[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.
____________________