent that is compatible with environmental protection. But we 
must be realistic. The United States contains less than 3% of the 
world's proven oil reserves. Even if we extracted every drop of oil to 
be found in the U.S. and off our shores, we would still remain 
dependent on foreign oil.
  It is time to take advantage of the abundance of renewable energy 
resources in our country, and greatly accelerate our development of 
clean energy technologies powered by wind, solar, and biomass. Equally 
important are our energy conservation resources. By using energy more 
wisely--in transportation, buildings, and industry--we can save money, 
prevent pollution, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create new 
jobs. By adopting a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency, we 
could lower energy use in the U.S. by as much as 18% in 2010 and 33% in 
2020.
  Mr. Chairman, we truly do not need to drill in ANWR, the crown jewel 
among our national wildlife refuges. We have many, many other options 
for powering our homes, businesses, and transportation systems. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Markey-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment. Today, America is more dependent on foreign sources of 
oil than ever before--1 million barrels a day from Saddam Hussein's 
Iraq. This oil reserve represents 30 years of Iraq's oil supply and 25 
years of Iran's. This is a national security issue as much as an energy 
issue. The President's energy plan calls for the opening of a small 
portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to reduce 
America's dependance of foreign oil.
  Opponents tell us that opening ANWR would destroy the refuge, despite 
the fact that 99.99 percent of the refuge would be untouched by oil 
exploration. They also tell us that the polar bears and caribou that 
live in the refuge would be harmed, despite the fact that these animals 
have been thriving at Prudhoe Bay and are believed to exist in record 
numbers in the region.
  Opponents have also told us that the native people of the region 
oppose opening ANWR. However, 75 percent of Alaskans and 78 percent of 
the indigenous residents of Katovik in ANWR favor oil development on 
the coastal plain.
  In addition, opening ANWR would generate as many as 736,000 new jobs 
across the Nation. That is why the labor unions have backed this 
proposal.
  I am confident that oil and gas exploration can be accomplished 
without harming the environment. Developing ANWR's coastal plain would 
improve America's energy security and create high-paying jobs. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, tonight we make a historic decision about 
the preservation of one of the world's last great wilderness areas.
  And let me bring my colleagues back into history, and share with them 
the words of a great former Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt.
  He said this:

       Leave it as it is. The ages have been at work on it, and 
     man can only mar it. What you can do is keep it for your 
     children, your children's children, and for all who come 
     after you.

  That is what President Theodore Roosevelt said when protecting the 
Grand Canyon.
  That is what he would have us do tonight.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, Members should oppose the Markey amendment 
because it undercuts our energy security.
  Opening ANWR to safe exploration is the most powerful tool we have to 
reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  The logic supporting ANWR exploration built a broad base of support 
across our economy.
  Labor unions, employers, families, and industry experts all agree 
that the benefits to our energy security and economic strength make a 
compelling case to put the resources in ANWR to work for America.
  Opponents cloud this debate with a fog of unfounded assertions to the 
effect that opening ANWR will subject a wilderness to utter 
devastation. It's simply not true.
  We can develop ANWR responsibly. We can produce its resources within 
strict environmental guidelines that conserve the natural beauty we all 
want to protect.
  Members will expand our energy security by opposing this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 14 printed in part B of 
House report 107-178.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hayworth:
       Page 502, after line 13, insert the following:

     SEC. 6602. AMENDMENT TO BUY INDIAN ACT.

       Section 23 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (25 U.S.C. 47; 
     commonly known as the ``Buy Indian Act'') is amended by 
     inserting ``energy products, and energy by-products,'' after 
     ``printing,''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Does any Member claim time in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  With Native economies commonly reliant on Federal transfer payments 
to create employment opportunities, American Indians and Alaska Natives 
suffer an average unemployment rate at or near 50 percent, stagnant 
incomes, poor health, substandard housing and education, and associated 
social ills.
  American Indian and Alaska Native tribes own a large share of the 
Nation's untapped energy resources and proper development of products 
and energy by-products would result in significant socioeconomic 
benefits both to tribal members and to the rest of our Nation.
  The United States and tribal governments share the obligation to 
preserve and protect tribal land, assets, and resources, including 
efforts to assure that renewable and nonrenewable resources are used to 
the maximum advantage of tribal owners.
  Economic development is an essential tool in achieving self-
sufficiency by American Indians and Alaska Native tribes. Increased 
employment and business opportunities are key to achieving economic 
self-sufficiency for American Indian and Alaska Native tribes.
  The Buy Indian Act amendment provides additional opportunities as 
envisioned in the Indian Self-determination and Education Act for 
tribes to achieve self-sufficiency. Each American Indian and Alaska 
Native tribe has to choose its own path to self-sufficiency. It is our 
role to provide options for tribes, not to make decisions for them.
  Mr. Chairman, the purchase of energy and energy by-products will 
provide additional economic means for American Indians and Alaska 
Native tribes and Indian businesses to achieve economic independence 
and self-sufficiency. The Buy Indian Act provides additional incentives 
for corporations to partner with American Indian and Alaska Native 
tribes and Indian-owned companies in energy sector development 
projects.
  If tribes are given the tools to stand on their own and not be 
beholden to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the sooner they will achieve 
self-sufficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Buy Indian Act has been to try and 
encourage the hiring of Indian workers in the purchase of Indian-made 
products by the Secretary of the Interior. While it is appropriate that 
we encourage the purchase of Indian-produced energy products, it is 
necessary that we address the real energy needs of Native

[[Page H5170]]

 Americans and put some teeth and some backbone into real solutions.
  Along with several colleagues, I introduced H.R. 2412, the Tribal 
Energy Self-Sufficiency Act, which contains not only the Hayworth 
amendment offered here this evening, but a full and comprehensive 
program to address the energy needs in Indian country. My bill includes 
financing options, tax incentives and provisions designed to encourage 
development of renewable and nonrenewable resources on Indian lands to 
benefit Indians and non-Indians alike.
  Native Americans have by far the highest percentage of homes without 
electricity. Many homes on the Indian reservations have either no 
electricity or unreliable electricity. In numerous instances, Indian 
lands are crisscrossed with electricity transmission and distribution 
lines, yet the Indian homes on those lands remain dark. Unlike local 
non-Indian governments, Indian tribal governments often have no access 
to these lines and little authority over what energy they do receive.
  As the ranking Democratic member of the Committee on Resources, I 
offered substitute language to the energy bill during markup which 
included the language in the amendment that we are debating, as well as 
several other proposals to assist Indian tribes in attracting business 
development and access to electricity. Unfortunately, that language was 
defeated by almost a straight party-line vote. Again, I worked to 
ensure that language designed to break down barriers to energy 
development by the Indians be included in the Markey-Stenholm amendment 
which we hoped to bring here to the floor, but the Committee on Rules 
would not allow it.

                              {time}  2245

  The Republican leadership of this House has determined that the 
plight and energy needs of Native Americans are not in order to be 
addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I do support the gentleman's amendment and encourage my 
colleagues to do the same. But shame on us, shame on us, shame on us. 
This paltry amendment is all that we have to address the very real 
energy needs of American Indians.
  But not to worry, not to worry, since many Indian homes do not have 
electricity here in 2001, they are probably not watching this travesty 
on C-Span this evening, unfortunately.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say that the wonder of being in the 
minority is to be on all sides of every issue; to call something a 
travesty and say you support it is curious, indeed.
  But we welcome the support; and as my friend, the gentleman from West 
Virginia, heard in the committee hearing, we will continue to work to 
solve the needs of Native Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The Buy Indian Act amendment will encourage the development of energy 
and energy by-products in Indian country. This will provide new 
economic opportunities for new development on Indian lands, development 
that does not involve gaming.
  The amendment would operate to add competitively priced energy 
products to the list of goods and services covered under the original 
Buy Indian Act.
  The Buy Indian Act amendment does not discriminate against any type 
of energy, and encourages all types of production. If the tribe wants 
to produce hydropower, they can take advantage of the amendment. If the 
tribe is able to mine coal, they can take advantage of the amendment. 
If a tribe is able to produce oil or gas, they can take advantage of 
the amendment. If a tribe can produce wind power, they can take 
advantage of the amendment.
  The amendment will encourage partnerships between the American Indian 
and Alaska native tribes and the private sector. The resources that 
Indian country can bring to the table, including a dedicated labor 
force, energy resources such as coal, oil, and gas combined with the 
expertise of the business community, is a win-win situation for tribes, 
the business community, and the Nation.
  It is important that Congress does what it can to encourage economic 
development in Indian country. Although this amendment is a small step, 
it is a step in the right direction to promote economic opportunities 
and self-sufficiency for the American Indian and Alaska native tribes.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
the coming weeks to further consult with tribes and explore additional 
measures we can take to achieve economic development and self-
sufficiency in Indian country through energy development and 
production.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) that would assist the American Indian community 
by making energy products and energy by-products eligible under the Buy 
Indian Act.
  Although I agree with this amendment, I believe it does fall short, 
much like the rest of this bill, in addressing the real problems of 
American Indian tribes.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), 
mentioned earlier, Members of this House introduced H.R. 2412, the 
Tribal Energy Self-Sufficiency Act, and I cosponsored that bill because 
I believe it incorporates real solutions for Indian country's energy 
needs.
  But I was sorely disappointed that when parts of this bill were 
offered as the Democratic substitute in the Committee on Resources, it 
failed on a nearly party line vote. A week ago, it was wrong not to 
incorporate solutions for tribes into this bill; and today, aside from 
this amendment, we are doing the same thing.
  In fact, American Indians, as we know, face a myriad of energy-
related problems. Problem areas include inability for tribes to get 
financing for new generation projects, difficulties with 
interconnections, and the list goes on.
  While visiting with representatives from Indian country, I have 
listened to them closely. They have explained to me their view of the 
history of America's energy industry. Basically, they have been 
shortchanged.
  Again, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), but like the rest of the good provisions of this bill, it is 
only a fraction of the positive actions we can and should be taking to 
make energy resources mutually beneficial for American Indians and this 
country.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from New 
Jersey for this bipartisan amendment. If we listen closely, the problem 
with the minority is a problem essentially of process.
  As I mentioned before, as is part of the Record in terms of the 
Committee markup, we made clear as part of the majority we stand ready 
to work for comprehensive solutions throughout the width and breadth of 
native America, to work for these tribes.
  There are tremendous opportunities. Let me agree with my friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey. In terms of hearing from representatives of 
sovereign Indian tribes and nations, their determination to become 
involved in energy exploration, in energy resources, we should inspire 
that.
  This is an important first step, but make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, 
much more work remains to be done. So in the spirit of bipartisanship, 
I appreciate the voicing of support for this amendment; and I think 
this can be a good night for the House and an important step for Indian 
country to have this amendment adopted.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say, in conclusion, this is not the first provision of our 
Democratic alternative in the Committee on Resources that we have seen 
reoffered now in a different form.

[[Page H5171]]

  As the gentleman from Louisiana knows, another provision of ours that 
was defeated on a straight party line in committee was offered in 
another form, i.e., his own committee.
  But the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) mentioned in full 
committee that he wanted to work with us on this issue. We are now 
hearing from him for the first time since that committee action, and we 
are glad to work with the gentleman on this. We need to do more, and we 
hope that we will be able to join forces in the future and do more for 
our Indian tribes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 15 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       In division F, at the end of subtitle C of title II add the 
     following:

     SEC.    . ENCOURAGEMENT OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PROHIBITIONS 
                   ON OFF-SHORE DRILLING IN THE GREAT LAKES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The water resources of the Great Lakes Basin are 
     precious public natural resources, shared and held in trust 
     by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New 
     York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the Canadian 
     Province of Ontario.
       (2) The environmental dangers associated with off-shore 
     drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas outweigh the 
     potential benefits of such drilling.
       (3) In accordance with the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1301 et seq.), each State that borders any of the Great Lakes 
     has authority over the area between that State's coastline 
     and the boundary of Canada or another State.
       (4) The States of Illinois, Michigan, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each have a statutory prohibition 
     of off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas.
       (5) The States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio do not have 
     such a prohibition.
       (6) The Canadian Province of Ontario does not have such a 
     prohibition, and drilling for and production of gas occurs in 
     the Canadian portion of Lake Erie.
       (b) Encouragement of State and Provincial Prohibitions.--
     The Congress encourages--
       (1) the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to continue to prohibit off-shore 
     drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas;
       (2) the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio and the 
     Canadian Province of Ontario to enact a prohibition of such 
     drilling; and
       (3) the Canadian Province of Ontario to require the 
     cessation of any such drilling and any production resulting 
     from such drilling.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition, 
although I support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Louisiana is recognized to control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would tell the Members that today the tenor of this 
debate is about balance. There are places that we should be drilling, 
and there are places that we should not. The debate ought to center 
around science and not emotion.
  We are very fortunate in Michigan to be part of the Great Lakes 
basin, that has 20 percent of the world's fresh water. The Great Lakes 
Governors in each of those States took a look at the science of 
drilling in the Great Lakes. New York, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, 
all banned offshore drilling in the Great Lakes. No State, as a matter 
of fact, Mr. Chairman, has allowed offshore drilling to occur.
  I want to introduce Members to somebody tonight, Mr. Chairman. I want 
to introduce somebody that is no friend to the safety and security of 
our Great Lakes. I want to introduce Mr. Chris.
  As we can see, Mr. Chris is the name of this boat that is drilling 
currently in Lake Erie. As we can see, this is a tugboat with a bad 
attitude. This is a boat that is bobbing around. I have to tell 
Members, this picture was taken on an extremely calm day. Lake Erie is 
a shallow lake, and it tends to roll a lot. To get this picture with 
the lake this calm is a rare occasion, indeed.
  As we can see, or maybe not, there are only two mooring lines that 
secure what is an oil rig drilling currently in Lake Erie. There are 
550 such wells that Canada is operating in Lake Erie today, 550. Think 
about this. Every Great Lakes Governor, every legislature, has said no, 
the science does not support offshore drilling in the Great Lakes.
  I need some help today. We ought to stand up again and say, look, we 
understand that there are places that we ought to be drilling. We 
understand that there are places that we should not be drilling. The 
science for drilling in the Great Lakes has proven this is not a place 
that we should be.
  I will ask my colleagues tonight to join every Great Lakes Governor, 
every Great Lakes legislature, and tell Canada to get off of our Great 
Lakes. Tell them that Mr. Chris has no place here. That tugboat with an 
attitude ought to be back in shore.
  I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment. Let us send a 
message to Canada to play fair like the rest of the Great Lakes States 
and protect that 20 percent of the world's fresh water.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Rogers) amendment simply affirms 
that the waters of the Great Lakes are a shared responsibility of the 
bordering States and the Canadian province of Ontario over which the 
Federal Government has no ownership.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It corrects, I think, 
an ill-advised move that has occurred last month in the committee that 
sent a message that a Federal agency, the Corps of Engineers, had some 
span of control over the Great Lakes, which it clearly does not.
  Passage of this amendment will simply clarify that both the waters of 
the Great Lakes and the subsurface beneath them are controlled by the 
bordering States or the Canadian province. We would urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in part B of 
House Report 107-178.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 191, after line 17, insert the following new section, 
     and make the necessary change to the table of contents:

     SEC. 2423. OIL SHALE RESEARCH.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Energy for fiscal year 2002 $10,000,000, to be divided 
     equally between grants for research on Eastern oil shale and 
     grants for research on Western oil shale.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Does any Member seek time in opposition?

[[Page H5172]]

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if no one claims time in opposition, 
although I support the gentleman's amendment, I ask unanimous consent 
to control the time; and I would announce that this is the last 
amendment to be considered tonight. Though we have run through four 
chairmen of the full committee, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
patience and endurance tonight, as well as the other chairmen.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by commending the chairman on one 
of the first major bills that he has conducted. I have served with him 
for many years, as have many others; and he is absolutely a leader.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that should have been done years 
ago. Oil trapped in shale rock. There is enough oil in shale rock to 
fuel America for 300 years without a drop of oil or energy coming from 
any other source.
  The Devonian eastern oil shale is a little bit deeper under the soil. 
The western oil shale is closer to the surface. It creates jobs. People 
have to mine it, work to claim it, refine it, distribute it, reclaim 
the ground and the earth.
  But the problem has always been that the cost per barrel is higher 
than the imported foreign oil. But what people do not realize when we 
look at the jobs and the tax revenue, the cost factor is not as great 
as it is.
  Let me just say this, to spare the Congress a lot of time. There is a 
cost to freedom, Mr. Chairman. Freedom does not come inexpensively. If 
we are going to in fact become energy independent, we must in fact 
capture all of America's valuable resources: the coal, the oil trapped 
in shale rock.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) stole my line. Willy Sutton was 
asked why he robbed banks, and he said, that is where the money is. 
Congress is being asked tonight, why are we going after oil in Alaska, 
and why are we doing these other oil experiments? It is because that is 
where the oil is.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. We have some slightly different figures here. In Utah alone, 
we have enough energy in oil shale to serve America's energy needs for 
the next 1,000 years. Now, we have to get that oil out.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) seeks to authorize funding 
for research and utilization for both Eastern and Western oil shales. 
The amendment strengthens the SAFE Act by providing a new look at 
opportunities for developing shale oil as a future energy source.
  I urge the Secretary of Energy to engage the expertise of the U.S. 
Geological Survey, as well as others, in this effort. The USGS has 
scientists on staff who have a strong background in shale oil research. 
The USGS is the data repository for much of the existing information on 
Colorado and Utah oil shale deposits, as well as for the Eastern shales 
of northern Kentucky across into southern Ohio which also contain 
kerogen, the oil in shale oil.
  In light of the legislation I passed last year transferring the Naval 
Oil Shale Reserve No. 2 to the Ute Indian tribe, I am particularly 
pleased that we will be encouraging technology to make use of oil 
shale.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
for this amendment. Oil shale may contain the oil equivalent several 
times the amount in conventional oil reserves and this is an important 
resource in America. It is rather vast, and we ought to explore it and 
know whether the potential is real. I think the gentleman is correct in 
this amendment. I ask all Members to support it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman keep this in 
conference? I will not ask for a recorded vote.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I will definitely try to keep it in conference.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 13 by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey); amendment No. 15 by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 223, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               YEAS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono

[[Page H5173]]


     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark

                              {time}  2323

  Messrs. TANCREDO, GRUCCI and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. RIVERS and Mr. HOLDEN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, on Rollcall No. 317, I missed the bells and 
was not here. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Markey 
amendment.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). Pursuant to clause 6 of 
rule XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on the next amendment.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 345, 
noes 85, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               YEAS--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--85

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Barr
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Carson (OK)
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeMint
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Flake
     Gibbons
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Otter
     Paul
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Smith (WA)
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Turner
     Vitter
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2336

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California and Mr. KINGSTON changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:

[[Page H5174]]

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 319 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt.) There being no other 
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nethercutt, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 216, he 
reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House 
with sundry further amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mrs. Thurman

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Thurman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Insert after section 3001 the following new section:

     SEC. 3002. TAX REDUCTIONS CONTINGENT ON SUFFICIENT NON-SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY, NON-MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

       (a) In General.--No provision of this division or any 
     amendment made thereby shall apply to taxable years beginning 
     in any calendar year if the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget projects (as provided in subsection 
     (b)) that there will be a deficit for the Federal fiscal year 
     ending in such calendar year outside the social security and 
     medicare trust funds.
       (b) Projections.--During December of each calendar year, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     make a projection of whether there will be a deficit outside 
     the social security and medicare trust funds for the fiscal 
     year ending in the following calendar year. Such projection 
     shall be made--
       (1) by excluding the receipts and disbursements of the 
     social security and medicare trust funds, and
       (2) by assuming that the provisions of this division are in 
     effect without regard to this section.
       (c) Trust Funds.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``social security trust funds'' means the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, under title II of 
     the Social Security Act, and
       (2) the term ``medicare trust fund'' means the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund created by section 1817 of the 
     Social Security Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  2340

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Caucus drafted a balanced energy plan 
that was paid for, the Markey-Stenholm-Sandlin-Frost proposal, which 
should have had a chance to have been voted on today, but the House was 
denied the opportunity.
  My motion to recommit would provide that the tax benefits of the bill 
would be contingent on the availability of sufficient surpluses outside 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. I offered this language 
in the Committee on Ways and Means, but it was rejected.
  Today we are considering a $33 billion energy bill. You told us there 
is an energy crisis, and we had to respond. We want to respond 
responsibly. You have also said there is a Medicare crisis and a Social 
Security crisis, and I too want to resolve those crises, but how are we 
going to pay for their solution if we continue to spend money we do not 
have?
  You cannot pass this bill without invading the trust funds and 
breaking the promises made to the American people.
  You do not have to take my word for it. According to a Republican 
memo cited by the press, ``We are possibly already into the Medicare 
trust fund and are very close to touching the Social Security surplus 
in fiscal year 2003.''
  Just Monday, Treasury said that it would be borrowing $51 billion to 
pay for the tax rebate. So, instead of paying down debt, we are adding 
to debt in interest payments. In fact, the Committee on the Budget 
chairman is threatening spending cuts for later this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I frequently have heard the ``first come, first served'' 
argument. It goes like this. There is a slush fund in the 2002 budget 
that is available on a first come, first served basis; the first bill 
signed draws from the fund.
  We should not be legislating on a first come, first served basis. 
That is not governing.
  Once we have taken care of the easy bills, where are the funds for 
the education bill that this House passed and promised to the American 
people? What happens to defense? What happens to the farm bill? What 
happens to Social Security reform or a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit? The answer is nothing. Because we do not have any money left 
for them.
  Yet, all of these are important priorities, but not as important as 
the promise we made in protecting the trust funds. Virtually every 
Member on this floor has voted at one time or another to protect the 
trust funds.
  Earlier today, in the debate, a Member said something to this effect: 
If you think this bill hurts Medicare and Social Security, then you do 
not understand the trust funds. In fact, we do understand the trust 
funds. If, in fact, we are not or you are not invading the trust funds, 
then you lose nothing by supporting this motion. Are you protesting so 
much because you know that this bill hurts Social Security and Medicare 
recipients?
  If you reject this motion, then go home. You go explain to your 
constituents that what they believed would be for them will not be 
there. If you break your promise and raid the trust funds, then tell 
our children, our farmers, our armed services, and seniors to look out 
for themselves.
  However, if you want to keep your promise to all Americans, then 
support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, there are $34 billion worth of energy tax 
breaks in this bill, but they do not pay for them at all. Now, we do 
not have a surplus any longer, and so what the majority is doing is 
setting up an oil rig on top of the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds, because the only way that this bill, worth $34 billion, can be 
paid for, is by drilling into the Medicare and Social Security trust 
funds.
  Vote for the Thurman recommittal motion and protect the senior 
citizens of our country from having a pipeline built into their pockets 
and having every senior citizen pay for this energy bill for the 
biggest oil companies in our country.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of jurisdiction, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for providing that 
very enlightening chart. What most Members could not see was the fine 
print up on the rig, and it said, ``For more than 40 years, that is 
what the Democrats did.''
  There was another sign right below it that said, ``This rig is no 
longer in operation.'' Because we are here arguing about the surplus. 
Never happened on your watch.
  Let me repeat the key words in that devastating Republican quote that 
the gentlewoman from Florida offered, ``possibly already.'' Really firm 
language. The answer is, we are not invading the HI trust fund and we 
will not invade the HI trust fund.

[[Page H5175]]

  Stripped of all of the language, what this is is something that is 
becoming familiar to us. It is a trigger, and the trigger says, now 
watch this; the trigger says, they want to rely on a projection of 
income.

                              {time}  1150

  During the tax bill, all we heard from them was, We cannot rely on 
projections. Do not rely on projections. This trigger is based on 
projections, so the last desperate refuge is to argue that we are going 
to deal with a projection.
  What is the projection? Not that there is a deficit, not that there 
is going to be a deficit in the upcoming Federal fiscal year. But if 
Members will look on line 14 and 15, it says: ``The director of the 
Office of Management and Budget shall make a projection for the 
following calendar year,'' so they have to make a second-year 
projection that there will be a deficit; not that a deficit occurs, but 
that there is a projection that there will be a deficit.
  What does that trigger, since this is just a trigger? The entire 
denial of the energy package in which we have the 38 percent devoted to 
conservation, 37 percent devoted to reliability, so that the lights do 
not go off in California, so that the rest of the United States does 
not experience our predicament.
  If Members want a trigger, use a light switch, not some kind of a 
budget projection a year and a half off.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who heard all of 
the talk about projections when we put a budget together, that says 
that the only time we count the spending is when it is enacted, not 
when it is projected.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, not one penny of the Medicare funds will be used for 
anything except Medicare. That is the commitment in this budget. That 
remains.
  If the projections change in August, it is because of one reason: 
there has been a downturn in the economy. And why? If there is a 
downturn in the economy, it is for a number of reasons. We warned 
President Clinton about those reasons.
  The number one reason, Mr. Speaker, the number one reason that we 
warned President Clinton about was that taxes were too high. We changed 
that this year in the budget and in the tax bills.
  Number two is because we had no trade policy for this country, and we 
will change that as a result of this Congress.
  But the most important reason why there has been a downturn in this 
economy is because this Nation has not had a long-term energy strategy.
  Vote down this motion to recommit, and let us pass a long-term energy 
strategy for this country and get this economy going again.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, this is not about a partisan fight over 
Social Security and Medicare. It is not. They can try to make it that. 
This is about a bill that advances the Nation's energy strategies to 
secure American families into the future.
  It is about ensuring the lights go on and do not go out. It is about 
ensuring gasoline prices are not so high that families cannot afford 
them. It is about ensuring that in this future, the economy grows again 
and people have jobs; and they can afford to pay their energy bills. 
That is what this is all about.
  Vote down this artificial, phony trigger and vote for a 
comprehensive, permanent energy strategy for this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 223, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               YEAS--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
     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)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     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
     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

                               NAYS--223

     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
     Cramer
     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
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     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
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     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
     Shows
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hutchinson
     Lipinski
     Ney
     Spence
     Stark

[[Page H5176]]



                              {time}  0011

  Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (Mr. TAUZIN was given permission to speak for 30 seconds.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, there were an awful lot of committees that 
contributed to this effort today, and an awful lot of staff members, 
and I think we owe a great deal to staff on both sides of the aisle 
that contributed such a great effort to this bill.
  I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) and his staff, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) 
for the incredible cooperation that we got, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), and all of the committee chairs and ranking 
members. Thank you for a job well done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 189, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               YEAS--240

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hutchinson
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  0028

  Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________